Languish.org

QuoteThe rise of American authoritarianism

A niche group of political scientists may have uncovered what's driving Donald Trump's ascent. What they found has implications that go well beyond 2016.
by Amanda Taub on March 1, 2016

The American media, over the past year, has been trying to work out something of a mystery: Why is the Republican electorate supporting a far-right, orange-toned populist with no real political experience, who espouses extreme and often bizarre views? How has Donald Trump, seemingly out of nowhere, suddenly become so popular?

What's made Trump's rise even more puzzling is that his support seems to cross demographic lines — education, income, age, even religiosity — that usually demarcate candidates. And whereas most Republican candidates might draw strong support from just one segment of the party base, such as Southern evangelicals or coastal moderates, Trump currently does surprisingly well from the Gulf Coast of Florida to the towns of upstate New York, and he won a resounding victory in the Nevada caucuses.

Perhaps strangest of all, it wasn't just Trump but his supporters who seemed to have come out of nowhere, suddenly expressing, in large numbers, ideas far more extreme than anything that has risen to such popularity in recent memory. In South Carolina, a CBS News exit poll found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States. A PPP poll found that a third of Trump voters support banning gays and lesbians from the country. Twenty percent said Lincoln shouldn't have freed the slaves.

Last September, a PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst named Matthew MacWilliams realized that his dissertation research might hold the answer to not just one but all three of these mysteries.

MacWilliams studies authoritarianism — not actual dictators, but rather a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.

So MacWilliams naturally wondered if authoritarianism might correlate with support for Trump.

He polled a large sample of likely voters, looking for correlations between support for Trump and views that align with authoritarianism. What he found was astonishing: Not only did authoritarianism correlate, but it seemed to predict support for Trump more reliably than virtually any other indicator. He later repeated the same poll in South Carolina, shortly before the primary there, and found the same results, which he published in Vox:

(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/HDdMASDN1HEWcuwKwy99Pr9YfSU=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6124603/Trump_poll2.0.0.jpg)


As it turns out, MacWilliams wasn't the only one to have this realization. Miles away, in an office at Vanderbilt University, a professor named Marc Hetherington was having his own aha moment. He realized that he and a fellow political scientist, the University of North Carolina's Jonathan Weiler, had essentially predicted Trump's rise back in 2009, when they discovered something that would turn out to be far more significant than they then realized.

That year, Hetherington and Weiler published a book about the effects of authoritarianism on American politics. Through a series of experiments and careful data analysis, they had come to a surprising conclusion: Much of the polarization dividing American politics was fueled not just by gerrymandering or money in politics or the other oft-cited variables, but by an unnoticed but surprisingly large electoral group — authoritarians.

Their book concluded that the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted what would turn out to be a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies.

This trend had been accelerated in recent years by demographic and economic changes such as immigration, which "activated" authoritarian tendencies, leading many Americans to seek out a strongman leader who would preserve a status quo they feel is under threat and impose order on a world they perceive as increasingly alien.
"Trump embodies the classic authoritarian leadership style: simple, powerful, and punitive"

These Americans with authoritarian views, they found, were sorting into the GOP, driving polarization. But they were also creating a divide within the party, at first latent, between traditional Republican voters and this group whose views were simultaneously less orthodox and, often, more extreme.

Over time, Hetherington and Weiler had predicted, that sorting would become more and more pronounced. And so it was all but inevitable that, eventually, authoritarians would gain enough power within the GOP to make themselves heard.

At the time, even Hetherington and Weiler did not realize the explosive implications: that their theory, when followed to its natural conclusion, predicted a looming and dramatic transformation of American politics. But looking back now, the ramifications of their research seem disturbingly clear.

Authoritarians are thought to express much deeper fears than the rest of the electorate, to seek the imposition of order where they perceive dangerous change, and to desire a strong leader who will defeat those fears with force. They would thus seek a candidate who promised these things. And the extreme nature of authoritarians' fears, and of their desire to challenge threats with force, would lead them toward a candidate whose temperament was totally unlike anything we usually see in American politics — and whose policies went far beyond the acceptable norms.

A candidate like Donald Trump.

Even Hetherington was shocked to discover quite how right their theory had been. In the early fall of 2015, as Trump's rise baffled most American journalists and political scientists, he called Weiler. He asked, over and over, "Can you believe this? Can you believe this?"

This winter, I got in touch with Hetherington, MacWilliams, and several other political scientists who study authoritarianism. I wanted to better understand the theory that seemed to have predicted, with such eerie accuracy, Trump's rise. And, like them, I wanted to find out what the rise of authoritarian politics meant for American politics. Was Trump just the start of something bigger?

These political scientists were, at that moment, beginning to grapple with the same question. We agreed there was something important happening here — that was just beginning to be understood.
"Donald Trump could be just the first of many Trumps in American politics"

Shortly after the Iowa Republican caucus, in which Trump came in a close second, Vox partnered with the Washington-based media and polling company Morning Consult to test American authoritarians along a range of political and social views  — and to test some hypotheses we had developed after speaking with the leading political scientists of the field.

What we found is a phenomenon that explains, with remarkable clarity, the rise of Donald Trump — but that is also much larger than him, shedding new light on some of the biggest political stories of the past decade. Trump, it turns out, is just the symptom. The rise of American authoritarianism is transforming the Republican Party and the dynamics of national politics, with profound consequences likely to extend well beyond this election.
I. What is American authoritarianism?
A Trump supporter carries a sign saying "Build the wall"
Andrew Renneisen/Getty Images

For years now, before anyone thought a person like Donald Trump could possibly lead a presidential primary, a small but respected niche of academic research has been laboring over a question, part political science and part psychology, that had captivated political scientists since the rise of the Nazis.

How do people come to adopt, in such large numbers and so rapidly, extreme political views that seem to coincide with fear of minorities and with the desire for a strongman leader?

To answer that question, these theorists study what they call authoritarianism: not the dictators themselves, but rather the psychological profile of people who, under the right conditions, will desire certain kinds of extreme policies and will seek strongman leaders to implement them.

"The political phenomenon we identify as right-wing populism seems to line up, with almost astonishing precision, with the research on how authoritarianism is both caused and expressed"

After an early period of junk science in the mid-20th century, a more serious group of scholars has addressed this question, specifically studying how it plays out in American politics: researchers like Hetherington and Weiler, Stanley Feldman, Karen Stenner, and Elizabeth Suhay, to name just a few.

The field, after a breakthrough in the early 1990s, has come to develop the contours of a grand theory of authoritarianism, culminating quite recently, in 2005, with Stenner's seminal The Authoritarian Dynamic — just in time for that theory to seemingly come true, more rapidly and in greater force than any of them had imagined, in the personage of one Donald Trump and his norm-shattering rise.

According to Stenner's theory, there is a certain subset of people who hold latent authoritarian tendencies. These tendencies can be triggered or "activated" by the perception of physical threats or by destabilizing social change, leading those individuals to desire policies and leaders that we might more colloquially call authoritarian.

It is as if, the NYU professor Jonathan Haidt has written, a button is pushed that says, "In case of moral threat, lock down the borders, kick out those who are different, and punish those who are morally deviant."
"Authoritarians are a real constituency that exists independently of Trump — and will persist as a force in American politics "

Authoritarians prioritize social order and hierarchies, which bring a sense of control to a chaotic world. Challenges to that order — diversity, influx of outsiders, breakdown of the old order — are experienced as personally threatening because they risk upending the status quo order they equate with basic security.

This is, after all, a time of social change in America. The country is becoming more diverse, which means that many white Americans are confronting race in a way they have never had to before. Those changes have been happening for a long time, but in recent years they have become more visible and harder to ignore. And they are coinciding with economic trends that have squeezed working-class white people.

When they face physical threats or threats to the status quo, authoritarians support policies that seem to offer protection against those fears. They favor forceful, decisive action against things they perceive as threats. And they flock to political leaders who they believe will bring this action.

If you were to read every word these theorists ever wrote on authoritarians, and then try to design a hypothetical candidate to match their predictions of what would appeal to authoritarian voters, the result would look a lot like Donald Trump.

But political scientists say this theory explains much more than just Donald Trump, placing him within larger trends in American politics: polarization, the rightward shift of the Republican Party, and the rise within that party of a dissident faction challenging GOP orthodoxies and upending American politics.

More than that, authoritarianism reveals the connections between several seemingly disparate stories about American politics. And it suggest that a combination of demographic, economic, and political forces, by awakening this authoritarian class of voters that has coalesced around Trump, have created what is essentially a new political party within the GOP — a phenomenon that broke into public view with the 2016 election but will persist long after it has ended.

II. The discovery: how a niche subfield of political science suddenly became some of the most relevant research in American politics

This study of authoritarianism began shortly after World War II, as political scientists and psychologists in the US and Europe tried to figure out how the Nazis had managed to win such wide public support for such an extreme and hateful ideology.

That was a worthy field of study, but the early work wasn't particularly rigorous by today's standards. The critical theorist Theodor Adorno, for instance, developed what he called the "F-scale," which sought to measure "fascist" tendencies. The test wasn't accurate. Sophisticated respondents would quickly discover what the "right" answers were and game the test. And there was no proof that the personality type it purportedly measured actually supported fascism.

More than that, this early research seemed to assume that a certain subset of people were inherently evil or dangerous — an idea that Hetherington and Weiler say is simplistic and wrong, and that they resist in their work. (They acknowledge the label "authoritarians" doesn't do much to dispel this, but their efforts to replace it with a less pejorative-sounding term were unsuccessful.)
"If this rise in American authoritarianism is so powerful as to drive Trump's ascent, then how else might it be shaping American politics?"

But the real problem for researchers was that even if there really were such a thing as an authoritarian psychological profile, how do you measure it? How do you interrogate authoritarian tendencies, which can sometimes be latent? How do you get honest answers on questions that can be sensitive and highly politicized?

As Hetherington explained to me, "There are certain things that you just can't ask people directly. You can't ask people, 'Do you not like black people?' You can't ask people if they're bigots."

For a long time, no one had a solution for this, and the field of study languished.

Then in the early 1990s, a political scientist named Stanley Feldman changed everything. Feldman, a professor at SUNY Stonybrook, believed authoritarianism could be an important factor in American politics in ways that had nothing to do with fascism, but that it could only reliably be measured by unlinking it from specific political preferences.

He realized that if authoritarianism were a personality profile rather than just a political preference, he could get respondents to reveal these tendencies by asking questions about a topic that seemed much less controversial. He settled on something so banal it seems almost laughable: parenting goals.

Feldman developed what has since become widely accepted as the definitive measurement of authoritarianism: four simple questions that appear to ask about parenting but are in fact designed to reveal how highly the respondent values hierarchy, order, and conformity over other values.

1.    Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: independence or respect for elders?
2.    Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: obedience or self-reliance?
3.    Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: to be considerate or to be well-behaved?
4.   Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: curiosity or good manners?

Feldman's test proved to be very reliable. There was now a way to identify people who fit the authoritarian profile, by prizing order and conformity, for example, and desiring the imposition of those values.

In 1992, Feldman convinced the National Election Study, a large survey of American voters conducted in each national election year, to include his four authoritarianism questions. Ever since, political scientists who study authoritarianism have accumulated a wealth of data on who exhibits those tendencies and on how they align with everything from demographic profiles to policy preferences.

What they found was impossible to ignore — and is only just beginning to reshape our understanding of the American electorate.

III. How authoritarianism works

In the early 2000s, as researchers began to make use of the NES data to understand how authoritarianism affected US politics, their work revealed three insights that help explain not just the rise of Trump, but seemingly a half-century of American political dynamics.

The first was Hetherington and Weiler's insight into partisan polarization. In the 1960s, the Republican Party had reinvented itself as the party of law, order, and traditional values — a position that naturally appealed to order- and tradition-focused authoritarians. Over the decades that followed, authoritarians increasingly gravitated toward the GOP, where their concentration gave them more and more influence over time.

The second was Stenner's theory of "activation." In an influential 2005 book called The Authoritarian Dynamic, Stenner argued that many authoritarians might be latent — that they might not necessarily support authoritarian leaders or policies until their authoritarianism had been "activated."

This activation could come from feeling threatened by social changes such as evolving social norms or increasing diversity, or any other change that they believe will profoundly alter the social order they want to protect. In response, previously more moderate individuals would come to support leaders and policies we might now call Trump-esque.

Other researchers, like Hetherington, take a slightly different view. They believe that authoritarians aren't "activated" — they've always held their authoritarian preferences — but that they only come to express those preferences once they feel threatened by social change or some kind of threat from outsiders.

But both schools of thought agree on the basic causality of authoritarianism. People do not support extreme policies and strongman leaders just out of an affirmative desire for authoritarianism, but rather as a response to experiencing certain kinds of threats.

The third insight came from Hetherington and American University professor Elizabeth Suhay, who found that when non-authoritarians feel sufficiently scared, they also start to behave, politically, like authoritarians.

But Hetherington and Suhay found a distinction between physical threats such as terrorism, which could lead non-authoritarians to behave like authoritarians, and more abstract social threats, such as eroding social norms or demographic changes, which do not have that effect. That distinction would turn out to be important, but it also meant that in times when many Americans perceived imminent physical threats, the population of authoritarians could seem to swell rapidly.

Together, those three insights added up to one terrifying theory: that if social change and physical threats coincided at the same time, it could awaken a potentially enormous population of American authoritarians, who would demand a strongman leader and the extreme policies necessary, in their view, to meet the rising threats.

