The Bigly 2016 US Presidential Election Thread, Part XV

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
LuckyNumber7 said:
I know I'm kind of hanging on the edge of your guys' conversation here, but I don't think it's *preposterous*. There are some little check marks that are suggestive. I just think its legitimizing Donald Trump [as a fascist]. He's politically illegitimate, and has never had a political ideology. It's shortsighted to suggest he has one now.
Click to expand...

I used to agree that Trump was not a fascist, but I think it's inarguable that he has fascistic tendencies. Is he consciously a fascist? No; I agree with you that he lacks any stable political ideology. But do a lot of his statements and behaviours line up with those of fascists, or legitimise fascist tendencies? I think so.

Dave brought up the relationship between fascism and democracy, and of course Trump has not openly embraced the anti-democracy of many fascists. But those very fascists often used democratic systems, and Trump's consistent undermining of the peaceful functioning of the electoral system - calling the result rigged, promoting voter intimidation, suggesting his rival's candidacy is illegitimate, proposing to throw said rival in prison - is straight out of the fascist playbook.

And, of course, fascism itself is a rather nebulous ideology that often lacks a consistent policy basis from movement to movement, period to period. I'd say three of its defining qualities are the idealisation of a traditional past ("Make America Great Again"!), violently exclusionary rhetoric against multiple out groups, and a self-aggrandising, ego-driven lust for power as an end in itself. Recall numerous fascists keeping their actual policy under their hats, or making it up on the fly, as they worked to attain power and then came to grips with using it. It can be hard to distinguish some expressions of fascism from other forms of authoritarianism and populism.

I also think there is too great a tendency to see fascism solely through the lens of Nazism (and for many people to reduce Nazism to a few specific events/outcomes/individuals, which is why it is so hard now to raise relevant comparisons to Nazism when they occur), when in fact its expressions in Britain, Spain, Italy, and Romania, to pick some examples, were quite distinct from that. Romanian fascism really is quite something, by the way.

coolian2 said:
CwTUJP3UcAEfYL8.jpg


Crooked Hillary
Click to expand...

Crooked Hillary is not just obsessed with money, BUT IS ON ACTUAL MONEY!!!! BIG BIZNEZZ!!!! PAY TO PLAY!!!!!!
 
As it turns out, Melania Trump worked in the US without a work visa.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Axver said:
Dave brought up the relationship between fascism and democracy, and of course Trump has not openly embraced the anti-democracy of many fascists. But those very fascists often used democratic systems, and Trump's consistent undermining of the peaceful functioning of the electoral system - calling the result rigged, promoting voter intimidation, suggesting his rival's candidacy is illegitimate, proposing to throw said rival in prison - is straight out of the fascist playbook.
Click to expand...

you're right that fascists have no issue working within the democratic system in order to gain power (as seen in both germany and italy), but in every case in history it has also been with the help of a strong paramilitary force. even before the election of 1933 there were brownshirts marching around with guns in the streets all over germany.

that's another fundamental part of fascism - military style organisation and hierarchy down to the most basic levels of society, with the goal of being able to mobilize the entire population, military and civilian, like a massive state army. where everyone has to join the party and go to military training for a month or two a year, send their kids on weekends to hitler youth camp, that kind of stuff. don't wanna do that? maybe your family gets followed around and everything you do snitched out by your loyal (and handsomely rewarded) neighbours, and you all disappear some day.

surely nobody thinks donald trump either wants that or is even capable of having such influence on american society to even come close to changing it that much. any modern version of something that would militarize america to this kind of point would necessarily be a completely new and absolutely nightmarish ideology in itself, brought about by changes in america that somebody as brainless as trump could never dream of making.

edit: i'm beating this horse to death. that's enough. fascism sucks. donald trump sucks. wayyy different things though.
 
Last edited:
Fascism was strongly against individualism whereas Trump's agenda privileges the individual above all. That's probably the most fundamental difference between the ideologies.
 
