Parallels with Fascism: Demagoguery and the Gullible

Respectfully, viva la France.

 

What is your selective obsession on fascism? Do you not find communism just as destructive? Obviously, communists, and their sympathizers prefer their totalitarianism to other forms of totalitarianism despite the fact it is still "Totalitarianism".

 

If you want to discuss communism, don't hesitate to start a thread on it. This thread is about a specific article, and its commentary on what the author sees as a trend in the United States; it has nothing to do with communism. It appears that you're attempting to derail the thread by bringing communism up. It also appears that you don't have anything to contribute to the actual discussion.

 

I know why you started this thread, and it has much more to do with insulting Donald Trump than anything else, so you can go ahead and play your puerile games, but you don't fool me! Besides that, this nation is far closer to tyranny, and it is because of people like you, Theodore, IQless1, and millions of other fanciful idealists. Sorry.

 

So, apparently you believe yourself to be a mind reader. The evidence indicates that is a false belief.

You've posted empty rhetoric and unsubstantiated accusations, you've attempted to derail the thread, but you've offered no genuine attempt to address the topic of this thread, nor given any indication that you bothered to read the article in the OP. You fit right in here at Partisan Lines; I'm glad you found a place that's congenial to your approach to discussion.

 

Okay, I will read what you linked to now that we both made such a big deal of it, then I will respond afterwards in my honest observation.

 

For me the most interesting takeaways from the article were the "symbiosis between man and mob", and the recognition that ordinary people can become monsters or, if not monsters, enablers of monsters.

As the article points out, Donald Trump personifies the con man who knows his mark. What sets him apart is the lack of constraints or barriers regarding what he says and how he interacts with his audience. He’s not dependent on others and their opinions for money, his views are not tempered by the constraints of office; he is able to voice insane opinions and make insane promises without the sort of consequences or fallout that would have any moderating effect on him. When he talks about what he would do as president it’s clear that he either doesn’t understand the system, which I doubt, or he feels that the current realities don't apply to him and he can somehow transform the system into pretty much whatever he wants it to be.

And of course, the crowd loves it. There are a lot of people out there who for various reasons are not all that crazy about "the system" as they currently see it. Trump’s particular constituency is people who think that the cultural dominance and economic and social privileges they assume as their birthright as White, native-born Americans are being stripped away in favor of lesser beings and incompatible ideologies. Trump articulates this in brutal terms and provides his supporters with focus and with a common language, without which a mob is simply a mob.

It’s not drawing a moral equivalence between Trump and Hitler to say that they take a similar demagogic approach. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the results will be the same. Like Trump, Hitler also despised or dismissed the system and once in power either dismantled or ignored those aspects of it he found inconvenient. He was able to do this with the support of many and the acquiescence of many more. It is by no means certain that a President Trump would be able to do the same thing. Or, once in office, would even want to. If he somehow gets elected we can only hope that the people who voted for him will be terribly disappointed .

For now, people and monsters will have to wait.

 

I just finished reading what you linked to and there are several observations to comment on. !st, 57% of Republicans actually may, or may not support "ethnic cleansing" depending on how that term is defined. 2nd, how many Democrats support imprisoning critics of man made global warming? I recently saw a poll where I think 32% support that, so we can, once again, debate which political party supports which type of tyranny. 3rd, just because Donald Trump allegedly had written speeches of Adolph Hitler under his bed does not make him a fascist, or a sympathizer of fascism. 4th, can people be made into monsters? Yes, because so many people are exposed to tyrannies, violence, war, and many types of hard ships in virtually all societies throughout human history. So, people and our societies are fragile. How best to maintain them? With brute force? Fraud? Demagoguery? Religious oppression? Political imprisonment? Or, adhering to the bill of rights? This is what we debate. Donald Trump could be obnoxious, but would he be a fascist as president? I doubt it, but I notice Barack Obama certainly does not much adhere to the bill of rights. After all, his mentors are/were Sol Olinski, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and other communist revolutionaries, so my original observation was correct all along, regardless of your fastuous criticism of it.

