... a cult of action, a celebration of aggressive masculinity, an intolerance of criticism, a fear of difference and outsiders, a pitch to the frustrations of the lower middle class, an intense nationalism and resentment at national humiliation, and a “popular elitism” that promises every citizen that they’re part of “the best people of the world.”But Douthat won't straight out call Trump a fascist:
Whether or not we want to call Trump a fascist outright, then, it seems fair to say that he’s closer to the “proto-fascist” zone on the political spectrum than either the average American conservative or his recent predecessors in right-wing populism.And...
... Trump may indeed be a little fascistic, but... He isn’t actually building a fascist mass movement... Trump doesn’t have many of the core commitments that have tended to inoculate conservatives against fascism, it’s still quite likely that the Republican Party is inoculated against him....By the way, isn't it fascistic to characterize the other side as a disease (which is what Douthat is doing with "inoculate")?
Douthat ends with pragmatic cautioning: Trump haters shouldn't call him a fascist because it won't work. Somehow it might cause his supporters "to cohere into something programmatically dangerous."
So Douthat just calls him a proto-fascist: "The best way to stop a proto-fascist, in the long run, is...." If you can figure out what Douthat's "best way" really consists of, let me know.
Also, I've got to laugh at the Douthat's awkward positioning as an oracle of moderation, substituting "proto-fascist" for "fascist." Use the worst insults, but crank it back a notch with the intellectual-sounding intro "proto-." Does he think we're proto-idiots?
पोस्ट्स
८१ टिप्पण्या:
I could comment, but I'd rather listen to Frank Proto play the bass.
Man created God in his own image.
Douthat creates fascist symptoms to fit Trump. How convenient. I read the symptoms thinking about who else it might describe. My list included lots of non-fascists. While a fascist may have all those Douthat created symptoms. Not all who have the symptoms are fascists, not even Proto-fascists.
Now, I have a headache, I need to go take something for brain tumor.
Fascism is just another word for things we choose to do together.
Trump isn't intolerant of criticism. He engages it. He can do zingers.
Obama is the petulant one.
To appreciate Trump, maybe you have to hear Imus's engineer Lou Ruffino doing his Trump voice commentary on any news item that moves him.
There's a deep sense of humor in Trump.
Trump is a fascist.
Has Douthat been reading Adorno again?
Of these: "a cult of action, a celebration of aggressive masculinity, an intolerance of criticism, a fear of difference and outsiders, a pitch to the frustrations of the lower middle class, an intense nationalism and resentment at national humiliation, and a “popular elitism” that promises every citizen that they’re part of “the best people of the world.”"
Obama also checks off most of those. The only three he doesn't really register too highly on are:
Celebration of aggressive masculinity -- and even here, he kind of does. Remember all the spiking the football over getting Osama? And his drone warfare? His "I won" statement? He's not wrestling tigers like Putin, but he makes sure everyone knows who the man is.
Intense Nationalism and Resentment at National Humiliation -- He is, generally, more upset at PERSONAL humiliation than National humiliation [he didn't even really seem that perturbed at losing the Olympics.]
Popular Elitism -- Actually, there's a lot of insular "We're so great," that focuses solely on his team.
Now, am I saying "Obama is a proto-fascist?" No. I'm saying that those seven categories are... not particularly useful absent some deeper investigation. For example, the article also says this: "But Trump, because he isn’t really an ideological conservative, lacks that inoculation ["a libertarian skepticism of state power, a stress on localism and states’ rights, a religious and particularly Protestant emphasis on the conscience of an individual over the power of the collective"]."
Those are all things that Obama ALSO lacks, and which an editor NOT at the NYT would have flagged as demanding some sort of proof. Because, Trump has often called for rolling back certain state powers [and also screwed up on other spots, like Kelo.] But, instead, the author just says it, and moves on.
