Balkinization  

Monday, January 23, 2017

Is Donald Trump a Fascist

Sandy Levinson

One of the dilemmas facing constitutional analysts is trying to figure out exactly what type of threat to our constitutional order Donald Trump constitutes.  Consider (at least) four different possibilities:
1)  He is "merely" incredibly ignorant about issues of public policy, without a scintilla of experience in any truly complex organization--a family business business of his type really doesn't count--let alone experience in governance and the skill sets required of those who would govern in a reasonably "democratic" (or, for that matter, "republican") form.  2)  In addition, he is "merely" an extreme narcissist, requiring constant reinforcement of his wonderfulness and absolutely unaccepting of any possibility of imperfection.  3) In addition to 1 and 2, he is also "merely" an authoritarian in personality structure, brooking no opposition; 4) in addition to 1, 2, and 3, he is also a fascist.


Presumably, almost any reasonable person will have no trouble agreeing with the first three, since they are really incontrovertible.  Perhaps one can say that other presidents have also had at least aspects of these traits.  One might argue that truly "normal" people would not really believe they have what it takes to be President of the United States and/or would be unwilling to subject themselves to what one has to do to climb the greasy pole.  4) is something else.  We've never really had a president before of whom it might seriously be argued that he is a fascist.  Richard Nixon might be on some people's list, but one shouldn't overlook that fact that he accepted his 1960 defeat entirely gracefully and, as a matter of fact, resigned the presidency rather than put the country through the ordeal of an impeachment trial.  Nixon was a tragically flawed individual, but one must concede that he also possessed many attributes that we look to in a president.

Some people I've talked to have said that Trump basically can't be a fascist because he has no disciplined ideology at all (save self-aggrandizement, which fits narcissism to a T, but might just as easily apply to almost any politico who uses issues at hand to achieve political success and the enrichment that can accompany it).  People making this argument have compared him to "real" fascists like Mussolini or, of course, Hitler and other Nazis.  Many of them actually read books and debated ideology.  Hitler had the self-discipline to write a thoroughly evil book setting out his systematic vision of the world, which he tried to enact.  With Trump, on the other hand, one can truly believe that he has not read a book since college, if then, and we have testimony that he in no serious sense wrote the books to which his name is attached.  He is simply not a "serious" ideologue in the way that the prototypes of 20th century fascism were.  So, as already suggested by Steve Griffin, perhaps we should simply compare him to Berlusconi or some other kleptocrat.  Juan Peron has also been suggested as a prototype.  But he is usually not regarded as a fascist, just another populist strongman.

But what might be said for his in fact being a "true" fascist?  Begin with a telling statement from his Inaugural Address, with its description of a country in absolutely desperate shape.  But help is one the way, from the one man who can save us (if we think back to his acceptance speech in Cleveland).  "The oath of office I took today," Trump informed the relatively small audience in DC and those tuning in on one or another of the media, "is an oath of allegiance to all Americans."  Well, yes and no.  The actual oath of office was one of fidelity to the Constitution of the United States, which under any plausible interpretation places limits on what a president can do, even if there are endless debates about what those limits are.  As a matter of fact, for some years, I have asked my students early on in my con law course if they would favor changing the oath of office to (something like) "doing whatever I think best for the United States" or "for the American people," and, for better or worse, very few students wish to do that (or believe that these words are simply synonymous with fidelity to the Constitution unless, of course, one believes that the Constitution always allows office holders to do whatever they think best).  We can be confident that Donald Trump has spent not one moment actually thinking through the difference between fidelity to the actual oath and his paraphrase of it, but let me suggest that it is basically fascistic to assume that the Constitution allows him a basically free hand so long as he is persuaded that "the American people" want it or would benefit thereby.  But maybe not fascistic, maybe only rankly authoritarian (which is bad enough).

More linked to fascism, though, is his notion that "the people" speak with only one voice--i.e., there is no genuine argument about what "we the people" really want, at least once one separates the "real people" who show up at Trump rallies and want to jail Hillary, from the fakes who disagree with him and don't share the Trumpian/Fox News/Conway version of "reality."  As Princeton professor Jan-Werner Mueller put it in an important essay in the London Review of Books (reprinted, I think, elsewhere), the form of "populism" that Trump instantiates is basically totalitarian in that it presumes no genuine differences of opinion.  Someone has recently analogized this to the worst form of Rousseauvian "general will."  This may, of course, be a problem with all notions of "popular sovereignty" that pay insufficient attention to the extent that the demos is in fact divided rather than truly united in its views about important issues of the day (including, perhaps, who actually counts as part of the demos).

So, if one adds together a perception of a singular united people and a unique leader who can intuit what "the people want," and, in addition, one combines this with a nationalist emphasis on how one defines "the people." I think one gets fairly close to at least a 21st century version of fascism.  Think, for example, of the implications of "a total allegiance to the United States of America."  If that means an allegiance, say, to the values as instantiated in the Preamble, including "establishing justice" and "securing the blessings of liberty," sign me up.  But, of course, neither is a big theme of Donald Trump's.  He's much more into the "common defense" from a world that he views as almost unremittingly hostile to the United States and, no doubt, a form of "domestic tranquility" that translates into a police-state version of "law and order."  

I don't have a lot invested in whether or not Donald Trump is really and truly a fascist or "merely" an ignorant, narcissistic, inexperienced lout who may well be--at least according to three of the four psychiatrists with whom I've discussed this--a sociopath.  That's certainly bad enough.  That being said, it still seems to me worth at least some time trying to figure out exactly how to categorize our new President and to figure out the particular kind of threat he presents to our constitutional order.

As always, I am open to comments, but please note I am making no assumptions at all about the people who voted for Donald Trump.  I have already indicated that I regard some of them as "deplorable," but I have equally said that that does not apply to everyone who voted for him.  I have only utter contempt for Kelly Ann Conway, but she's exemplary only of a thorough-going opportunist who will literally say anything to serve her master.  What I am interested in, though, really and truly is the particular person of Donald Trump.  Does anyone, even those who voted for him in order, say, to get a conservative Supreme Court or to stave off whatever menace is thought to linked to Hillary Clinton, believe that Trump is not some combination of ignorant, inexperienced, and narcissistic.  Or is anyone willing to say that after their own reflection, he really does seem to have just that set of attributes we should want in a President, including, perhaps, the fascistic aspects?





Comments:

I find myself wondering, if Trump is the fascist in this little morality play, why is it the Democrats who are rioting and attacking people? Why is it Milo Yiannopoulos being shouted down by violent mobs, and not some figure on the left? How is it that the fascists' enemies can safely speak, reliant on their thuggish enemies' polite restraint? While the thuggish enemy gets dragged down on the street, or tortured on FB?

Is it possible that the correlation between fascism and ruthless violence and censorship that we saw circa WWII was just coincidental, and that the forces of light and truth are just as capable of being the side that employs thuggish tactics, while the fascists politely play by the rules? Are the elements of these movements just a Chinese menu, that can be chosen in any combination, not coherent packages?

Or is it something simpler, that people like to think themselves the forces of light and truth, and their foes monsters against whom any tactic is justified, and just ignore little details that challenge that comforting and convenient assessment?

Anyway... Trump is absolutely something of a narcissist. As is anyone who seeks high office, so you admit yourself. So, that trait nulls out, it is a constant.

Stupid, ignorant, incoherent? Is that what you think beat your champion? Wow, you must have a worse opinion of Hillary than I do, to think that plausible! Of course he's not stupid, ignorant, and incoherent. He's the head of a successful business empire, and ran a successful campaign for President, despite having most of the media openly trying to defeat him. Could YOU do that?

At some point you're going to have to confront the disconnect between your opinion of Trump, (And of your own side's character!) and the accumulating evidence. I hope the experience isn't too shattering.
 

"despite having most of the media openly trying to defeat him"

This tired saw? The media essentially put Trump on the stage, he received far disproportionate early coverage, often just footage of his rallies and news conferences. The number one cited source of news for voters was Fox News. The most covered story of the election was Hillary Clinton's email scandal.
 

I'm not saying the attempt was competent, mind you. They basically thought, "What Trump is saying outrages us, if we share it with the voting population, it will outrage them, too!" and this was a big mistake, which they didn't pick up on until a few weeks before the election. (When they basically stopped covering what Trump said, and just covered what Democrats said about him.) But, while Trump dominated the news, it was almost all negative coverage of him.

Contrarywise, while the email scandal got a lot of coverage, in most media outlets it was covered with the exposure of the emails being the scandal, not their contents.
 

Sandy, I think you are mistaken trying to separate the new Presidentity from the people who voted for him. As Brett ably demonstrates here, his supporters don't merely ignore reality, but are constantly generating and internalizing alternate realities necessary to aggrandize the man and demonize that (large) portion of the demos that does not support him. This is not so much fascism as cultism, and I think you need only look to Brett's fine example to identify the dangers that lie therein.
 

So, did this happen in an alternate reality? Or maybe this did? Oh, wait, I'm sure this report comes from Earth II.

No, unfortunately the violence is real, and it's the left perpetrating it, not the right. Which kind of makes a hash of Sandy's fantasy about Trump representing a fascist movement.
 

We mustn't forget that with his Inauguration Donald J. Trump became America's first self-proclaimed PG* President. Size matters to Trump, including his neckties (wink, wink). Consider the extensive Women's March just in the District the day after the inauguration, a challenge that obviously belittled America's first self-proclaimed PG* President (not to mention the many other Women's marches throughout the US and the world).

*Not in the TV/Movies ratings sense but as proclaimed by Trump in the Access Hollywood tapes.
 

Trump certainly is ignorant, incompetent, intolerant, not very bright (possibly suffering from early dementia), a serial liar, authoritarian, and a textbook example of narcissistic. But while those characteristics may be necessary for a fascist, or even common among fascists, lots of people think policy views are a component of fascism too. That's where the definition game founders, I think: Trump has no, or at least few, policy views. Personally, I think this rhetorical inconsistency on policy describes your other examples pretty well.
 

Here's a quote to consider following Trump's Inauguration weekend and his reactions to crowd sizes and the CIA:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Lewis Carroll (From Through The Looking Glass)

The Donald is a variation, so I'll refer to him as Trumpty-Dumpty. Now as President, Trumpty-Dumpty has as his assistants Sean Spicer, Kellyanne Conway and Reince Priebus to explain what Trumpty-Dumpty's words mean, and doing so in a mean manner. Perhaps this trio may take some of the heat of Trumpty-Dumpty. But if and when he builds that great wall and sits atop it, and has then a great fall, will even they be able to put Trumpty-Dumpty back together again?


 

Brett, you don't really speak to any of my points. I know conservatives like to relentlessly 'work the refs' these days, which is ironic since their chosen sources of news are so brazenly ideological/partisan, but the fact remains that out of some perverse feeling on the part of the press to report one bad thing for Clinton for every wacky thing Trump did outside of usual norms (that's the kind of thing that gets reported btw, man bites dog), they went about tit for tat negative stories, in fact overall leaning more negative toward Clinton (https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/?platform=hootsuite)

It's just too much for Trump fans to complain about the media, he, a literal celebrity, wouldn't be president if not for them.
 

"Trump certainly is ignorant, incompetent, intolerant, not very bright (possibly suffering from early dementia), a serial liar, authoritarian, and a textbook example of narcissistic. But while those characteristics may be necessary for a fascist, or even common among fascists, lots of people think policy views are a component of fascism too. That's where the definition game founders, I think: Trump has no, or at least few, policy views. Personally, I think this rhetorical inconsistency on policy describes your other examples pretty well."

Ok, I think that's seriously delusional. Just because it's inconvenient to acknowledge that Trump has policy views, doesn't mean they go away. Both during the campaign, and now, he's clearly put forward policies. You don't have to like them for them to exist.

A lot of this is seriously delusional. You don't like him, so he has to have every conceivable negative trait, despite his actual success rendering many of them implausible.

It's to his advantage that his opponents are fighting an illusion of their own creation, instead of the real Trump. You might consider that.

Mista Whiskas, you're confusing his coverage not being as negative, and Hillary's not being as positive, as you think warranted, with Trump's not being negative, and Hillary's positive. Hillary had real problems, which the press couldn't totally ignore, so they settled for spinning them as not very serious.

That you think they should have ignored them altogether doesn't make them Trump's allies.
 

As to the overall question...

In favor of the idea that Trump is a fascist is, I think, that fascism isn't much about a coherent policy view. If you look at Franco, Mussolini and Hitler, for example, it's hard to find much political philosophy that unites them in terms of specific policy. What underlay all three seemed to be more broad sentiments of nationalism, militarism, chauvinism, scapegoating and a 'strong man' idea of politics. When you think of that, one can see why people think of Trump as a fascist: his nomination acceptance speech was the most 'strong man' thing I've seen in American politics, as his fixation on 'losers' and 'winners.' It's easy to see why his 'America First' rhetoric makes people think of the nationalism criteria, and a lot of his rhetoric has the usual conservative militarism/chauvinism...

Having said that, I think Trump is more of a boor than a fascist. I really think his forerunner was, as I said very early in this contest, more Berlusconi than Mussolini. Trump's movement doesn't strike me as having quite the revolutionary fervor that historical fascists have. Brett is correct about something: Trump and his supporters have more likely been the target of violence than the instigator. Since the late 1960's the left has been the instigator of this kind of 'cheap' political violence (this is, of course, excepting the very deadly right wing terrorism that occurs sporadically, but somewhat regularly, in the country, but that's much more 'lone wolf' based). And the idea of America First, or nationalism in general, shouldn't be seen as one that is necessarily fascist. Our elites have been far too cosmopolitan as of late, and Trump, ever the breaker of norms, was able to break that norm to his advantage.
 

Brett, you really are the least self aware person I know in many ways, because your complaint of media bias exemplifies what you attribute to me.

You've decided Hillary is the most corrupt felon evah 'Lock her Up!,' and so all the negative coverage by the 'MSM' which you think is 'in the tank' for her is, astoundingly, not undercutting of your narrative at all, but rather, you just re-position it all: 'well, she's so obviously bad that of course they had to cover some it, but still not as much as I'd like!!!!!'

Again, Trump supporters should be thanking their lucky stars for the 'MSM' coverage. It got him elected.
 

"Both during the campaign, and now, he's clearly put forward policies."

Brett, I think you're confusing some things. During the election I remember when people made this criticism of Trump you'd respond 'hey, check out Trump's webpage, he has white papers there, so see he has policy views.'

But this ignores that what I think Mark is referring to is that in debates, in rallies, in interviews, Trump did not seem to produce much in the way of coherent policy views.

Anyone can pay some MPA graduate to put out a white paper after the fact on the internet, that doesn't mean the person themselves has much knowledge/interest in it.

I mean, let's be honest, and let's take the partisanship out of it. Do you really think that if you sat down with a beer with Donald that he would have a knowledge and interest in policy that would match, say, that of Ted Cruz? I choose Cruz because I loathe him more than most politicians, mind you. But I would never think the guy wasn't really knowledgeable about policy and doesn't have a clean, logical political worldview. He clearly is and does.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Is Trump a fascist? Let me talk about the a few people to stand for "the Democrats" or "the left" first, instead of talking about the person who in now POTUS. When I do talk about him, let me just make him like everyone else in his position. Plus, do so is an amusingly soft way ("something of a narcissist" ... and my handwriting is somewhat illegible). And, toss in an attack on the media for treating him badly.

It's nice to know some things stay the same. As to the question, as Mark Field notes, there is various overlaps here. He thinks the problem is policy views, but I'm not sure that is too much of a problem, at least if we take purpose and effect into consideration. His "American First" inauguration comments might not be his "own" views or something -- we can debate such things -- but it is of limited concern if that is what is put in place as policy.

The biggest concern to usage of the word before the election (remember those days?) to me seemed to be that people think Mussolini or rather Hitler when such words arise. And, since Anne Frank et. al. is not hiding in an attic somewhere, that seems excessive. Ditto words like "sociopath" though "authoritarian" (see John Dean) et. al. works better. Simply put, we are dealing with a lot of troubling things, even if Sandy Levinson might lay things too thick sometimes.

https://verdict.justia.com/2017/01/20/inauguration-day-2017-trumps-dangerous-ego-trip
 

Sandy: One of the dilemmas facing constitutional analysts is trying to figure out exactly what type of threat to our constitutional order Donald Trump constitutes. Consider (at least) four different possibilities:

1) He is "merely" incredibly ignorant about issues of public policy, without a scintilla of experience in any truly complex organization--a family business business of his type really doesn't count--let alone experience in governance and the skill sets required of those who would govern in a reasonably "democratic" (or, for that matter, "republican") form.


Operating an international business empire is far more complex snd demanding than say working as a community agitator like Obama or heading a small bureaucracy like Clinton did at State. Trump routinely worked with (and likely bribed many) politicians and bureaucracies to operate his businesses. Obama and Clinton's relative lack of experience running complex organizations was not what made them threats to our Constitution.

2) In addition, he is "merely" an extreme narcissist, requiring constant reinforcement of his wonderfulness and absolutely unaccepting of any possibility of imperfection.

Obama's equally overweening narcissism is not what made him a threat to the Constitution.

3) In addition to 1 and 2, he is also "merely" an authoritarian in personality structure, brooking no opposition

Now you are getting relevant.

Obama'a authoritarian personality and penchant for ruling by decree did harm the constitutional order. The irony is Team Obama weaponized a bureaucratic dictatorship merely to hand over that weapon to a potential authoritarian of the other party.

4) in addition to 1, 2, and 3, he is also a fascist.

I agree Trump ran a classic fascist political campaign scapegoating foreigners and elites for the economic suffering of workers and offering himself as a strongman who could return the nation to greatness.

How does a fascist govern, however? Not much differently than a socialist or a progressive. All of these totalitarian "isms" believe in an unlimited government ( a government without natural limits) ruled primarily by an absolute bureaucracy (elected strongmen are actually optional) to direct the economy and redistribute our wealth. The real differences between the three "isms" are their political pitches to the people.

I have no idea how Trump will govern.

If he appoints the judges on his Supreme Court list and those of similar judicial approach, then Trump will be governing as a constitutionalist, not a fascist.

If Trump takes Obama's gift of a weaponized bureaucratic dictatorship to bypass Congress and rule by decree, they you can call him a fascist. If he declines the gift and reverses the bureaucracy's powers, then he is governing as a constitutionalist. I suspect that he will do some of both.

Some people I've talked to have said that Trump basically can't be a fascist because he has no disciplined ideology at all...People making this argument have compared him to "real" fascists like Mussolini or, of course, Hitler and other Nazis.

Fascists do not have a common disciplined ideology. The main feature of fascism is arbitrary and ever changing rule by an absolute bureaucracy. (See Hanna Arendt's excellent books on the subject) When they put a coherent thought together, Mussolini pitched corporatism and Hitler a nationalist version of socialism. Thus, lacking a coherent ideology does not mean Trump is or is not a fascist.

"I don't have a lot invested in whether or not Donald Trump is really and truly a fascist or "merely" an ignorant, narcissistic, inexperienced lout..."

I would very much prefer a lout. The Republic can survive the latter, but maybe not the former.
 

Can we survive SPAM I AM!ISM? SPAM lives in the past and regurgitates his bile continuously. Recall during his helm daze [sick!] at the Cruz Canadacy SPAM constantly referred to Trump as a fascist. Of course he paints fascism with a broad brush with his adoration of The Gilded Age, Robber Barons and markets free of accountability. If indeed SPAM is right that the Republic cannot survive a fascist, he seems set on armed revolution, what he thinks was the purpose of the 2nd A.
 

Shag:

You are welcome to offer your own definition of fascism and how it functionally differs from socialism or progressivism.
 

Brett: "despite having most of the media openly trying to defeat him"

Mr. W: This tired saw? The media essentially put Trump on the stage, he received far disproportionate early coverage


The Democrat media provided favorable coverage for Trump (and largely froze out the other candidates) during the primaries because they considered him the weakest GOP candidate and then they predictably savaged Trump during the general election campaign.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297
 

As to the question, as Mark Field notes, there is various overlaps here. He thinks the problem is policy views, but I'm not sure that is too much of a problem, at least if we take purpose and effect into consideration. His "American First" inauguration comments might not be his "own" views or something -- we can debate such things -- but it is of limited concern if that is what is put in place as policy.

The distinction I'd make is that I see "America First" not as a policy, but as a slogan. It's hard to know how that will play out in actual policy.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

The original comment in part said "rhetorical inconsistency on policy" ... if we are now talking about "a slogan," one can have a "consistent" slogan.

But, focusing on "slogan" v. "policy," overall, I think the effect will be enough actual things in respect to policy. Also, it won't be obvious in all respects how this "will play out," but certain things won't be too hard. The 9th vote in the Supreme Court, e.g., won't be too much of a surprise. Various Republican policies won't be a surprise. etc. And, the "American First" thing is not just a slogan, but in some rough way something of a policy sentiment. There is wiggle room, but only up to a point. A sort of Obama internationalist vision, e.g., is hard to come by here.

Finally, I think "fascist" has a sort of flexible nature to it up to a point. So, he can be somewhat all over the place as to policy and act like a "fascist" or whatever doing it.
 

"The Democrat media provided favorable coverage for Trump (and largely froze out the other candidates) during the primaries because they considered him the weakest GOP candidate and then they predictably savaged Trump during the general election campaign."

Right, when I said that the media were hostile to Trump, I of course meant after he had the nomination secured. Prior to that point he got the usual help the media give to whoever they think most likely to lose the GOP the election.
 

Everything you need to know about Trump can best be epitomized by his stiffing the contractors who did work for him on his properties, remitting lawsuits instead of payment for services rendered. That's it- everything else is commentary.
 

I take it you've never worked with contractors?
 

I am a contractor. An honest one.
 

SPAM I AM! with this in response to me:

"You are welcome to offer your own definition of fascism and how it functionally differs from socialism or progressivism."

once again emulates Humpty-Dumpty:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Lewis Carroll (From Through The Looking Glass)


 

Perhaps Brett has been experienced getting screwed over by contractors, and wouldn't mind being screwed over by Trump.
 

Then, realizing that modifier is actually required, you understand there are contractors who aren't honest. Others who are just honestly incompetent. Like the carpenter I hired to rough in my house, who decided a floor joist had too much camber, and so cut it up to bridge across between two others... under my 2nd floor oversized bathtub! Things might have gotten ugly if I hadn't caught it before the sheathing was down on the floor, and been an engineer who'd recognize that it was problematic.

Trump's businesses employ a huge number of contractors. It's inevitable that some of them are going to do substandard work, and it's apparently Trump policy to see them in court about it. Takes more than showing that some contractors are unhappy with that to outrage me. You'd have to show it was all out of proportion, and he was doing it wrongly.

Since his win/loss record in court is pretty good, the burden is on you.
 

Subcontractors can protect themselves by placing a mechanics lien on the property and then seeking to enforce the lien. In CO, the general contractor is subject to a civil theft claim for monies the owner paid for the subs and retained or used for other purposes by the general. That being said, generals sometimes screw over their smaller subs on the assumption the claim us not worth the litigation cost.
 

And subcontractors can screw over contractors by not bothering to lift the lien after they're paid; It's a somewhat underhanded way to save a bit of money, by requiring the contractor to pay the fee for lifting it by showing that you've paid the bill. Ran into that when I finished building my house, and went to get a mortgage to pay off the construction loan. (In Michigan, owner builders can act as their own contractors.)

Point is, they're playing on people's ignorance concerning how the building trades really function, and the legal system functions, by throwing up scare headlines about "Trump", (Really, his businesses.) being involved in so many lawsuits and liens.

All of which as very little to do with the cloud of fascism forever descending on the Republican party, and landing on the Democratic.
 

Regarding the claim of some (not I) that Trump is a fascist, Brett is adapting his "Look for the fascist lining ... "view as a silver lining. But what is the silver lining to America's first self-proclaimed PG* President other than Kellyanne's Inaugural dress. Kellyanne knows how to scratch.

* Access Hollywood tapes
 

No, I'm merely pointing out that he lacks what has been regarded as a key characteristic of "fascists", and probably the scariest characteristic: Violence.

Democrats complain a lot about Republican "violent rhetoric", but the actual violence almost always is being dished out by the left. The truth of the matter is that, if there's anything in this country that is at all like the fascists' Brownshirts, they're working for the DNC.

In terms of fascist economics, it was characterized, just like the non-national socialists, by command and control economies, their main difference from the socialists being that, under fascism, the government nominally left industry in private hands, preferring to exercise control by heavy and detailed regulation, rather than taking explicit ownership of the means of production.

In this respect, Obamacare is a classic fascist program, leaving the insurance industry nominally private, but dictating in excruciating detail the character and price of the products, and even mandating that people buy them. Trump is proposing the opposite.

What does that leave for Trump in the way of "fascism"? Mostly rhetoric and foreign policy, and even in the area of foreign policy he's certainly not proposing military aggression. If anything, he's somewhat of an isolationist.
 

Democrats complain a lot about Republican "violent rhetoric", but the actual violence almost always is being dished out by the left.

Not really. Citing, repeatedly spinning things in the worse way (cf. how Trump is mildly narcissistic or something, but hey, they all are, so nothing to see here), a few cases to show absolutist "we never do it" type comments is wrong doesn't do that. Thus, yes, there were a few lawbreakers on 1/20 but the actions of 1/21 (and most around 1/20) is standard practice for "the left" (a range of people as you use the term, as shown by the people against Trump alone).

A major point here is that Trump in particular, over and over again correctly cited by a range of people of different ideological slants as different than the run of the mill Republican candidate and now officeholder, egged on people with his rhetoric and comments. In ways other REPUBLICAN candidates did not do, putting aside Clinton and Sanders. The habit of some to use not enough nuance including Sandy Levinson is a fair critique at times. You make a lousy prophet for it.

Obamacare is a classic fascist program

The PPACA does not "nominally" leave the health industry in private hands. Even if you have Medicaid, which is after all funded by tax dollars not personal deductions, you use a non-government insurance company, using non-government doctors, making personal choices when to use medical services. You also don't have to buy the insurance.

If you don't buy insurance and you make a limited amount of money, nothing happens. If you don't buy insurance and you make more, you pay a tax. A tax that breaks down to about the price of a weekly movie ticket. Why? Because insurance is essential in modern society for the smooth running of interstate commerce, public health and other things. This is less governmental in practice than is the norm world-wide.

The modern regulatory state is not "fascist" either unless we are trying to abuse language. As to Trump, this was explained before, though now that he is in power why in the heck one would think he would merely be "rhetorical" is unclear to me. The very reason you elect people is to use their rhetoric in governing.

A basic definition of "fascism" is "authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." [dictionary definition that pops up doing a search] His "authoritarian" tendencies has been discussed by many including John Dean. His "nationalistic" aspect is so clear that even Brett cites "foreign policy" and as to "not proposing military aggression," actually he is. When our interests are threatened, he isn't for the U.S. simply to be peaceful or something. Again, even the defender's words belie this. "Somewhat" is not fully.

His "rhetoric" included support of making it easier to punish those who criticize him. He joined the "right-wing" part and supports various things like limiting abortion rights that support their "social" positions. So, yes, I can see some "fascist" tendencies, though we can carp on details such as how his foreign policy will play out though his favoring generals in key spots isn't THAT promising.
 

Brett: In terms of fascist economics, it was characterized, just like the non-national socialists, by command and control economies, their main difference from the socialists being that, under fascism, the government nominally left industry in private hands, preferring to exercise control by heavy and detailed regulation, rather than taking explicit ownership of the means of production.

Socialists would do this as well. Germans called such socialism Zwangswirtschaft. We called it "war socialism" because we did it in both world wards.

Fascists tend to have the corner on a variation of this theme called corporatism.

I started sharing the common wisdom that progressivism was a compromise between classical liberalism and socialism. As my high school history teacher put it, the United States turned pink to avoid turning red. However, I was never able to come up wth a principled difference between socialism, fascism and progressivism because all three share so much.
 

"Thus, yes, there were a few lawbreakers on 1/20"

If by a few, you mean a couple hundred arrested, and several hundred still at large.

And that was just one day. 2016 was a year of political violence, riot after riot.

"egged on people with his rhetoric and comments"

And yet, it was still the Democrats committing almost all the violence. Not the most effective egging on, was it?

You want to obsess over rhetoric, because the reality is so ugly, and it's your side perpetrating it.
 

SPAM I AM! with this:

"However, I was never able to come up wth a principled difference between socialism, fascism and progressivism because all three share so much."

demonstrates that it's because he lacks principle. That high school history teacher must have assigned Classic Comics for the course as well as Sen. Joe McCarthy's nonsense. That's probably when SPAM came to believe The Gilded Age were America's best days.
 

Brett: Obamacare is a classic fascist program

Joe: The PPACA does not "nominally" leave the health industry in private hands.


Obamacare grants the absolute bureaucracy the power to direct evert major function of a health insurer - administration, advertising, coverage, heath provider compensation, and venues of sale.

We are all compelled buy government designed health insurance on pain of fine and potential imprisonment for tax evasion. The fact that the Obama bureaucracy did not go that far to avoid further angering voters hardly means a future bureaucracy could not, The Courts granted the absolute bureaucracy carte blanche to rewrite the Obamacare statute to make the Rube Goldberg contraception work.

By directing coverage and health provider compensation, Obamacare not only directs the health insurance industry, it indirectly directs the health care industry.

As such, Obamacare is textbook Zwangswirtschaft. Both socialists and national socialists in Germany used this approach of reducing industry to the status of a privately owned utility.

The modern regulatory state is not "fascist" either unless we are trying to abuse language..

Fascism, socialism and progressivism all use an absolute bureaucracy to direct the economy and redistribute wealth. Indeed, all three "isms" often employ the same policies. You cannot name a single progressive policy which fascist or socialist absolute bureaucracies do not also employ. Indeed, our progressive political economy imported most of our policy from socialist and fascist states.

A basic definition of "fascism" is "authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

American progressives considered fascists to be political rock stars in the 1930s and much of the New Deal and our subsequent "war socialism" is borrowed from fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Progressivism is authoritarian and, during the world wars, used to be nationalistic. Fascists only because the enemy and "right wing" when we went to war.
 

"obsess over rhetoric"

As I and others did before the election, I cited various things Trump said and did to be of concern. In the immediate context, cited a common definition of "fascism" in so doing. Likewise, used how the PPACA and health regulation currently worked, not "obsession with rhetoric" (more your thing) to refute calling it "fascist."

I again respect your ability to keep on message here, including singling out a little portion to promote your usual anti-left cant. Making 2016 as the latter day inner city riots because out of millions of people a few were violent etc.

Finally, yet again, Trump -- unlike the garden variety Republican candidate or Sanders/Clinton, was of special concern here in part yes because of his rhetoric. Rhetoric is important, especially when those who use it have a special ability to influence others and/or control 1/3 of the three branches of government.
 

Our own Brettbart (the "unBreit") are a tag team on fascism although Brett does not accept SPAM's fascist descriptive of Trump, America's first self-proclaimed PG" President. Rather the "unBreit" in the style of Spicer, Conway and Priebus (aka "SOP" try to turn point 4 of Sandy's post with broadened versions of fascism. Brett and SPAM are playing Humpty-Dumptys. Perhaps it's time to reveal the real reasons why SPAM left big firm law in FL for CO to contrast with SPAM's claim of quality of life (was he prescient about CO's much later legalization of recreational Ganja?). And Bill Maher exposed the opiod voters for Trump in his first New Rule of the new season. Is it coincidence that Brett resides in one of the states revealed by Maher? I understand a dossier will soon be released, to be verified, or not.

Now let's address the Women's March. We may have "ladies Day" quite frequently for a while to counter America's first self-proclaimed PG* President and his ilk. Brettbar (the "unBreit") may now attempt to broaden their fascism brush by trying to paint these women as fascists. But that won't work, because they will claw back.

* Access Hollywood tapes
 

"Making 2016 as the latter day inner city riots because out of millions of people a few were violent etc."

How many riots did the side you were talking about being fascist engage in? Yes, 2016 was a year of riots, but particularly, it was a year of political riots, carried out by Democrats.

You don't really want to talk about that, because it's a very real difference between the right and the left in America, and not a difference which makes the left look good. So it becomes more important to talk about Trump saying that if somebody is about to throw something at the stage, slug them, than it is about Democrats smashing windows, looting stores, burning buildings.

I'm not going to ignore that difference, or stay silent about it, when Sandy engages in fantasy play about his party's opposition being dangerous "fascists". I'm going to throw it in his face every time. And I expect no less from your side in this argument, should Trump ever get around to sending out jack booted thugs to attack innocent people.
 

Shag:

You are welcome to offer a narrowed version of fascism.

Of course, you will not.
 

It is interesting to compare Trump's fascist campaign with Sanders campaign of nationalist socialism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421369/bernie-sanders-national-socialism

I wonder how many Bernie supporters ended up voting Trump?
 

Brett is the self-proclaimed Spicer, Conway, Priebus troll at this Blog with his promise to challenge Sandy on claims of Trump as a fascist. Does this portend a split-u- of our own Brettbart (the "unBreit") what with the tail end (appropriately positioned) of that tag team, to wit, SPAM I AM! continuing his post-Cruzade in accusing Trump of being a fascist. Split up, that tag team will be even "lessBreit." Komrade Brett will continue to defend Trump, America's first PG* President, despite Trump's living epitaph:

"HERE (HERE, HERE, HERE, ANY AND EVERYWHERE) LIES DONALD J. TRUMP."

Brett can continue his Humpty-Dumpty trolling for Trumpty-Dumpty. For Brett it's another photo-op.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Trump has now withdrawn from a free trade agreement, frozen hiring in most of the federal bureaucracy and is set to reverse government decisions to stop pipeline construction.

The latter two acts are the opposite of fascist.

However, fascists were protectionist. Does opposing TPP make Trump, Sanders and Clinton fascists?
 

No one wants you to "stay silent," so go right ahead. I appreciate SL opening comments and disagree with him in various respects.

How many riots did the side you were talking about being fascist engage in? Yes, 2016 was a year of riots, but particularly, it was a year of political riots, carried out by Democrats.

I provided a definition of "fascism" -- a term I personally wouldn't choose here any more than "sociopath" though there are aspects of it there -- and "rioting" wasn't what I personally focused upon. You are the one hyping that up though yes some Democrats spoke about violent rhetoric and specific instances of action. Even they didn't hype "riots" as such from what I recall.

The concern there was his usage of violent rhetoric and language (including talk about how he'd defend people charged), which yet again, unlike other typical Republican candidates and Sanders/Clinton, he was particularly a concern in so doing by a range of people across the ideological spectrum.

So, I wasn't actually talking about riots much in that context. What I noted was that as a whole there simply was not some notable amount of "riots" in the last year to say that. I noted that it's fine to challenge people for saying absolutist things like people on the left "never" do this or that. But, even there, you exaggerate the instances.

The instances on 1/20 were not "riots" which we had over the years. The word has a meaning and you are abusing it. "Democrats" as a whole didn't "loot" etc. even if specific instances among millions of people can be cited, just like among many anti-abortion protests or whatever, some cross the line.

My comments about the PPACA hold.
 

Like I suggested above, it's a Chinese menu; Your position on one of these doesn't commit your position on another, being an America first protectionist doesn't imply you're going to open up concentration camps.
 

Saw something elsewhere that makes the contractor stuff a bit ironic.

"has signed an executive order freezing all federal government hiring except for the military, making good on a promise from his campaign"

Only one of the orders seems to be available online at this point, but someone noted that usual thing that happens here is that it is determined that something needs to be done. So contractors are used to fill the gap, which costs more money in the long run though it looks better on the books. Trump might have been influenced by his past practice here. Anyway, surely, only the military will have additional hiring needs. Sad. What about the personnel needed to address Obama initiatives?
 

So, you're simply going to deny there's any significance to Democrats rioting, and Republicans not rioting.

I really doubt you'd take that stance if it had been Trump supporters attacking people outside Hillary's rallies.
 

Like I suggested above, it's a Chinese menu; Your position on one of these doesn't commit your position on another, being an America first protectionist doesn't imply you're going to open up concentration camps.

Given how you exaggerate when you use language, the idea "fascist" or some other term only works if taken to extremes is among other things amusing.
 

Joe: So contractors are used to fill the gap, which costs more money in the long run though it looks better on the books.

The Feds have shifted to contractors for decades for just this reason.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

So, you're simply going to deny there's any significance to Democrats rioting, and Republicans not rioting.

My concern here is some sort of political rioting that is "Democratic" in particular such some things done in 1/20 that yes I don't think reached the level of "rioting." I "simply" NEVER focused on "rioting" as the issue here for Trump. I provided a definition of "fascism" (since that is the subject) and "rioting" was not the issue there either. It's what you want to hype on, not me.

Over and over again, I explained my concern there. And, yes, will continue to deny, unlike Trump, other presidential candidates (and I didn't just say "Democratic" here) acted like he did in respect to violent rhetoric there. If we want to move on from simply partisan stuff, things like Black Lives Matter had a few incidents (moving beyond outliers), but I wouldn't even call that 'year of the riot' stuff. And, as I have noted in the past, conservatives have their violent and lawbreaking components such as radicals in the anti-abortion movement.

I really doubt you'd take that stance if it had been Trump supporters attacking people outside Hillary's rallies.

I stand by my record in answer to such a biased caricature including repeatedly critiquing Sandy Levison's comments here as at least somewhat overblown.
 

Query: Were the high number of opiod users in states won by Trump influenced by Rush Limbaugh's rush from such? Can Rush take credit for inspiring those supporters of Trump, America's first PG* President?

* Access Hollywood tapes
 

Brett/Joe:

Violence for the sake of general terror or to intimidate specific political opponents is a totalitarian tool which is hardly limited to fascists. Socialists and progressives also have a long history of such violence. The Nazis rose to power during a low grade civil war between socialist and fascist gangs in Germany. Black Lives Matter, and to a lesser extend Anti-Trump groups, have regularly engaged in assault, vandalism and looting over the past year or so.

Classical liberals or libertarians do not have a similar history. Tea Party groups peacefully assembled, made speeches, waved flags and signs, then cleaned up after themselves.

This distinction is less partisan than it is ideological.
 

"My concern here is some sort of political rioting that is "Democratic" in particular such some things done in 1/20 that yes I don't think reached the level of "rioting.""

Trying to parse that, and apparently you're denying that the couple hundred people arrested in DC on 1/20 smashing windows and setting fire to things were engaged in "rioting", on some basis or other that's not clear. Perhaps that they somehow meant well, and that makes all the difference?

Sure looked like a riot to me. Looked like a riot to federal prosecutors, too.

Honestly, I think you're embarrassing yourself a bit here, denying that masses of people going about smashing, setting fires, and looting don't constitute "rioting".
 

I said a lot of things and you are yet again latching on to a limited thing, which shows that it's easier to do that than in depth explain multiple aspects of things without in some fashion using language that could be better phrased.

The post is about "fascism" and how this applies to Trump. I have explained myself here, including in respect to his support of violence rhetoric, including by dog whistling. Not that is the ONLY part of "fascism" here, which I pointed out by actually defining the term. The proper discussion of the events on 1/20 doesn't change any of this & the article cited regarding the numbers on 1/21 underline the norm regarding "Democrats" or "the left" here as much as anything else.

So, if "riot" is how a few hundred of "hundreds of thousands of protesters" should be labeled, fine enough. I also cited the Black Lives Matter protests that in a few cases in limited cases reached that point. I can also cite how right leaning types seized control of federal property and other example without making it typical of "the right" in general.

Personally, the term has a visual image that goes beyond what happened on 1/20, but it's not essential the points I'm making, however you want to latch on to it.
 

SPAM I AM! provides advice:

"Brett/Joe:

Violence for the sake of general terror or to intimidate specific political opponents is a totalitarian tool which is hardly limited to fascists. "

Check out the comments thread for Gerard's last post for comments by our own Brettbart (the "unBreit") for their proposed violence, including SPAM's "armed revolution." Over the years Brettbart (the "unBreit") have played the 2nd A threats similar to those proposed by Trump during his campaign, that their side have the guns and military experience (but hopefully not on opiods).
 

I imagined that Trump at his Inauguration might have used Paul Anka's "My Way" to laud his campaign, closing with:

"I did it con way."

Yes, there's a double entendre of sorts.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

Removing a government infringing on our liberties is a right recognized by the Declaration of Independence and a duty for those of us sworn to defend the Constitution and anyone else who believes in liberty.

Terrorizing civilians ranges from a common crime to a war crime depending on the circumstances.
 

Sandy:

A third of Californians (no word of how many included the 6% of the population made up of illegal aliens) now support secession.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-california-secession-idUSKBN1572KB
 

Where in the text of the Constitution is SPAM I AM!'s position:

"Removing a government infringing on our liberties is a right recognized by the Declaration of Independence and a duty for those of us sworn to defend the Constitution and anyone else who believes in liberty."

spelled out? The D of I was not incorporated into the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. Hell (5-4, 2008) does not support SPAM's position. We've gone over this in the past at this Blog and eventually SPAM has conceded that the Constitution does not support his position. Armed revolution that fails is treason. Maybe Spam thinks he'll be lucky but that Glock in his Jock might just go off there with manhood consequences.

[Note: In a comment by SPAM in Gerard's last post, SPAM attributed something to Mr. W something I said. Moderation did not provide an opportunity to correct this.]

 

Shag:

The Constitution sets out our liberties and the limits on government which make them possible. Defending the Constitution by definition includes defending our liberties from and enforcing those limits of power on the government.
 

Perhaps SPAM I AM! can cite a case arising under the Constitution to back up his position that:

"Removing a government infringing on our liberties is a right recognized by the Declaration of Independence and a duty for those of us sworn to defend the Constitution and anyone else who believes in liberty."

Point to text in the Constitution.

 

Shag:

Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home