This theory would seem to predict the rise of an American political constituency that looks an awful lot like the support base that has emerged, seemingly out of nowhere, to propel Donald Trump from sideshow loser of the 2012 GOP primary to runaway frontrunner in 2016.

Beyond being almost alarmingly prescient, this theory speaks to an oft-stated concern about Trump: that what's scariest is not the candidate, but rather the extent and fervor of his support.

And it raises a question: If this rise in American authoritarianism is so powerful as to drive Trump's ascent, then how else might it be shaping American politics? And what effect could it have even after the 2016 race has ended?

IV. What can authoritarianism explain?

In early February, shortly after Trump finished second in the Iowa caucus and ended any doubts about his support, I began talking to Feldman, Hetherington, and MacWilliams to try to answer these questions.

MacWilliams had already demonstrated a link between authoritarianism and support for Trump. But we wanted to know how else authoritarianism was playing out in American life, from policy positions to party politics to social issues, and what it might mean for America's future.

It was time to call Kyle Dropp. Dropp is a political scientist and pollster whom one of my colleagues described as "the Doogie Howser of polling." He does indeed appear jarringly young for a Dartmouth professor. But he is also the co-founder of a media and polling company, Morning Consult, that had worked with Vox on several other projects.

When we approached Morning Consult, Dropp and his colleagues were excited. Dropp was familiar with Hetherington's work and the authoritarianism measure, he said, and was instantly intrigued by how we could test its relevance to the election. Hetherington and the other political scientists were, in turn, eager to more fully explore the theories that had suddenly become much more relevant.

"Non-authoritarians who were sufficiently frightened of threats like terrorism could essentially be scared into acting like authoritarians"

We put together five sets of questions. The first set, of course, was the test for authoritarianism that Feldman had developed. This would allow us to measure how authoritarianism coincided or didn't with our other sets of questions.

The second set asked standard election-season questions on preferred candidates and party affiliation.

The third set tested voters' fears of a series of physical threats, ranging from ISIS and Russia to viruses and car accidents.

The fourth set tested policy preferences, in an attempt to see how authoritarianism might lead voters to support particular policies.

If the research were right, then we'd expect people who scored highly on authoritarianism to express outsize fear of "outsider" threats such as ISIS or foreign governments versus other threats. We also expected that non-authoritarians who expressed high levels of fear would be more likely to support Trump. This would speak to physical fears as triggering a kind of authoritarian upsurge, which would in turn lead to Trump support.
"We wanted to look at the role authoritarians are playing in the election"

The final set of questions was intended to test fear of social change. We asked people to rate a series of social changes — both actual and hypothetical — on a scale of "very good" to "very bad" for the country. These included same-sex marriage, a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States, and American Muslims building more mosques in US cities.

If the theory about social change provoking stress amongst authoritarians turned out to be correct, then authoritarians would be more likely to rate the changes as bad for the country.

In the aggregate, we were hoping to do a few things. We wanted to understand who these people are, in simple demographic terms, and to test the basic hypotheses about how authoritarianism, in theory, is supposed to work. We wanted to look at the role authoritarians are playing in the election: Were they driving certain policy positions, for example?

We wanted to better understand the larger forces that had suddenly made authoritarians so numerous and so extreme — was it migration, terrorism, perhaps the decline of working-class whites? And maybe most of all, we wanted to develop some theories about what the rise of American authoritarianism meant for the future of polarization between the parties as well as a Republican Party that had become both more extreme and internally divided.

About 10 days later, shortly after Trump won the New Hampshire primary, the poll went into the field. In less than two weeks, we had our results.

V. How the GOP became the party of authoritarians

The first thing that jumped out from the data on authoritarians is just how many there are. Our results found that 44 percent of white respondents nationwide scored as "high" or "very high" authoritarians, with 19 percent as "very high." That's actually not unusual, and lines up with previous national surveys that found that the authoritarian disposition is far from rare1.

The key thing to understand is that authoritarianism is often latent; people in this 44 percent only vote or otherwise act as authoritarians once triggered by some perceived threat, physical or social. But that latency is part of how, over the past few decades, authoritarians have quietly become a powerful political constituency without anyone realizing it.

Today, according to our survey, authoritarians skew heavily Republican. More than 65 percent of people who scored highest on the authoritarianism questions were GOP voters. More than 55 percent of surveyed Republicans scored as "high" or "very high" authoritarians.

And at the other end of the scale, that pattern reversed. People whose scores were most non-authoritarian — meaning they always chose the non-authoritarian parenting answer — were almost 75 percent Democrats.

But this hasn't always been the case. According to Hetherington and Weiler's research, this is not a story about how Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus. It's a story of polarization that increased over time.

They trace the trend to the 1960s, when the Republican Party shifted electoral strategies to try to win disaffected Southern Democrats, in part by speaking to fears of changing social norms — for example, the racial hierarchies upset by civil rights. The GOP also embraced a "law and order" platform with a heavily racial appeal to white voters who were concerned about race riots.

This positioned the GOP as the party of traditional values and social structures — a role that it has maintained ever since. That promise to stave off social change and, if necessary, to impose order happened to speak powerfully to voters with authoritarian inclinations.

Democrats, by contrast, have positioned themselves as the party of civil rights, equality, and social progress — in other words, as the party of social change, a position that not only fails to attract but actively repels change-averse authoritarians.

Over the next several decades, Hetherington explained to me, this led authoritarians to naturally "sort" themselves into the Republican Party.

That matters, because as more authoritarians sort themselves into the GOP, they have more influence over its policies and candidates. It is not for nothing that our poll found that more than half of the Republican respondents score as authoritarian.

Perhaps more importantly, the party has less and less ability to ignore authoritarians' voting preferences — even if those preferences clash with the mainstream party establishment.

VI. Trump, authoritarians, and fear

Based on our data, Morning Consult data scientist Adam Petrihos said that "among Republicans, very high/high authoritarianism is very predictive of support for Trump." Trump has 42 percent support among Republicans but, according to our survey, a full 52 percent support among very high authoritarians.

Authoritarianism was the best single predictor of support for Trump, although having a high school education also came close. And as Hetherington noted after reviewing our results, the relationship between authoritarianism and Trump support remained robust, even after controlling for education level and gender.

Trump support was much lower among Republicans who scored low on authoritarianism: only 38 percent.

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/VKagUXTLKH5OwsCzWv25l3iDzdU=/600x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6124611/Authoritarians_Trump_support.0.png)

But that's still awfully high. So what could explain Trump's support among non-authoritarians?

I suspected the answer might lie at least partly in Hetherington and Suhay's research on how fear affects non-authoritarian voters, so I called them to discuss the data. Hetherington crunched some numbers on physical threats and noticed two things.

The first was that authoritarians tend to fear very specific kinds of physical threats.

(https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6129223/Authoritarian_risk.002.0.jpeg)(https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6129225/Authoritarian_risk.001.0.jpeg)


Authoritarians, we found in our survey, tend to most fear threats that come from abroad, such as ISIS or Russia or Iran. These are threats, the researchers point out, to which people can put a face; a scary terrorist or an Iranian ayatollah. Non-authoritarians were much less afraid of those threats. For instance, 73 percent of very high-scoring authoritarians believed that terrorist organizations like ISIS posed a "very high risk" to them, but only 45 percent of very low-scoring authoritarians did. Domestic threats like car accidents, by contrast, were much less frightening to authoritarians.

But Hetherington also noticed something else: A subgroup of non-authoritarians were very afraid of threats like Iran or ISIS. And the more fear of these threats they expressed, the more likely they were to support Trump.

This seemed to confirm his and Suhay's theory: that non-authoritarians who are sufficiently frightened of physical threats such as terrorism could essentially be scared into acting like authoritarians.

(https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KOUdJUfLANrHIi-hWvuwFSMIVqg=/600x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6124623/authoritarians_foreign_threats1_480.0.png)

That's important, because for years now, Republican politicians and Republican-leaning media such as Fox News have been telling viewers nonstop that the world is a terrifying place and that President Obama isn't doing enough to keep Americans safe.

There are a variety of political and media incentives for why this happens. But the point is that, as a result, Republican voters have been continually exposed to messages warning of physical dangers. As the perception of physical threat has risen, this fear appears to have led a number of non-authoritarians to vote like authoritarians — to support Trump.

An irony of this primary is that the Republican establishment has tried to stop Trump by, among other things, co-opting his message. But when establishment candidates such as Marco Rubio try to match Trump's rhetoric on ISIS or on American Muslims, they may end up deepening the fear that can only lead voters back to Trump.

VII. Is America's changing social landscape "activating" authoritarianism?

But the research on authoritarianism suggests it's not just physical threats driving all this. There should be another kind of threat — larger, slower, less obvious, but potentially even more powerful — pushing authoritarians to these extremes: the threat of social change.

This could come in the form of evolving social norms, such as the erosion of traditional gender roles or evolving standards in how to discuss sexual orientation. It could come in the form of rising diversity, whether that means demographic changes from immigration or merely changes in the colors of the faces on TV. Or it could come in the form any changes, political or economic, that disrupted social hierarchies.

What these changes have in common is that, to authoritarians, they threaten to take away the status quo as they know it — familiar, orderly, secure — and replace it with something that feels scary because it is different and destabilizing, but also sometimes because it upends their own place in society. According to the literature, authoritarians will seek, in response, a strong leader who promises to suppress the scary changes, if necessary by force, and to preserve the status quo.

This is why, in our survey, we wanted to study the degree to which authoritarians versus non-authoritarians expressed a fear of social change — and whether this, as expected, led them to desire heavy-handed responses.

Our results seemed to confirm this: Authoritarians were significantly more likely to rate almost all of the actual and hypothetical social issues we asked about as "bad" or "very bad" for the country.

For instance, our results suggested that an astonishing 44 percent of authoritarians believe same-sex marriage is harmful to the country. Twenty-eight percent rated same-sex marriage as "very bad" for America, and another 16 percent said that it's "bad." Only about 35 percent of high-scoring authoritarians said same-sex marriage was "good" or "very good" for the country.

Tellingly, non-authoritarians' responses skewed in the opposite direction. Non-authoritarians tended to rate same-sex marriage as "good" or "very good" for the country.

(https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gId1O3Y4PaScnxYinCWtx7-SoLQ=/600x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6124637/authoritarians_policy.001.0.jpeg)

The fact that authoritarians and non-authoritarians split over something as seemingly personal and nonthreatening as same-sex marriage is crucial for understanding how authoritarianism can be triggered by even a social change as minor as expanding marriage rights.

We also asked respondents to rate whether Muslims building more mosques in American cities was a good thing. This was intended to test respondents' comfort level with sharing their communities with Muslims — an issue that has been particularly contentious this primary election.

A whopping 56.5 percent of very high-scoring authoritarians said it was either "bad" or "very bad" for the country when Muslims built more mosques. Only 14 percent of that group said more mosques would be "good" or "very good."

(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/QsrLzOd8S19VpksOvl8IbN2Kq2w=/600x0/filters:no_upscale%28%29/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6124641/authoritarians_policy.002.0.jpeg)

The literature on authoritarianism suggests this is not just simple Islamophobia, but rather reflects a broader phenomenon wherein authoritarians feel threatened by people they identify as "outsiders" and by the possibility of changes to the status quo makeup of their communities.

This would help explain why authoritarians seem so prone to reject not just one specific kind of outsider or social change, such as Muslims or same-sex couples or Hispanic migrants, but rather to reject all of them. What these seemingly disparate groups have in common is the perceived threat they pose to the status quo order, which authoritarians experience as a threat to themselves.

And America is at a point when the status quo social order is changing rapidly; when several social changes are converging. And they are converging especially on working-class white people.

It is conventional wisdom to ascribe the rise of first the Tea Party right and now Trump to the notion that working-class white Americans are angry.

Indeed they are, but this data helps explain that they are also under certain demographic and economic pressures that, according to this research, are highly likely to trigger authoritarianism — and thus suggests there is something a little more complex going on than simple "anger" that helps explain their gravitation toward extreme political responses.

Working-class communities have come under tremendous economic strain since the recession. And white people are also facing the loss of the privileged position that they previously were able to take for granted. Whites are now projected to become a minority group over the next few decades, owing to migration and other factors. The president is a black man, and nonwhite faces are growing more common in popular culture. Nonwhite groups are raising increasingly prominent political demands, and often those demands coincide with issues such as policing that also speak to authoritarian concerns.

Some of these factors might be considered more or less legitimately threatening than others — the loss of working-class jobs in this country is a real and important issue, no matter how one feels about fading white privilege — but that is not the point.

The point, rather, is that the increasingly important political phenomenon we identify as right-wing populism, or white working-class populism, seems to line up, with almost astonishing precision, with the research on how authoritarianism is both caused and expressed.

That is not to dismiss white working-class concerns as invalid because they might be expressed by authoritarians or through authoritarian politics, but rather to better understand why this is happening — and why it's having such a profound and extreme effect on American politics.

"Have we misunderstood hard-line social conservatism all along?"

Most of the other social-threat questions followed a similar pattern2. On its surface, this might seem to suggest that authoritarianism is just a proxy for especially hard-line manifestations of social conservatism. But when examined more carefully, it suggests something more interesting about the nature of social conservatism itself.

For liberals, it may be easy to conclude that opposition to things like same-sex marriage, immigration, and diversity is rooted in bigotry against those groups — that it's the manifestation of specific homophobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia.

But the results of the Vox/Morning Consult poll, along with prior research on authoritarianism, suggests there might be something else going on.

