Yep. The guy is a repulsive toad.
I’d love nothing better than to punch him in the throat and make him cry.
…Are we allowed to say that in GD?
It’s not a debate so no.
I guess the question is, when they’re called fascist, are you referring to their actual acts, or to their aspirations? Both are important.
If Mitt Romney had won the presidency, and if there had been a terrorist attack under his watch, I have no doubt that he would have called for increased surveillance powers, would have increased military spending, and would have said some things about dissent that would have made me uncomfortable. If Hillary Clinton had won, I have no doubt she would have done the same thing.
If there’s a significant terrorist attack by ISIS or al Qaeda now, I expect to see some serious shit go down that will push the limits of our constitution, far beyond what Romney or Clinton would have done. Even now, Trump is repeatedly issuing executive orders that are right at the edge of, or actually violative of, Constitutional limits on prejudice.
What keeps Trump from being a fascist is the balance of powers, not any sort of intrinsic hesitation about fascism. He’s clearly expressed his desire to ban and register a religious minority, to lock up his political opponents, to punish reporters who report unfriendly stories. He’s strengthening the ties between, and blurring the lines between, government and his business and the businesses of his cronies.
So he’s not a fascist–and more than it’s ever been with any other president, it’s up to us to prevent him from becoming one.
Yea, its useful to have a word for the recent movement towards populist, white-nationalist, corporatist, Russia-aligned parties in Western Democracies. Their overlap with the old-school, Moussalini Fascists isn’t perfect. Certainly they have different opinions on Russia. And Trump et. al. don’t rely on political violence (though Putin certainly does), and don’t generally question the legitimacy of Democracy itself, as Hitler and Moussalini did.
But there’s enough of an overlap with the old school fascists that I think its a pretty natural change in the word. Especially since there aren’t that many remaining “old school” fascists, and those that do remain seem pretty happy folding themselves into the new, more successful political movements, even if their ideologies don’t mesh perfectly.
Political labels are always going to be pretty mushy anyways. Its not like Hilter/Franco/Mousallini were on the same page about everything, and their millions of followers certainly weren’t. So trying to play semantic police with how such labels are used even within a particular time period, nevermind accross to different time periods, is probably a lost cause.
According to CNN and WSJ, it seems a lot of American’s don’t even think he’s a real President. Whether or not he WANTS to be or WOULD be a fascist, the fact is he isn’t one. Nor has he done anything particularly fascists or Nazi like either. In his secret heart of hearts, he might be thinking of himself as the new Hitler for all we know. But by calling him a fascist or a Nazi and by bringing that sort of thing up in a debate, the people doing that are not doing their side or their argument any favors, and they are part of the seemingly constant degradation of those terms. I find it ironic that many of the younger people in my family are actually ok with the term communist now…ironic because of the reason. They were bombarded for years by the older or more conservative parts of my family who hated Obama and called him and everything he did communist. Well…the young people are like, well, Obama’s is not so bad so maybe communism and communists aren’t so bad (never realizing that Obama wasn’t close to an actual communist). I see the same thing with all of the heated language about Nazi’s, Hitler and fascism. We were constantly bombarded with this when Bush II was president…to the point that I think the terms have basically lost their meaning. And it’s not just here in the US either…check out this article on the subject from the BBC.
Also, I think Fascist actually works better than “authoritarian”. Trump might have authoritarian instincts, but he doesn’t really seem competent enough to pull it off. His dreaded EOs have basically just been toothless mission statements. His Muslim Ban, which actually did have teeth, was so poorly designed and deployed that its still stuck in the courts months later, despite the fact that it was supposedly only an “emergency measure” meant to last 90 days. Far from having an iron grip on power, he can’t even corral his own political party into voting for what was supposed to be their number one legislative priority.
I’m not 100% certain precisely what a “shitgibbon” is, but it certainly seems appropriate.
ETA: wiktionary says:
So, yeah.
Three things:
- That cnn article makes it sound like the WSJ article is an editorial–I’m not sure it’s super-relevant here (I didn’t read WSJ because of the paywall).
