Steve Bannon.

[Dill]

(02-15-2017, 08:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In order for this to be a Fascist Authoritarian government, we'd need to basically toss out the Parliament. That's never going to happen, so we can never achieve that status that you are talking about.

Plain and Simple, Workplaces are Authoritarian, boss tells you want to do, this is the persona that Trump is, but he also understands the system, laws and obviously tries to follow them, else his "ban" wouldn't have been so complex. He would've simply stated no more Muslims allowed and been done with it.

Reaganism, Thatcherism and now Trumpism, all have many fascist ideas and similarities and are being called Fascism, even though they are operating in a political environment where democratic representation is/was maintained. The original concept has been twisted by rhetorical abuse over time to fit what ever the leader in question is doing that is remotely similar in an effort to politically assassinate them.

The Nazi movement was "fascist" when it came to power WITH A PARLIAMENT, as was Italian Fascism. Parties and leaders can be fascist well before governments. So we could certainly have a fascist leader without a fascist government. That is the issue for most people concerned about Trump.

Not all workplaces are "authoritarian." And Trump does not understand how the law works, which is why he muffed his "ban."  E.g., he did not run his executive order by his own AG first or the agencies affected like the State Department.

Reagan and Thatcher were neoliberals, never especially close to fascism in their own countries, though some may have called them that in sloppy way of labeling common in the U.S., where "fascism" means basically policies one doesn't like. No one ever paid much attention to the label--until Trump was elected.