There is no particular reason, after all, why parenting goals should coincide with animus against specific groups. We weren't asking questions about whether it was important for children to respect people of different races, but about whether they should respect authority and rules generally. So why do they coincide so heavily?

"What might look on the surface like bigotry was really much closer to Stenner's theory of "activation""

What is most likely, Hetherington suggested, is that authoritarians are much more susceptible to messages that tell them to fear a specific "other" — whether or not they have a preexisting animus against that group. Those fears would therefore change over time as events made different groups seem more or less threatening.

It all depends, he said, on whether a particular group of people has been made into an outgroup or not — whether they had been identified as a dangerous other.

Since September 2001, some media outlets and politicians have painted Muslims as the other and as dangerous to America. Authoritarians, by nature, are more susceptible to these messages, and thus more likely to come to oppose the presence of mosques in their communities.

When told to fear a particular outgroup, Hetherington said, "On average people who score low in authoritarianism will be like, 'I'm not that worried about that,' while people who score high in authoritarianism will be like, 'Oh, my god! I'm worried about that, because the world is a dangerous place.'"

In other words, what might look on the surface like bigotry was really much closer to Stenner's theory of "activation": that authoritarians are unusually susceptible to messages about the ways outsiders and social changes threaten America, and so lash out at groups that are identified as objects of concern at that given moment.

That's not to say that such an attitude is in some way better than simple racism or xenophobia — it is still dangerous and damaging, especially if it empowers frightening demagogues like Donald Trump.

Perhaps more to the point, it helps explain how Trump's supporters have come to so quickly embrace such extreme policies targeting these outgroups: mass deportation of millions of people, a ban on foreign Muslims visiting the US. When you think about those policy preferences as driven by authoritarianism, in which social threats are perceived as especially dangerous and as demanding extreme responses, rather than the sudden emergence of specific bigotries, this starts to make a lot more sense.

VIII. What authoritarians want

From our parenting questions, we learned who the GOP authoritarians are. From our questions about threats and social change, we learned what's motivating them. But the final set of questions, on policy preferences, might be the most important of all: So what? What do authoritarians actually want?

The responses to our policy questions showed that authoritarians have their own set of policy preferences, distinct from GOP orthodoxy. And those preferences mean that, in real and important ways, authoritarians are their own distinct constituency: effectively a new political party within the GOP.

What stands out from the results, Feldman wrote after reviewing our data, is that authoritarians "are most willing to want to use force, to crack down on immigration, and limit civil liberties."

This "action side" of authoritarianism, he believed, was the key thing that distinguished Trump supporters from supporters of other GOP candidates. "The willingness to use government power to eliminate the threats — that is most clear among Trump supporters."

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6129213/authoritarians_correlation.001.0.jpeg)

Authoritarians generally and Trump voters specifically, we found, were highly likely to support five policies:

1.    Using military force over diplomacy against countries that threaten the United States
2.    Changing the Constitution to bar citizenship for children of illegal immigrants
3.    Imposing extra airport checks on passengers who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent in order to curb terrorism
4.    Requiring all citizens to carry a national ID card at all times to show to a police officer on request, to curb terrorism
5.    Allowing the federal government to scan all phone calls for calls to any number linked to terrorism

What these policies share in common is an outsize fear of threats, physical and social, and, more than that, a desire to meet those threats with severe government action — with policies that are authoritarian not just in style but in actuality. The scale of the desired response is, in some ways, what most distinguishes authoritarians from the rest of the GOP.

"Many Republicans seem to be threatened by terrorism, violence, and cultural diversity, but that's not unique to Trump supporters," Feldman told me.

"It seems to be the action side of authoritarianism — the willingness to use government power to eliminate the threats — that is most clear among Trump supporters," he added.
"If Trump loses the election, that won't remove the threats and social changes that trigger the "action side" of authoritarianism"

This helps explain why the GOP has had such a hard time co-opting Trump's supporters, even though those supporters' immediate policy concerns, such as limiting immigration or protecting national security, line up with party orthodoxy. The real divide is over how far to go in responding. And the party establishment is simply unwilling to call for such explicitly authoritarian policies.

Just as striking is what was missing from authoritarians' concerns. There was no clear correlation between authoritarianism and support for tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 per year, for example. And the same was true of support for international trade agreements.

These are both issues associated with mainstream GOP economic policies. All groups opposed the tax cuts, and support for trade agreements was evenly lukewarm across all degrees of authoritarianism. So there is no real divide on these issues.

But there is one more factor that our data couldn't capture but is nevertheless important: Trump's style.

Trump's specific policies aren't the thing that most sets him apart from the rest of the field of GOP candidates. Rather, it's his rhetoric and style. The way he reduces everything to black-and-white extremes of strong versus weak, greatest versus worst. His simple, direct promises that he can solve problems that other politicians are too weak to manage.

And, perhaps most importantly, his willingness to flout all the conventions of civilized discourse when it comes to the minority groups that authoritarians find so threatening. That's why it's a benefit rather than a liability for Trump when he says Mexicans are rapists or speaks gleefully of massacring Muslims with pig-blood-tainted bullets: He is sending a signal to his authoritarian supporters that he won't let "political correctness" hold him back from attacking the outgroups they fear.

This, Feldman explained to me, is "classic authoritarian leadership style: simple, powerful, and punitive."

IX. How authoritarians will change the GOP — and American politics

To my surprise, the most compelling conclusion to come out of our polling data wasn't about Trump at all.

Rather, it was that authoritarians, as a growing presence in the GOP, are a real constituency that exists independently of Trump — and will persist as a force in American politics regardless of the fate of his candidacy.

If Trump loses the election, that will not remove the threats and social changes that trigger the "action side" of authoritarianism. The authoritarians will still be there. They will still look for candidates who will give them the strong, punitive leadership they desire.

And that means Donald Trump could be just the first of many Trumps in American politics, with potentially profound implications for the country.

It would also mean more problems for the GOP. This election is already showing that the party establishment abhors Trump and all he stands for — his showy demagoguery, his disregard for core conservative economic values, his divisiveness.
"We may now have a de facto three-party system: the Democrats, the GOP establishment, and the GOP authoritarians"

But while the party may try to match Trump's authoritarian rhetoric, and its candidates may grudgingly embrace some of his harsher policies toward immigrants or Muslims, in the end a mainstream political party cannot fully commit to extreme authoritarian action the way Trump can.

That will be a problem for the party. Just look at where the Tea Party has left the Republican establishment. The Tea Party delivered the House to the GOP in 2010, but ultimately left the party in an unresolved civil war. Tea Party candidates have challenged moderates and centrists, leaving the GOP caucus divided and chaotic.

Now a similar divide is playing out at the presidential level, with results that are even more destructive for the Republican Party. Authoritarians may be a slight majority within the GOP, and thus able to force their will within the party, but they are too few and their views too unpopular to win a national election on their own.

And so the rise of authoritarianism as a force within American politics means we may now have a de facto three-party system: the Democrats, the GOP establishment, and the GOP authoritarians.

And although the latter two groups are presently forced into an awkward coalition, the GOP establishment has demonstrated a complete inability to regain control over the renegade authoritarians, and the authoritarians are actively opposed to the establishment's centrist goals and uninterested in its economic platform.

Over time, this will have significant political consequences for the Republican Party. It will become more difficult for Republican candidates to win the presidency because the candidates who can win the nomination by appealing to authoritarian primary voters will struggle to court mainstream voters in the general election. They will have less trouble with local and congressional elections, but that might just mean more legislative gridlock as the GOP caucus struggles to balance the demands of authoritarian and mainstream legislators. The authoritarian base will drag the party further to the right on social issues, and will simultaneously erode support for traditionally conservative economic policies.

And in the meantime, the forces activating American authoritarians seem likely to only grow stronger. Norms around gender, sexuality, and race will continue evolving. Movements like Black Lives Matter will continue chipping away at the country's legacy of institutionalized discrimination, pursuing the kind of social change and reordering of society that authoritarians find so threatening.

The chaos in the Middle East, which allows groups like ISIS to flourish and sends millions of refugees spilling into other countries, shows no sign of improving. Longer term, if current demographic trends continue, white Americans will cease to be a majority over the coming decades.

In the long run, this could mean a GOP that is even more hard-line on immigration and on policing, that is more outspoken about fearing Muslims and other minority groups, but also takes a softer line on traditional party economic issues like tax cuts. It will be a GOP that continues to perform well in congressional and local elections, but whose divisions leave the party caucus divided to the point of barely functioning, and perhaps eventually unable to win the White House.

For decades, the Republican Party has been winning over authoritarians by implicitly promising to stand firm against the tide of social change, and to be the party of force and power rather than the party of negotiation and compromise. But now it may be discovering that its strategy has worked too well — and threatens to tear the party apart.

Correction: Matthew MacWilliams is a PhD student at UMass Amherst.

Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2016, 05:31:18 AM
Wall of text, with no highlights, in a separate thread despite it could have gone very well into the American elections thread. That's so Tim.

Quote from: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 07:01:17 AM
The article makes some interesting points.
But is the phenomen of Trump really a case of authoritarianism and not a case of the voters becoming more and more removed from the elites? Fuck if I know.

Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2016, 07:24:44 AM
Who's more authoritarian than Zerobama who rules by decree without congressional approval.

Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2016, 07:24:44 AM
Who's more authoritarian than Zerobama who rules by decree without congressional approval.

Quote from: garbon on March 02, 2016, 06:26:03 AM
That's so Raven.

Quote from: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 09:07:59 AM

Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2016, 07:24:44 AM
Who's more authoritarian than Zerobama who rules by decree without congressional approval.

Now that's just silly.

Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2016, 05:31:18 AM
Wall of text, with no highlights, in a separate thread despite it could have gone very well into the American elections thread. That's so Tim.

Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2016, 07:23:32 AM

Quote from: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 07:01:17 AM
The article makes some interesting points.
But is the phenomen of Trump really a case of authoritarianism and not a case of the voters becoming more and more removed from the elites? Fuck if I know.

Their proxies for authoritarianism seem to be weakly correlated with authoritarianism as it is generally understood in political science.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2016, 09:38:34 AM
Thanks for posting this  Tim.  It is an interesting explanation.  I am not sure it gives us the whole explanation for the lunacy gripping the Republican party but it gives an interesting explanation for part of the appeal.

Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2016, 07:24:44 AM
Who's more authoritarian than Zerobama who rules by decree without congressional approval.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
Probably because they were measuring proxies for the psychological phenomenon. ;)

Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2016, 10:08:14 AM

Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2016, 07:24:44 AM
Who's more authoritarian than Zerobama who rules by decree without congressional approval.

Mitch McConnell who rules by decree without congressional approval.

Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 09:23:14 AM

Quote from: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 09:07:59 AM

Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2016, 07:24:44 AM
Who's more authoritarian than Zerobama who rules by decree without congressional approval.

Now that's just silly.

I guess from your perspective, it's easy to laugh off Obama's power grab via executive orders as "silly".  Here in the US we have to live under it.






:P

QuoteThe truth is virtually Trump's entire campaign is built on stuff just like this, whether it's about mass deportation, race, the persecution of Christians, Obamacare, the coming debt crisis and a million other things. At the last debate, Trump got pressed on his completely ludicrous tax cut plan. He eventually said growth (which if you calculate it would need to be something like 20% annual growth on average) would take care of the huge budget shortfall it created. But Republicans can't really dispute this point since all of Republican campaign economics is based on precisely the same argument. What about Obamacare? Can Marco "Establishment" Rubio really get traction attacking Trump for having no specific plan to replace Obamacare when Republicans have spent the last five years repeatedly voting to repeal Obamacare without ever specifying a plan to replace it with? On each of these fronts, the slow accumulation of nonsense and paranoia - 'debt' to use our metaphor - built into a massive trap door under the notional GOP leadership with a lever that a canny huckster like Trump could come in and pull pretty much whenever. This is the downside of building party identity around a package of calculated nonsense and comically unrealizable goals.

Quote from: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 10:20:36 AM
I am of course not well-versed in the dos and dont's of constitutional democracy ( :P), but the idea that Obama, just because you dislike him, is ruling without consent is silly. Congress seem to me like a bunch of eejits, especially Ryan and McConnell.
Not approving Obama's right to select a new supreme court judge? Childish and petty.

Quote from: Grallon on March 02, 2016, 10:50:58 AM
The possibility of Trump winning the GOP convention is now conceivable - should he succeed, does he have any chance of winning against Hillary?



G.

Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2016, 10:16:31 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
Probably because they were measuring proxies for the psychological phenomenon. ;)

:lol:  Their proxies for the psychological phenomenon of authoritarianism seem much further off

Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 11:15:34 AM

Nobody knows.  Conventional wisdom states that Hillary will trounce Trump and win by a landslide that gets called for her as soon as the polls close. But conventional wisdom has taken a few swift kicks in the nuts so far during the primaries, so who knows.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2016, 09:38:34 AM
Thanks for posting this  Tim.  It is an interesting explanation.  I am not sure it gives us the whole explanation for the lunacy gripping the Republican party but it gives an interesting explanation for part of the appeal.

Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2016, 11:06:43 AM
I kinda liked the analysis in this article:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/gop-overwhelmed-by-debt

To summarize: the Republicans have been, for years, engaging in tactics of demonization and conspiracy-mongering that have no relationship to facts or logic; such tactics have proved popular. The notion of the leadership was that they could turn on the nonsense to convince the rubes, then turn to governing when they win. This was already a problem for them before Trump came along.

