Fascism - Why...

[Unfettered]

Yes. I was quoting the lady of the video, Edda Negri Mussolini.

Oh... I'll modify the post. LOL!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I disagree. There's a strong streak of authoritarianism running through MAGA, through Trump and ran through his erstwhile administration. Big government is indeed what they want, so long as they're the ones in control of it, and they're quite willing to toss aside the Constitution when it works in their favor to do so (Jan 6, anyone?) and to use the full power of the government to do it.

Hey @anna. Sorry on the slow reply. This was a good post, and required me to actually think, and then spend some time on a response. We land on different sides of this, but really I think our opinions about Trump and some of his cronies are quite similar. Still, just to respect the effort of your post, I'll respond.

I don't think they want big government. I think it's less consistent and less idealistic than a fascist approach would be. What they want is freedom for certain groups, and within certain bounds, and then tight controls to prevent others interfering. It's splitting hairs, since I could totally see Trump using fascist tactics...he's an opportunist...but he lacks the consistent and idealistic commitment of a fascist. With reference to Jan 6, a fascist expression against the government would have been better organised, frankly. He's more a demagogue and narcissist, plain and simple.

Here's Matthew C. MacWilliams, the author of On Fascism: 12 Lessons from American History:

Trump Is an Authoritarian. So Are Millions of Americans

It’s not how we think of our fellow-citizens, but no matter who wins in November, the impulse will be very much alive in the country. What do they want?

www.politico.com

One of the important lessons Americans learned from Donald Trump’s election in 2016—and one still difficult for some of us to process almost four years later—is just how many of our fellow citizens are predisposed to authoritarianism.

In high school civics we were taught that “American authoritarianism” was an oxymoron. Authoritarianism was a relic of the past. America was a country founded on freedom, steeped in equality and justice, and uniquely immune to it.

We now know that this story is a national fairy tale. As I wrote in Politico nearly a year before Trump’s victory in 2016, the single factor that predicted whether a Republican primary voter supported Trump over his rivals was an inclination to authoritarianism. I published that article based on a national survey taken nearly a year before the presidential election, and it was followed by stories and reports elsewhere on how Trump was stirring up a deep, if often dormant, authoritarian strain in our politics.

In November 2016, voters had a chance to repudiate that strain. Instead, Trump was elected president. And four years later, as his first term comes to a close, the power of authoritarianism, and the damage it has done to our republic, has been well documented.

American authoritarianism will flourish if Trump wins the presidency again—and it won’t magically vanish if he loses. Either way, it is critical to understand this strain in our politics, both how prevalent American authoritarianism really is, and what kinds of policies and changes American authoritarians will support when stirred up.

Through four national panel surveys launched the week before the 2016 election and continuing into this year, I sought to answer these questions. (While I focused on authoritarianism, my colleagues in this work, Brian Schaffner from Tufts University and Tatishe Nteta from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, explored the effects of hostile sexism and racism in America, producing their own eye-opening and important findings).

What I found is that approximately 18 percent of Americans are highly disposed to authoritarianism, according to their answers to four simple survey questions used by social scientists to estimate this disposition. A further 23 percent or so are just one step below them on the authoritarian scale. This roughly 40 percent of Americans tend to favor authority, obedience and uniformity over freedom, independence and diversity.

This group isn’t a monolith, and these findings don’t mean that 4 in 10 Americans prefer dictatorship to democracy. Authoritarianism is best understood not as a policy preference, the way we talk about lower taxes or strong defense, but rather as a worldview that can be “activated” in the right historical moment by anyone with a big enough megaphone who is willing to play on voters’ fears and insecurities.

When activated by fear, authoritarian-leaning Americans are predisposed to trade civil liberties for strongman solutions to secure law and order; and they are ready to strip civil liberties from those defined as the “other”—a far cry from the image of America as a country built on a shared commitment to liberty and democratic governance.

So what do authoritarians in the US believe? In surveys I found that American authoritarians, compared with non-authoritarians, are more likely to agree that our country should be governed by a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections.

They are more likely to support limiting the freedom of the press and agree that the media is the enemy of the people rather than a valuable independent institution. They are also more likely to think the president should have the power to limit the voice and vote of opposition parties, while believing that those who disagree with them are a threat to our country—a concerning trend as we head to the polls this year.

American authoritarians fear diversity. They are more likely to agree that increasing racial, religious and ethnic diversity is a clear and present threat to national security. They are more fearful of people of other races, and agree with the statement that “sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.”

