The definition of right wing politics is being pro-hierarchy. Or believing hierarchy and inequality to be normal. This fits well with authoritarianism.

The left, by definition, wants to end inequality, or make things as equatible as possible. This is the antithesis to authoritarianism.

So, no. I'm not aware of this and don't believe it. If someone told me they're both left and authoritarian I would tell them sticking feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken.

I was going to say this, I'm glad you did instead.

People's opinions have changed a lot in the last 25 years. In the late 90s we got to see the last gasps of the real power of the religious right, in the early 2000s we got to see the dominance of the neoconservative right, in the late 2000s we got to see a massive shift leftward as a backlash against the religious right and the neoconservative right, then from the more chill hippie left wing we got to see the rise of the authoritarian woke left, and right now we're starting to see a backlash against that. It isn't always from different people, it's often from the same people changing their minds.

For quite some time I've thought of it like steering a car. If you steer hard to the left you're going to hit the ditch, if you steer hard to the right you're going to hit the ditch. Really what you need is to course correct at times just stay on the road. Sometimes you need to turn the wheel pretty hard in one direction or the other, other times you want to just nudge the wheel, and get other times you don't really want to move it at all.

Some regions voted hard for Clinton, then voted for bush, then voted for obama, then voted for trump, then voted for Biden. Such a thing might look completely inconsistent, but politics is a dynamic system where circumstances change, certain movements win and then we get to see the consequences of those movements, new movements form, and maybe old movements collapse.

This isn't a new idea. Hegelian dielectic proposes that in politics, a dominant idea (thesis) eventually leads to its opposite or challenge (antithesis), resulting in a resolution or synthesis of the conflicting ideas. Such an idea predates Marx, so it's been around for quite some time.

There are quite a number of examples historically of people completely changing their mind on a topic. The father of Canadian universal healthcare, Tommy Douglas, was a powerful advocate of eugenics when he was younger, and as he got older he realized that he made a terrible mistake and changed his mind. Solzhenitsyn apparently early on in his life believed in the Soviet project but once he learned of the gulags had his views fundamentally change. A lot of people like to pretend that national socialism died with Adolf Hitler in that bunker, but a lot of people believed in and supported national socialism in Germany, and those people continue to exist after world war 2, but I think it's safe to say that for the most part they learned the error of their ways. I'm sure there are lots of people who supported Putin internationally in the 90s who wish they could go back and change that decision now.

To me it's one of the deepest dangers of the purity spiraling we are seeing from the left right now. The fact of the matter is, as you kick more people out of the left, it becomes a less and less viable movement. As the left acts as if people become irredeemable the moment that their opinions are wrong, it becomes something that will inevitably fail.

I feel like the modern left would take a look at post war germany, and post to japan, and would just immediately start implementing genocide. "Nope, they were Nazis they are irredeemable they need to be pushed into the sea". The most amazing thing about the end of world war II is the incredible wisdom with which the world powers helped to rehabilitate Germany and Japan into some of the most powerful nations in the world today, but for the most part lacking in the qualities that set them off to war and atrocity way back when.