Fascism - Why...

[lewisnotmiller]

... do so many Americans desperately want it?

("inspired" by the thread regarding Trump at the next election)

I don't think they do. I think 'fascism' is used as an umbrella term meaning 'undemocratic' or something. But it's more than that, and Trump supporters don't generally meet the criteria in my opinion.

It's being used as a perjorative rather than identifying a political position.

I'm going to tag in @Estro Felino , just because I think we have common ground on this one!!

 

[Friend of Mara]

First you said

Homophobes don't just "disagree" with homosexuality, they disagree with a whole group of people who exist

I asked how is that different, and after being pressed, you admitted they were the same.

I just clarified this point in excruciating detail for you. Did you miss it? Otherwise I can copy paste old responses and we can go in a circle for a bit. I stand by my comments as they were not contradictory. You also know this as well. If you feel they are contradictory please feel free to explain how. I am beginning to think you are not reading my posts to completion.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, he's not, but it doesn't matter whether he was right or wrong, at least not to me. I believe the election was fair, but what if I discovered beyond doubt that the election was stolen. Am I expected to mind or object? It would be antidemocratic in the short term, but it would have saved democracy in the States for the nonce. I don't have the same values or standards for us and them, and the Republicans, like Putin and the Taliban are them.

That's what I am saying. If there was this steal (that has never been proved), the theorists thought the exactly same thing: That it would have been heroic to save the US from a fascist like Trump.
That's why they cheated. To save the US.

Does that seem hypocritical? It's analogous to tolerating the tolerant while being intolerant of intolerance. It may sound hypocritical, but to preserve a tolerant society, the intolerant must be disempowered, just as to preserve a democracy, the antidemocratic must be disempowered by any means. To preserve peace, sometimes we must use violence in the short term. That's not hypocritical, either. I don't believe in shooting at people unprovoked, but I do believe in returning fire. Same thing. The standard I'd apply to anybody is that it is wrong to shoot him as long as he is an we (nonviolent), but if he pulled a gun, he becomes a them and the standards change. I'd shoot to kill in self defense.

Honestly I don't like Hillary, but I would have never condoned an election steal in November 2016.
Because I believe in God, and God respects people's free will. So if the Americans voters choose Hillary, I must accept it, because I cannot violate people's free will. And the voice of the people if the voice of God.
The theological implications are countless.

 

[Kfox]

I just clarified this point in excruciating detail for you. Did you miss it?

Yes.

Otherwise I can copy paste old responses and we can go in a circle for a bit.

That's okay; I don't think this point is worth further discussion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think they do. I think 'fascism' is used as an umbrella term meaning 'undemocratic' or something. But it's more than that, and Trump supporters don't generally meet the criteria in my opinion.

It's being used as a perjorative rather than identifying a political position.

I'm going to tag in @Estro Felino , just because I think we have common ground on this one!!

Donald Trump and allegations of fascism[edit]​

See also: Alt-right, Political positions of Donald Trump, Radical right (United States), and Trumpism
Some scholars have argued that the political style of Donald Trump resembles the political style of fascist leaders. Such assessments began appearing during the Trump 2016 presidential campaign,[36][37] continuing over the course of the Trump presidency as he appeared to court far-right extremists,[38][39][40][41] including his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election after losing to Joe Biden,[42] and culminating in the 2021 United States Capitol attack.[43] As these events have unfolded, some commentators who had initially resisted applying the label to Trump came out in favor of it, including conservative legal scholar Steven G. Calabresi and conservative commentator Michael Gerson.[44][45] After the attack on the Capitol, one historian of fascism, Robert O. Paxton, went so far as to state that Trump is a fascist, despite his earlier objection to using the term in this way.[46]

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think they do. I think 'fascism' is used as an umbrella term meaning 'undemocratic' or something. But it's more than that, and Trump supporters don't generally meet the criteria in my opinion.

It's being used as a perjorative rather than identifying a political position.

I'm going to tag in @Estro Felino , just because I think we have common ground on this one!!