- “The fact is he isn’t one”–that’s what I said. I agree. However, I also think that his desire to act in a more fascist way is both explicit and relevant, for the reasons I gave.
- He has absolutely done some things that are similar to fascist actions in relevant manners. Again, he’s supported physical attacks on his opponents during rallies; he’s called for the imprisonment of his political rivals; he’s blurred lines between his businesses (and his cronies’ businesses) and the government; he’s called for registering religious minorities due to the danger they present to the nation.
You’ll note that all these things I say he’s done are really things he’s said. If you’re drawing a sharp line between words and deeds, you may well be correct. I don’t think that, when dealing with politicians (who act primarily through words), such a sharp line should be drawn. His words express his intentions, and it appears he’s being held back from acting on his intentions by others. We need to be sure he’s restrained, in a way we haven’t needed to be sure about any other president in my lifetime.
Was Hitler fascist in the first month of his reign? I call Don The Con a nascent fascist. Attacks on the press, calling for his opponent to be jailed or wiretapped, threatening anyone who votes against his bill- the ingredients are all there. They just haven’t baked yet. Kellyanne is his Goebbels, she will surely turn the jackboots into helping hands when she gets to spin the burning of the constitution.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
- That cnn article makes it sound like the WSJ article is an editorial–I’m not sure it’s super-relevant here (I didn’t read WSJ because of the paywall).
[/QUOTE]
It is an editorial. Sorry about the confusion on that (and the paywall thingy). I still found it interesting.
This gets into what, exactly, is an actual ‘fascist’, but that is more relevant to your next point.
The funny thing here is that your list could be applied to communists, socialists, various other totalitarian type systems through history…hell, even several democracies. IOW, none of them are particularly ‘fascists’…they can and have been applied to many types of government. People USE the term ‘fascist’ (or ‘Nazi’ or ‘communist’ or whatever) because it’s a loaded term, not because it’s particularly accurate. Just as you are doing here. Basically, if you can associate Trump et al in the minds of people (or in your own mind), that…I don’t know, transforms him into those things by magic and means you win the interwebs or something. My own problem is that it dilutes the term and desensitizes people to it. If Bush II was a ‘fascist’ and a ‘Nazi’ and Obama was a ‘communist’, then it makes those terms mean less than when we were talking about REAL fascists and communists who did really heinous stuff like slaughtering millions, causing world wars and destroying their economies…er, scratch that last one, since that would mean Trump IS both a fascist AND a communist! :eek:
See, he IS restrained though. He isn’t a communist or a fascist because our democracy is mature enough and we have the hooks in place to prevent someone from becoming those things. Calling him something he isn’t doesn’t prevent him from becoming a ‘fascist’ or a ‘communist’…our SYSTEM prevents it. Look at how successful Trump has been with his Muslim ban if you want some evidence of this in action. What he tried to do is RACIST (or anti-religious or something)…but it’s not something a real fascist would do. A REAL fascist would do stuff like Hitler and Mussolini did wrt race. Even if Trump had gotten what he tried to do through it wouldn’t be on par…and he DIDN’T get it through. Even his v2.0 doesn’t seem to be flying, and it’s being fought tooth and nail (as it should be). Same goes for his wiretapping allegations. Think of this just in terms of someone like Putin (who also isn’t either a communist or a fascist, though is a hell of a lot closer to those than Trump will ever be, even in his wet dreams)…when he tells a whopper it pretty much goes without much comment or dissent (in Russia at least). Trump, on the other hand, is getting to the point where even if he tells the truth (even a stopped clock is right 2 times a day) people will question it. A LOT of people.
Total horseshit. 
Good grief. Here, read this (or just bother to Google it yourself…there are tons of articles on Hitlers rise to power and what he did once he gained power)…it’s what Hitler et al did when they first came to power. And doesn’t even go into what they did to GET to this point. Seriously, you don’t seem to have any idea of the actual historical Hitler and the Nazi party. This is exactly what I’m talking about…you are throwing around loaded terms and talking about Trump in those terms and you have no idea what those terms even ACTUALLY mean, because they have been so watered down that they have lost all meaning. Trump is Hitler (just a ‘nascent’ one :p) and Obama was Stalin (or maybe Mao…I never got the straight on just which kind of communist he was. Perhaps he was Castro), blahblahblahblah blah. It’s sad that it’s come to this.
