I wanted to use verbiage that people from Oklahoma would understand.
I don't think the migration to authoritarians is trumps fault. He is a symptom.
This could be a thread all to itself, but we also need to define the term "authoritarian." I've noticed the Left (both in the US and abroad) throwing it around with respect to Trump and to right-leaning populist movements in Europe (such as Brexit and those in Poland and Hungary) quite a bit. They're clearly reading from the same list of talking points, but it seems pretty superficial. Furthermore, it's never explained. It's just deemed, without evidence, to be "obvious."
For example, Trump is accused of being overly friendly to authoritarians like Putin and Un. Ok, fair point. However, Obama and Democrats are friendly to Castro and Iran. I'm no Putin or Un fan, but are those guys really wildly more authoritarian than Castro and the Iranian mullahs? I think that's pretty questionable.
I hear the EU and it's apologists criticize anti-EU figures and movements in Europe as "authoritarian." How so? Can fair criticisms be made about Poland, Hungary, and some within the Brexit movement? Of course, fallible human beings run those. However, where is the EU's credibility to make that particular charge? In terms of how it's structured and operates, the EU is by far the most authoritarian and undemocratic institution in Europe - much moreso than any member state.
Until Trump, both Republicans and Democrats have both been cozying up to China since the mid-'90s. Aren't they pretty authoritarian? I think it's pretty hard to argue otherwise.
What I'd rather do is not cozy up to any of these guys. Don't be nice to Un and Putin, but don't let turning China into an economic superpower. Don't cozy up to Iran or any radical Islamic-led nation. Don't play ball with Castro.