Yes, that's all it is - a political smear term used to shut down discussion. Most people don't know what Fascism is, as a politicial ideology. Actual Fascism is almost unheard of here. It's Communism and Marxism that's all over the place and socially acceptable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Donald Trump and allegations of fascism[edit]​

See also: Alt-right, Political positions of Donald Trump, Radical right (United States), and Trumpism
Some scholars have argued that the political style of Donald Trump resembles the political style of fascist leaders. Such assessments began appearing during the Trump 2016 presidential campaign,[36][37] continuing over the course of the Trump presidency as he appeared to court far-right extremists,[38][39][40][41] including his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election after losing to Joe Biden,[42] and culminating in the 2021 United States Capitol attack.[43] As these events have unfolded, some commentators who had initially resisted applying the label to Trump came out in favor of it, including conservative legal scholar Steven G. Calabresi and conservative commentator Michael Gerson.[44][45] After the attack on the Capitol, one historian of fascism, Robert O. Paxton, went so far as to state that Trump is a fascist, despite his earlier objection to using the term in this way.[46]

There is a subtle but important difference between the question posed in the OP and your response to me here.

You appear to be suggesting Trump is subjectively a fascist, and providing a few people who believe this to be true. Some (Paxton for example) have a good understanding of fascism.

However the OP was asking not whether Trump was fascist (I don't think he is, anyway, but...). Rather it was suggesting that many Americans want fascism.

I would suggest a strong, central State is absolutely fundamental to fascism, and large swathes of Trump supporters favour small government or federalist models.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is a subtle but important difference between the question posed in the OP and your response to me here.

You appear to be suggesting Trump is subjectively a fascist, and providing a few people who believe this to be true. Some (Paxton for example) have a good understanding of fascism.

However the OP was asking not whether Trump was fascist (I don't think he is, anyway, but...). Rather it was suggesting that many Americans want fascism.

I would suggest a strong, central State is absolutely fundamental to fascism, and large swathes of Trump supporters favour small government or federalist models.

I appreciate the subtle difference. Still, one cannot help but notice that Trump quite literally did try to overturn a democratic election which, for him, gave the wrong result, and has openly threatened the Constitution itself:

"President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to do something no president has ever done: formally adjourn Congress—that is, end Congress’s current session and force it into a recess—for the express purpose of installing his own people in federal jobs (possibly even judgeships) without having to follow the normal process of Senate confirmation. Doing so would subvert America’s constitutional design." April 17, 2020 in The Atlantic​

​

Remember that one of complaints in the Declaration of Independence was that King George III had "dissolved representative houses" multiple times. And that is precisely what Trump wanted to do. And he makes no secret that he would be equally cavalier with your Constitution if he regains power.

Yet, in spite of that, he retains a great deal of support -- and one has to assume that those supporters approve; that is, that they wouldn't mind having the foundations of the republic tossed aside at the whim of their "leader."

 

[Stevicus]

I would suggest a strong, central State is absolutely fundamental to fascism, and large swathes of Trump supporters favour small government or federalist models.

I think this pretty much settles the question. I agree that a strong, central State is fundamental to fascism, and no one really seems to be advocating for that right now.

I think much of it would depend on how one would characterize early U.S. history (18th, 19th, early 20th c.), which was marked by expansionist sentiments and white supremacy, which later subsided - but somehow always remained in the background nonetheless. Your country and the British Empire overall also seemed to share similar sentiments during those centuries, although just as in the U.S., those tendencies would later subside and ultimately be disavowed.

It would seem that, in order to properly characterize Trump as fascist, one would also have to characterize the first 150-175 years of U.S. history as also fascist. Same for the British, French, and other colonial powers. Though in all frankness, I could see a case being made for that, at least in terms of defining fascism as a racist, nationalistic, and expansionist philosophy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's what I am saying. If there was this steal (that has never been proved), the theorists thought the exactly same thing: That it would have been heroic to save the US from a fascist like Trump. That's why they cheated. To save the US.

You seem to be saying that the election was stolen because that would be justified if necessary. What I said was that I do not believe that the election was stolen, but would have applauded the effort were it needed.