Exactly. The words used to reflexively cause fear in dainty little hearts no longer work because of misuse and overuse. If only there were 1st grade fables that could demonstrate the phenomenon…
You know, you are absolutely right. Calling people you dislike and disagree with names is a great way to win power for yourself and your side. I mean, it worked wonderfully for Hillary Clinton…
oh, wait.
It is a stupid way to try and change things. It is preaching to the choir and alienates anyone you might be able to win to your side.
It is stupid when Ds do it. It is stupid when Rs do it. It also only deepens the divide that already exists and we really don’t need that.
It also makes it harder for your side to do deals. ‘You made a deal with that Fascist? How dare you! <Insert politicians name here> is a total fascist and you can’t make deals with them!’
We have turned into a country that does politics in sound bites. “Build the wall!” “Basket of deplorables!” and so on.
This leads to, as far as I can tell, two serious problems. The first is that deep thinking is no longer required on a bunch of issues. Abortion? Its Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, period. Nuance thinking about the issue isn’t possible. This is true for a bunch of other issues.
Second, you instantly put the other side on the defensive. If you are talking to a Trump supporter and call Trump a fascist, you just lost whatever argument you were trying to make.
However, as I have noted in other threads, there seems to be a large chunk of the population who are more interested in calling people names than actually changing peoples minds.
Slee
I genuinely can’t believe you’re trying to use the most recent election as evidence that being insulting and calling people names is a poor political strategy.
Fascism has come in different forms in different countries. I don’t see any reason why trump doesn’t represent an American fascism. Of course it doesn’t conform to other definitions. We have a history so far of liberty and equality for most (OK plenty?) and it may not come the way you think it does.
So I worried I might be misremembering what “fascism” means, and I Googled the definition, and find this:
Do you disagree with this definition? Do you think that he’s not trying for something authoritarian? Do you think he’s not nationalistic? Do you think he’s not right-wing? Do you think he’s not advocating for a system of government? Do you think he’s not advocating for a particular way of organizing society?
What part of the definition do you disagree applies to Trump’s efforts, or what definition do you prefer?
Well. I’m not XT but on a previous long winded discussion I concluded that the best term to use (applicable also to the authoritarians of Latin America in the 20th century) was the one of neo-fascist.
Not as bad as a plain fascist, Fascists forcibly bend the spoons, Neo-fascists instead claim that there are no spoons…
More seriously, as the past link explains neo fascists are more close to being “a form of authoritarian populism that expanded the social participation of citizens at the same time that it curtailed some political freedoms.”
IMHO Trump is not a full on fascist, there are a lot of ideas that he would like to adapt from the fascists, but here Trump has not been helpful to defuse the accusations, when (for example) he was told about an ex wife reporting that Trump used to read a book on speeches of Hitler. Trump made the confession worse by saying that it was not a book of speeches by Hitler, but that the book was “Mein Kampf” itself.
As I pointed before, Trump just does not have much of a problem pandering to very, very unsavory Americans.And his virtual acceptance of scientific racism does not help either.
What Trump and company are not is Nazis. Nor are they followers of Mussolini, Franco, or Tojo. By the same token, Mussolini, Franco, and Tojo were not Nazis, either. Italian fascists were different from German fascists who were different from Spanish and Japanese fascists. And all of them are different from American fascists. But they’re all fascists. They’re xenophobic populist nationalists who have united behind a single authoritarian charismatic leader in the hopes of reclaiming the glory of bygone days. That’s what fascism is.
Not a fascist but as presidents go, Trump deserves more vigilance than most.
Trump is an ultra-nationalistic, authoritarian , militarist who colludes with industry. I believe that is fascist.
He even mimics some of the mannerisms of Il Duce.
The difference is, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Trump has yet to make anything run on time.
Crane