 

That sounds like an interesting poll. Got a link?

 

So far you have not taken one single point in the article and addressed it in any thoughtful or meaningful way. All you are saying essentially is that the article is BS plus Obama and the Democrats do the same thing and worse so there. Can't you do any better than that?

Oh please don't forget the link to that poll that shows all those Democrats wanting to imprison people who criticize man-made global warming. I'm really interested in that one.

 

Your points are fair enough, but why need anyone respond to an absurd article to begin with? After all, that dope claimed 57% of conservatives want to, essentially wipe out anyone who looks different than them, and you don't seem bothered by that. What does that say about you, Mr smarty? Ha, ha!

 

If you seriously want me to search for it, I suppose I can entertain you, but I doubt you really care to admit Democrats support tyranny to a far greater degree than the Tea Party.

 

Here's where "the dope" got the 57% figure for those Republicans who approve of the way Mr. Trump would handle undocumented immigrants. This handling would presumably include his well documented pledge to summarily expel all 11 million of them. Click on the "filter results by" dropdown for figures for Party ID.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page...uestion_15917.xml?uuid=VrtdPFqVEeWEdXgcyYUWUg

As for your poll, I have no particular investment in or commitment to the Democratic Party so I think I will be able to deal with whatever your poll shows it as long as it appears to be valid and is properly sourced and documented. As I say, if true and supportable such a result would be interesting.

 

The first Muslim expansion into Europe occurred in the 8th century and lasted for a few hundred years. One of the heroes of the Spanish resistance who finally pushed them out was Don Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (El Cid).

 

I appreciate your willingness to do so.

Perlstein is of course referring to Trump's promise to round up and deport all the unauthorized immigrants in the US. The Department of Homeland Security says that there are 11.4 million, while Trump believes there are at least 30 million. According to Merriam-Webster's ethnic cleansing is defined as "the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity." So, while Perlstein is engaging in some hyperbole here, it's based on Trump's own statements, in which he specifically focuses on and demonizes unauthorized Mexican immigrants as drug runners, rapists and murderers. Trump's rhetoric is definitely directed at a particular ethnic minority.

Pending your production of support for your assertion, I think that what has actually been proposed pertains to the finding that certain elements in the fossil fuel industry, after accepting what climate science showed about the effects of CO2 on the climate, decided to create and fund efforts to deny the climate science results. There are some who say that this is an intentional effort to deceive which has resulted in actual harm. These people say that those who funded this allegedly harmful deception should be prosecuted. It isn't the broad "imprisoning critics of man made global warming" that you've asserted--it's a very specific element in the fossil fuel industry that is the target of this proposal. I question whether any actual harm can be proved, and it's on those who've put forward this proposal to make their case. They have a legal right to do so. Do you oppose them exercising their legal right?

Agreed, and Perlstein isn't accusing Trump of being an actual fascist. He's drawing a parallel between fascist techniques of manipulating the public and Trump's brand of over the top demagoguery.

In my opinion, if elected, Trump would have a difficult time of carrying out the ridiculous policy agenda that he's campaigning on. The article doesn't really address that though. It is a description of how Trump's campaign persona resembles certain elements of historical fascism, and how the positive response to Trump shows that there is an element within the United States that is all too willing to support that campaign persona.

I don't know what "fastuous" means, so your apparent attempt to criticize my criticism has passed me by entirely. Again, if you want to analyse the president's actions and how they've supposedly violated the Bill of Rights, why don't you start a thread about it? Meanwhile, I will be content to respond to further on-topic posts in this thread.

 

Interestingly, I just heard radio personality Glen Beck also say he believes we are headed towards fascism, so people from different political preferences recognize the same danger, but perhaps, differ on who or what factors could lead to it.

 

Are criminals now considered an ethnic minority?