The Fight Against Fascists (I Can't Believe This Exists)

[Dill]

(06-08-2021, 12:37 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: By this definition https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism

noun
(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Every box but one is checked. He has claimed total authority in the past and throwing out democratic election results and taking power would put him in the dictator category. He has forcibly suppressed opposition and his followers help him suppress criticism. His entire shtick is aggressive nationalism and he dabbles with the racism. He cares about money more than anything but himself so if given more time I'm sure he would be interested in exerting more control over certain areas of the economy to enrich himself, especially something like social media so he could force feed you with his propaganda.

But you are right though. I guess I will just have to call him a half-ass fascist. Like almost everything else he does other than being a conman, he was a failure.

Nati, that's not really a complete definition. There are some more "boxes." 

E.g., Most scholars/historians of fascism would agree that strong anti-feminism and hyper-masculinity are essential to fascist ideolology. (well, ok, Trump definitely checks that one.) 

There is hostility to a free press. (Trump check there too.)

Also, fascism is a "spiritual" ideology which eschews commercialism and material reward, emphasizing sacrifice and willingness to accept pain and deprivation, as well as willingness to dish it out. That's why fascist ideology emphasizes "spiritual" and "national renewal" over personal pursuit of wealth. Trump may be willing to sacrifice others, for sure ("Tell us about it" our Kurdish allies might reply, along with Jeff Sessions), but he is not preaching sacrifice to his followers. Fascism makes a fetish of sacrificial death in service to the state/nation. 

Fascism is anti-bourgeois, especially when that comes in liberal democratic form, where the business of the state is "merely" to protect property and individual rights. "The fascist state is totalitarian" Mussolini wrote, meaning it is the national expression of a people's "spirit" and "destiny." In practice this meant erasing the liberal/bourgeois distinction between state and civil society. 

Even if Trump became a dictator, I don't see much "ideology" in him beyond narcissistically spreading the Trump brand, wanting people to envy his gold toilets and trophy wife and "genius."  He does not see himself embodying the "destiny of his people" or some such. 

Finally, his "aggressive nationalism" is not really the required type, as his conception of the state isn't really fascist. E.g., it is not expansionist, not an end itself, not spiritual, not militarized (despite his selective support for law and order).

[Dill]

(06-08-2021, 11:19 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: If this is an example of fascism (questioning election results) then can we at least agree that Stacy Abrahams has engaged in fascist types of behavior, albeit at a lower level?

No, not without proof.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-08-2021, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: No, not without proof.

Not sure I follow.  Are you asking for proof that Stacy Abramas engangd similar behavior? (I'll find it if you really want but I don't know how anyone could be unware of it)

It's been said or implied that Trump's questioning of the election results, and his behavior that followed, is/was an example of fascist types of behavior.

All I'm asking if these things are true for Trump, by this example alone, can we not also apply that same thinking to Stacy Abrams?  Can we say her actions were a "threat to democracy"?

If not, why not?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2021, 12:48 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Not sure I follow.  Are you asking for proof that Stacy Abramas engangd similar behavior? (I'll find it if you really want but I don't know how anyone could be unware of it)

It's been said or implied that Trump's questioning of the election results, and his behavior that followed, is/was an example of fascist types of behavior.

All I'm asking if these things are true for Trump, by this example alone, can we not also apply that same thinking to Stacy Abrams?  Can we say her actions were a "threat to democracy"?

If not, why not?

I don't envy you the Pandora's Box you are now opening.  Just don't say you weren't warned.   

[Dill]

(06-08-2021, 10:40 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I also question just how conservative they are because they all held jobs like "campaign manager" "consultant" and "political operative" which doesn't necessarily tell me a whole lot about their beliefs just their profession.  Someone like Roy Kohn comes to mind, who worked with McCarthy, when I'm trying to determine if they're actually conservative or not, or if they just go where they money takes them. 

In your view, is Trump conservative? 

Roy Cohn was one of Trump's mentors, wasn't he? 