Now, along comes a guy who cleverly creates a campaign that consists of nothing but such absurd statements. The Republican establishment would love to get rid of him, but have, effectively, no tools to dos so; how can they counter (for example) Trump's claim that he is being persecuted by the IRS for being a "Committed Christian" - when they have indulged themselves in exactly that sort of reality-ignoring tactic? He's speaking the language they invented, only better then them, because he doesn't give a shit about whether any of it is possible, or about actual real-world consequences - while establishment Republicans have one eye on the fact that talking smack has to have limits, that governing requires real-world and fact-based input.

Republicans who fail to talk this language have been effectively shut out.   

QuoteThe truth is virtually Trump's entire campaign is built on stuff just like this, whether it's about mass deportation, race, the persecution of Christians, Obamacare, the coming debt crisis and a million other things. At the last debate, Trump got pressed on his completely ludicrous tax cut plan. He eventually said growth (which if you calculate it would need to be something like 20% annual growth on average) would take care of the huge budget shortfall it created. But Republicans can't really dispute this point since all of Republican campaign economics is based on precisely the same argument. What about Obamacare? Can Marco "Establishment" Rubio really get traction attacking Trump for having no specific plan to replace Obamacare when Republicans have spent the last five years repeatedly voting to repeal Obamacare without ever specifying a plan to replace it with? On each of these fronts, the slow accumulation of nonsense and paranoia - 'debt' to use our metaphor - built into a massive trap door under the notional GOP leadership with a lever that a canny huckster like Trump could come in and pull pretty much whenever. This is the downside of building party identity around a package of calculated nonsense and comically unrealizable goals.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2016, 12:13:39 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2016, 10:16:31 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
Probably because they were measuring proxies for the psychological phenomenon. ;)

:lol:  Their proxies for the psychological phenomenon of authoritarianism seem much further off

What proxies would you suggest?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2016, 12:42:03 PM
This whole Trump thing, it all has such a Riefenstahl tinge.

Quote from: viper37 on March 02, 2016, 12:33:41 PM
it is no different than what happenned before and what is happening elsewhere.
People react to a perceive threat and seek to eliminate it.
In the past, in the US, Indians were seen as a threat and were forcefully eliminated.  French speakers were a threat to their way of life and laws were passed to deal with it.  The Federal government was a threat to Southerner's lifestyle, they took actions to deal with it.  Europeans have a fear of massive immigration that increase exponentially to the number of migrants, government become more&more authoritarian.

Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 12:36:26 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2016, 11:06:43 AM
I kinda liked the analysis in this article:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/gop-overwhelmed-by-debt

To summarize: the Republicans have been, for years, engaging in tactics of demonization and conspiracy-mongering that have no relationship to facts or logic; such tactics have proved popular. The notion of the leadership was that they could turn on the nonsense to convince the rubes, then turn to governing when they win. This was already a problem for them before Trump came along.

Now, along comes a guy who cleverly creates a campaign that consists of nothing but such absurd statements. The Republican establishment would love to get rid of him, but have, effectively, no tools to dos so; how can they counter (for example) Trump's claim that he is being persecuted by the IRS for being a "Committed Christian" - when they have indulged themselves in exactly that sort of reality-ignoring tactic? He's speaking the language they invented, only better then them, because he doesn't give a shit about whether any of it is possible, or about actual real-world consequences - while establishment Republicans have one eye on the fact that talking smack has to have limits, that governing requires real-world and fact-based input.

Republicans who fail to talk this language have been effectively shut out.   

QuoteThe truth is virtually Trump's entire campaign is built on stuff just like this, whether it's about mass deportation, race, the persecution of Christians, Obamacare, the coming debt crisis and a million other things. At the last debate, Trump got pressed on his completely ludicrous tax cut plan. He eventually said growth (which if you calculate it would need to be something like 20% annual growth on average) would take care of the huge budget shortfall it created. But Republicans can't really dispute this point since all of Republican campaign economics is based on precisely the same argument. What about Obamacare? Can Marco "Establishment" Rubio really get traction attacking Trump for having no specific plan to replace Obamacare when Republicans have spent the last five years repeatedly voting to repeal Obamacare without ever specifying a plan to replace it with? On each of these fronts, the slow accumulation of nonsense and paranoia - 'debt' to use our metaphor - built into a massive trap door under the notional GOP leadership with a lever that a canny huckster like Trump could come in and pull pretty much whenever. This is the downside of building party identity around a package of calculated nonsense and comically unrealizable goals.

I've been saying that this would be the end result of the Fox News "information" model for some time.

Beebs assured me that was crazy.

Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2016, 12:40:55 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2016, 12:13:39 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2016, 10:16:31 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
Probably because they were measuring proxies for the psychological phenomenon. ;)

:lol:  Their proxies for the psychological phenomenon of authoritarianism seem much further off

What proxies would you suggest?

Proxies for the authoritarianism they say they are looking for, or proxies for the authoritarianism you mistakenly believe they are looking for?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 02, 2016, 01:23:18 PM
Trump's popularity I think has more to do with Republican voters being consistently disappointed by the people they elect. They gave these idiots most of the states and the Congress in a huge landslide and got basically nothing for it.

The fact that both parties have steadily grown more authoritarian is a different issue, and that's happening because it's actually what people want. Also technology is making things that people could not hope to control in the past more accessible to Tarkin's grip. Join alertID! Spy on your neighbors for free! People seem to love that shit.

Anyway, when did this Vox site get popular? It's like it snuck up on me, and suddenly it's all over the place.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2016, 02:06:43 PM
What do you think Republican voters wanted that they didnt get?

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2016, 02:06:43 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 02, 2016, 01:23:18 PM
Trump's popularity I think has more to do with Republican voters being consistently disappointed by the people they elect. They gave these idiots most of the states and the Congress in a huge landslide and got basically nothing for it.

The fact that both parties have steadily grown more authoritarian is a different issue, and that's happening because it's actually what people want. Also technology is making things that people could not hope to control in the past more accessible to Tarkin's grip. Join alertID! Spy on your neighbors for free! People seem to love that shit.

Anyway, when did this Vox site get popular? It's like it snuck up on me, and suddenly it's all over the place.

What do you think Republican voters wanted that they didnt get?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2016, 12:42:03 PM
This whole Trump thing, it all has such a Riefenstahl tinge.

Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 04:11:44 PM

Now if he films a huge rally in Nuremburg, PA this summer I'll agree with you.

Quote from: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:16:01 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 04:11:44 PM

Now if he films a huge rally in Nuremburg, PA this summer I'll agree with you.

Oh God if he does I hope it looks like this:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi52.tinypic.com%2F2pq1cg0.jpg&hash=8c32500e56f4e9ba240355ffc34a92931f5fbe0a)

I liked when I googled 'American Nazis' to get this pic it just turned up pictures of Obamahitler. I had to specify 1930s to get it :lol:

Oh 'Murica.

Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
I'm not comparing Trump to Mussolini.  He's Berlusconi.  Trump's followers do sometimes come off like nascent blackshirts is all I'm saying.

Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 04:11:44 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2016, 12:42:03 PM
This whole Trump thing, it all has such a Riefenstahl tinge.

That's silly.  What I will admit though that his supporters' preference for action over talk, restoring past glory, etc. has eerie similarities to Italian Fascist propaganda from the 1920s and 30s.

Now if he films a huge rally in Nuremburg, PA this summer I'll agree with you.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2016, 08:21:27 PM
I dunno, man; there's more than a few similarities between today and the 1920s banging around, economically, socially...from the raw oligarchical mobsterism of Putin to the consolidation of power with a global economic fist behind it under Xi, from Lukshenko, Bloomberg, Mugabe and everyone in between, is it really too difficult to contemplate that we're entering another age of dictators?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2016, 08:21:27 PM

I dunno, man; there's more than a few similarities between today and the 1920s banging around, economically, socially...from the raw oligarchical mobsterism of Putin to the consolidation of power with a global economic fist behind it under Xi, from Lukshenko, Bloomberg, Mugabe and everyone in between, is it really too difficult to contemplate that we're entering another age of dictators?

Quote from: Monoriu on March 02, 2016, 08:41:53 PM
I believe it is peace for our time.  Europe is more integrated and peaceful than ever.  The Soviet Union is gone.  Everybody has nuclear weapons.

Quote from: PJL on March 02, 2016, 05:40:16 PM
I think it's fair to compare Trump to Mussolini, though whether he'd make Amtrak run on time is another thing altogether. Cruz on the other hand, he's definitely the Hitler type.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 09:49:14 PM
It looks like George C. Scott.

Quote from: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 11:07:37 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 09:49:14 PM
It looks like George C. Scott.

That is because that is George C Scott.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 11:09:17 PM
I'm pretty sure that's Donald Trump.

Quote from: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 11:10:09 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 11:09:17 PM
I'm pretty sure that's Donald Trump.

No no that is George C Scott playing Mussolini in that 1980s miniserie...oh wait I see what you did there.

Quote from: Valmy on March 02, 2016, 04:16:01 PMObamahitler

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2016, 08:21:27 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 04:11:44 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2016, 12:42:03 PM
This whole Trump thing, it all has such a Riefenstahl tinge.

That's silly.  What I will admit though that his supporters' preference for action over talk, restoring past glory, etc. has eerie similarities to Italian Fascist propaganda from the 1920s and 30s.

Now if he films a huge rally in Nuremburg, PA this summer I'll agree with you.

I dunno, man; there's more than a few similarities between today and the 1920s banging around, economically, socially...from the raw oligarchical mobsterism of Putin to the consolidation of power with a global economic fist behind it under Xi, from Lukshenko, Bloomberg, Mugabe and everyone in between, is it really too difficult to contemplate that we're entering another age of dictators?


lol, Nuremburg, PA.  The Sonic would be fucking packed.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2016, 09:49:14 PM
It looks like George C. Scott.

Quote from: PJL on March 02, 2016, 05:40:16 PM
I think it's fair to compare Trump to Mussolini, though whether he'd make Amtrak run on time is another thing altogether. Cruz on the other hand, he's definitely the Hitler type.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 03, 2016, 09:59:12 AM

Quote from: PJL on March 02, 2016, 05:40:16 PM
I think it's fair to compare Trump to Mussolini, though whether he'd make Amtrak run on time is another thing altogether. Cruz on the other hand, he's definitely the Hitler type.

If he can make the DC Metro run on time I'll vote for him.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 03, 2016, 10:05:16 AM

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 03, 2016, 09:59:12 AM

Quote from: PJL on March 02, 2016, 05:40:16 PM
I think it's fair to compare Trump to Mussolini, though whether he'd make Amtrak run on time is another thing altogether. Cruz on the other hand, he's definitely the Hitler type.

If he can make the DC Metro run on time I'll vote for him.

Mussolini didn't actually make the trains run on time either.

Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
I'm not comparing Trump to Mussolini.  He's Berlusconi.  Trump's followers do sometimes come off like nascent blackshirts is all I'm saying.

Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2016, 10:35:53 AM
Berlusconi was eventually stopped by Europe, and because of Europe, he could not go as far as Mussolini to begin with.  What is going to stop Trump?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
what a Trump presidency says about us.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Meh.  I'm not out to impress anyone.

Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2016, 05:27:07 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Meh.  I'm not out to impress anyone.

That's more my thought.  I wouldn't care what a Trump presidency says - I would care about what a Trump presidency would do.

Quote from: The Brain on March 03, 2016, 04:36:11 PM
I try not to worry about what things say about me.

Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2016, 05:43:52 PM
Very little. Not much you can do when you have both political parties against you.

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:48:38 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2016, 05:43:52 PM
Very little. Not much you can do when you have both political parties against you.

Once the dust settles, I have a feeling Trump would be cutting deals left and right (with both the left and the right, come to think of it).

Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2016, 05:43:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2016, 05:27:07 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Meh.  I'm not out to impress anyone.

That's more my thought.  I wouldn't care what a Trump presidency says - I would care about what a Trump presidency would do.

Very little. Not much you can do when you have both political parties against you.

Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2016, 05:50:23 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2016, 05:43:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2016, 05:27:07 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Meh.  I'm not out to impress anyone.

That's more my thought.  I wouldn't care what a Trump presidency says - I would care about what a Trump presidency would do.

Very little. Not much you can do when you have both political parties against you.

He's still commander in chief and presidents seem to be getting more muscular in using "executive orders".

Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2016, 06:01:00 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2016, 05:50:23 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2016, 05:43:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2016, 05:27:07 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Meh.  I'm not out to impress anyone.

That's more my thought.  I wouldn't care what a Trump presidency says - I would care about what a Trump presidency would do.

Very little. Not much you can do when you have both political parties against you.

He's still commander in chief and presidents seem to be getting more muscular in using "executive orders".

I'm not sure I know how to interpret your statement.

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Meh.  I'm not out to impress anyone.

Quote from: dps on March 03, 2016, 06:06:29 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Meh.  I'm not out to impress anyone.

Nor am I, and I don't really care what the Euros think of our politics and government, either.  However, the fact that large numbers of Americans are willing to actually vote for Donald Trump makes me feel very disappointed in my fellow citizens.

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:48:38 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2016, 05:43:52 PM
Very little. Not much you can do when you have both political parties against you.

Once the dust settles, I have a feeling Trump would be cutting deals left and right (with both the left and the right, come to think of it).

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Meh.  I'm not out to impress anyone.

Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2016, 09:04:49 AM

Quote from: derspiess on March 03, 2016, 05:24:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
What bothers me more than what a Trump presidency could mean to the US is what a Trump presidency says about us.

Meh.  I'm not out to impress anyone.

No shit.

Quote from: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 09:08:06 AM
Could a bowl of cold soup possibly win the GOP nomination?

Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2016, 09:29:55 AM

Quote from: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 09:08:06 AM
Could a bowl of cold soup possibly win the GOP nomination?

Only if it brags a lot and makes outrageous promises.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2016, 11:31:26 PM
You really buy in to that "deal-maker-in-chief", bullshit don't you? :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2016, 09:31:31 AM

Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2016, 09:29:55 AM

Quote from: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 09:08:06 AM
Could a bowl of cold soup possibly win the GOP nomination?

Only if it brags a lot and makes outrageous promises.

And says what we are all thinking.

Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2016, 09:32:56 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2016, 11:31:26 PM
You really buy in to that "deal-maker-in-chief", bullshit don't you? :lol:

So you think he's some sort of ideologue then?  He'd sell out his party in a minute to cut a deal with the Dems to get something he wanted. 

This is part of what worries me about him. 

Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2016, 09:37:15 AM

Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2016, 09:32:56 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2016, 11:31:26 PM
You really buy in to that "deal-maker-in-chief", bullshit don't you? :lol:

So you think he's some sort of ideologue then?  He'd sell out his party in a minute to cut a deal with the Dems to get something he wanted. 

This is part of what worries me about him. 

I don't see any particular reason he would feel any loyalty to the Republicans at all. Well except for Chris Christie.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 04, 2016, 11:34:15 AM
The people voting for him?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 04, 2016, 11:34:15 AM
The people voting for him?

Quote from: celedhring on March 04, 2016, 06:51:05 AM
1. Nah, Trump can't win the nomination.
2. Nah, Trump can't win the general election.
3. Nah, a Trump presidency won't be able to do much.
4. Hey, I'm watching the Hunger Games tonight. I hope my district wins.

Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 10:50:46 AM

Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2016, 10:35:53 AM
Berlusconi was eventually stopped by Europe, and because of Europe, he could not go as far as Mussolini to begin with.  What is going to stop Trump?

The US federal government has checks and balances.  They are going to stop Trump well short of going as far as Mussolini.

Quote from: celedhring on March 04, 2016, 06:51:05 AM
1. Nah, Trump can't win the nomination.
2. Nah, Trump can't win the general election.
3. Nah, a Trump presidency won't be able to do much.
4. Hey, I'm watching the Hunger Games tonight. I hope my district wins.

Quote from: FunkMonk on March 04, 2016, 03:14:13 PM
"what if Trump actually wins and things get so bad here Mexico builds the wall themselves"

Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2016, 12:19:39 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 04, 2016, 11:34:15 AM
The people voting for him?

He has contempt for the people voting for him, just as every sane person does.  A trump presidency wouldn't be dangerous, because he isn't really interested in actually doing anything (let alone "cutting deals"), he is only interested in being someone that everyone talks about.  His presidency would be a constant trolling of the press, public, and politicians with goofy shit that has no chance of happening.  In other words, he would govern exactly as he promised to during the campaign, and would be the first president to actually do so.

Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2016, 02:58:16 PM
Guys. Guys.

Donald is not going to become Trumpator for life. Our population worships the Constitution, it would never happen.

Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2016, 09:32:56 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2016, 11:31:26 PM
You really buy in to that "deal-maker-in-chief", bullshit don't you? :lol:

So you think he's some sort of ideologue then?  He'd sell out his party in a minute to cut a deal with the Dems to get something he wanted. 

This is part of what worries me about him.

Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2016, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 10:50:46 AM

Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2016, 10:35:53 AM
Berlusconi was eventually stopped by Europe, and because of Europe, he could not go as far as Mussolini to begin with.  What is going to stop Trump?

The US federal government has checks and balances.  They are going to stop Trump well short of going as far as Mussolini.

Easy to circumvent with a Congress that has a Republican majority.
Then, it would be a matter of the Supreme court, and by the time he does something outrageous, it would be filled with people like him.

If you have people like Derspiess in the general population, willing to vote for Trump over anything the Democrat would propose, such people will eventually be found in Congress and higher.  And then, these people, faced with a choice of siding with a Democrat would chose the party over anything else, even if it's outrageous, thinking someone else will stop him eventually.

Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2016, 09:32:56 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2016, 11:31:26 PM
You really buy in to that "deal-maker-in-chief", bullshit don't you? :lol:

So you think he's some sort of ideologue then?  He'd sell out his party in a minute to cut a deal with the Dems to get something he wanted. 

This is part of what worries me about him.

Quote from: Ed Anger on March 04, 2016, 07:53:44 PM
I'm voting trump in the general election. Just to see who leaves the country.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2016, 08:12:53 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on March 04, 2016, 07:53:44 PM
I'm voting trump in the general election. Just to see who leaves the country.

Well, you are the only one of us that has a house in France...

Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2016, 07:56:49 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2016, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 10:50:46 AM

Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2016, 10:35:53 AM
Berlusconi was eventually stopped by Europe, and because of Europe, he could not go as far as Mussolini to begin with.  What is going to stop Trump?

The US federal government has checks and balances.  They are going to stop Trump well short of going as far as Mussolini.

Easy to circumvent with a Congress that has a Republican majority.
Then, it would be a matter of the Supreme court, and by the time he does something outrageous, it would be filled with people like him.

If you have people like Derspiess in the general population, willing to vote for Trump over anything the Democrat would propose, such people will eventually be found in Congress and higher.  And then, these people, faced with a choice of siding with a Democrat would chose the party over anything else, even if it's outrageous, thinking someone else will stop him eventually.

I'm going to quote this just so you can't claim you didn't write it.  It'll also be handy evidence to the contrary whenever any Canadian claims that Canadians generally know something about US politics.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 04, 2016, 08:21:45 PM
So Raz will call your neighbors in France and tell them all you voted for Trump.

Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2016, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 10:50:46 AM

Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2016, 10:35:53 AM
Berlusconi was eventually stopped by Europe, and because of Europe, he could not go as far as Mussolini to begin with.  What is going to stop Trump?

The US federal government has checks and balances.  They are going to stop Trump well short of going as far as Mussolini.

Easy to circumvent with a Congress that has a Republican majority.
Then, it would be a matter of the Supreme court, and by the time he does something outrageous, it would be filled with people like him.

If you have people like Derspiess in the general population, willing to vote for Trump over anything the Democrat would propose, such people will eventually be found in Congress and higher.  And then, these people, faced with a choice of siding with a Democrat would chose the party over anything else, even if it's outrageous, thinking someone else will stop him eventually.

Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2016, 08:33:16 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2016, 07:56:49 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2016, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 10:50:46 AM

Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2016, 10:35:53 AM
Berlusconi was eventually stopped by Europe, and because of Europe, he could not go as far as Mussolini to begin with.  What is going to stop Trump?

The US federal government has checks and balances.  They are going to stop Trump well short of going as far as Mussolini.

Easy to circumvent with a Congress that has a Republican majority.
Then, it would be a matter of the Supreme court, and by the time he does something outrageous, it would be filled with people like him.

If you have people like Derspiess in the general population, willing to vote for Trump over anything the Democrat would propose, such people will eventually be found in Congress and higher.  And then, these people, faced with a choice of siding with a Democrat would chose the party over anything else, even if it's outrageous, thinking someone else will stop him eventually.

I'm going to quote this just so you can't claim you didn't write it.  It'll also be handy evidence to the contrary whenever any Canadian claims that Canadians generally know something about US politics.

it's all ok then, you can all vote for Trump, he can't do anything bad, so there's no fear :)

Quote from: dps on March 04, 2016, 08:48:15 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2016, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2016, 10:50:46 AM

Quote from: viper37 on March 03, 2016, 10:35:53 AM
Berlusconi was eventually stopped by Europe, and because of Europe, he could not go as far as Mussolini to begin with.  What is going to stop Trump?

The US federal government has checks and balances.  They are going to stop Trump well short of going as far as Mussolini.

Easy to circumvent with a Congress that has a Republican majority.
Then, it would be a matter of the Supreme court, and by the time he does something outrageous, it would be filled with people like him.

If you have people like Derspiess in the general population, willing to vote for Trump over anything the Democrat would propose, such people will eventually be found in Congress and higher.  And then, these people, faced with a choice of siding with a Democrat would chose the party over anything else, even if it's outrageous, thinking someone else will stop him eventually.

.

Even Presidents who have had Congresses in which both houses are controlled by their party have had some trouble getting Congress to go along with everything they wanted to do.

Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2016, 07:52:04 PM
Who do I hate again? I keep forgetting.

Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2016, 09:26:56 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2016, 07:52:04 PM
Who do I hate again? I keep forgetting.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.diytransfers.com%2Fbmz_cache%2Fb%2Fb4c77ffee99e97bdfb9e3e8d83a1674b.image.156x200.png&hash=1e4c03b036fd07cfd2f8a0d12029da004fe0e201)

Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2016, 08:59:53 PM
Particularly when both parties in both houses of the legislature hate the president's guts and want to see him flop spectacularly, and you have a president who has no interest in governing.  The specter raised by our Canadian friends about a constitutional overhaul and Supreme Court packing, and the one raised by our Razman about a military coup are amusing, but not credible.  Trump could do some damage through negligence and some more through willfulness, but the damage he can do is limited in our system of government.  I think he's too lazy to even be willfully bad, but that's just an opinion and not relevant to the main point.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2016, 10:41:35 PM
I figured out what Grumbler was on about.  For some reason when I alluded to him having an army as President he took that as Trump was going to launch a military coup.  What I meant was that Trump could start a war or something.

Quote from: viper37 on March 05, 2016, 02:36:43 AM
You mean he can't convince Congress to invade another country on false pretense?
He can't torture non american citizens?
He can't open secret prison?
He can't order extra-judicial execution of people deemed to be ennemy of the US?
He can't deport illegal immigrants?
He can't convince Congress to change the rules on whom is allowed to become a US citizen, effectively barring muslim immigration for at least a few years?  Or simply changing the rules via decree so that while not technically impossible it would be extremely hard and long for any would immigrant not on Trump's desirability list to enter the country and/or become a citizen of said country?
He can't interpret the rules of NAFTA his own way to turn the US into an even more protectionist state?
He can't vote any kind of silly plan like "Buy American" where the US government would not contract with businesses unless over 90% of their product are made on US soil?
He can't coerce Congress, with carrot&stick, to vote tax laws quite... good for his businesses?
He can't pull out of international treaties he judges unfair for the country?
He can't convince his losing opponents to support him?  Ah, sorry, it's already been done...

I think the list of what he can do is pretty long.  He can use veto, he can use decree.  Will he be popular?  Depends.  He got that far saying that much and he's very popular.  Heck, the little popularity he might have lost was by announcing he wouldn't kill the families of suspected terrorists.

I don't think he can find a way to vote himself POTUS for life, even if Fox News already told us GW Bush did not have to resign after his 2nd term by some twist of constitutional logic I still don't quite get.  But he can do a lot of damage to international relations and to both US & Canada's economy.

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 10:36:48 AM
Incidentally, why would deporting illegal immigrants be a bad thing, per se? I get torture, extra judicial killings, secret prisons and stuff, but isn't that the point of having immigration laws - that people who break them can't stay?  :hmm:

QuoteHomeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced Monday that federal immigration authorities apprehended 121 adults and children in raids over the New Year's weekend as part of a nationwide operation to deport a new wave of illegal immigrants.The families taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were living in Georgia, Texas and North Carolina, Johnson said in a statement. They are being held temporarily in federal detention centers before being deported to Central America."As I have said repeatedly, our borders are not open to illegal migration," Johnson said. "If you come here illegally, we will send you back consistent with our laws and values."

QuoteJohnson said the raids follow a crackdown on illegal immigration that started in summer 2014 and has resulted in about 14 flights a week carrying those who have been apprehended back to Central America.

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 11:41:01 AM
No, that is a rather huge one actually.

QuoteAn Eclectic Extremist


Donald Trump's distinctly American authoritarianism draws equally from the wacko right and wacko left.

By Jacob Weisberg

In 1935, Sinclair Lewis published It Can't Happen Here, a novel today more referred to than read, which imagined fascism coming to the U.S. The movement's leader is Buzz Windrip, a populist demagogue who promises "to make America a proud, rich land again," punish nations that defy him, and raise wages very high while keeping prices very low.

You can't read Lewis' novel today without flashes of Trumpian recognition. Windrip is a demagogic huckster, "an inspired guesser at what political doctrines the people would like," who understands how to manipulate the media and considers the truth an irrelevancy. His constituency of economically dispossessed white men moos at his xenophobic nationalism and preposterous promises. After he wins the 1936 election, Windrip moves to assert control over the press, lock up his opponents, and put competent businessmen in charge of the country.


Though the novel is in truth not a very good one, Lewis develops it around a key insight: that if fascism came to the US, it would be as a variation on American themes, not European ones. The American man on horseback would be more Huey Long than Benito Mussolini, a folksy opportunist rather than a red-faced ideologue. Lewis was shrewd in guessing that an American fascist leader would likely declare himself an opponent of European fascism.


This is a point that some of those accusing Donald Trump of fascism—including many on the right—misunderstand. Sure, Trump may retweet the odd quote from Il Duce and wonder why anyone would object. Admittedly, his rallies teeter on the edge of racial violence. Again this week, black protesters were forcibly ejected from his events with the help of white supremacist thugs. True, the world leaders Mr. Trump admires are the dictators, not the democrats. Certainly, he sounds like a dictator himself.