To many Americans, steeped in the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the core set of constitutional freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights, these findings are undoubtedly bewildering. But I am not the sole researcher to report them. Many others, led in the United States by Stanley Feldman, Marc Hetherington, Jonathan Weiler and Karen Stenner, have written for years about American authoritarianism and its activation in academic books and papers. My own findings, which build on their work, are gathered in the index of American authoritarian attitudes contained in a new book on the history of authoritarian activation in America.

These results explain, in part, how Trump can remain popular with his base despite any number of policies that would have been considered unconstitutional, anti-American and perhaps even criminal in the past by members of both parties. He has sent paramilitary forces from the Department of Homeland Security to quell nonviolent protests, looked the other way when a foreign power interferes in American elections, celebrated the wounding of a journalist by police as “a beautiful sight,” and spent an election year casting doubt on the very basis of our democracy, the electoral system, rather than working to protect it—all without eroding his main base of support.

American thinkers have been alert to the dangers of authoritarianism stoked by demagogues since the nation’s founding. In Federalist 63, James Madison warned of the danger the “infection of [the] violent passions” stoked by “the artful misrepresentations of interested men” posed to the future of the Republic. In a 1927 Supreme Court opinion, Justice Louis Brandeis cautioned that: “Those who won our independence believed … that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government.” The historian Richard Hofstadter, in 1964, labeled the weaponization of fear to attain power as the “paranoid style in American politics,” describing it as an “old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life” that “has a greater affinity for bad causes than good” and “has been frequently linked with movement of suspicious discontent.”
The political path to galvanize American authoritarianism is also well worn and documented. First, purveyors of the paranoid style conjure an “other.” Second, this other is described as different from mainstream Americans, and identified as a clear and present threat to majoritarian values and traditions. Third, the paranoid leader stokes fear that a hidden conspiracy to undermine mainstream values is afoot and alleges that the other is behind it—activating American authoritarians. Finally, in its most virulent manifestation, growing fear of the other is manipulated to rationalize actions that violate fundamental values, norms, laws and constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans.

This path reads like the playbook guiding the Trump administration and campaign. Much of it was on view at the Republican National Convention: “They want to destroy this country,” Kimberly Guifoyle bellowed from the podium. Donald Trump Jr. warned: “Joe Biden and the radical left are also now coming for our freedom of speech, and want to bully us into submission.” American history is littered with examples of what happens when messages like these stir up their intended targets.

Our nation’s egalitarian, democratic aspirations have always competed for supremacy with a darker tradition rooted in authority, obedience and the hegemonic enforcement of majoritarian interests and norms. But it has never confronted a challenge like this. Trumpism is McCarthyism on steroids, and its full expression menaces the stability of our democracy. A country where authoritarian ideals are ascendant, and remain ascendant, is no longer a democracy. It is on the road to fascism, or what some now call, euphemistically, illiberal democracy.

I think this too tightly conflates 'fascism' and 'authoritarianism'. In my opinion it's completely possible to be an authoritarian, and to cause damage to democracy, and indeed to the fabric of society without being a fascist.

From the same article you quoted from :

Personally, we need to stop othering each other. No more schoolyard labeling of one another as “libtard,” “snowflake,” or “deplorable.” No more reveling in the drawing of differences between us and them. There is no “enemy within” except the self-interested misleaders who exacerbate our problems. The real enemy is ignorance, disinformation and the lure of simple authoritarian answers to complex problems.

That's part of why I'd hesitate to use a label like fascist. I'll readily admit, I love history, and that gives fascist a very specific connotation in my mind, which differs from common usage. But even seeing someone as using fascist tactics when it suits them, or being authoritarian isn't enough to mark them as fascist to me. And I definitely see it being used as a pejorative rather than a technical description by many. Not talking about considered opinions here, more just what people scream. Like 'Nazis', it's a high bar to clear in my mind.

Even MacWilliams himself was careful to say Trump wasn't part of a fascist regime, and therefore didn't meet the classical definition of a fascist leader. Though yes, he seems more willing than me to describe Trump himself as fascist in a more modern sense, reading between the lines.

 

[Secret Chief]

It has no meaning. Fascism was that thing, in those 20 years.

Jesus probably wept. For the nth time of correction: NO. It is NOT simply an historical word. It is a system of government marked by centralisation of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. It is an ideology. Ideologies do not have expiry dates.

If it were up to me, I would abolish this word.

Ah yes, Newspeak, I believe that is. Good book, 1984.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'll have to claim ignorance here, as well, I guess. I don't know of any non-authoritarian societies that practiced, or practice, socialism where individuals were free to reject and withdraw from the practice. Can you name one or two so I may better understand what you're describing?