He worked with McCarthy AND Trump. And he is not famous for going where the money takes him, but for teaching his students how to deflect accusations by accusing potential accusers first--i.e., accuse THEM of what YOU are doing. (Could we find an example of Trump doing that?) 

The Lincoln Project's stand against Trump doesn't seem to be much about money. 

Why wouldn't sticking with Trump take them where the money is? 

Clearly there are political risks in NOT going with Trump, as some Republican leaders in the Senate and House quickly discovered after 1/6

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-08-2021, 12:56 PM)Dill Wrote: In your view, is Trump conservative? 

Roy Cohn was one of Trump's mentors, wasn't he? 

He worked with McCarthy AND Trump. And he is not famous for going where the money takes him, but for teaching his students how to deflect accusations by accusing potential accusers first--i.e., accuse THEM of what YOU are doing. (Could we find an example of Trump doing that?) 

The reason I used to Roy Cohn in an example of "going where the money is" is because his private life differed greatly from his public life.  On the surface level you might see him as a staunch conservative when in reality that is highly unlikley.

He also represented Steve Rubell, the owner of Studio 54.  It's been awhile since I've seen the documentary but I seem to recall some pictures being shown of Cohn hobnobbing with celebrities with glitter on his face.  Fwiw, Cohn was a gay man who was known to have numerous boyfriends, and who ultimately died of AIDS.

Now, I don't want to use his sexuality, or some of the people he associated with as definitive proof that he wasn't actually conservative.  But I do think it's safe to assume, especially given the time and some of the people he surrounded himself with, that he was a lot of different than some of his political affliations would lead you to believe.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-08-2021, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: No, not without proof.

Dill, not sure if you saw my reply or not.  What proof would you like for me to provide in regards to Stacy Abrams?

[CJD]

Eh, I mean it's definitely cringey, especially from a bunch of Republicans like the Lincoln project. I sincerely doubt they actually support Antifa. They have been gesturing towards the racists and white supremacists in the Republican party for decades now. Now that those racists/white supremacists/Nazis/fascists have taken over the party via Trump, they suddenly don't like it? Give me a break.

They're just pissed that they lost control of the people that they've been using for so many years.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2021, 04:06 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Eh, I mean it's definitely cringey, especially from a bunch of Republicans like the Lincoln project. I sincerely doubt they actually support Antifa. They have been gesturing towards the racists and white supremacists in the Republican party for decades now. Now that those racists/white supremacists/Nazis/fascists have taken over the party via Trump, they suddenly don't like it? Give me a break.

They're just pissed that they lost control of the people that they've been using for so many years.

I don't think it's accurate or fair at all to say that the GOP has been taken over by "racists/white supremacists/Nazis/fascists".  

[CJD]

(06-08-2021, 04:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think it's accurate fair at all to say that the GOP has been taken over by "racists/white supremacists/Nazis/fascists".  

You don't think Trump and his cronies control the GOP at the moment?

[Dill]

(06-08-2021, 01:38 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: The reason I used to Roy Cohn in an example of "going where the money is" is because his private life differed greatly from his public life.  On the surface level you might see him as a staunch conservative when in reality that is highly unlikley.

He also represented Steve Rubell, the owner of Studio 54.  It's been awhile since I've seen the documentary but I seem to recall some pictures being shown of Cohn hobnobbing with celebrities with glitter on his face.  Fwiw, Cohn was a gay man who was known to have numerous boyfriends, and who ultimately died of AIDS.

Now, I don't want to use his sexuality, or some of the people he associated with as definitive proof that he wasn't actually conservative.  But I do think it's safe to assume, especially given the time and some of the people he surrounded himself with, that he was a lot of different than some of his political affliations would lead you to believe.

Hey, thanks for the response, clarification, Wes.

A few quick points here.