Yes, that's all it is - a political smear term used to shut down discussion. Most people don't know what Fascism is, as a politicial ideology. Actual Fascism is almost unheard of here. It's Communism and Marxism that's all over the place and socially acceptable.

This is a remarkable comment. Why the double standard? Your use of Communist and Marxist here is a smear intended diminish the left's argument. Very few liberal Americans are interested in either of those, but the right is very interested in establishing an authoritarian regime. How could Trump, who the Republican party still attempt to protect from prosecution for crimes against the United States, have been more fascistic? What would a fascist have done as president that Trump refrained from?

"Fascism is generally defined as a political movement that embraces far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government. Fascists strongly oppose Marxism, liberalism and democracy, and believe the state takes precedence over individual interests."

I'll tell you the same thing I just told EF: I don't agree with you about the word fascism being used as a smear term used to shut down discussion, but even if I did agree, OK. Do whatever works.

For me, the right is not the loyal opposition anymore, but the enemy and an existential threat to American democracy, and that means the rules change regarding what is ethical behavior. Nothing one does to protect the Constitution from its enemies is immoral, and if the Republicans chose to ally themselves with Putin and attack Americanism at multiple fronts - democracy, the rule of law, church-state separation, egalitarianism - the nothing that stops them is immoral or off the table. NOTHING.

"Not fair - look what the left is doing" grievances from them are irrelevant. The Republicans aren't entitled to fair any longer. They've gone from us to them. They deserve whatever impedes them, and if that included using the word fascism, go for it.

Nevertheless, I consider the term apt, although I use the word fascistic to describe people with such proclivities limited by a government, like Trump, who would love to be a full-blown dictator and strongman, but never got that far.

 

[metis]

Those were Trumps actions; which had nothing to do with the people who stormed the Capital

If one actually paid attention to the testimony, they would know otherwise. On top of that, many arrested and tried said they did it based on Trump's directions, plus this should be obvious because of Trump's refusal to tell them to leave the Capitol almost four hours later. Even Romney yesterday alluded to Trump's anti-democracy behavior.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your use of Communist and Marxist here is a smear intended diminish the left's argument.

I don't know what you're talking about. It's just a fact that it's acceptable to be a Communist or Marxist, especially among the younger crowd, and there's many in the US who subscribe to such beliefs. That's not true for Fascism. I don't know why simply mentioning this fact causes you to fly off the handle in indignation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Those actions don’t demonstrate support for Democracy. It would also be absurd to suggest those actions represent a significant view of republicans, or even those who voted for Trump.

No, they don't. And I haven't suggested that they represent every Republican. However, most, if not all Republicans still support Trump and still won't speak out against him and his actions on that day and the days leading up to it. They are cowards.

So; after they took over the Capital building, what did they do next?

They attacked police officers with weapons. They smeared their feces everywhere. They stole things from senator's offices. They attempted to enter the Senate Chamber where senators were holed up trying to hide from the mob while armed guards tried to hold the mob off at the door. They erected a gallows and chanted "Hang Mike Pence." (There is footage of Mike Pence narrowly escaping the mob.) They had weapons, military gear and zip ties on them and in their vehicles. Their goal was to stop the peaceful transfer of power to the newly elected President, which they almost accomplished. Mike Pence was determined to do it though, and did at like 2am or something. Trump et al's whole plan was to stop the peaceful transfer of power from happening so that it would have to go back to the states, and then they could install the fake electors that they'd set up across several states creating a constitutional crisis wherein they could declare martial law and get the military involved. This trial is going to be something else.

The mob only started going home when the people around Trump finally convinced him to send out a tweet asking them to stop and go home. He was loving it the entire time, according to people around him.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's just a fact that it's acceptable to be a Communist or Marxist, especially among the younger crowd, and there's many in the US who subscribe to such beliefs.

To my knowledge, very few Americans are interested in either Communism or Marxism. The words are used to describe the left, most of which support social democracy.

That's not true for Fascism.

