fair enough. For the record; I was referring to all republicans, and the people I know who voted for Trump
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fascism - Why...
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
By definition facism is a specific type of right wing only government. There is no such thing as 'left facism' and people trying to turn this into a horseshoe thing really just are focusing on a colloquial use of this term that means nothing. Facism isn't like libertarianism which exists across the left right spectrum even though we're more used to hearing about right libertarian philosophies.
If they're looking more at authoritarianism there are absolutely left authoritarian government styles, though McCarthy propaganda has made the cries of socialism panic pretty unrealistic. Like, "oh no, an industry like prisons is being pushed to deprivatization. Communism is right around the corner," is not a reasonable fear. Just like the privatization of previously unprivatized industry wouldn't be the warning gong of facism (e.g. ditching TSA in favor of private options.)
I don't believe there is, even within the Trump camp, a serious push towards facism (authoritarianism yes, facism no). And there doesn't need to be. A equally dangerous form of government that would benefit authoritarian elites and exists across the whole political spectrum already exists far closer than the organizational structure of facism: and thats structures made available through crony capitalism, which may go oligarchic and/or soft feudalism.
With that said, do I think *authoritarianism* is a bigger risk from the Trump camp than the Biden camp? ****, yes. Trump literally tried to bypass the voting process to stay in power. That is not in question to me. While I think there needs to be lots more checks against the ivory tower elites within the democrats, Trump's actions were far more egregious.
If they're looking more at authoritarianism there are absolutely left authoritarian government styles, though McCarthy propaganda has made the cries of socialism panic pretty unrealistic. Like, "oh no, an industry like prisons is being pushed to deprivatization. Communism is right around the corner," is not a reasonable fear. Just like the privatization of previously unprivatized industry wouldn't be the warning gong of facism (e.g. ditching TSA in favor of private options.)
I don't believe there is, even within the Trump camp, a serious push towards facism (authoritarianism yes, facism no). And there doesn't need to be. A equally dangerous form of government that would benefit authoritarian elites and exists across the whole political spectrum already exists far closer than the organizational structure of facism: and thats structures made available through crony capitalism, which may go oligarchic and/or soft feudalism.
With that said, do I think *authoritarianism* is a bigger risk from the Trump camp than the Biden camp? ****, yes. Trump literally tried to bypass the voting process to stay in power. That is not in question to me. While I think there needs to be lots more checks against the ivory tower elites within the democrats, Trump's actions were far more egregious.
What prevents fascism from being left wing, and how is fascism different than dictatorship?
Last edited:
In the same way that apple is different than fruit. All apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples. All facist regimes contain dictatorships but not all dictatorships are facist regimes. Fascism - Wikipedia
We Never Know
No Slack
Kind of ike... All on the right are republicans but not all republicans are MAGA's?
I wouldn't even say all right are republicans. There are right libertarians, and conservative parties outside republican party. But if you mean not all republicans are MAGAs then yes, I agree.
What I see is authoritarianism with extreme nationalism, an obsession with national security, disdain for human rights, persecution of minorities and immigrants, rampant sexism, attempts to control media etc.
If that is not fascism, it is fascism's identical twin.
Make America Great Again?
I agree with all that. It just doesn't constitute 'fascism' to me, which is a specific political movement.
Just like King George III wasn't a fascist. Indeed, the word didn't even exist.
I think so.
In the beginning the U.S. had a very decentralized power structure. They didn't even limit immigration at all for the first 140 years or so. Champions of free media, didn't have much of a military etc.
Racist, sexist, yes most definitely. But I don't think that is enough to call it a fascist state.
As I mentioned earlier, advocating for a strong central state is a key tenet of fascism, and is lacking in American right wing politics, which tends to range through libertarian and federalist models. Even where it practically forces government intervention, big government is not seen as a positive outcome.
What happens now is that people parcel up a bunch of negative positions (which were held by fascists) and call that 'fascism', using it as a modern day perjorative.
Fine, we won't call it fascism. Whatever you'd like to call it, it's still ugly, and another name won't make it any prettier than lipstick on the pig.
And I do not know the answer to the thread's question about why so many Americans appear to want what Trump represents. As I tried to point out in another thread (Biden tanking) I think that it might well be some combination of "fear of other," racism and hate that Trumpism and Magaism seem to give permission for, and a certain darker side to the fundamentalist Christian right-wing.
Yep. Which is not to say that there aren't republicans who only *say* they're pushing for a small government but in actually vote for government overreach when butting up against hot topic issues (re: bans on gay marriage/abortion/trans healthcare/press access to political events, increased police power, decrease of police oversight, punitive measures against people who question/criticize national values etc etc etc).
Whether the individuals responsible are using the false promise of 'small government' as a wedge to make, in actuality, government overreach, is individual basis. But not part of the republican platform. There are absolutely 100% self-identified facists including right wing terrorists growing at an alarming rate and identifying with MAGA. But I see far more of them say Trump is not nearly extreme enough, is actually a globalist, and, importantly to them, doesn't hate Jews.
So yeah, the republican party absolutely has a lot of rot, more in my opinion than the democrat party is. But as worrying as the increase of right wing terrorism is, I don't think they'll do nearly as much damage as, say, Jeff Bezos is doing *right now.*
Friend of Mara
Active Member
Thats okay. Feel free to go back and re-read it.
I tend to agree, although I can also see where a case could be made for it.
In any case, what Trump advocates for is what America once was, and if that's the case, then if what America was can not be considered fascist, then the label may not apply to Trump either.
I think using labels like "fascist" (and "communist," for that matter) have been mainly used for shock value in an attempt to denigrate one's opposition, be they right-wing or left-wing. The rightists go on and on about calling Biden's regime "communist," and they said the same about Obama and Clinton as well.
When I was younger, some of us used to have a wider definition of "fascist," to include those who didn't agree with legalizing marijuana, those who watched shows like "Cops" and "America's Most Wanted," and anyone who believed in censoring rock lyrics (such as Tipper Gore). Same for anyone who favored pre-employment drug testing.
The 14 characteristics are:
- Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
- Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
- Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
- Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
- Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
- Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
- Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
- Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
- Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
- Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
- Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
- Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
- Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
- Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
My assessment is that Trump and his MAGA movement meets 14 out of 14.
The U.S. in the early days meets maybe three, and those are pretty iffy.
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
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.
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?
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.