Sometimes it is a drag being correct

[Dill]

(06-05-2019, 09:06 AM)Beaker Wrote: Trumps election was based more on the pretense that he was not  Washington insider and would do things differently, along with the fact that Hillary was viewed as a terrible business as usual alternative. In other words is was more about change than nationalism. And his tendencys are more about stupidity and entitlement than authoritarianism. He is a spoiled rich person who has always gotten his way and thinks he can bull his way to what he wants in the Presidency like he did when surrounded by yes men in business.

If you provide links to these well respected scholars who label his tendencies proto-fascist, I'm am sure you will find them to likely be heavily left leaning. There are actually very few, if any, parallels in Trumps rise and current running of the office to those of the fascist dictators of the early part if the last century. So no, I am not simply dismissing those calls of fascism off handedly. I see them as ridiculous based upon actual comparisons both during Trump's ascendancy and his running of the office.

A person who can "bull his way to what he wants" and surrounds himself with yes men would certainly be exhibiting authoritarian tendencies, as any political scientists left or right would agree.

Just a quick question here, Beak:

Trump's advocacy of a border wall and emphasis on crimes committed by "illegals,"

his call to "get rid of judges" that oppose his immigration policy,

his declaration of national emergency to get around legislative opposition to his border policy,

his push for a "ban on all Muslims entering the US,"

his promise to protect US citizens from "socialism,"

his efforts to undermine, control and intimidate the free press ("enemy of the people"), along with national intel/law enforcement agencies, amidst construction of an alternative reality which casts doubt on national intel/law enforcement and the integrity of the election process,

and his efforts to use law enforcement against political opponents defined as "treasonous" and stated desire to jail them,

his claim that "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation," 

his claim we should have "kept the oil" and insistence Nukes must be "on the table" during international confrontations,

his desire to bring back waterboarding,

his purge of advisors who speak truth to power,

his manifest misogyny,

his appointment of unqualified but LOYAL family members to key political positions

his and their profiting from government office--

I think all would agree this is "doing things differently" compared to previous presidents.  But do you see all this as more about the "stupidity and entitlement" of a "spoiled rich person" than about authoritarianism?

Or to phrase this another way, would any historian or political scientist, right or left, see this as more the action of a spoiled rich person, or more the kind of behavior they see in authoritarian leaders they study, ranging from Mussolini to Edogan to Putin? 

If we were talking about how the leader of a developing country, say the recently resigned president of Kazahkstan, would political scientists see his attack on the press, appointment of family members, targeting of religious/ethnic minorities, and comfort with torture, primarily as evidence of this leader's "spoiled rich" upbringing or a pattern of behavior they see in dictators the world over, past and present? Would only "left-leaning" scholars be more likely to see it that way?

Second question, if Trump clearly doesn't exhibit "proto-fascist" tendencies, could you perhaps list 3 or 4 items/behaviors that would count as proto-fascist to any historian or political scientist researching authoritarian politics? E.g. misogyny and scapegoating of minorities?

It would help others see how far off target those who accuse Trump of proto-fascism really are.