I agree that fascists seldom self-identify as such, but strongman authoritarianism appears to appeal to about half of Americans according to polls that place Biden and Trump at even today. What do you suppose they expect from Trump? Prosperity? More freedom? Of course not. The Republican voters want revenge against all of their perceived enemies including Democrats ("Communists and Marxists"), secularists ("godless abortionists"), people of color, and immigrants.

These are the people that they understand are ruining their lives, stealing their jobs and limiting them to lives that they find unacceptable, and they want them hurt. Trump is their man if they think he can win, and if they decide he can't, any other authoritarian strongman will do.

I don't know why simply mentioning this fact causes you to fly off the handle in indignation.

I don't know why you characterized by response that way. My opinions were carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered. Can you rebut any of it? Do you not think the Republicans are enemies of the Constitution as I described? If so, make the counterargument that demonstrates that they actually do support the things I said they're enemies of. Do you think it immoral to subject enemies to a different standard than allies? Same thing: If so, make the falsifying case.

 

[Secret Chief]

It's Communism and Marxism that's all over the place

Which place? The US is a capitalist country and the two political parties on serious offer are to different degrees both rightwing. Did you have other countries in mind?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To my knowledge, very few Americans are interested in either Communism or Marxism. The words are used to describe the left, most of which support social democracy.

I agree that fascists seldom self-identify as such, but strongman authoritarianism appears to appeal to about half of Americans according to polls that place Biden and Trump at even today. What do you suppose they expect from Trump? Prosperity? More freedom? Of course not. The Republican voters want revenge against all of their perceived enemies including Democrats ("Communists and Marxists"), secularists ("godless abortionists"), people of color, and immigrants.

These are the people that they understand are ruining their lives, stealing their jobs and limiting them to lives that they find unacceptable, and they want them hurt. Trump is their man if they think he can win, and if they decide he can't, any other authoritarian strongman will do.

I don't know why you characterized by response that way. My opinions were carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered. Can you rebut any of it? Do you not think the Republicans are enemies of the Constitution as I described? If so, make the counterargument that demonstrates that they actually do support the things I said they're enemies of. Do you think it immoral to subject enemies to a different standard than allies? Same thing: If so, make the falsifying case.

Maybe you should come back to America and visit a large city or college campus. There's plenty of people in those places who will openly call themselves Socialists, Marxists and Communists. We have more than a few on this board.

There's Republicans and Democrats who are "enemies of the Constitution". I don't know why you chose to just focus on one and not the other. It was also irrelevant to what I said, so of course I don't care to respond to it. You brought that up and are demanding I debate it. I said nothing about any political party.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Which place? The US is a capitalist country and the two political parties on serious offer are to different degrees both rightwing. Did you have other countries in mind?

No, I was talking about the US. You know, the country I actually live in.

 

[Secret Chief]

No, I was talking about the US. You know, the country I actually live in.

Well given the US is the epitome of laissez-faire capitalism I hoped in vain you meant somewhere else. Some Americans seem to view anything to the left of Genghis Khan to be communist in nature.

- Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe you should come back to America and visit a large city or college campus. There's plenty of people in those places who will openly call themselves Socialists, Marxists and Communists. We have more than a few on this board.

There's Republicans and Democrats who are "enemies of the Constitution". I don't know why you chose to just focus on one and not the other. It was also irrelevant to what I said, so of course I don't care to respond to it. You brought that up and are demanding I debate it. I said nothing about any political party.

Are there? When is the last time you were on a college campus?

 

[We Never Know]

There is no heterosexual gene either.

That, of course, doesn't mean that people aren't born with their sexual orientation.

One of the links I posted noted that.

Also...a claim of being born gay seems as false being there are things after a person is born that help decide that.

Whether a person is straight, gay, trans....sexuality....

"the report finds that human DNA cannot predict who is gay or heterosexual. Sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences, this study and others show, because human sexual attraction is decided by all these factors.

There is no ‘gay gene.’ There is no ‘straight gene.’ Sexuality is just complex, study confirms

A genetics study of nearly half a million people closes the door on a long-standing debate in sexuality.

www-pbs-org.cdn.ampproject.org