Also: "Wallace was a noxious segregationist, but his racism was bound up in a local and regional chauvinism, a skepticism of centralized power and far-off Washington elites." Does he mean George Wallace? Noted Democrat? What does a segrationist Democrat have to do with proto-fascist tendencies of Republican politicians?
I feel like there was some semblance of a good idea buried in there, until they let the author start actually writing it.
Most average folks don't have even an inkling of an idea what fascism really means, so any effort on the GOP's part to paint Trump as such is probably a waste of time, as it Douthat's effort to analyze it. What Douthat gets right, though, and what I've been telling my conservative friends who've temporarily succumbed to "Trump fever" is this:
"He clearly doesn’t care a whit for limited government or libertarianism, and he’s delighted with a hyperactive state so long as it’s working hand-in-glove with corporate interests."
Douthat forgot to add that Trump talks a bit like Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, the fascist president in Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here." That would have really cinched his case.
Fascism was always and everywhere a mass movement--you can't have fascism without mass mobilization. Otherwise, Douthat is highlighting a few personal characteristics that Trump purportedly shares with Mussolini (although Mussolini didn't in fact possess some of these, such as a fear of outsiders.)
Some late-night commedian last night, played on Imus just now, the new edition of Mein Kampf will have a preface written by Donald Trump.
"The best way to stop a proto-fascist, in the long run, is not to scream “Hitler!” on a crowded debate stage. It’s to make sure that he never has a point."
-- I think he's saying that Republicans should recognize the "deep disaffection with the Republican Party’s economic policies among working-class conservatives, the reasonable skepticism about the bipartisan consensus favoring ever more mass low-skilled immigration, the accurate sense that the American elite has misgoverned the country at home and abroad" and move to change and address those concerns. Basically, if the Republicans had successfully met the needs of their base, we wouldn't have a Trump.
Hey - what abut the one that should be first - backing/supporting a crony capitalistic socialism. First and foremost, fascism is a form of socialism that competes with communism for control. One big difference is how the state controls the economy. In a communist socialism, the state owns the means of production, while in a fascist state, legal title to the means of production remains in private hands, and the state uses crony capitalism to get what it wants in regards to the economy. Which means, of course, that fascist. Economist while not overly efficient, are more efficient than communistic ones, and maybe not as brutal.
Of, course, this means that Obama is the big fascist here, with Hillary and Sanders vying to be his replacement. And notice the increasing intolerance and totalitarianism that we are seeing on the left these, esp in academia, which seems to be destroying itself before our eyes. It isn't the right, nor any of the Republican candidates who are pushing the elimination of free speech to the extent that they are pushing jailing those who oppose the power and money grab known as anthropogenic global warming/climate change.
More problems.
Eco identifies 14 traits, not 7. I thought the number was wrong, but I didn't immediately just say so, because I wanted to at least Wiki it.
Douthat provides a more intellectual gloss than Dana Milbank at the Washington Post with his column "Trump Is a Bigot and a Racist." Also, Trump doesn't have a sharp crease in his suit trousers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-a-bigot-and-a-racist/2015/12/01/a2a47b96-9872-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html
Primary source, listing 14.
Interesting definition of fascism.
So, why don't we talk about the other seven? Trump clearly doesn't reject modernism. If anything, he doesn't speak in Newspeak [plain speaking is kind of his thing.] #8 says: "The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies." That's... totally not Trump.
Doesn't it seem odd that we focused in on seven points where Trump, kinda-sorta fits, then totally neglect several that don't fit him at all?
That's an awfully superficial definition of fascist. Is Trump having gangs of thugs beat up his rivals and their supporters in the streets? Because, if not, there's a pretty important aspect of fascism missing from his definition.
Is Trump advocating using the power of the state to wipe our communities clean of everyone he doesn't like? Because, if not, there's a pretty important aspect of fascism missing from his definition.
Is Trump a socialist? Because, if not...
