02-06-2017, 01:34 PM
(02-06-2017, 11:40 AM)gabrielle Wrote:Fair enough. So let me provide a link to a recent article that I thought was fair-minded for the most part.(02-05-2017, 02:06 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:
The impetus for this new thread stems from a recent article in the left-leaning The Guardian, written by a senior correspondent of the Federalist, typically a champion of conservative causes. (How's that for Left, Right?) I generally agree with his assessment, and take exception only with one of his assumptions that I have not seen support for in any poll that I'm aware of.
"Trump Is No Fascist. He Is a Champion for the Forgotten Millions"
He begins by writing--
Amid the ongoing protests against President Trump, calls for “resistance” among Democratic politicians and activists, and the overheated rhetoric casting Trump and his supporters as fascists and xenophobes, an outsider might be forgiven for thinking that America has been taken over by a small faction of rightwing nationalists.
America is deeply divided, but it’s not divided between fascists and Democrats. It’s more accurate to say that America is divided between the elites and everybody else, and Trump’s election was a rejection of the elites...
Read further at this link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/trump-not-fascist-champion-for-forgotten-millions
While I'm not saying we're living under a fascist regime--yet--I feel bound to point out that this Guardian article fails to make any argument that Trump is not a fascist. What it does do is describe the degraded conditions and morale of middle America that would cause the "forgotten millions" to fall prey to a populist con man like Donald Trump.
"Democracy is fragile: learning from history"
http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/ro...id=2948348
Let me state again for the record that the worst label that seemed applicable to Donald Trump as he was running for office was that of proto-fascist. Some political pundits went further than that: former investigative reporter Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame was joined by Andrew Sullivan, a conservative commentator, in calling Trump a neo-fascist. (And, yes, there is a difference, though those opposed to Trump may say that's a difference without a distinction.)
I'm not too sure I hold by my earlier characterization of Trump. He strikes me more as a right-wing nationalist, perhaps even a hyper-nationalist. I would be more concerned if--as a political theme--he began making naked appeals for a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry. That would make him a fellow traveler with emergent ethno-nationalist parties in Europe.
I actually thought there was more of a danger of Trump becoming some brand of fascist if he had been denied the rightful nomination by means of Republican establishment chicanery. That coupled with a second Clinton era overwhelmed by another (hypothetical) financial meltdown, might have galvanized his loyal supporters into a forming a viable third party movement with patently fascistic tendencies. I don't think fascism is truly possible here in America until we're confronted by a meta-crisis on a scale that confronted Weimar Germany. We've experienced nothing like that--so far.
I consider Robert O. Paxton the foremost scholar of fascism. His book The Anatomy of Fascism should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand how fascism takes hold (by stages) in a fragile democracy. Paxton has granted several interviews in the past year on the subject of whether or not Trump is a fascist. Paxton basically says, "We're not there yet," but he does sound increasingly concerned, as am I. I'm vigilant but not hyper-vigilant. As always, attention must be paid.
I would take issue slightly with your characterization of Trump as a "con man." If he delivers on his promises, and especially if they truly benefit the "forgotten millions," I hardly see how that makes him con man. That would make him true to his word.