But Trump does not draw on traditions of European totalitarianism or even appear to know anything about them. He is not consumed with historical grievances; he's not an anti-Semite; he hasn't tried to build a mass party; and he doesn't demand the restoration of tradition or an old moral order. Indeed, as a reality TV star and cyberbully on his third wife, he is himself a good illustration of the breakdown of any moral order possibly remaining.


Rather, Trump represents what autocratic attitudes look like in a modern American context. He is unfriendly toward the free market, the free press, and the free exercise of religion while paying lip service to these values. He is xenophobic, conspiratorial in his worldview, admiring of violence and torture, contemptuous of the weak, and unwilling to tolerate criticism or peaceful dissent—but all in the name of correcting excesses of tolerance. Various global and historical comparisons shed light on his style and thinking: Perón, de Gaulle, Silvio Berlusconi, Vladimir Putin, and others. But Trump isn't importing Latin caudillismo or Russian despotism. He bullies those who resist him in the contemporary vernacular of American celebrity culture.


This is why those arguing that Trump's policies are more moderate than those of his rivals Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio miss the point. Trump's authoritarianism is an amalgam not of left and right but of wacko left and wacko right: He thinks that George Bush was to blame for 9/11 and that Muslims should be barred from the U.S. Believing both of those things does not make Mr. Trump a centrist—it makes him an eclectic extremist. When it comes to policies, he actually has none in the conventional sense.


The conflict in the 2016 campaign is no longer Trump versus his Republican opponents; it is now Trump versus the American political system. That system is on the verge of missing its best opportunity to spit him out. Since Super Tuesday, the GOP's reaction to Trump has been mildly heartening, with anti-Trump ads on television and principled politicians like Mitt Romney denouncing him amid torrents of personal abuse. Three cheers for Sen. Lindsey Graham, who says Trump is a "nut job" and that the GOP has gone "batshit crazy." Fellow Republicans have taken to calling Chris Christie, who cravenly endorsed Trump last week, a "Vichy Republican." But this is all probably too little, too late.


If sane Republicans fail to derail Trump, that job will fall to Hillary Clinton and the November electorate. Fifty-five percent say they would never vote for Trump, according to a YouGov poll. Nonetheless, there is now a nontrivial risk that he could win the election. The American founders designed a constitutional order to prevent the exercise of tyrannical power. But the country has arguably never had to contend with a dictatorial president, as opposed to a president's dictatorial acts. One can believe in the efficacy of the system without wishing to see it tested in this way.


An America in which Trump can represent one of the major parties feels like a very different country from the one many of us thought we lived in. Like a lot of people, I was much too complacent. It can happen here, and it might.

Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2016, 09:26:56 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2016, 07:52:04 PM
Who do I hate again? I keep forgetting.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.diytransfers.com%2Fbmz_cache%2Fb%2Fb4c77ffee99e97bdfb9e3e8d83a1674b.image.156x200.png&hash=1e4c03b036fd07cfd2f8a0d12029da004fe0e201)

Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2016, 09:43:29 AM

Quote from: viper37 on March 05, 2016, 02:36:43 AM
You mean he can't convince Congress to invade another country on false pretense?
He can't torture non american citizens?
He can't open secret prison?
He can't order extra-judicial execution of people deemed to be ennemy of the US?
He can't deport illegal immigrants?
He can't convince Congress to change the rules on whom is allowed to become a US citizen, effectively barring muslim immigration for at least a few years?  Or simply changing the rules via decree so that while not technically impossible it would be extremely hard and long for any would immigrant not on Trump's desirability list to enter the country and/or become a citizen of said country?
He can't interpret the rules of NAFTA his own way to turn the US into an even more protectionist state?
He can't vote any kind of silly plan like "Buy American" where the US government would not contract with businesses unless over 90% of their product are made on US soil?
He can't coerce Congress, with carrot&stick, to vote tax laws quite... good for his businesses?
He can't pull out of international treaties he judges unfair for the country?
He can't convince his losing opponents to support him?  Ah, sorry, it's already been done...

I think the list of what he can do is pretty long.  He can use veto, he can use decree.  Will he be popular?  Depends.  He got that far saying that much and he's very popular.  Heck, the little popularity he might have lost was by announcing he wouldn't kill the families of suspected terrorists.

I don't think he can find a way to vote himself POTUS for life, even if Fox News already told us GW Bush did not have to resign after his 2nd term by some twist of constitutional logic I still don't quite get.  But he can do a lot of damage to international relations and to both US & Canada's economy.

Your list is mostly  list of things he cannot do. 

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 01:50:51 AM
Right.  Mostly stuff that happenned before, but can't happen anymore because you say so.  Got it :)

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2016, 07:09:12 AM

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 01:50:51 AM
Right.  Mostly stuff that happenned before, but can't happen anymore because you say so.  Got it :)

It isn't "mostly stuff that happened before," but, since you consider yourself such an expert on US politics, you go on believing and saying that.  It is harmless and amusing.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 10:03:06 AM
Buy American is an ad campaign.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 11:32:30 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 10:03:06 AM
Buy American is an ad campaign.

You should look at the Buy American Act which applies to all U.S. federal government agency purchases of goods over a certain value. Under the Act, all goods for public use must be produced in the U.S., and manufactured items must be manufactured in the U.S. from U.S. materials.  In addition a number of states included similar geographic production requirements in their procurement legislation.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 11:32:30 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 10:03:06 AM
Buy American is an ad campaign.

You should look at the Buy American Act which applies to all U.S. federal government agency purchases of goods over a certain value. Under the Act, all goods for public use must be produced in the U.S., and manufactured items must be manufactured in the U.S. from U.S. materials.  In addition a number of states included similar geographic production requirements in their procurement legislation.

QuoteThe Buy American Act ("BAA", originally 41 U.S.C. §§ 10a–10d, now 41 U.S.C. §§ 8301–8305) passed in 1933 by Congress and signed by President Hoover on his last full day in office (March 3, 1933),[1] required the United States government to prefer U.S.-made products in its purchases. Other pieces of Federal legislation extend similar requirements to third-party purchases that utilize Federal funds, such as highway and transit programs.

The Buy American Act is not to be confused with the very similarly named Buy America Act, which came into effect in 1983. The latter, a provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, is 49 U.S.C., § 5323 (j), and applies only to mass-transit-related procurements valued over US$100,000 and funded at least in part by federal grants.[2]

In certain government procurements, the requirement purchase may be waived by the Contracting Officer or the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) if the domestic product is 50% or more expensive than an identical foreign-sourced product, if the product is not available domestically in sufficient quantity or quality, or if doing so is in the public interest.

The President has the authority to waive the Buy American Act within the terms of a reciprocal agreement or otherwise in response to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Government Procurement Code, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) 1996 Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), the United States provides access to the government procurement of certain U.S. agencies for goods from the other parties to those agreements. However, the Buy American Act was excluded from the GPA's coverage.

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 09:22:22 AM

Deporting illegal immigrants, so far, no, it hasn't happenned, and he can not reclassify what is an immigrant without Congress, but given the support he has from the Tea Party, it could happen.

Quote from: dps on March 07, 2016, 12:33:48 PM
On this one, I think you're still missing the point that illegal immigrants are supposed to be deported. 

Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 12:00:50 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 11:32:30 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 10:03:06 AM
Buy American is an ad campaign.

You should look at the Buy American Act which applies to all U.S. federal government agency purchases of goods over a certain value. Under the Act, all goods for public use must be produced in the U.S., and manufactured items must be manufactured in the U.S. from U.S. materials.  In addition a number of states included similar geographic production requirements in their procurement legislation.

That's not actually true.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_American_Act

QuoteThe Buy American Act ("BAA", originally 41 U.S.C. §§ 10a–10d, now 41 U.S.C. §§ 8301–8305) passed in 1933 by Congress and signed by President Hoover on his last full day in office (March 3, 1933),[1] required the United States government to prefer U.S.-made products in its purchases. Other pieces of Federal legislation extend similar requirements to third-party purchases that utilize Federal funds, such as highway and transit programs.

The Buy American Act is not to be confused with the very similarly named Buy America Act, which came into effect in 1983. The latter, a provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, is 49 U.S.C., § 5323 (j), and applies only to mass-transit-related procurements valued over US$100,000 and funded at least in part by federal grants.[2]

In certain government procurements, the requirement purchase may be waived by the Contracting Officer or the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) if the domestic product is 50% or more expensive than an identical foreign-sourced product, if the product is not available domestically in sufficient quantity or quality, or if doing so is in the public interest.

The President has the authority to waive the Buy American Act within the terms of a reciprocal agreement or otherwise in response to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Government Procurement Code, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) 1996 Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), the United States provides access to the government procurement of certain U.S. agencies for goods from the other parties to those agreements. However, the Buy American Act was excluded from the GPA's coverage.

Quote from: dps on March 07, 2016, 12:33:48 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 09:22:22 AM

Deporting illegal immigrants, so far, no, it hasn't happenned, and he can not reclassify what is an immigrant without Congress, but given the support he has from the Tea Party, it could happen.

On this one, I think you're still missing the point that illegal immigrants are supposed to be deported. 

Quote from: dps on March 07, 2016, 12:33:48 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 09:22:22 AM

Deporting illegal immigrants, so far, no, it hasn't happenned, and he can not reclassify what is an immigrant without Congress, but given the support he has from the Tea Party, it could happen.

On this one, I think you're still missing the point that illegal immigrants are supposed to be deported.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 12:37:50 PM


Raz, I am not sure you have understood that Wiki entry.  And I know Grumbler didn't.


If you want to know a bit more than a very cursory Wiki entry try this link

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4416059&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&File=18&Language=E (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4416059&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&File=18&Language=E)

and if that is too much of a wall of text.  Here is a more handy summary of both acts and the restrictions they put on trade.

http://www.international.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/buyamerica.aspx?lang=eng (http://www.international.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/buyamerica.aspx?lang=eng)

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 12:37:50 PM
Raz, I am not sure you have understood that Wiki entry.  And I know Grumbler didn't.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2016, 01:19:28 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 12:37:50 PM


Raz, I am not sure you have understood that Wiki entry.  And I know Grumbler didn't.


If you want to know a bit more than a very cursory Wiki entry try this link

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4416059&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&File=18&Language=E (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4416059&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&File=18&Language=E)

and if that is too much of a wall of text.  Here is a more handy summary of both acts and the restrictions they put on trade.

http://www.international.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/buyamerica.aspx?lang=eng (http://www.international.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/buyamerica.aspx?lang=eng)

I see that it says there are notable exceptions, so not all goods over a certain price must be made in the US.

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2016, 01:38:36 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 12:37:50 PM
Raz, I am not sure you have understood that Wiki entry.  And I know Grumbler didn't.

I am not Canadian, so i don't use wikipedia as the source of my knowledge. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 01:40:29 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2016, 01:38:36 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 12:37:50 PM
Raz, I am not sure you have understood that Wiki entry.  And I know Grumbler didn't.

I am not Canadian, so i don't use wikipedia as the source of my knowledge. 

You are going over that line from being funny to just pathetic.

Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2016, 01:46:00 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 01:40:29 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2016, 01:38:36 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 12:37:50 PM
Raz, I am not sure you have understood that Wiki entry.  And I know Grumbler didn't.

I am not Canadian, so i don't use wikipedia as the source of my knowledge. 

You are going over that line from being funny to just pathetic.

Him and Raz are the only two posters I ignore at the moment.

Quote from: dps on March 07, 2016, 12:33:48 PM
On this one, I think you're still missing the point that illegal immigrants are supposed to be deported. 

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 02:02:07 PM
Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 02:02:07 PM
yes, but if I decide all muslims are illegal immigrants, then they are deported too.
Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

QuoteYou can kill them, torture them, jail them indefinately, deny them entry into US territory even while transiting 45 000 ft above said territory.  People who are US residents but not yet citizens could be declared illegal.

QuoteAlso, there could be a witch hunt, with many innocent people deported, for lack of ability to sucessfully defend themselves against an overarching immigration agency. Then, there comes the deportation of legitimate US citizens found guilty of helping/harboring illegal immigrants.  It's not like these people just come to the US and stay there on their own.

Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 02:20:43 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 02:02:07 PM
Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

Established among whom? :huh:

Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 02:20:43 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 02:02:07 PM
Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

Established among whom? :huh:

Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2016, 01:46:00 PM
Him and Raz are the only two posters I ignore at the moment.

Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2016, 04:07:23 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2016, 01:46:00 PM
Him and Raz are the only two posters I ignore at the moment.

:hmm: Guess I need to try harder.

Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2016, 01:46:00 PM


Him and Raz are the only two posters I ignore at the moment.

Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2016, 01:46:00 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 01:40:29 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2016, 01:38:36 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2016, 12:37:50 PM
Raz, I am not sure you have understood that Wiki entry.  And I know Grumbler didn't.

I am not Canadian, so i don't use wikipedia as the source of my knowledge. 

You are going over that line from being funny to just pathetic.

Him and Raz are the only two posters I ignore at the moment.

Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 02:20:43 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 02:02:07 PM
Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

Established among whom? :huh:

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 11:44:03 AM

Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 02:20:43 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2016, 02:02:07 PM
Non American citizens have no rights under the US Constitution, that has been established. 

Established among whom? :huh:

Guntanamo kinda proved that.

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 11:44:03 AM
Guntanamo kinda proved that.

Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2016, 12:03:10 PM
You are aware the reason the government chose Guantanamo instead of just putting them in Leavenworth or something right? It is because there are technical reasons why they can avoid judicial oversight over there.

Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2016, 02:19:46 PM
Are you drunk?

Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2016, 12:03:10 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 11:44:03 AM
Guntanamo kinda proved that.

You are aware the reason the government chose Guantanamo instead of just putting them in Leavenworth or something right? It is because there are technical reasons why they can avoid judicial oversight over there.

Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 12:09:25 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2016, 12:03:10 PM
You are aware the reason the government chose Guantanamo instead of just putting them in Leavenworth or something right? It is because there are technical reasons why they can avoid judicial oversight over there.

No, they can't.  The Bush administration tried to argue that, because the detainees were held outside the US, the president could treat them as he wished under his powers as commander-in-chief, and to try them n tribunals set up by fiat.  The USSC struck down that position, and ruled that the detainees were entitled to due process, that only Congress could establish the courts to try them, etc.

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
The entire argument of Grumbler is that Trump is harmless. 

Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 02:33:32 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
The entire argument of Grumbler is that Trump is harmless. 

So, now that you have been proven wrong on pretty much every point, you are going to start with the lies?  I have never said that "trump is harmless," so i won't even challenge you to do the impossible and prove that I said that.

If the best argument you have is a lie, then I'd advise you to stop making more of an ass out of yourself and just shut up.

QuoteTrump could do some damage through negligence and some more through willfulness, but the damage he can do is limited in our system of government.  I think he's too lazy to even be willfully bad, but that's just an opinion and not relevant to the main point.

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 12:34:30 PM
Yes, and Bush immediatly shut down the detention camp, right? :)

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 02:36:00 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 02:33:32 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
The entire argument of Grumbler is that Trump is harmless. 

So, now that you have been proven wrong on pretty much every point, you are going to start with the lies?  I have never said that "trump is harmless," so i won't even challenge you to do the impossible and prove that I said that.

If the best argument you have is a lie, then I'd advise you to stop making more of an ass out of yourself and just shut up.

QuoteTrump could do some damage through negligence and some more through willfulness, but the damage he can do is limited in our system of government.  I think he's too lazy to even be willfully bad, but that's just an opinion and not relevant to the main point.

your own words.

Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 02:39:33 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 02:36:00 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 02:33:32 PM

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
The entire argument of Grumbler is that Trump is harmless. 

So, now that you have been proven wrong on pretty much every point, you are going to start with the lies?  I have never said that "trump is harmless," so i won't even challenge you to do the impossible and prove that I said that.

If the best argument you have is a lie, then I'd advise you to stop making more of an ass out of yourself and just shut up.

QuoteTrump could do some damage through negligence and some more through willfulness, but the damage he can do is limited in our system of government.  I think he's too lazy to even be willfully bad, but that's just an opinion and not relevant to the main point.

your own words.

Yes, my words prove that you are a liar.  Care to retract, or are you going to double down on your stupid?

Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 03:43:58 PM
the problem here is a misunderstanding. viper's "harmless" isn't literal

Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2016, 03:46:19 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 03:43:58 PM
the problem here is a misunderstanding. viper's "harmless" isn't literal

That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2016, 03:46:19 PMThat is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 03:43:58 PM
the problem here is a misunderstanding. viper's "harmless" isn't literal

Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2016, 03:46:19 PM
That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 04:09:16 PMIt isn't his "harmless,"  though.  He is dishonestly trying to attribute it to me.  He's now weaseling to "kinda harmless" since the bald-faced lie isn't going to fly.  So I'll meet him half-way and note that it is "kinda" stupid to expect to get away with the bald-faced lie.

He has successfully turned attention away from his absurd Nine Impossible Things Trump Will Do Before Breakfast list, so maybe he thinks lying is worth it.

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 12:26:30 PM

It's not like the Congress ever opposed GW Bush for anything he attempted

Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2016, 03:46:19 PM
That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2016, 05:01:31 PM
I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 04:19:06 PM
well, let's remember how this tangent started. he was saying more silly things, and one thing was a non-literal "grumbler thinks Trump is harmless!" you focused on that bit and naturally ignored the nonsense, because there'd been so much of it already. you're correct that you didn't say trump was harmless, and viper is also correct that he didn't lie -- he probably never meant literal harmless. some people toss around words with less precision than others, which leads to misunderstandings when one side takes the actual definition of the word

Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 05:45:46 PMAgain, you fail to comprehend that the problem was not that he used a word that wasn't true, it is that he attributed that untrue word to me.  When, in a debate, a person attempts to pin an untrue assertion on an opponent, and the opponent objects, then one retracts.  One does not double down on the dishonesty by saying that the opponent "kinda" said the untrue thing, especially when the opponent is arguing the opposite of the untrue assertion.  That is just another lie on top of the original lie.  Lying is bad.  Serial lying... well, we all know what that indicates.

I never said anything "kinda" like "Trump is harmless."

Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2016, 05:01:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2016, 03:46:19 PM
That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2016, 05:37:34 PM

Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2016, 05:01:31 PM
I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

:hug:  This is untrue, for what it is worth.  There have been genuinely unpleasant shitstorms that didn't even involve you.  They are somewhat rare, true, but it is an exaggeration to say that it is "almost invariable" that you are involved.

Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2016, 05:01:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2016, 03:46:19 PM
That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 08, 2016, 06:05:19 PM

Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2016, 05:01:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2016, 03:46:19 PM
That is NOT a problem of misunderstanding though - it is a problem of intentionally refusing to understand your opponents argument in the way they intend it. It is fucking annoying as hell, and lots of people do it regularly. I imagine I do as well, although I try not to...

It is why there are so few actual discussions in good faith, because everyone tries to score points, even if they are transparently bullshit points, rather than communicate ideas.

I think the explanation is simpler.  Whenever a discussion turns into a genuinely unpleasant shit storm, it's almost invariable that one certain poster is involved.  Doesn't matter if he/she is right or wrong, though when he/she is wrong, all of what you described is certainly applicable to him/her.  Can't really have good faith discussions with a maniac who seems to thrive on insulting other people.

It's not Brazen, so you can go ahead and describe the poster as "he".

Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
  As for the courts, the Gitmo case has proven that laws ain't that clear.  Lots of legal rulings contradicting each other and even if ultimately most of it is judged illegal, the President can pretty much chose to ignore the ruling (besides, there's still the Andrew Jackson precedent, even if it is a long time ago in another... well, it's just something that GOP supporters use to quote whenever there was a ruling against the Bush administration).

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 09, 2016, 07:49:14 PM
I can't think of a time in recent memory where a President simply disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling.

Quote from: dps on March 09, 2016, 08:52:44 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 09, 2016, 07:49:14 PM
I can't think of a time in recent memory where a President simply disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling.

Off hand, I'm not aware of any Presidents doing so other than Jackson and Lincoln.

Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 09:09:10 PM

Quote from: dps on March 09, 2016, 08:52:44 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 09, 2016, 07:49:14 PM
I can't think of a time in recent memory where a President simply disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling.

Off hand, I'm not aware of any Presidents doing so other than Jackson and Lincoln.

Lincoln? Which ruling was this?

Quote from: dps on March 09, 2016, 09:28:21 PM
Suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.  Don't recall the name of the case offhand.

Quote from: dps on March 09, 2016, 09:28:21 PM
EDIT:  Looked it up, it was ex Parte Merryman, but that wasn't a SCOTUS ruling, it was a US Circuit Court ruling.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2016, 10:26:37 PM
Where in the Constitution is someone given the power to suspend habeas corpus?

QuoteThe Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 03:43:58 PM
the problem here is a misunderstanding. viper's "harmless" isn't literal

Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2016, 10:54:18 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on March 08, 2016, 03:43:58 PM
the problem here is a misunderstanding. viper's "harmless" isn't literal

yes.  So simple to understand, when you try.

QuoteFebruary 27, 2016, 10:33 pm
Trump tells Christie: 'Get on the plane and go home'
By Caitlin Yilek
The Hill

Donald Trump told Chris Christie to "go home" after the New Jersey governor introduced the billionaire at a campaign rally in Arkansas on Saturday.
"Get on the plane and go home," Trump is heard saying to Christie.
Christie arrived at the rally with Trump via the real estate mogul's plane. The two exited the plane in front of a crowd and then Christie introduced Trump.
After the short introduction, the two shook hands while Trump leaned in to say something unintelligible. Then, Trump can be heard telling Christie to get on the plane.
Christie endorsed Trump earlier this week.

Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2016, 10:03:42 PM
So he wants Christie to stump for him in New Jersey?

Granted that primary is not for months. Which frankly makes me almost physically ill I am so damn tired of this election. But then I feel like that for every Presidential election.

Quote
This is how fascism comes to America

Robert Kagan
Opinions May 18

The Republican Party's attempt to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic. If only he would mouth the party's "conservative" principles, all would be well.

But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.


And the source of allegiance? We're supposed to believe that Trump's support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of "others" — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as anyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.


Republican politicians marvel at how he has "tapped into" a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the "mobocracy." Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.

This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called "fascism." Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. "National socialism" was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.

To understand how such movements take over a democracy, one only has to watch the Republican Party today. These movements play on all the fears, vanities, ambitions and insecurities that make up the human psyche. In democracies, at least for politicians, the only thing that matters is what the voters say they want — vox populi vox Dei. A mass political movement is thus a powerful and, to those who would oppose it, frightening weapon. When controlled and directed by a single leader, it can be aimed at whomever the leader chooses. If someone criticizes or opposes the leader, it doesn't matter how popular or admired that person has been. He might be a famous war hero, but if the leader derides and ridicules his heroism, the followers laugh and jeer. He might be the highest-ranking elected guardian of the party's most cherished principles. But if he hesitates to support the leader, he faces political death.

In such an environment, every political figure confronts a stark choice: Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over. The human race in such circumstances breaks down into predictable categories — and democratic politicians are the most predictable. There are those whose ambition leads them to jump on the bandwagon. They praise the leader's incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won't let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin's show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway.


RNC chairman: Republicans will find common ground with Trump 
Play Video0:56
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and the GOP will find common ground ahead of the general election. (Reuters)
A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot. Let the storm pass, they insist, and then we can pick up the pieces, rebuild and get back to normal. Meanwhile, don't alienate the leader's mass following. After all, they are voters and will need to be brought back into the fold. As for Trump himself, let's shape him, advise him, steer him in the right direction and, not incidentally, save our political skins.

What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing. He will have ridden to power despite the party, catapulted into the White House by a mass following devoted only to him. By then that following will have grown dramatically. Today, less than 5 percent of eligible voters have voted for Trump. But if he wins the election, his legions will likely comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then. In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that lay down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?

This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac "tapping into" popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.

Quote from: Siege on March 12, 2016, 08:38:37 PM
The selective application of freedom of speech is no freedom at all.

Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 10:30:11 PM
[Article One, Section 9 of course. Which was justification for the claim only Congress could do it in the first place.

QuoteThe Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

But of course that section is about stuff Congress cannot do, it does not say who can require it in cases of rebellion or invasion. And since Congress is sometimes not in session it seemed logical the Executive could therefore require it.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 20, 2016, 10:34:43 AM
Guess that depends on your interpretation of the separation of powers.  Arguably suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus is making law, and thus by some interpretations not something the Executive is ever allowed to do without specific permission from Congress.

Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
I used the Kagan piece in my AP World history class today as an exercise in finding logical fallacies.  It went very well.  Thanks for sharing it.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 21, 2016, 04:56:31 PM
As a ...student... of fascism, I was pretty darn offended by his line that "Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society." :mad: That's demonstrably untrue, if not a logical fallacy.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 21, 2016, 09:24:21 AM

Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
I used the Kagan piece in my AP World history class today as an exercise in finding logical fallacies.  It went very well.  Thanks for sharing it.

How many were there?

Quote
Going There with Donald Trump
BY ADAM GOPNIK

How do I know what I find incredible?" a bemused philosopher asks in Tom Stoppard's play "Jumpers." "Credibility is an expanding field ... and sheer disbelief hardly registers on the face before the head is nodding with all the wisdom of instant hindsight." This is a now familiar emotion, a recognizable expansion. The unimaginable happens—Donald Trump, fool, oaf, and sociopathic liar, becomes the nominee of a major American political party—and within minutes what ought to be a shock beyond understanding becomes an event to savor, accept, and analyze. The desperate efforts to normalize the aberrant begin: he's actually a Rockefeller Republican with orange hair; he wasn't humiliated by President Obama's mockery at that dinner in 2011 but responded as a lovable, gregarious good guy; even his birtherism wasn't the vile racist sewage anyone could see it to be—he was genuinely unsure about where exactly it was the President was born. Trump tells one wild ranting lie after another on Sunday-morning television—we are the most heavily taxed nation in the world; he always opposed the Iraq war—and Chuck Todd can't do much more than nod and say "Gotcha!"

This is the kind of desperate response to the rise of fascism one might expect to find in a decadent media culture. Neocons have made a fetish of 1938; in retrospect they would have done better looking hard at 1933. There is a simple formula for descriptions of Donald Trump: add together a qualification, a hyphen, and the word "fascist." The sum may be crypto-fascist, neo-fascist, latent fascist, proto-fascist, or American-variety fascist—one of that kind, all the same. Future political scientists will analyze (let us hope in amused retrospect, rather than in exile in New Zealand or Alberta) the precise elements of Poujadisme, Peronism and Huck Finn's Pap that compound in Trump's "ideology." But his personality and his program belong exclusively to the same dark strain of modern politics: an incoherent program of national revenge led by a strongman; a contempt for parliamentary government and procedures; an insistence that the existing, democratically elected government, whether Léon Blum's or Barack Obama's, is in league with evil outsiders and has been secretly trying to undermine the nation; a hysterical militarism designed to no particular end than the sheer spectacle of strength; an equally hysterical sense of beleaguerment and victimization; and a supposed suspicion of big capitalism entirely reconciled to the worship of wealth and "success." It is always alike, and always leads inexorably to the same place: failure, met not by self-correction but by an inflation of the original program of grievances, and so then on to catastrophe. The idea that it can be bounded in by honest conservatives in a Cabinet or restrained by normal constitutional limits is, to put it mildly, unsupported by history.


To associate such ideas too mechanically with the rise of some specific economic anxiety is to give the movement and its leader a dignity and sympathy that they do not deserve. In France, Jean Marie Le Pen's voters are often ex-Communists, working people who also believe their national identity to have been disrupted by immigration. That does not alter, or make more sympathetic, the toxic nature of his program; the ideology that it resonates to is an ancient and persistent one, that thrives through good times and bad. That Trump can dominate an increasingly right-wing nationalist party with a right-wing, white-nationalist creed is neither surprising nor all that complicated. Anyway, the notion that a class cure can be had for a nationalist disease was the persistent, tragic delusion of progressive politics throughout the twentieth century.

The question is about action and here, as has been said before in this space, the best parallel in modern politics occurred in the French Presidential election of 2002, when the left and right joined to form a Republican Front—ironic term—designed to keep Le Pen from power. The lines of a similar Republican front seem dismayingly harder to see here. Almost every intelligent conservative knows perfectly well who Donald Trump is and what he stands for. But NeverTrump is a meaningless slogan unless one is prepared to say ThisOnceHillary.

Some may be waiting for a third choice to emerge, an honorable if improbable idea, but too many seem hobbled by a disdain rooted less in rationality than in pure habit to see the reality of the circumstance. This kind of Republican front would not really require that anyone formally endorse Hillary's politics, which they have every right to resist and criticize. But voting against Trump is an act of allegiance to America. Even if Republicans are persuaded that she is Claire Underwood out of "House of Cards"—well, Claire Underwood is a more stable person to have in office than a cross between Sauron and Bozo the Clown. What would Hillary Clinton be like in the White House? Well, she was in the White House, once, and helped preside over a period of peace and mostly widespread prosperity. One can oppose her ideology (to the degree she has any), be unimpressed by her record (as contradictory as it may be), or mistrustful of her character. God knows, it is bitterly hard to defer to a long-standing political enemy, but it is insane to equate a moderate, tested professional politician with a crypto-fascist. Doing so is possible only through a habit of hatred so distended that it no longer has any reference to reality at all.


Hitler's enablers in 1933—yes, we should go there, instantly and often, not to blacken our political opponents but as a reminder that evil happens insidiously, and most often with people on the same side telling each other, Well, he's not so bad, not as bad as they are. We can control him. (Or, on the opposite side, I'd rather have a radical who will make the establishment miserable than a moderate who will make people think it can all be worked out.) Trump is not Hitler. (Though replace "Muslim" with "Jew" in many of Trump's diktats and you will feel a little less complacent.) But the worst sometimes happens. If people of good will fail to act, and soon, it can happen here.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2016, 08:02:43 PM

Quote
Hitler's enablers in 1933—yes, we should go there, instantly and often, not to blacken our political opponents but as a reminder that evil happens insidiously, and most often with people on the same side telling each other, Well, he's not so bad, not as bad as they are.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 20, 2016, 10:34:43 AM

Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2016, 10:30:11 PM
[Article One, Section 9 of course. Which was justification for the claim only Congress could do it in the first place.

QuoteThe Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

But of course that section is about stuff Congress cannot do, it does not say who can require it in cases of rebellion or invasion. And since Congress is sometimes not in session it seemed logical the Executive could therefore require it.

Guess that depends on your interpretation of the separation of powers.  Arguably suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus is making law, and thus by some interpretations not something the Executive is ever allowed to do without specific permission from Congress.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 21, 2016, 04:56:31 PM
As a ...student... of fascism, I was pretty darn offended by his line that "Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society." :mad: That's demonstrably untrue, if not a logical fallacy.

Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2016, 10:25:39 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 21, 2016, 04:56:31 PM
As a ...student... of fascism, I was pretty darn offended by his line that "Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society." :mad: That's demonstrably untrue, if not a logical fallacy.

Fascism, at least the Italian variety, did seem to have a big focus on action and less on a coherent program I seem to recall.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 21, 2016, 09:55:25 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2016, 08:02:43 PM

Quote
Hitler’s enablers in 1933—yes, we should go there, instantly and often, not to blacken our political opponents but as a reminder that evil happens insidiously, and most often with people on the same side telling each other, Well, he’s not so bad, not as bad as they are.

Is this even a sentence?

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 21, 2016, 09:47:19 PM
I liked Gopnik better as the New Yorker's correspondent in Paris, where he could weave whimsical tales of life in the City of Lights for those of us too poor to go there regularly (or ever) -- not that the Parisians loved his take on their town...

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on May 22, 2016, 07:09:38 AM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 21, 2016, 09:47:19 PM
I liked Gopnik better as the New Yorker's correspondent in Paris, where he could weave whimsical tales of life in the City of Lights for those of us too poor to go there regularly (or ever) -- not that the Parisians loved his take on their town...

Since nearly all Parisians do not know him I don't believe they loved or hated his take on the City of Lights.   :P

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2016, 08:02:43 PM
The spinelessness of the GOP amazes me. I find it incredible that so many intelligent and experienced people beleive they'll be able to control Trump.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 22, 2016, 02:15:53 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2016, 08:02:43 PM
The spinelessness of the GOP amazes me. I find it incredible that so many intelligent and experienced people beleive they'll be able to control Trump.

Well, it also seems incredible that intelligent and experienced people in the GOP would be able to control Hillary.

Maybe their support of a candidate isn't entirely based on who they think they can control.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 21, 2016, 11:09:47 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2016, 10:25:39 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 21, 2016, 04:56:31 PM
As a ...student... of fascism, I was pretty darn offended by his line that "Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society." :mad: That's demonstrably untrue, if not a logical fallacy.

Fascism, at least the Italian variety, did seem to have a big focus on action and less on a coherent program I seem to recall.

Corporatism was essential to Italian fascism, and that of type economic program is obviously lacking here, in fact we have close to the opposite.  As it was lacking in Nazism after the murders of Gregor Strasser and Ernst Roehm in 1934.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 23, 2016, 10:46:37 AM
But corporatism in the fascist sense went well beyond that, and encompassed the mutual efforts of labor and management in production, that the corporation owed a duty to both the worker and the state, and the advancement of integral whole of the nation through work.

QuoteWell, "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor" has been a catch-phrase since at least the 60s to describe the American economic system.

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:59:31 AMHow did this work in practice?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 23, 2016, 01:45:31 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:59:31 AMHow did this work in practice?

In terms of Germany, they weren't content to simply nationalize industries. They took complete command of entire sectors of the economy at once. Imagine Joe Biden sitting down in a conference room with the CEOs of every auto manufacturer in America and telling each one how much product to produce, how many employees each would be allotted, how much they were to pay them, where their raw materials would come from and how much of them they would be rationed, to whom they would sell their final product and for what price, etc. And then doing it again with mining, energy, railways, etc. I think literally all foreign exchange went through the state.

And that is before the war.

In many ways, they made the Soviets look like amateurs at the whole state control of the economy thing.

Quote from: PJL on May 23, 2016, 02:02:16 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 23, 2016, 01:45:31 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:59:31 AMHow did this work in practice?

In terms of Germany, they weren't content to simply nationalize industries. They took complete command of entire sectors of the economy at once. Imagine Joe Biden sitting down in a conference room with the CEOs of every auto manufacturer in America and telling each one how much product to produce, how many employees each would be allotted, how much they were to pay them, where their raw materials would come from and how much of them they would be rationed, to whom they would sell their final product and for what price, etc. And then doing it again with mining, energy, railways, etc. I think literally all foreign exchange went through the state.

And that is before the war.

In many ways, they made the Soviets look like amateurs at the whole state control of the economy thing.

So really they were National Communists rather than National Socialists then.

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:59:31 AM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 23, 2016, 10:46:37 AM
But corporatism in the fascist sense went well beyond that, and encompassed the mutual efforts of labor and management in production, that the corporation owed a duty to both the worker and the state, and the advancement of integral whole of the nation through work.

How did this work in practice?

Quote from: FunkMonk on May 23, 2016, 05:16:37 PM

Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction is a good book on this subject.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 23, 2016, 01:45:31 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:59:31 AMHow did this work in practice?

In terms of Germany, they weren't content to simply nationalize industries. They took complete command of entire sectors of the economy at once. Imagine Joe Biden sitting down in a conference room with the CEOs of every auto manufacturer in America and telling each one how much product to produce, how many employees each would be allotted, how much they were to pay them, where their raw materials would come from and how much of them they would be rationed, to whom they would sell their final product and for what price, etc. And then doing it again with mining, energy, railways, etc. I think literally all foreign exchange went through the state.

And that is before the war.

In many ways, they made the Soviets look like amateurs at the whole state control of the economy thing.

Quote from: PJL on May 23, 2016, 02:02:16 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 23, 2016, 01:45:31 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:59:31 AMHow did this work in practice?

In terms of Germany, they weren't content to simply nationalize industries. They took complete command of entire sectors of the economy at once. Imagine Joe Biden sitting down in a conference room with the CEOs of every auto manufacturer in America and telling each one how much product to produce, how many employees each would be allotted, how much they were to pay them, where their raw materials would come from and how much of them they would be rationed, to whom they would sell their final product and for what price, etc. And then doing it again with mining, energy, railways, etc. I think literally all foreign exchange went through the state.

And that is before the war.

In many ways, they made the Soviets look like amateurs at the whole state control of the economy thing.

So really they were National Communists rather than National Socialists then.

Quote from: FunkMonk on May 23, 2016, 05:42:29 PM
Figured you read it too  :P

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 23, 2016, 08:26:58 PM

Quote from: FunkMonk on May 23, 2016, 05:42:29 PM
Figured you read it too  :P

:lol: I think that must've been on the Languish Book Club since it seems like we've all read it (or at least most of it :blush:).

Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2016, 08:05:50 PM

Quote from: PJL on May 23, 2016, 02:02:16 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 23, 2016, 01:45:31 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:59:31 AMHow did this work in practice?

In terms of Germany, they weren't content to simply nationalize industries. They took complete command of entire sectors of the economy at once. Imagine Joe Biden sitting down in a conference room with the CEOs of every auto manufacturer in America and telling each one how much product to produce, how many employees each would be allotted, how much they were to pay them, where their raw materials would come from and how much of them they would be rationed, to whom they would sell their final product and for what price, etc. And then doing it again with mining, energy, railways, etc. I think literally all foreign exchange went through the state.

And that is before the war.

In many ways, they made the Soviets look like amateurs at the whole state control of the economy thing.

So really they were National Communists rather than National Socialists then.

No.  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not the Union of Soviet Communist Republics.  State control of the economy is a socialist thing.  Communism doesn't even have a state to control anything.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 23, 2016, 06:02:43 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 23, 2016, 01:45:31 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:59:31 AMHow did this work in practice?

In terms of Germany, they weren't content to simply nationalize industries. They took complete command of entire sectors of the economy at once. Imagine Joe Biden sitting down in a conference room with the CEOs of every auto manufacturer in America and telling each one how much product to produce, how many employees each would be allotted, how much they were to pay them, where their raw materials would come from and how much of them they would be rationed, to whom they would sell their final product and for what price, etc. And then doing it again with mining, energy, railways, etc. I think literally all foreign exchange went through the state.

And that is before the war.

In many ways, they made the Soviets look like amateurs at the whole state control of the economy thing.

We had that too.  It was called WWII.

Quote from: mongers on May 24, 2016, 02:03:15 PM


Yes and the Americans, Brits and Soviet were a bit more efficient at it than the Axis countries.

Plus, perhaps largely due to control of the seas, they co-ordinated their wartime economies far better than the axis partners did.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2016, 10:49:18 AM

Quote from: mongers on May 24, 2016, 02:03:15 PM


Yes and the Americans, Brits and Soviet were a bit more efficient at it than the Axis countries.

Plus, perhaps largely due to control of the seas, they co-ordinated their wartime economies far better than the axis partners did.

My point is that the Germany existed in only two states, gearing up for war and total war.  Pretty much all governments are going to have a very large hand in private business in that case.

Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2016, 07:24:44 AMWho's more authoritarian than Zerobama who rules by decree without congressional approval.

Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2016, 09:23:14 AM

Quote from: Norgy on March 02, 2016, 09:07:59 AM

Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2016, 07:24:44 AMWho's more authoritarian than Zerobama who rules by decree without congressional approval.

Now that's just silly.

I guess from your perspective, it's easy to laugh off Obama's power grab via executive orders as "silly".  Here in the US we have to live under it.






:P

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 13, 2025, 09:55:37 AMTurns out there was a lot of unwarranted optimism about checks and balances...

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2025, 03:43:27 PMSomewhere, probably in the Trump thread, there is me freaking out that Trump wouldn't leave office if he wasn't reelected and a several people telling me how stupid I was to believe that.