Andrew Jackson was not a fascist. He was the height of Democratic governance in the America of DeToqueville. But being from the East Tennessee settler ethos he was always an abomination to the Northeastern Puritan Merchants thought they who owned the country.
Trump is guilty of being a Jacksonian fighter that men trust to lead them to victory.
I thought what distinguished fascism from communism was that if you like your business you can keep your business, but you will run it as we tell you.
Can't say I have heard anything resembling that from Trump.
"Since it is difficult to distinguish true prophets from false, it is as well to regard all prophets with suspicion."
--Primo Levi
Last comment before I stop poking at this.
Two things: The original essay has a perfect term, Ur-Fascism. Why pick "proto" Fascism and not just use the term that was originally used?
Also: I'm no Trump fan. But this essay was not that great.
Donald Trump has achieved much success in this Presidential race so far because he has taken by far the hardest position on resisting massive illegal immigration.
Because of Trump, even the issue of birthright citizenship has been discussed, instead of the usual waving it away as not worth discussing.
I don't like Trump's demeanor, but I did laugh along with him when he mocked the pious attempts to shame or shout down anyone who criticizes illegal immigrants. He even dared to remark that some illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers.
Trump is a tabu violator, a role that requires great celebrity, self-confidence and persistence. Previously unmentionable subjects must be discussed publicly now.
One concept of fascism is that the group's members can exercise strength by sticking together. Each member is merely a stick, but tied together, they are an unbreakable structure.
The Republicans who have become single-issue voters on the subject of massive illegal immigration are only about a quarter of the Republican electorate. However, they have stuck together, through thick and thin, during all the political elite's attempts to shame and shout down Trump during the past half year.
Because of Trump's cohesive core of supporters, all the candidates have to address the issue of massive illegal immigration seriously. The other candidates are trying to dance around that issue, but eventually they will be compelled to define their own positions in detail.
No other candidate can win the nomination without accommodating that 25% of the Republican electorate that is sticking together on this issue.
"Use the worst insults, but crank it back a notch with the intellectual-sounding intro "proto-." Does he think we're proto-idiots?"
Yes. He's aiming at fellow leftists who, by definition, are on the left side of the bell curve.
lgv is correct. It's drawing the target around the arrow.
I didn't know such diverse people as George Washington, JFK, and Genghis Kahn were all fascists.
It also fits president Obama except for the masculinity part.
… a cult of action, a celebration of aggressive masculinity, an intolerance of criticism, a fear of difference and outsiders, a pitch to the frustrations of the lower middle class, an intense nationalism and resentment at national humiliation, and a “popular elitism” that promises every citizen that they’re part of “the best people of the world.”
Obama holds many of these traits, but certainly not all. On the other hand, his list would include other character issues, such as being a sciolist which certainly built up his reputation early on (not so much now that he's had to actually do the job). I can guarantee that there is a list for every type of person running to lead a country. It takes a certain amount of ego on the part of the candidate mixed with a load of willful suspension of disbelief on the part of the electorate to put any of these people in office.
Anybody besides me notice how well Douthat's criteria fit Obama and Hollary Clinton as well? Except Hillary doesn't pitch to the frustration of the lower middle class -- she's Wall Street all the way!
Many of those symptoms describe other political actors/factions, so we have two choices:
1. remove those symptoms as part of the argument/diagnosis
2. agree that those other political actors/factions are partially fascist
That wasn't very nice of Ross.
"I'm persuaded by Ross Douthat!" shouted no voter ever.
If these absurd anti-Trumpists keep it up, I may have to vote for the guy after all.