DaveC said:
you're right that fascists have no issue working within the democratic system in order to gain power (as seen in both germany and italy), but in every case in history it has also been with the help of a strong paramilitary force. even before the election of 1933 there were brownshirts marching around with guns in the streets all over germany.

that's another fundamental part of fascism - military style organisation and hierarchy down to the most basic levels of society, with the goal of being able to mobilize the entire population, military and civilian, like a massive state army. where everyone has to join the party and go to military training for a month or two a year, send their kids on weekends to hitler youth camp, that kind of stuff. don't wanna do that? maybe your family gets followed around and everything you do snitched out by your loyal (and handsomely rewarded) neighbours, and you all disappear some day.

surely nobody thinks donald trump either wants that or is even capable of having such influence on american society to even come close to changing it that much. any modern version of something that would militarize america to this kind of point would necessarily be a completely new and absolutely nightmarish ideology in itself, brought about by changes in america that somebody as brainless as trump could never dream of making.

edit: i'm beating this horse to death. that's enough. fascism sucks. donald trump sucks. wayyy different things though.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. I would contend, however, that the role of militia in the US provides something of an echo or twist on this pattern. It obviously lacks the same degree of influence or penetration into society, and exists without formal connections to Trump or large-scale co-ordination by anyone, but it's also not as if there are heavily-armed groups coming out to support anybody else. The suggestions - even if they are hyperbole - of uprisings or insurrections if Trump doesn't win, and the promotion of the second amendment out of militaristic fantasies fits into a narrative of a form of American neo-fascism, even if this is unconscious on behalf of Trump. I don't think we should expect 2010s (neo-)fascism to perfectly resemble 1920s-30s fascism, in the same way as 2010s socialism or liberalism do not perfectly resemble their counterparts of eighty, ninety years ago.

I also worry that there is a risk in constantly portraying Trump as a buffoon; other authoritarian and fascist leaders were similarly seen as figures of fun/stupidity by their rivals.

In any case, I think we agree more than we disagree, but I definitely would not say Trump and fascism are "wayyy different". I think it's valid and accurate to say he demonstrates fascistic qualities and tendencies; even if he is not a full-blown or self-conscious fascist, he is essentially a fellow traveller with those who are fascists, much like his relationship with white nationalists.
 
LemonMelon said:
Fascism was strongly against individualism whereas Trump's agenda privileges the individual above all. That's probably the most fundamental difference between the ideologies.
Click to expand...

Trump's rhetoric is so damn incoherent that he jumps effortlessly from greed-is-good individualism to vast sweeping collective statements and pitting groups against each other. It's quite something.
 
LemonMelon said:
Fascism was strongly against individualism whereas Trump's agenda privileges the individual above all. That's probably the most fundamental difference between the ideologies.
Click to expand...



Or, could be the difference between European 20th century fascism and a 21st century American style new-fascism. I think there are important differences that have been pointed out, but I also don't think it's a static thing -- it can morph and mutate in order to fit different cultures.

Or, Trump's explicitly white nationalist sympathies may snowball into something much more culturally cohesive further down the road.
 
in a doctrinal sense, the individualist, especially a very rich one (who isn't so easy to eliminate) is quite literally the enemy of the state. someone in it to make money for themselves should be eliminated immediately and their wealth used by the state to advance its interests alone. that person's only other option is to use their wealth to become a part of the ruling council, again strictly in the interests of the state above all.
 
Axver said:
This is a good point. I would contend, however, that the role of militia in the US provides something of an echo or twist on this pattern. It obviously lacks the same degree of influence or penetration into society, and exists without formal connections to Trump or large-scale co-ordination by anyone, but it's also not as if there are heavily-armed groups coming out to support anybody else. The suggestions - even if they are hyperbole - of uprisings or insurrections if Trump doesn't win, and the promotion of the second amendment out of militaristic fantasies fits into a narrative of a form of American neo-fascism, even if this is unconscious on behalf of Trump. I don't think we should expect 2010s (neo-)fascism to perfectly resemble 1920s-30s fascism, in the same way as 2010s socialism or liberalism do not perfectly resemble their counterparts of eighty, ninety years ago.

I also worry that there is a risk in constantly portraying Trump as a buffoon; other authoritarian and fascist leaders were similarly seen as figures of fun/stupidity by their rivals.

In any case, I think we agree more than we disagree, but I definitely would not say Trump and fascism are "wayyy different". I think it's valid and accurate to say he demonstrates fascistic qualities and tendencies; even if he is not a full-blown or self-conscious fascist, he is essentially a fellow traveller with those who are fascists, much like his relationship with white nationalists.
Click to expand...




This is all really well said.
 
Axver said:
I used to agree that Trump was not a fascist, but I think it's inarguable that he has fascistic tendencies. Is he consciously a fascist? No; I agree with you that he lacks any stable political ideology. But do a lot of his statements and behaviours line up with those of fascists, or legitimise fascist tendencies? I think so.

Dave brought up the relationship between fascism and democracy, and of course Trump has not openly embraced the anti-democracy of many fascists. But those very fascists often used democratic systems, and Trump's consistent undermining of the peaceful functioning of the electoral system - calling the result rigged, promoting voter intimidation, suggesting his rival's candidacy is illegitimate, proposing to throw said rival in prison - is straight out of the fascist playbook.
Click to expand...

I don't really think that labeling Trump in one way or another is a productive exercise, but I absolutely agree that his consistent efforts to cast doubt on the democratic process are reminiscent of some worrying 20th century examples - most notably the claim of a rigged election.

Forgive me if this has been mentioned and I overlooked it, but a major characteristic of 20th century authoritarianism/fascism IMO was the use of cult of personality to manipulate government institutions toward personal ends rather than collective ones - something that is at the core of Trump's entire campaign.
 
DaveC said:
in a doctrinal sense, the individualist, especially a very rich one (who isn't so easy to eliminate) is quite literally the enemy of the state. someone in it to make money for themselves should be eliminated immediately and their wealth used by the state to advance its interests alone. that person's only other option is to use their wealth to become a part of the ruling council, again strictly in the interests of the state above all.
Click to expand...




Hasn't this, in a twisted way, become part of Trump's message? That he games the system, as a tycoon, so he alone is best positioned to stop others from gaming the system? That he doesn't pay taxes, and as a tycoon would be stupid to pay taxes, so he alone is best positioned to make sure others always pay? That he buys off politicians so he can move forward with his business projects, so he alone knows best how to help the state stop individuals such as himself from undermining what's good for the white working classes?
 
iron yuppie said:
Forgive me if this has been mentioned and I overlooked it, but a major characteristic of 20th century authoritarianism/fascism IMO was the use of cult of personality to manipulate government institutions toward personal ends rather than collective ones - something that is at the core of Trump's entire campaign.
Click to expand...

that's a very good point, although historically successful authoritarian movements took this to far greater extremes before they actually took power.

i keep referencing history like it's a sure thing to repeat (and 90% of the time it is), but i do definitely acknowledge - to my chagrin - that we could always be on the edge of something completely unprecedented.

if you asked someone in paris in 1788 what it would be like 15 years later, not a single person would have predicted it correctly. not to draw real parallels, other than to say nobody knows what the fuck is coming, really.
 
DaveC said:
i keep referencing history like it's a sure thing to repeat (and 90% of the time it is), but i do definitely acknowledge - to my chagrin - that we could always be on the edge of something completely unprecedented.

if you asked someone in paris in 1788 what it would be like 15 years later, not a single person would have predicted it correctly. not to draw real parallels, other than to say nobody knows what the fuck is coming, really.
Click to expand...

Yep. The "logical" developments and progressions only appear so in hindsight. On a more mundane level, if you'd told me in 2007 where Australian and global politics would be in 2016, I'd have just not believed you. Back then things felt fairly optimistic.

This has been a good discussion, the sort of thing of which we need more in this thread rather than the shitposting of some pages ago. In terms of finding appropriate terminology, I suspect that the sort of discontent underpinning or unleashed by movements such as those for Trump and Brexit will in the fullness of time acquire its own distinctive label rather than shoehorning "fascism", "populism", "authoritarianism", etc.
 
A propos:

http://nyti.ms/2ea62OH

The goal of totalitarian propaganda is to sketch out a consistent system that is simple to grasp, one that both constructs and simultaneously provides an explanation for grievances against various out-groups. It is openly intended to distort reality, partly as an expression of the leader’s power. Its open distortion of reality is both its greatest strength and greatest weakness

Donald Trump is trying to define a simple reality as a means to express his power. The goal is to define a reality that justifies his value system, thereby changing the value systems of his audience. Two questions remain: What is the simple reality that Trump is trying to convey? And what is the value system to which this simple story is intended to shift voters to adopt?

...

The simple picture Trump is trying to convey is that there is wild disorder, because of American citizens of African-American descent, and immigrants. He is doing it as a display of strength, showing he is able to define reality and lead others to accept his authoritarian value system.

The chief authoritarian values are law and order. In Trump’s value system, nonwhites and non-Christians are the chief threats to law and order. Trump knows that reality does not call for a value-system like his; violent crime is at almost historic lows in the United States. Trump is thundering about a crime wave of historic proportions, because he is an authoritarian using his speech to define a simple reality that legitimates his value system, leading voters to adopt it. Its strength is that it conveys his power to define reality. Its weakness is that it obviously contradicts it.

...

Denouncing Trump as a liar, or describing him as merely entertaining, misses the point of authoritarian propaganda altogether. Authoritarian propagandists are attempting to convey power by defining reality. The reality they offer is very simple. It is offered with the goal of switching voters’ value systems to the authoritarian value system of the leader.
Click to expand...

If you read Arendt, the totalitarian traits in Trump become self evident.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
BVS said:
Explain this further if you don't mind...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

DaveC extrapolated on it further a couple of posts down. We're of a similar mind on this. I also like this point:

iron yuppie said:
Forgive me if this has been mentioned and I overlooked it, but a major characteristic of 20th century authoritarianism/fascism IMO was the use of cult of personality to manipulate government institutions toward personal ends rather than collective ones - something that is at the core of Trump's entire campaign.
Click to expand...

I don't think Trump is a buffoon and I'm not sure that I ever did. I just think his "platform" is incohesive when viewed through all but a populist lens.
 
"Populism" is much too vague a label though, with varying applications. Populism in the Australasian political tradition until recently, for example, was characterised by promotion of extensive state investment and intervention to raise living standards and build/operate public works. It was a rallying cry against private wealth and the landed gentry.

So populism may describe Trump's methods, and some of the emotions or instincts to which he appeals, but by itself it doesn't capture his extremism, his ideology however inconsistent it may be, or how distinctive a break with the past his campaign is (especially democratic traditions).
 
I'm a bit concerned that populism is becoming more commonly defined as anything that isn't within the narrow confines of right-of-centre liberalism. I've seen Sanders lumped in with the term numerous times and that borders on the ridiculous.
 
It's a diluted and fairly meaningless term at this point in American history, often used as shorthand to define "revolutionaries" that want to unite people against "the system" without reaching too far outside of established boundaries. Demagogues, basically.

And no, that's not what the People's Party of the late 19th century stood for. Populism has taken a lot of turns in the past 50 years or so.
 
Last edited:
LemonMelon said:
DaveC extrapolated on it further a couple of posts down. We're of a similar mind on this. I also like this point:



I don't think Trump is a buffoon and I'm not sure that I ever did. I just think his "platform" is incohesive when viewed through all but a populist lens.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's erratic from a policy perspective but remarkably consistent in vilifying whatever group happens to be unpopular among the people he is speaking to that day.
 
Last edited:
Axver said:
This has been a good discussion, the sort of thing of which we need more in this thread rather than the shitposting of some pages ago.
Click to expand...

i know right, it's almost like something has changed around here for the better in the last couple days. :hmm: this thread in general was pretty good yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Vlad n U 2 said:
I'm a bit concerned that populism is becoming more commonly defined as anything that isn't within the narrow confines of right-of-centre liberalism. I've seen Sanders lumped in with the term numerous times and that borders on the ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I can understand it, especially when "populism" is understood as the mobilisation of somewhat nebulous grievances through mass rallies. Sanders definitely presented a "socialism lite" (in the sense of American political discourse) that offered something attractive to everybody in the hall, things to make them stand up and cheer. I don't mean to sell him short, and I do not think the label is accurate, but I can see how it came to be applied, and how Sanders and Trump came to be viewed as the populists of their respective camps with their energetic rallies and bold statements.

But geez if packing in audiences at rallies and exciting them with effective catchphrases is now the hallmark of populism, the term is utterly useless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
51 52 53
Replies
2K
Views
63K
DaveC
DaveC
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
The Final Countdown - U2 at Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part 3
18 19 20
Replies
574
Views
25K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
clerks
Second Favorite Artist
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Sicy
Sicy
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom