Trump and MAGA: Yes, It's Fascism
- Thread starter Huckleberry
- Start date
Words have meanings.
Fascism has a specific meaning and comes from a specific context. Merriam-Webster defines it this way: "a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition."
We can address these seriatim.
"A populist political philosophy." Trump has no discernible political philosophy at all, except exalting his own image and stroking his ego.
Trump does not "exalt the nation or the race above the individual" in any systematic way.
The United States under Trump are not centralized any more than they have been since 1865 or 1933-1945. States still exist, they perform the same functions they did heretofore. They hold elections, and, regardless of who Trump might wish to see win, the winners take office (e.g. NYC, Virginia).
Last November, we held an election in Virginia, which resulted in the election of a political leader from the opposition party, something that would not have happened in a dictatorship. Tump would have had her arrested and possibly executed.
There is no "severe economic and social regimentation," at least not in any systemic way. The economy continues to run by and large on its own, and certainly in a less regimented manner than it did in the years 1933-1945. Individuals' social interactions exist and play out largely as they have in the past. So far from there being severe regimentation, I see more chaotic behavior in the economy and peoples' social interactions.
Forcible suppression of the opposition is not happening. Democrats provide almost the majority of both houses of Congress and come November will probably form the majority. Would a dictator allow that?
Rhetorical loading. When you use the word "fascism," it conjures images of concentration camps and the deaths of millions. The use of the word "authoritarian" to describe Trump I would accept, but (a) the definition of that is even more difficult to nail down and (b) using that word might conjure the same images and emotional reactions as the f-word. It might also bring up a lot comparisons with previous presidents.
The use of this term in this case, while perhaps emotionally satisfying, is juvenile and inaccurate. It cheapens the term and, God forbid if it really does happen here, people will be desensitized to it. Citizens will say to themselves, "Hey, look, the opposition is calling the president a fascist. Big deal. They have called everyone a fascist for years."
Someone like Trump is exactly why people since 1789 have been arguing for sticking to the Constitution. The limits it places on federal power protect everyone from federal abuse. Those who advocated some small exception (one small exception at a time over the centuries) have been forging a tool that would one day be wielded by someone with whom the advocates disagreed, but the toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube at that point.
So, I reiterate my views on immigration law. If you do not like the current immigration law or how it is enforced, write your elected representatives. If you really do not like it, go out and protest peacefully and in accordance with local restrictions as to time, space, and manner. Videorecord ICE officers' actions. If and when they break the law, that video will be useful to the prosecution. Under no circumstance should protestors interfere or impede federal officers in carrying out federal immigration law. To do so is a violation of federal law and will empower the same federal law enforcement officers to arrest "protestors" for violating federal law. If law enforcement is investigating possible violations of federal law, comply with instructions from the law enforcement officers. If everyone does this, we can have democratic protests, and law and order. The two are not mutually exclusive unless we give in to loose emotional thinking like Rauch's.
Last edited:
remember folks, if it ain't from the fasci region of italy or germany, it's ackshually sparkling authoritarianism
See here is where I differentiate with some of your suggestions, most of which I agree.
Gun control, imo, was never about giving the government free reign to murder its citizens. It was about removing the motive to shoot unarmed citizens. The government cant continue to claim moral or public safety superiority by shooting unarmed citizens.
However, as we have seen, if we are armed we give the government reasonable suspicion, probable cause, motive, whatever you want to call it, to shoot armed citizens. We as citizens are never going to be able to defend ourselves with whatever level of defense we can build against the government if it feels challenged.
Peace and social tranquility and ultimately our personal liberty is not achieved with a gun. And that is coming from someone who owns several guns.
If it aint fascism, then we are just going to have to come up with a new word for what we are experiencing because it aint American, just like the Civil Rights Resistance wasn't American. Just because it doesnt line up with historical renditions doesnt mean it cant evolve.
The collective corporate greed and narcissism of a political elite divorced from the ideals our Constitution is our problem. Anti-Constitutionalism.
The collective corporate greed and narcissism of a political elite divorced from the ideals our Constitution is our problem. Anti-Constitutionalism.
Words do have meanings, but they also have ranges. Fascism is not an all or nothing condition that suddenly appears with camps and mass executions. It is a process, and scholars have long warned about its early indicators rather than waiting for the endpoint.
Your argument treats the term as invalid unless the United States already resembles a 1930s dictatorship. That sets an impossibly high bar and misunderstands how democratic erosion works. Elections can continue, opposition parties can exist, and institutions can function while norms are weakened, power is personalized, dissent is delegitimized, and executive authority is expanded.
Pointing out those patterns is not juvenile or emotionally driven. It is exactly how early warnings are supposed to work. Strong language is uncomfortable by design, but discomfort is not the same as inaccuracy.
If you prefer the term authoritarian, that is a fair semantic disagreement. But dismissing the concern because the worst outcomes have not yet occurred is not a serious rebuttal. It is an argument for waiting until it is too late.
Which is why I find what happened more troubling than what happened with Good.
If all he did was to help up a woman knocked down by ICE, and then got dog-piled by ICE, his case is worse.
I understand where you are coming from and I agree that ideally change should be able to be made by peaceful means only.
But I also think we are hard trending towards not being able to enact change through peace and being completely docile and compliant. Things keep escalating and getting worse.
ICE and the US Government is speaking in one language right now. Violence.
I’m not advocating to go looking for trouble but to start taking measures to be prepared for self defense of oneself and others.
I don’t think Alex was looking for trouble.
He was directing traffic and helping a woman while exercising his legal right to conceal carry.
ICE were the aggressors throughout the entire exchange.
They had him 100% disarmed and still just murdered him and not a single arrest has been made.
We’ve only gotten absolute Lies and what’s not being said is “The Violence and Murders will continue against even law abiding US Citizens until everyone stays in their homes while we assault, kidnap, and kill immigrants or anyone who we think looks like an immigrant”.
Last edited:
I appreciate this post. It reads a lot like something Obama would say.
As far as respecting and living by the constitution, what are your thoughts on the Emoluments Clause? Is the constitution like the bible; a big buffet where we pick and choose what we wish to consume and disregard the rest? Did Trump have to give up his
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
The Founders devised a system that divided power among three branches, separated by what I call vertical walls of separation:
.................. I.........................I
Legislative...I..... Executive....I.....Judicial
...................I ........................I
This comes straight out of Montesquieu Spirit of the Laws, which most of the Founders had read and accepted a political doctrine.
They spent way more time talking about the division of power between federal powers and state power, which I call horizontal walls of separation.
federal powers...................................................... state powers
___________.................or, just as accurately........._____________
State powers ........................................................federal powers
There were two camps: Opponents, who argued that the federal government would exercise powers not enumerated and therefore the Constitution should not be ratified, and Advocates, who countered that the Constitution was safe because the federal government would only be allowed to exercise those powers expressly delegated to it, and therefore we should ratify the Constitution. In the end, the Advocates won out.
So while the emoluments clause is important, the Founders placed much more emphasis on keeping their servant, the federal government, inside its box: mail, defense, foreign relations, immigration, and preventing one state from infringing on another state's commerce.
Last edited:
Stealing oil from another country isn't a good look either, but...
I've never heard any of the Founders or men from the early Republic complaining about a violation of the emoluments clause. Washington made a lot of money on the side during his presidency, mostly in real estate.
What I believe the Founders were aiming at with the emoluments clause was to prevent a state or some other federal department from paying him so he had divided loyalties.
Hamilton commented, "Congress can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice." (Federalist 73)
Similarly, Hamilton explained that because "[n]either the Union, nor any of its members, will be at liberty to give . . . any other emolument, the President will have no pecuniary inducement to renounce or desert the independence intended for him by the Constitution." (Federalist 73).
Washington owned Mount Vernon plantation, which generated income from crops such as wheat, corn, flax, and hemp.
He held extensive landholdings (over 52,000 acres recorded in his will) that provided rental and speculative value.
He operated what became the largest whiskey distillery in the United States at the time, producing nearly 11,000 gallons of whiskey annually by his death, which was a commercial enterprise. I would point out that during his presidency, Washington suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794), which greatly increased the value of Washington's whiskey (by restricting supply) and the value of his distillery. This elicited nary a peep from the Founders as far as I have read.
As Bill Maher famously said on the term “critical race theory” and “nationalism”…. “Words migrate with time”.
I concur. It becomes an even worse look when we've spent trillions of taxpayer dollars and cost the lives of American soldiers.
True.
I believe this is a time for clear thinking, not sloppy, emotional thinking.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Gophers QB Lindsey arrested for fake ID, alcohol- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
ESPN: Western Michigan, Toledo, Miami aim to be MACtion ...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
No. 24 Alabama Friday Matchup with Vanderbilt Moved to 12:30 p.m. CT First Pitch- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 8
-
Lemm Provides Walk-Off Homer in No. 24 Alabama’s 5-4 Win over Vanderbilt
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 2