Of course, "fascism" couldn't possibly be applied to actual quasi-socialist big-gov collectivists like the US Progs who loved actual-self-described-fascist, good old former-socialist Benito back in the day, or to their political offspring. If I'm not mistaken, someone wrote a book about it, what's it called . . .
stanley payne's "fascist minimum" -
A. Ideology and Goals:
Espousal of an idealist, vitalist, and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture
Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state not based on traditional principles or models
Organization of a new highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist
Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use violence and war
The goal of empire, expansion, or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other powers
B. The Fascist Negations:
Antiliberalism
Anticommunism
Anticonservatism (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with other sectors, more commonly with the right)
C. Style and Organization:
Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass single party militia
Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political liturgy, stressing emotional and mystical aspects
Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing a strongly organic view of society
Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of the generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation
Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective
"he’s delighted with a hyperactive state so long as it’s working hand-in-glove with corporate interests."
Says an Obama voter who is unconscious of the new Democrat coalition of "top and bottom." The GOP used to be the patty of the rich but that went out with the adoption of fascism by Democrats. The Tea Party threatened the Democrats' hold on the money pot and had to be destroyed. Walker threatened the Democrats' hold on the money pot and what did the Wisconsin voters get ?
Secret routers beloved by garage.
Next year, if it looks like the GOP might win the election, watch for open fascism to roam the streets.
... an intolerance of criticism
Yeah, Trump's Supreme Court Justice litmus test of overturning Citizen's United ( a case about political speech critical of him ) shows a serious intolerance of criticism.
Oh, wait. That was Hillary!
Republican Inc. is going batshit crazy over Trump. They are more disturbed by him then the Dems.
Should we be surprised that none of the "symptoms" relate to actual fascism?
No authoritarianism. No submission of the individual to the state. No brown-shirted thugs.
Words have meaning.
Muddling words like 'rape' and 'fascism' into a meaningless grey sludge of 'double-plus-ungoodness' is double-plus-unhelpful.
Of course we're not "the best people in the world." The class American includes Ross Douthat. QED.
Trump plays the role of a superstar reality television stalking horse for Hitlery. Bubba's Billionaire's Boys Club likely have pictures of Trump in flagrant delectable with either a dead girl or live boy.
Trump is no fascist, he is a mirror and amplifier of the PWT redstate teabagging bitter-clingers.
"Two things: The original essay has a perfect term, Ur-Fascism. Why pick 'proto' Fascism and not just use the term that was originally used?"
"Ur" and "proto" are basically synonymous.
What Douthat offers is propaganda, of the "Hitler liked dogs" variety. That is, "Hitler liked dogs, you liked dogs, therefore you're just like Hitler."
That the word "fascism" has become an all-purpose political epithet isn't surprising, as it's all but impossible to produce a coherent definition of fascism that encompasses both Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. Certainly both were authoritarian, nationalist governments that celebrated the collective (volk) over the individual, yet many governments do that (e.g., Venezuela) which are not considered fascist. Italy was irredentist, Germany sought liebensraum, and thus both sought military expansion of the nation-state, but, for different reasons.
Fascism (unlike communism) was always light on theory and what little there is appears as post-hoc rationalization for whatever those in power wished to do. Is Mein Kampf the fascist equivalent of Das Kapital? If fascism is just glorification of the leadership principle ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer") then wasn't Stalin's USSR fascist?
Leftists have been shouting "fascist" at their enemies for decades, but what meaning can be extracted from these shouts, other than a violently emotional "I don't like you!"?
So, Douthat doesn't like Trump. And, indeed, I don't care much for him either. But, "fascist"?
I'm no Trump fan, but this is absurd. I saw one guy online using the DSM-IV to call Trump a sociopath. Ridiculous, and the sort of thing that corrupts debate.
Seems like the description given fits Teddy Roosevelt very well. Not very far off JFK, either.
Howard: "... teabagging ..."
Using that term as a alur (considering where the term originated) will certainly qualify you for a front row seat in a maoist re-education center someday in the future.
Of course, you are probably the type that would turn yourself in for that "treatment".
Good apparatchik and all.
Keep fightin' the "good fight" Howard! Land, peace and bread! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Nope. Douthat simply thinks we are real idiots.