Between 1945 and 1980, most of western Europe and Scandinavia adopted broadly social democratic models. This marked something of a golden era of peace and prosperity for all, in those countries.

The exception being Spain, which continued under the yoke of fascism until the mid 70s. Greece also had an authoritarian right wing government from 1967-74, following a (CIA supported, allegedly) military coup just before the upcoming elections.

The post-war Social Consensus is dead in Europe now, and look at the state of us.

 

[Unfettered]

Between 1945 and 1980, most of western Europe and Scandinavia adopted broadly social democratic models. This marked something of a golden era of peace and prosperity for all, in those countries.

The exception being Spain, which continued under the yoke of fascism until the mid 70s. Greece also had an authoritarian right wing government from 1967-74, following a (CIA supported, allegedly) military coup just before the upcoming elections.

The post-war Social Consensus is dead in Europe now, and look at the state of us.

Thank you. In the "broadly social democratic" societies were "individuals…free to reject and withdraw from the [national socialism]?"

 

[RestlessSoul]

Thank you. In the "broadly social democratic" societies were "individuals…free to reject and withdraw from the [national socialism]?"

Well rejecting one's community always comes at a cost, but one could argue that the civil liberties enjoyed by the people of western Europe in the latter half of the 20th century, were unrivalled at any other time or place in human history.

Not quite sure what you mean by [national socialism] btw, but the nazis were comprehensively defeated in 1945.

 

[anna.]

Hey @anna. Sorry on the slow reply. This was a good post, and required me to actually think, and then spend some time on a response. We land on different sides of this, but really I think our opinions about Trump and some of his cronies are quite similar. Still, just to respect the effort of your post, I'll respond.

I appreciate your respect of my effort. Setting aside Trump, since we probably agree more than we disagree, here's where I think we differ. I'll lay it out briefly and if you want to leave it at that, we can, no problem.

Remembering that in general, no demographic can be considered monolithic, I believe the prevailing conservative ideology of today is not their fathers' or their grandfathers' conservatism, which was more the conservatism of small government (except when it came to the defense budget, of course). Todays' conservatives even admit that it's about knowing government will be involved, so who will be the beneficiary or the controller of that involvement, and making sure government is strong on their side - reduced simplistically to 'might makes right' - if it's their government overreach, it's okay. Here's a look at that idea:

The Memo: Conservatives change their tune on big government

Old political orthodoxies are being scrambled by a combination of the COVID-19 pandemic, the influence of former President Trump and the deep current of polarization tearing through the nation.One …

thehill.com

I don't think they want big government. I think it's less consistent and less idealistic than a fascist approach would be. What they want is freedom for certain groups, and within certain bounds, and then tight controls to prevent others interfering. It's splitting hairs, since I could totally see Trump using fascist tactics...he's an opportunist...but he lacks the consistent and idealistic commitment of a fascist. With reference to Jan 6, a fascist expression against the government would have been better organised, frankly. He's more a demagogue and narcissist, plain and simple.

As my link above indicates, I think many of them do. Not all. But many who have the power to use the power, I think they do. As for your line "freedom for certain groups, and within certain bounds, and then tight controls to prevent others interfering" I agree completely, and am reminded of this often misattributed, but no less apt observation:

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:​

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."​

I think this too tightly conflates 'fascism' and 'authoritarianism'. In my opinion it's completely possible to be an authoritarian, and to cause damage to democracy, and indeed to the fabric of society without being a fascist.

From the same article you quoted from :


That's part of why I'd hesitate to use a label like fascist. I'll readily admit, I love history, and that gives fascist a very specific connotation in my mind, which differs from common usage. But even seeing someone as using fascist tactics when it suits them, or being authoritarian isn't enough to mark them as fascist to me. And I definitely see it being used as a pejorative rather than a technical description by many. Not talking about considered opinions here, more just what people scream. Like 'Nazis', it's a high bar to clear in my mind.

Even MacWilliams himself was careful to say Trump wasn't part of a fascist regime, and therefore didn't meet the classical definition of a fascist leader. Though yes, he seems more willing than me to describe Trump himself as fascist in a more modern sense, reading between the lines.

I can agree with that, being careful not to conflate authoritarianism with fascism, while also acknowledging that history doesn't repeat, it rhymes, and the fascism of today or tomorrow will do that too. It will rhyme with history, and there are many scholars of fascism who see what the frog in the pot doesn't.

Anyway, thanks for the response, sorry if it felt like an obligation, and no need to respond to this, just wanted to get my thoughts down on paper, so to speak.