1. One can be "gay" and "conservative" at the same time, even though many (social) conservatives are not down with diversity.
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/11/09/gay-conservatives-get-small-victory-lgbtq-vote-goes-61-biden-28-trump/
One can even support Trump as a gay conservative.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-pride-gay-republicans-why-they-re-backing-president-n1243469
Are you familiar with the "lavender scare"? Cohn was not against outing gays, or accusing people of being gay, to achieve political ends.

2. Also regarding Cohn--while all conservatives are on the political right, not all right wingers are conservative. E.g., fascists embrace rapid technological change and uprooting/replacing traditional political institutions as soon as they are in power. That is the opposite of conservative.

3. Was the member of a Jewish anti-communist organization, and chose to support and advise Nixon and Reagan. His "private life" includes a friendship, then partnership, with the notorious Roger Stone. If he worked for a Dem mayorial campaign that wouldn't surprise me, but it wouldn't confirm ideological neutrality or simply a desire for money. When he could choose, all other things being equal, he chose right. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2021, 04:13 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You don't think Trump and his cronies control the GOP at the moment?

No.  Nor do I think that anyone who supports Trump is automatically any of those things.  

[CJD]

(06-08-2021, 04:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No.  Nor do I think that anyone who supports Trump is automatically any of those things.  

To the former, I guess we'll find out in 2022 and 2024. I hope you're right that Trump is just a fringe part of the party. The house removing Cheney from power isn't a good sign of that though.

To the latter, sure. I won't pass judgment on every Trump supporter. People vote certain ways for various reasons. But the racists/fascists/Nazis/White supremacists are definitely getting their checklist with Trump, whether the people voting for him want that or not.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-08-2021, 04:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: To the latter, sure. I won't pass judgment on every Trump supporter. People vote certain ways for various reasons. But the racists/fascists/Nazis/White supremacists are definitely getting their checklist with Trump, whether the people voting for him want that or not.

Curious, can you give me some examples of what one might find on a Fascist/Nazi/White Supremacist checklist?

[Dill]

(06-08-2021, 12:48 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Not sure I follow.  Are you asking for proof that Stacy Abramas engangd similar behavior? (I'll find it if you really want but I don't know how anyone could be unware of it)

It's been said or implied that Trump's questioning of the election results, and his behavior that followed, is/was an example of fascist types of behavior.

All I'm asking if these things are true for Trump, by this example alone, can we not also apply that same thinking to Stacy Abrams?  Can we say her actions were a "threat to democracy"?

If not, why not?

Just found your response, Wes.

Remember, I am not one of the people calling Trump "fascist." And I've made clear how far below the definitional threshold Trump is, at least as far as the scholarship on fascism is concerned.

But I understand you are responding to the charge that his questioning the election results indicates fascism. Questioning election results is not in itself "fascist behavior," since such questioning is sometimes justified. Refusing to concede an election without judicable proof it was rigged, and attempting to disrupt the democratic transition of power, IS certainly authoritarian behavior, and if we call it that rather than "fascism" we don't get into the side debates. 

Now we get to Abrams. I am aware she questioned the results of her gubernatorial race in Georgia--which was run/administrated by her opponent. And that she complained of his strategic purging of voter roles before the election. All that makes a reasonable ground, at least, for questioning an election. Which she did. 

But when judicable evidence was not forthcoming, she conceded the election to her opponent.
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/668737597/georgia-facing-final-deadline-for-ballot-certification-in-governors-race

Rather than continuing to sell a "big lie" that her election was stolen and coercing state officials to "fix" the vote, she set about changing voter landscape in her state, working with other political activists to register 800,000 new voters. This is a DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE to an election loss, not evidence of authoritarianism and certainly not fascism. In consequence, the Senate shifted to Dem control and Georgia was a key to Dems winning the exec.

So my point--neither Trump and Abrams are fascist.  The former is an authoritarian leader, though, who cannot be trusted to respect rule of law. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2021, 04:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: To the former, I guess we'll find out in 2022 and 2024. I hope you're right that Trump is just a fringe part of the party. The house removing Cheney from power isn't a good sign of that though.

Cheney was removed because she wouldn't stop shooting off at the mouth.  She was overwhelmingly protected after her Yea vote for impeachment.  Is wasn't until months later when she kept bucking party leadership publicly that she got the boot.

Quote:To the latter, sure. I won't pass judgment on every Trump supporter. People vote certain ways for various reasons. But the racists/fascists/Nazis/White supremacists are definitely getting their checklist with Trump, whether the people voting for him want that or not.

And Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and the Black Panther Party would all prefer Biden to Trump.  Not that it's an identical comparison in degree, but I don't think that a policy supported by a racist such as limiting immigration, is therefore tainted as a racist policy.  Nor is the support of someone who is a bad person in any of the ways listed above an automatic indicator that the supported person is any of those things themselves.

[CJD]

(06-08-2021, 04:31 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Curious, can you give me some examples of what one might find on a Fascist/Nazi/White Supremacist checklist?

The 14 points/indicators of fascism are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections

Trump doesn't meet every condition and he doesn't perfectly hit about half of them, but he definitely trends towards basically all of them.

You can start with that, and then you can add fear of illegal (non-white) immigrants due to the "white genocide" or "white replacement" theory that white supremacists fear. The wall would be a "solution" to this fear. 

There's also his unwavering support of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, which is often popular among white supremacists.

I'm sure there are more unsavory things on that list, but Trump is at least an appetizer that I'm sure they hope leads to a full meal somewhere down the line.

[CJD]

(06-08-2021, 04:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cheney was removed because she wouldn't stop shooting off at the mouth.  She was overwhelmingly protected after her Yea vote for impeachment.  Is wasn't until months later when she kept bucking party leadership publicly that she got the boot.


And Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and the Black Panther Party would all prefer Biden to Trump.  Not that it's an identical comparison in degree, but I don't think that a policy supported by a racist such as limiting immigration, is therefore tainted as a racist policy.  Nor is the support of someone who is a bad person in any of the ways listed above an automatic indicator that the supported person is any of those things themselves.

It depends on what you consider a racist policy. A policy that was created with the intention of being racist or a policy that has consequences dependent on race.

The War on Drugs may not have been (but probably was) designed as a racist policy, but it had obvious racist results. Same with stop and frisk.

People who supported the politicians that passed and enforced those policies weren't necessarily racist, but their vote still resulted in racism.

Like I said, I wouldn't call every Trump supporter racist. But every single one of their votes led to racist results, because Donald Trump objectively emboldened racists.

[Dill]

(06-08-2021, 04:31 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Curious, can you give me some examples of what one might find on a Fascist/Nazi/White Supremacist checklist?

Wes, the internet is full of memes like this one defining fascism:



Problem is, regimes like Somoza's in Nicaragua check all these boxes without being fascist. 

The specific features common to European and Asian fascisms, at least three of which I mentioned in a post above, are not present here.

Trump checks a lot of those boxes; so does Putin, though he also has not reached the definitional threshold of fascism, as far as I'm concerned.

Still someone who checks 4 or 5, or 7 or 8 of those boxes, should not be getting a pass when we vote in leaders.

[CJD]

(06-08-2021, 04:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Wes, the internet is full of memes like this one defining fascism:



Problem is, regimes like Somoza's in Nicaragua check all these boxes without being fascist. 

The specific features common to European and Asian fascisms, at least three of which I mentioned in a post above, are not present here.

Trump checks a lot of those boxes; so does Putin, though he also has not reached the definitional threshold of fascism, as far as I'm concerned.

Still someone who checks 4 or 5, or 7 or 8 of those boxes, should not be getting a pass when we vote in leaders.

I'm not sure what the scholars on fascism say, but one term I've heard thrown around with Donald Trump a lot is "proto fascist." Basically, a politician that normalizes and trends towards certain aspects of fascism such that someone can take up the reins and potentially lead to full fascism in the future.