I think Bruce Hayden hits an important point. Fascism is the rejection of Communism, because it doesn't work, and the adoption of a socialism in one's own nation. Not Mr Trump. Perhaps the "it takes a village" and the "you didn't build that" crowd.
Regards — Cliff
a “popular elitism” that promises every citizen that they’re part of “the best people of the world.”
Does Trump say Americans are the best people in the world?
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.-Benito Mussolini
John Henry
As I understand it Albert Camus is famous for two things. First for the
novels he wrote, including the "The Stranger" and "The Plague." And second
he is reputedly the only prominent left-wing intellectual in France that
was not infatuated with the Nazis in 1938.
Now I just went and checked that on wikipedia and of course the latter
circumstance is not reported. But in fact I think that during his lifetime
and among people that lived through that period in France this was actually
the most significant thing about Albert Camus.
So how do we explain the left's infatuation with National Socialism? It would be
much easier if we could read what they actually wrote back then. Unfortunately those essays and books and master's theses have mostly been burned since then and if you actually do a find a document today, why you've just given them another document to burn and purge.
But why does Ross Douthat, not to mention so many others that are not really on the left, go along with this?
"Fascist" is a synomym for "Racist" when means "anyone who disagrees with our received wisdom".
bitter-clingers
Funny. In its ur/proto-usage, "bitter clingers" were Democrats who voted for Hillary in the 2008 Pennsylvania primaries.
Has Godwin's Law been raped by a bear?
(Or jumped the shark in oldspeak)
John Henry
Napoleon was the primal pro-fascist. (Did you catch the primal before proto. That makes it even more intellectual.). The interesting point to make about his career and legacy was that he was, for the most part, beloved by artists and intellectuals. It seems to me that the support of artists and intellectuals helps the totalitarian leader to expand the bubble of his authority. There's no risk of that happening with Trump. He will be relentlessly mocked by all the opinion makers. As President he might gain power, but he will never gain total power........Just now, I'm reading the Doris Kearns Godwin history of the Roosevelts during WWII. Eleanor recommended that the entire civilian populace be drafted and sent to different defense industry jobs at the government's discretion. Now that's fascism and all the more so because if it had happened the press and Dalton Trumbo would have been supportive.
Blogger Bruce Hayden said...
Hey - what abut the one that should be first - backing/supporting a crony capitalistic socialism.
One of the arguments that many people (Cook included?) make trying to claim that National socialism is not socialism is that they did not nationalize industries.
That reminds me of this from National Socialist theoretician Ernst Rudolf Huber, from his book Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Constitutional Law of the Greater German Reich)1939
"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic
economic order was a reversal of the true concept of
property. This "private property" represented the right of
the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or
acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the
general interests ... German socialism had to overcome this
"private," that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of
property. All property is common property. The owner is
bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible
management of his goods. His legal position is only
justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the
community.[90]
[emph added-JRH]
I am pretty sure that Mussolini said something similar in his Doctrine of Fascism but am too lazy to go look just now.
John Henry
Re "bitter clingers"
In what sense is the word bitter used?
Nautically, the "Bitter end" of a rope is the end which is tied to the bit. As to the end tied to the anchor.
You need to make sure the bitter end is well fastened when you drop anchor or all the rope may run out and you will be left adrift.
So yeah, I am proud to be a bitter clinger in that sense. Hanging on to the bitter end of the rope tying us to that anchor, the Constitution. I can't do it by myself, I need help. Perhaps Trump will rally enough around that we can hang on.
Doesn't seem like anyone else is stepping up. Perhaps Cruz but he seems even more reviled by the establishment than Trump. And may have citizenship issues.
Be a bitter clinger with pride!
John Henry
> a pitch to the frustrations of the lower middle class
Ah, those nasty lower middle class people. Marx forbid that the sainted proletariat may have supported fascists. I believe that particular myth was promoted by the Harvard sociology department and has been shot down by people doing actual research.
Our major finding was that the mass society, lower middle-class party of protest, and political confessionalism theses are empirically flawed
All of that describes BLM to a T.
You have to change the definition to make him a fascist.
It used to be a fascist was someone who wanted government control of all business. Guess we don't have that definition anymore.
Of course, "fascism" couldn't possibly be applied to actual quasi-socialist big-gov collectivists like the US Progs who loved actual-self-described-fascist, good old former-socialist Benito back in the day, or to their political offspring. If I'm not mistaken, someone wrote a book about it, what's it called . . .
I think I first heard about the LaFollettes in 5th grade social studies in the 50s. Didn't know much about them except that they were THE bull goose progressives of all time. According to our textbook.
Didn't think much about them until a discussion in the Isthmus caused me to look some stuff up. I had not realized that they founded a "National Progressive Party" in the late 30s.
I had not realized that the symbol for the National Progressive Party "Called a "circumcised swastika," the symbol invented to promote the National Progressive Party was one of the factors that contributed to its failure." according to the UW LaFollette Center.
Pictures of the Lafollette speaking in front of the circumcised swastika here:
http://www.tommcmahon.net/2008/01/the-lafollette.html
I also found this:
The Stock Pavillion address elicited a remarkable reaction from Colin Ross, a German citizen who was a frequent visitor to the United states and a committed National Socialist. Ross replied through an open letter to La Follette published in Berlin in the Nazi periodical Wille and Macht. Recognizing that "an American politician who dared to identify himself with Fascist principles would commit political suicide," Ross nevertheless agreed with other commentators that Phil's address "was a purely Fascist (sic-JRH) or - let us say - a National Socialist speech. Hitler himself had, in fact, already enunciated its basic ideas and Ross chided the governor for failing to acknowledge the source.
War, a New Era, and Depression, 1914-1940 (Google eBook)
Front Cover
Paul W. Glad
Wisconsin Historical Society, Mar 5, 2013 - 662 pages
Found on page 548.
Progressivism, National Socialism, Fascism and fascism are all cut from the same cloth
That is a lefthanded cloth, BTW.
John Henry
Back to you, Cookie!
Perhaps you can share some links National Socialist or Fascist (or even fascist)writers who can explain how they are not socialist.
John Henry
Trump has a full blown case.
Douthat is a fool. Assume Trump is a fascist for argument's sake. In of itself it means nothing. Some rich old guy crank is what it would mean in good times. But these are not good times and if the soil is ripe for that seed to take root then let us not ignore who carefully conditioned the soil for this seed to prosper. Obama, the Democrats and the Left are the agronomist responsible.
John Henry
The Nazis also outlawed land speculation and made it illegal for farm owners to sell their property...all in the name of the public good.
Why are so many people conflating Nazism and Fascism? True, Germany was allied with Italy, but that doesn't make Nazis Fascists any more than their alliance with Japan made them Shintos or Buddhists.
Fascism is always descending in America but always landing in Europe.
Or so it seems.
ev
The same ones always bite on the silly slogans. Trump is hired help, a fool to expose the dying troglodytes: evolution Luddites. It's over you lost and the world is dancing on your grave in the person of Trump.
Fascism as a term lost whatever useful meaning it had a long time ago. Terrorism has been losing its meaning and is almost there.
Fascism is the justification of dictatorship in principle (that is, there should be a "leader" to make decisions) without the principle of legitimacy, like a hereditary monarchy has.
"Fascism is always descending in America but always landing in Europe."
Actually, fascism is infecting the whole globe.
Since Trump has been proven right about the widespread Muslim cheering after 9/11 and is continuing to rise in the polls they are going bat shit crazy. I know it must pain the bubble people to see those reports of Muslims happy about death and destruction pop up after they so carefully preened and danced their morality in front of us. Trump will be forced to claim the murderers in San Bernadino as in kind contributors.
It is also showing just how chummy the GOPe and the Democrats are.
Howard said...