 

[Unfettered]

Well rejecting one's community always comes at a cost, but one could argue that the civil liberties enjoyed by the people of western Europe in the latter half of the 20th century, were unrivalled at any other time or place in human history.

Not quite sure what you mean by [national socialism] btw, but the nazis were comprehensively defeated in 1945.

By "national socialism" I am addressing the question of whether or not, in the broadly democratic societies to which you refer, the socialism in question was enforced through policy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I disagree! Rejecting one democratic process does not mean you reject all democratic processes. In theory, resorting to violence and imposing your own will could be imposing your own democratic process.

"Imposing your own democratic process?" My goodness, that is too funny -- and sad!

Slow down and think carefully a moment -- how is this "democracy" of one person different from an autocracy?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am not going to play this game with you. This was an insurrection, and attempt to overthrow the government, it was one part of a political coup and a conspiracy for sedition. They were using violence to prevent the democratic transfer of power.

Those are the facts of the situation, proven in a court of law with evidence.

It's very difficult to discern what it is @Kfox is trying to argue -- unless (s)he or someone close was actually there on Jan. 6, and is trying to avoid feelings of guilt.

 

[Kfox]

"Imposing your own democratic process?" My goodness, that is too funny -- and sad!

Slow down and think carefully a moment -- how is this "democracy" of one person different from an autocracy?

Read what I wrote on post #445.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Read what I wrote on post #445.

Yes, I saw what you wrote. And @fantome profane gave you a perfectly correct answer in post #446. Protest is fine, going to court to seek redress for perceived wrongs is fine. Violence directed at government buildings, instutions and elected persons is NOT fine. When you resort to violence against those, you are in fact attacking the established order, which in the United States (so far, shakily), is its elected government by the people, and the Constitution which governs it all.

Let me be very clear: "Imposing your own democracy" is neither protesting nor seeking legal redress -- it is attempting to overthrow the existing democracy.

It's hard to lose, as everyone who has ever run for office knows. But if we can't accept the outcomes decreed by the people, then democracy perishes. Simple as that. And I can give you examples.

 

[Valjean]

Jesus probably wept. For the nth time of correction: NO. It is NOT simply an historical word. It is a system of government marked by centralisation of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. It is an ideology. Ideologies do not have expiry dates.

Not so much racism, though. That's was more typical of Nazism.

 

[Kfox]

Yes, I saw what you wrote. And @fantome profane gave you a perfectly correct answer in post #446.

No; on post #446 he refused to address my question; but instead answered a question I did not ask.

Protest is fine, going to court to seek redress for perceived wrongs is fine. Violence directed at government buildings, instutions and elected persons is NOT fine.

I never said the attack on the capital was fine, I said just because they attacked, does not mean the attackers prefer dictatorship over democracy.

 

[Secret Chief]

Not so much racism, though. That's was more typical of Nazism.

In my defence, it's the definition on Wordnik.

 

[Yerda]

Jesus probably wept. For the nth time of correction: NO. It is NOT simply an historical word. It is a system of government marked by centralisation of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. It is an ideology. Ideologies do not have expiry dates.


Ah yes, Newspeak, I believe that is. Good book, 1984.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself; that member does not listen and does not learn.

 

[Secret Chief]

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself; that member does not listen and does not learn.

It's almost as if they are a supporter of fascism ("fascist" for short) but don't want to admit it. (Unlike at least two effectively self-confessed fascists on here).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's almost as if they are a supporter of fascism ("fascist" for short) but don't want to admit it. (Unlike at least two effectively self-confessed fascists on here).

I've caught them out a couple of times expressing explicitly ethno-nationalist views. One was so obvious that they went back and edited it out of their post. I believe they are very explicitly just an ethno-nationalist propagandist, which is why I have them on ignore.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No; on post #446 he refused to address my question; but instead answered a question I did not ask.

I see -- you're having reading problems. You asked one question in #445: "Though violence didn't result, if it did; would you claim those black people reacting to this practice were rejecting democracy?" The response from @fantome profane was direct and very much to the point in the context of this thread: "If they attacked the capital and tried to replace the government, yes."

I never said the attack on the capital was fine, I said just because they attacked, does not mean the attackers prefer dictatorship over democracy.

And here is where you simply have it dead wrong. They did not like the result that democracy delivered, and therefore decided to dictate the result that they preferred.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So what did they do that gave you the impression their intent was to install Trump as Dictator?

They attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power from the outgoing democratically elected President to the incoming democratically elected President. If not for Pence forcing the vote in the middle of the night, they almost succeeded.

Does that sound democratic to you? Why do you think they wanted to stop the peaceful transfer of power to the new President, if not to subvert democracy?