3 ms·

Racism and prejudice have been hallmark behaviors of fascist regimes throughout history. Fascism itself relies on prejudice to create the in-group and the "othe

Racism and prejudice have been hallmark behaviors of fascist regimes throughout history. Fascism itself relies on prejudice to create the in-group and the "others". In fact, historians don't even fully agree on what exactly fascism encompasses. We can't simply argue that there's some taxonomy of hate with clear boundaries when it comes to fascism. It's taken many forms throughout history. Racism was inherent to the Nazi movement as we all know, it's impossible to separate their racist behavior from the rest of their "standard" fascist behavior. The two were deeply linked. The fascist movement in Italy wasn't considered racially-driven, but still relied heavily forms of prejudice to create a society tolerant of fascism. You're essentially arguing that racist and prejudicial behavior, while abhorrent, can't be universally linked with fascism, while history has shown a strong relationship between them. Of course, we can't truly know whether the actions I've listed above constitute to a fascist movement until we actually see a populist takeover. In that regard, I truly hope that I'm wrong.

ameister14 7y ago
Yes, there may be a correlation between racism and fascism but unfortunately racism and institutional racism also exist with many other forms of government. That's one of the reasons you shouldn't use it as an example of fascism. There has been no push or attempted justification for single party politics, no centralization of power unique to this president, no signs of a complete unwillingness to trade (in fact, there's a strong willingness to be interdependent as long as we 'win') Almost none of the other main signs of fascism are there. That said, it's entirely possible that they will appear in the future. Until that point, however, I'm reluctant to call this proto-fascism.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  > There has been no push or attempted justification for single party politics He's vocally questioned if the democrats are "traitors" during public speeches[0], a wild accusation even for US political discourse. > no centralization of power unique to this president Today, he proclaimed in a speech that Article 2 of the US constitution gives him the right to do whatever he wants[1]. He's spent much of his administration embroiled in scandals involving demanding loyalty from subordinates, and has been repudiated by members of his own party for acting beyond the bounds of his authority. > no signs of a complete unwillingness to trade He started a massive trade war to protest the current trade situation with some of the largest players in the global economy. Sure, it's not state capitalism, but his trade strategy directly contradicts both major parties' philosophies regarding trade and is often subject to authoritarian rhetoric. Sure, this administration doesn't meet all of the classical definitions of what past fascist regimes have looked like. He may not be making a ton of concrete progress towards consolidating power, but he makes it very clear that he sees himself as having far more power than he actually does, and often gets frustrated when he isn't able to accomplish what he wants. He clearly hates our system of government and isn't afraid to question many of the basic tenets of our democracy. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/trump-accuses-democrats-treason-market-rout.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/trump-accuses... [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-falsely-says-constitution-gives-him-unlimited-power-president-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-falsely-says-constitut...
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >He's vocally questioned if the democrats are "traitors" during public speeches[0], a wild accusation even for US political discourse. Spare me. How many people have said he should be investigated for being a Russian plant? Every one of those people is questioning if his loyalty is with Russia, or in other words if he is a traitor. >Today, he proclaimed in a speech that Article 2 of the US constitution gives him the right to do whatever he wants[1] You are interpreting his remarks as uncharitably as possible. He's not claiming he has absolute power, he's claiming that he can do whatever he wants to do that the president has the authority to do without asking anyone else first. There is nothing in Article 2 saying the president needs to get permission from someone else before exercising the powers vested in him. That's all he's saying. The context is that he's saying he could have fired Mueller if he wanted to, without asking anyone for permission.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    >He may not be making a ton of concrete progress towards consolidating power, but he makes it very clear that he sees himself as having far more power than he actually does, and often gets frustrated when he isn't able to accomplish what he wants. The problem is that this describes most Presidents, especially the last 5. Obama ordered assassinations of Americans overseas without trial, had two intelligence heads perjure themselves before Congress with no consequences and re categorized every male over 15 as an enemy combatant. Bush went to war unilaterally and had people perjure themselves before Congress with no consequences. Clinton bombed other countries and manipulated his personal political power better than anyone in 60 years. Reagan destabilized a dozen countries without congressional approval. Every one of them went far beyond their stated powers and made it clear they they saw themselves as having every right to do so.

ameister14 7y ago

Yes, there may be a correlation between racism and fascism but unfortunately racism and institutional racism also exist with many other forms of government. That's one of the reasons you shouldn't use it as an example of fascism. There has been no push or attempted justification for single party politics, no centralization of power unique to this president, no signs of a complete unwillingness to trade (in fact, there's a strong willingness to be interdependent as long as we 'win') Almost none of the other main signs of fascism are there. That said, it's entirely possible that they will appear in the future. Until that point, however, I'm reluctant to call this proto-fascism.

save_ferris 7y ago
> There has been no push or attempted justification for single party politics He's vocally questioned if the democrats are "traitors" during public speeches[0], a wild accusation even for US political discourse. > no centralization of power unique to this president Today, he proclaimed in a speech that Article 2 of the US constitution gives him the right to do whatever he wants[1]. He's spent much of his administration embroiled in scandals involving demanding loyalty from subordinates, and has been repudiated by members of his own party for acting beyond the bounds of his authority. > no signs of a complete unwillingness to trade He started a massive trade war to protest the current trade situation with some of the largest players in the global economy. Sure, it's not state capitalism, but his trade strategy directly contradicts both major parties' philosophies regarding trade and is often subject to authoritarian rhetoric. Sure, this administration doesn't meet all of the classical definitions of what past fascist regimes have looked like. He may not be making a ton of concrete progress towards consolidating power, but he makes it very clear that he sees himself as having far more power than he actually does, and often gets frustrated when he isn't able to accomplish what he wants. He clearly hates our system of government and isn't afraid to question many of the basic tenets of our democracy. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/trump-accuses-democrats-treason-market-rout.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/trump-accuses... [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-falsely-says-constitution-gives-him-unlimited-power-president-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-falsely-says-constitut...
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >He's vocally questioned if the democrats are "traitors" during public speeches[0], a wild accusation even for US political discourse. Spare me. How many people have said he should be investigated for being a Russian plant? Every one of those people is questioning if his loyalty is with Russia, or in other words if he is a traitor. >Today, he proclaimed in a speech that Article 2 of the US constitution gives him the right to do whatever he wants[1] You are interpreting his remarks as uncharitably as possible. He's not claiming he has absolute power, he's claiming that he can do whatever he wants to do that the president has the authority to do without asking anyone else first. There is nothing in Article 2 saying the president needs to get permission from someone else before exercising the powers vested in him. That's all he's saying. The context is that he's saying he could have fired Mueller if he wanted to, without asking anyone for permission.
- ameister14 7y ago
  >He may not be making a ton of concrete progress towards consolidating power, but he makes it very clear that he sees himself as having far more power than he actually does, and often gets frustrated when he isn't able to accomplish what he wants. The problem is that this describes most Presidents, especially the last 5. Obama ordered assassinations of Americans overseas without trial, had two intelligence heads perjure themselves before Congress with no consequences and re categorized every male over 15 as an enemy combatant. Bush went to war unilaterally and had people perjure themselves before Congress with no consequences. Clinton bombed other countries and manipulated his personal political power better than anyone in 60 years. Reagan destabilized a dozen countries without congressional approval. Every one of them went far beyond their stated powers and made it clear they they saw themselves as having every right to do so.