The same ones always bite on the silly slogans. Trump is hired help, a fool to expose the dying troglodytes: evolution Luddites. It's over you lost and the world is dancing on your grave in the person of Trump.
12/3/15, 11:15 AM"
Yes Howard. We understand your need to self-medicate. Never fear, Saint Hillary is near to lead you towards the Promised Land.
"Douthat ends with pragmatic cautioning: Trump haters shouldn't call him a fascist because it won't work. Somehow it might cause his supporters 'to cohere into something programmatically dangerous.' "
So, wait. Don't call Trump a Fascist or his supporters might turn into Fascists--is that it?
There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere.
Fascism and other left-wing ideologies are characterized by establishment and maintenance of economic, social, and political monopolies through authority and usually force. They are antithetical to capitalism and other individual-oriented ideologies.
President Trump is going to surprise many opinionated snobs in both Parties.
It's always interesting to me that in most discussions of who or what is a fascist or fascistic, the sine qua non of fascism (State-cultism) is almost always omitted. Me, I'm a libertarian, and I've got a kind of philosophical tunnel-vision akin to that expressed in the question, "Is it good for the Jews?" For me, it's "Is it good for liberty?" Since we're almost certainly not going to get any genuine libertarians nominated for president in either the Steal-More-of-Your-Money-and-Confiscate-Your-Guns Party or the Keep-Your-Guns-and-Steal-Somewhat-Less-of-Your-Money Party, the main question I would have about Trump is he better for liberty, or worse, than whoever's running against him. Since that's going to be either Queen Cacklepants ("We're going to take things away from you for your own good") or National Socialist Bernie, I would guess Trump is less of a fascist than either of those two horrors.
The always amusing Robert Cook writes: "Actually, fascism is infecting the whole globe."
I'm guessing he's against that based on his proven love of liberty.
But seriously . . .
"The best way to stop a proto-fascist, in the long run, is not to scream “Hitler!” on a crowded debate stage. It’s to make sure that he never has a point."
And that's exactly what the GOPe can't do. Their interests are opposed to the interests of the sort of people who used to vote for them. End of story.
Lying about policy intentions just ain't working anymore. Sneering "populist" right and left wasn't doing the trick - the self-interest behind the sneers succeeded merely in adding "populist" to the long list of words meaning nothing but "disagrees with me". Screaming "Hitler!" is all they've got left. (Gotta admit- the stupidity and hysteria attached to this effort is hugely entertaining.)
It's not just Trump and it's not just the U.S. I guess it's just the nature of entrenched power to believe that it's operating in a static political landscape, even as the earth is moving under our feet.
Democrats are terrified of Trump. That's why I'm gonna vote for him.
Traditionalguy: I never made the Trump-Jackson connection, but I have to say- I like it!
Sammy Finkelman said...
"Fascism is the justification of dictatorship in principle (that is, there should be a "leader" to make decisions) without the principle of legitimacy, like a hereditary monarchy has."
Excellent point, which is why we never actually needed the word "fascist" in the first place. There have been dictators, with or without legitimacy, for as long as there have been governments. Mussolini needed the word only because he had to call his party SOMETHING, and by the 20th century, there was no way any political movement couldn't be analyzed, catalogued, and cross-referenced ad nauseum. The cogitations since then of professors and grad students on the subject are probably mostly due to the fact that they have to write SOMETHING.
"...almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’." -- George Orwell.
"We have no fixed principles, and we have none because we are no church, we are a movement. We are not a party, we are an athletic body of men." -- Mussolini
Those of us on the right understand that fascism, like communism and socialism, is a leftist ideology, another strain of the totalitarian, authoritarian, statist, elitist belief that individual rights must come second to society's needs.
So no, Trump being called fascist won't work, until and unless he stands in front of a stage bedecked with fake columns, declaring that the sea will stop rising now that he has been elected.
See, it is moments like that which presage the future for those of us who notice them.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा