9 ms·

Well met > Franklin Roosevelt’s words of November 4,1938, are worth recalling:I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move for

Well met > Franklin Roosevelt’s words of November 4,1938, are worth recalling:I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move for-ward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot ofour citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land. A very interesting quote that should be taken seriously today. Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle, and in the last 20 years 'working' across the aisle has become a meme rather than a reality. We just impeached the same president twice, and congress has a what, single digit approval rating? Earlier in this essay the author states that a disaffected middle class can lead to fascism but I don't think he nailed why. I think it is this: When people stop believing democracy can function, they readily look for alternatives.

Florin_Andrei 6y ago
> Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle Maybe the current instance of the government. But as for the idea of government in general, the opinions are sharply different across the aisle.
- calvinmorrison 6y ago
  The less effective the status quo is, the more willing people are to try radical approaches, be it technology, politics, dieting, etc. In my own small world of political banter, the number of people who have floated, or not disagreed with the concept of balkanizing the U.S.A is astounding. When I grew up, America was the greatest country in the world, and now my friends say - well we tried. Maybe balkanization would be easier since nobody can seem to agree on a damn thing, not even the budget! The farther apart the two sides of the political sphere, the less the work together to actually produce tangible results for the average American, the less happy and healthy the average American - the more likely we as Americans are to support a scrapping of it all and supporting Communism, Anarchism, Direct Democracy, Fascism, Theocracy, or other ideologies, and not Republicanism (that is, being a republic).
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  No, I think both sides have an idea of the perfect government. It's just that the ideas differ radically (in fact, they are mutually incompatible). So we get the current situation, where neither side is satisfied with what they have. And I fear the degree to which both sides think they have to destroy the other side in order to get what they want...
  - sul_tasto 6y ago
    i think there is a significant segment of the polity in the center that is unrepresented.
thenewwazoo 6y ago
> Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle One side believes that government can be, and should be, improved by collective effort. The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. There is zero equivalence between the two.
- minikites 6y ago
  Exactly. So many people want to seem enlightened and "above the fray" and blaming "both sides" is an easy way to sound smart and perceptive. Only one side attacks democracy and government as concepts.
- calvinmorrison 6y ago
  > The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. I agree - it's clear that the social democrats and other leftists would clearly like to remove government entirely and achieve a stateless society. Or did you mean the right-wing libertarian types who want to have no government so they can own nukes? These analogies are just silly and not really the point - the goals don't really matter to the point. The point is that when there is less perceived legitimacy of government, people are more willing to look for other options.
- herval 6y ago
  I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans always increase government spending (therefore they don't actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really believe in the better of the "collective")?
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Which oligarchs do you have in mind?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
rexpop 6y ago
> to better the lot of our citizens It's crucial, however, to realize that we live in an interconnected global society and that to better OUR lot is called "Nationalism" and to do so at the expense of others is called "Imperialism", and as far as I am concerned they're synonymous with the worst ideological components of Fascism.
throwaway894345 6y ago
This is perhaps a tangent, but I always struggle in conversations about fascism. Wikipedia describes fascism as a specific collection of qualities: * Rejection of liberal democracy * Support for a totalitarian, single-party state * Led by a single strong dictator * Rejection that violence is automatically negative in nature * Imperialism, violence, and war can rejuvenate the state * Desirability for an economically self-sufficient state * Frequently incorporates some notion of a "master race" I want to be delicate with this next part because it's controversial and touches on people's deeply held convictions, so I want to be sensitive and disclaim that I'm trying to understand better and not offend: So I understand that the collection of ills seems to denote fascism, but it often seems that the people who are the most vocally anti-fascist seem to be fine with many of those ills individually (or put differently, they seem not to be "ills" when they're unbundled from fascism). It seems like they're only against the whole package arranged in a particular way. For example, a lot of people who have vocally criticized America in the last 5 years as being a fascist country seem to be pretty opposed to liberal values like freedom of speech and nonviolence with many such people either rationalizing left-wing violence (BLM riots as well as general antifa violence) if not outright arguing that political violence and even (capital-R) Revolution is necessary. Many support communism and talk about how great life was in the USSR or how amazing China is, which suggests that they're not just referring to some abstract communism that "hasn't been tried yet", but rather specific instances of communist regimes that tick many (all?) of the 'fascism qualities' boxes. I don't know if they can be described as having some "master race" ideology, but the USSR and China are hardly paradigms of tolerance, and many left-wing Americans seem to have pretty segregationist views on race even if they don't have a "master race" per se (perhaps one could argue that "people of color" is their "master race" in the way that various European identities coalesced into "white" in prior centuries?). So I guess I'm trying to understand what it is about fascism in particular that preoccupies us--why are we on such high alert for fascism specifically, but we don't seem to be concerned at all about other ideologies which incorporate many of the elements of fascism? To me at least it seems very horse-shoe like: the far right and the far left seem very similar in nearly all important respects, and I want to understand why it frequently feels like I'm the only one who sees things this way. Again, I hope I was minimally offensive.
- 6y ago
ashtonkem 6y ago
They single out a disaffected middle class as a key fascist constituency because that’s historically accurate. The Nazis in particular were built on the lower rungs of the middle class who had some status to lose, but not enough to fully insulate themselves from economic swings. Think small shop owners more than factory owners. Poorer laborers during that time were more likely to be swayed by the communists, who had more to offer poor workers. Fear of these same communists helped also drive upper class tolerance for nazis and fascists too.

Florin_Andrei 6y ago

> Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle Maybe the current instance of the government. But as for the idea of government in general, the opinions are sharply different across the aisle.

calvinmorrison 6y ago
The less effective the status quo is, the more willing people are to try radical approaches, be it technology, politics, dieting, etc. In my own small world of political banter, the number of people who have floated, or not disagreed with the concept of balkanizing the U.S.A is astounding. When I grew up, America was the greatest country in the world, and now my friends say - well we tried. Maybe balkanization would be easier since nobody can seem to agree on a damn thing, not even the budget! The farther apart the two sides of the political sphere, the less the work together to actually produce tangible results for the average American, the less happy and healthy the average American - the more likely we as Americans are to support a scrapping of it all and supporting Communism, Anarchism, Direct Democracy, Fascism, Theocracy, or other ideologies, and not Republicanism (that is, being a republic).
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
No, I think both sides have an idea of the perfect government. It's just that the ideas differ radically (in fact, they are mutually incompatible). So we get the current situation, where neither side is satisfied with what they have. And I fear the degree to which both sides think they have to destroy the other side in order to get what they want...
- sul_tasto 6y ago
  i think there is a significant segment of the polity in the center that is unrepresented.

thenewwazoo 6y ago

> Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle One side believes that government can be, and should be, improved by collective effort. The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. There is zero equivalence between the two.

minikites 6y ago
Exactly. So many people want to seem enlightened and "above the fray" and blaming "both sides" is an easy way to sound smart and perceptive. Only one side attacks democracy and government as concepts.
calvinmorrison 6y ago
> The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. I agree - it's clear that the social democrats and other leftists would clearly like to remove government entirely and achieve a stateless society. Or did you mean the right-wing libertarian types who want to have no government so they can own nukes? These analogies are just silly and not really the point - the goals don't really matter to the point. The point is that when there is less perceived legitimacy of government, people are more willing to look for other options.
herval 6y ago
I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans always increase government spending (therefore they don't actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really believe in the better of the "collective")?
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Which oligarchs do you have in mind?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

rexpop 6y ago

> to better the lot of our citizens It's crucial, however, to realize that we live in an interconnected global society and that to better OUR lot is called "Nationalism" and to do so at the expense of others is called "Imperialism", and as far as I am concerned they're synonymous with the worst ideological components of Fascism.

throwaway894345 6y ago

This is perhaps a tangent, but I always struggle in conversations about fascism. Wikipedia describes fascism as a specific collection of qualities: * Rejection of liberal democracy * Support for a totalitarian, single-party state * Led by a single strong dictator * Rejection that violence is automatically negative in nature * Imperialism, violence, and war can rejuvenate the state * Desirability for an economically self-sufficient state * Frequently incorporates some notion of a "master race" I want to be delicate with this next part because it's controversial and touches on people's deeply held convictions, so I want to be sensitive and disclaim that I'm trying to understand better and not offend: So I understand that the collection of ills seems to denote fascism, but it often seems that the people who are the most vocally anti-fascist seem to be fine with many of those ills individually (or put differently, they seem not to be "ills" when they're unbundled from fascism). It seems like they're only against the whole package arranged in a particular way. For example, a lot of people who have vocally criticized America in the last 5 years as being a fascist country seem to be pretty opposed to liberal values like freedom of speech and nonviolence with many such people either rationalizing left-wing violence (BLM riots as well as general antifa violence) if not outright arguing that political violence and even (capital-R) Revolution is necessary. Many support communism and talk about how great life was in the USSR or how amazing China is, which suggests that they're not just referring to some abstract communism that "hasn't been tried yet", but rather specific instances of communist regimes that tick many (all?) of the 'fascism qualities' boxes. I don't know if they can be described as having some "master race" ideology, but the USSR and China are hardly paradigms of tolerance, and many left-wing Americans seem to have pretty segregationist views on race even if they don't have a "master race" per se (perhaps one could argue that "people of color" is their "master race" in the way that various European identities coalesced into "white" in prior centuries?). So I guess I'm trying to understand what it is about fascism in particular that preoccupies us--why are we on such high alert for fascism specifically, but we don't seem to be concerned at all about other ideologies which incorporate many of the elements of fascism? To me at least it seems very horse-shoe like: the far right and the far left seem very similar in nearly all important respects, and I want to understand why it frequently feels like I'm the only one who sees things this way. Again, I hope I was minimally offensive.

6y ago

ashtonkem 6y ago

They single out a disaffected middle class as a key fascist constituency because that’s historically accurate. The Nazis in particular were built on the lower rungs of the middle class who had some status to lose, but not enough to fully insulate themselves from economic swings. Think small shop owners more than factory owners. Poorer laborers during that time were more likely to be swayed by the communists, who had more to offer poor workers. Fear of these same communists helped also drive upper class tolerance for nazis and fascists too.