So it’s all emotion and gut reaction, then. We have a whole thread on that.
Well, I guess this board is not the only space where the title of this thread is being stated…
From his visit to the Reagan Library in Simi Valley.
The best nick name yet.
And one that TFG would not dare to use! Win-win.
Sure he would. He and his supporters would completely miss the irony of calling another candidate a fascist. All they know is that it’s a negative-sounding name to call someone.
Some seem to have a tough time looking back into the past and seeing fascism today, but those in the past had no problem looking into the future and seeing fascism…
“When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”
(Often attributed to Sinclair Lewis. but more likely from one of his contemporaries)
For those who don’t recognize @peccavi’s reference:
I thought in American political discourse, states’ rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution.
Thank you for referring me to the Pit. I’ll pass on that.
Well the devil is in the details ain’t it? What limits (if any) should be in place to prevent (US) States from oppressing minorities? A true blue State’s Righter would say almost none beyond the bare minimum placed in the constitution (and preferably before those pesky teen amendments). They feel things like child labor or segregation should be local decisions, and if you don’t like it get enough voters to change it (of course unless they make it impossible for you to vote) or move to a more liberal state.
Well, that is what people who advocate for “States’ Rights” dress up their arguments in. But almost invariably, “States’ Rights” becomes an argument for why states shouldn’t have to conform their laws to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and very frequently in reference to desegregation, voting rights, issues of bodily autonomy, marriage, et cetera. “States’ Rights” was the fundamental principle asserted in not only Dred Scott v. Sandford as noted above but also Plessy v. Ferguson, Hammer v. Dagenhart, Bowers v. Hardwick, and at least implicitly in Bush v. Gore, i.e. what are widely recognized as some of the absolute worst SCOTUS decisions.
The notion that states should be almost completely autonomous sovereign nation-states joined in a confederation has long been invalidated both by the action of certain states in the persecution of racial minorities and attempts to regulate the personal and medical affairs of its citizens based upon political sentiment and economic incentives, and the fact that the states that are most heated up about their supposed ‘rights’ are also largely the greatest beneficiaries of Federal funding. States should have a level of autonomy regarding issues that are specific to their geography and ‘culture’, insofar as these are not rampant violations of the 14th Amendment (and the Constitution in general) but the notion that states should be able to regulate their own affairs to the extent of denying basic rights and imposing severe restrictions that the nation as a whole recognizes as in opposition to “inalienable rights” just because the political apparatus of the state is controlled by people who adhere to the “Lost Cause” mythology is against both the general statement of the Declaration of Independence and the essential principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, even if many of the authors were advocates of human slavery who specifically intended to exclude those protections from non-white and non-male US citizens.
Stranger
In simpler terms than @Stranger_On_A_Train’s fine post above …
If anyone on the hard right was willing to use political terminology according to its conventional academic / professional meanings you’d be correct.
But nowadays, if it comes from the mid- / far-right it’s dog whistles all the way down. There’s no truth and no agreed definitions; just dog whistles.
And “states rights” is the dog whistle for “We want to revive the Old South, slavery and all, and the pesky Feds have no right to tell us otherwise. If we can’t have slavery, we at least want random lynchings.”
That’s ridiculous. Isn’t it? I mean, I’m willing to believe that people who benefit from systemic racism aren’t so keen to dismantle it at speed, but I have a hard time believing that people genuinely want the extreme you suggest.
But I’m not there, so maybe that’s wishful thinking.
Given the laws they’re pushing against trans people, it’s evident that some people - including many in power - genuinely want that extreme.
Nobody on even the far-right is advocating for human slavery because it would be considered so moustache-twirlingly bad as to be essentially comedically evil, but many so-called “conservatives” are certainly advocating for “states’ rights” to trample over individual liberties and protected privileges such as access to voting and legal recourse from police abuse. And frankly, there are people across the political spectrum who are fine with what is essentially a system of peonage in our prison-industrial complex, but it most prevalent in ‘red’ states.
In the case of both Florida and Texas, the governors and legislatures are enacting and attempting to execute measures that not only persecute people within their legal domains from bodily autonomy but also trying to extend their legal authority across state lines, ironically trampling on the supposed ‘rights’ of ither states. That is just as extreme as the situation in Dred Scott, especially when it isn’t over economic or commercial interests but just in pursuit of scapegoating an entire category of people over ‘culture wars’ bullshit.
Stranger
No, instead they talk about how slavery really wasn’t that bad, in fact it was a really good gig, and white people should be thanked for allowing such an opportunity.
…and how the decendants of slaves have it so much better than if their ancestors were left in their homeland.
As for the random lynchings, I give you “Hang Mike Pence!”. This crowd has no issue with lynching people.
From the original hijack in the DeSantis and Disney thread:
When one side of the political divide is a ruthless authoritarian like DeSantis seeking to demonize vulnerable minorities, the “divisiveness” is already there. Terms like “proto-fascism” didn’t create the extremism on one side of American political reality, they just accurately describe it. Conversely, soft-pedaling undemocratic authoritarianism won’t make it go away, but instead gives it more leeway to insidiously establish itself, with the support of those who think they’re just voting for lower taxes and less business regulation.
Or just shut down discussion and education:
Stranger