a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions.
the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it.
the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external.
dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences.
the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary.
the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny.
the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason.
the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success.
the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.
How many of those make you think of Trump or a MAGA rally?
An interesting psychological question, would Trump be prepared to enable fascism?
Would Donald Trump be willing to enable ethnonationalism, silence his critics, promise to restore a lost golden age of national greatness (MAGA!), blame the loss of that greatness on a shadowy conspiracy of outside, un-American subversives, undermine laws to consolidate power, and generally act in authoritarian ways?
An interesting psychological question is why so many people can't seem to recognize fascism unless it's bestrewn with swastikas.
I don't think the US is a fascist state. Being authoritarian is not fascism. But possibly Trump is looking down that road. It might require a civil war.
We have allowed fascist groups to fester within our borders since the civil war (okay, they were not called fascists at the time).
T hopes there will be a civil war, and there may be some rumblings should he be voted out fired. But our military is loyal to the constitution and I do not see any state seceding.
Nice moving of the goalposts there, switching off from the question of whether Donald Trump would be willing to enable fascism to the question of whether or not the U.S. currently is a fascist state.
We have allowed fascist groups to fester within our borders since the civil war (okay, they were not called fascists at the time).
T hopes there will be a civil war, and there may be some rumblings should he be voted out fired. But our military is loyal to the constitution and I do not see any state seceding.
Do you think he would go for a civil war? It's a huge step, and to fail consigns you to ignominy.
Nice moving of the goalposts there, switching off from the question of whether Donald Trump would be willing to enable fascism to the question of whether or not the U.S. currently is a fascist state.
The thing about fascism is that there isn't any unified fascist ideology: strictly speaking the only thing that is Fascism is the political organisation led by Benito Mussolini. So any attempt to use the word to cover also Nazism, Franco's Spain, and so on, depends on what particular similarities the speaker wants to bring out. The answer to, is any ideology or political movement fascist in the broad sense depends entirely on what similarities the speaker wants to bring out.
If you ask is Trump a far-right authoritarian willing to undermine democratic and liberal institutions to further his personal authority then the answer is clearly yes.
Fascism proper and Nazism proper shared a belief that war is a positive goods - that peace as such was ignoble and that war as such is intrinsically good even apart from the glory of winning. Trump doesn't share that belief. (He likes violence as an opportunity for winning, not in itself.) He doesn't dress in military uniform. To that extent, he's not "fascist". But that seems much less important than Trump's disregard for liberal institutions.
Trump doesn't have any particular ideological stance - that would require him to have principles. But ideological principles don't hold the importance for the authoritarian right than they have for the authoritarian left. Mussolini I think had something of a ideology (he had been an actual socialist in his time). But Mein Kampf is by all accounts nothing more than an extended rant written because Hitler had no other way to feed his self-importance while in prison. (I have next to no personal knowledge of Mein Kampf.) Hitler's program in government was to rant ambiguously, and if he liked the agenda that emerged when his underlings tried to interpret his rant he took the credit and if he didn't they took the blame.
I don't think Trump has any worked out far-right agenda; he didn't come into office with a program of undermining liberal institutions for the sake of undermining liberal institutions (though some of those around him did). He's just perfectly happy to undermine them if they get in his way or they make a handy target or he got out of bed on the wrong side.
What percentage of American presidents have only served one term? It's never pleasant to lose, but would it be seen as humiliating? (And I'm hoping, not assuming, Trump will lose. Nothing is safe where he's around.)
What percentage of American presidents have only served one term? It's never pleasant to lose, but would it be seen as humiliating? (And I'm hoping, not assuming, Trump will lose. Nothing is safe where he's around.)
It's pretty embarrassing to be defeated. Bush Sr, Carter and Hoover are the only ones in the last century to have been elected and then kicked out by the voters. Others have withdrawn when they could have stood again, died in office or resigned in disgrace
The United States is not inherently fascist, but it is also not particularly un-fascist. Every conceptualization of leadership that Trump has espoused is drench is fascism, however, and he appears to be caught up in a positive-reinforcement loop with strongly-nazi-like elements in the country.
And then he walked back somewhat about his insistence on the opening of all schools. While he still insists he wants them open, he is allowing the states and local districts to decide how to open.
Not that allowing or not allowing schools to open is something he has any authority to do in the first place. But he rarely concerns himself with such details.
As to Dafyd's comment on different species under the genus fascism, I have recommended somewhere on the board, perhaps on this thread, Ernst Nolte's Three Faces of Fascism/ Der Fascismus in seiner Epoche. It examines German, French, and Italian fascism, but Part Four is a rigorous attempt to come to grips with fascism on a conceptual level within a 'philosophy of history' approach to the problem. Unfortunately, Nolte's igniting of the Hisorikerstreit/Historians' Debate in 1988-89, and his book (untranslated) Der europäische Bürgerkrieg, 1917–1945: Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus (The European Civil War, 1917-1945: National Socialism and Bolshevism), and later works, damaged his reputation to such an extent that whatever worthy contribution he made has been in many quarters discredited. Undoubtedly of a conservative stripe, he became more so, being spooked by the events of 1968. Though I count myself on the left (by current American standards, I am a commie), I find much worthwhile in Three Faces. His later work is, to be gentle, highly problematic. For those unfamiliar with him, the (rather lengthy) wikipedia article on him is actually quite good.
For those interested, there is an English translation of the Historians' Debate. It's difficult to imagine a similar debate in the pages of an American newspaper, even the NYT. Perhaps in the New York Review of Books.
As regards MAGA, I'm remind of Mircea Eliade's The Myth of The Eternal Return. Again, Eliade is a conservative thinker (he served as a diplomat for both the Iron Guard and Antonescu regimes), but I think that it's a worthwhile read for putting MAGA in a more conceptual context.
While it might seem that I'm tending to over-abstraction, to bring the current movement(s) in American politics under categories has helped me to clarify my thinking. And to eat my double-serving of crow regarding my caution in 2016-17. I should have been more awake. I should have known better.
What percentage of American presidents have only served one term? It's never pleasant to lose, but would it be seen as humiliating? (And I'm hoping, not assuming, Trump will lose. Nothing is safe where he's around.)
20th & 21st Century American presidents elected twice (or more)
McKinley
Wilson
F. Roosevelt
Eisenhower
Nixon
Reagan
Clinton
G. W. Bush*
Obama
20th & 21st Century American presidents elected once (or less)
T. Roosevelt
Taft
Harding
Coolidge
Hoover
Truman
Kennedy
Johnson
Ford
Carter
G. H. W. Bush
Some of this is, of course, historically contingent. Kennedy was supposed to go to a re-election fundraising dinner later in the day on November 22, 1963. But for whatever reason the trend seems to be towards two term presidents. (Note how recent presidents dominate the first list.) The same could be said of the 19th century. In his day Abraham Lincoln was the first American president to be elected twice (1860, 1864) since Andrew Jackson (1828, 1832).
There were enough irregularities surrounding the 2000 election to have legitimate doubts about whether or not George W. Bush actually won it. I borrowed the custom from the Baseball Hall of Fame which notes certain controversial accomplishments and records with an asterisk. (e.g. If a player holds the record for the most home runs hit in a season it will be marked with an asterisk if the baseball season had fewer games in it when the previous record-holder was playing. It sometimes also denotes players who are suspected of using performance enhancing drugs.)
So tell me. In practical terms what is difference between someone using fascist type actions and an actual fascist?
Trump may not think of himself as facist but that does not mean he is not behaving like one.
I'd argue that Coolidge and Truman were both effectively two-term presidents having stepped up after the death of their predecessors fairly early in their terms. Harding was effectively a zero-term president.
So tell me. In practical terms what is difference between someone using fascist type actions and an actual fascist?
Trump may not think of himself as facist but that does not mean he is not behaving like one.
I was weaned on various Marxist ideas, particularly the corporate state. This means that the fascist state absorbs various bodies, normally considered independent, such as trade unions, professional bodies, etc. However, this is but one pattern. There is also the issue of private militias, for the use of the leader, e.g., SS, SA, etc. Hitler also had the Gauleiters, local leaders, who were also Nazi paramilitaries. Overall, the priciple of Gleichshaltung, coordination, meant that most aspects of life were Nazified, e.g., sport. Also, "working towards the Fuhrer", which involved local initiative, Hitler often avoiding decisions.
So tell me. In practical terms what is difference between someone using fascist type actions and an actual fascist?
Trump may not think of himself as facist but that does not mean he is not behaving like one.
I was weaned on various Marxist ideas, particularly the corporate state. This means that the fascist state absorbs various bodies, normally considered independent, such as trade unions, professional bodies, etc. However, this is but one pattern. There is also the issue of private militias, for the use of the leader, e.g., SS, SA, etc. Hitler also had the Gauleiters, local leaders, who were also Nazi paramilitaries. Overall, the priciple of Gleichshaltung, coordination, meant that most aspects of life were Nazified, e.g., sport. Also, "working towards the Fuhrer", which involved local initiative, Hitler often avoiding decisions.
Of course, this is not the fascist template.
I would say that mutatis mutandis these are features of any totalitarian state of whatever political label.
So tell me. In practical terms what is difference between someone using fascist type actions and an actual fascist?
Trump may not think of himself as facist but that does not mean he is not behaving like one.
I was weaned on various Marxist ideas, particularly the corporate state. This means that the fascist state absorbs various bodies, normally considered independent, such as trade unions, professional bodies, etc. However, this is but one pattern. There is also the issue of private militias, for the use of the leader, e.g., SS, SA, etc. Hitler also had the Gauleiters, local leaders, who were also Nazi paramilitaries. Overall, the priciple of Gleichshaltung, coordination, meant that most aspects of life were Nazified, e.g., sport. Also, "working towards the Fuhrer", which involved local initiative, Hitler often avoiding decisions.
Of course, this is not the fascist template.
I would say that mutatis mutandis these are features of any totalitarian state of whatever political label.
Yes, the Soviet state has been labelled fascist. The subject of heated debate over the years, I suppose the Nazis tended to favour big industries such as Krupp, whereas Stalin would presumably have nationalized them.
I'd argue that Coolidge and Truman were both effectively two-term presidents having stepped up after the death of their predecessors fairly early in their terms. Harding was effectively a zero-term president.
I'm only assessing number of elections won, but Harding served more than half his term before dying, putting Coolidge in more or less the same position as LBJ. Teddy Roosevelt, on the other hand, ascended to the presidency only six months after McKinley was inaugurated for his second term and seems more reasonably to be considered a two-term president. Nonetheless, he was only elected to the office once.
So tell me. In practical terms what is difference between someone using fascist type actions and an actual fascist?
Trump may not think of himself as facist but that does not mean he is not behaving like one.
(And also referring to Quezacoatl's comment)
Each fascism is its own thing. Communism has at least the 'virtue' of having canonical texts to bring about some degree of conformity movement to movement. One thing that defines a fascist movement is a strong collective ethno-cultural identity, hence the heterogeneity of fascist movements, and I think that white nationalism in the US seems to be fulfilling that role, or, starting to as it expands. Fascist action vs being an actual fascist? One can use armed force against one's civilian population and not be a fascist, e.g., Uganda, Zaire (as it then was), Brasil, at various times.
Q refers to corporatism* and Gleichschaltung (bringing parts into a single activity). The Franco state was mutable over time. Initially through the Falangist influence it displayed definite totalitarian hallmarks, moving toward a more authoritarian profile. The two terms are not interchangeable. One way of differentiating the two is that the former is prescripitive (you must think this, you must do this), and the former is proscriptive (you cannot do this). One consist aspect was its corporatism even as it became ideologically less restrictive. I do not see this happening in the US; at least, not yet, and the sense of freedom of association I think would be a strong impediment to it.
As to the Marxist critique of fascism, some critics are better than others. The poorer ones, like Georgi Dimitrov, did damage to the term fascism, and the Marxist critique, by labelling social democracy "social fascism". Yeah, thanks for that contribution, George. Lumping the SPD in with the NS was, plainly, idiocy. Further, I find that limiting oneself to the economic/political critique misses some important facets of fascist movements: anthropological and psychological, not least.
*Corporatism does not refer to 'corporation' in the current capitalist sense, but to the various sectors (labour/professions/capital/[various others, depending on the pre-existing profile of the given polity]) of society being organised and brought under the aegis of the state/party.
One unhappy parallel that I've noticed is the portrayal of the protests by many politicians and media (and not just Fox), is that the out-equipped demonstrators are being demonised ("criminal", "anarchist") wheres the federal forces are indulging in obviously criminal behaviour with impunity. Or the armed occupiers of the state capitol in Lansing, none of whom, to my knowledge, were charged. Yet unarmed demonstartors in Portland are beaten and spirited away in unmarked, often rented, vehicles. This looks a great deal like Weimar Germany. If one looks at the statistics for conviction rates for political street violence, conviction rates for those on the Left vs on the Right, it was (I'm relying on memory of my grad research here, so I might be slightly off) in excess of 4:1, despite the Right more often being the initiator of the violence.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
So someone who comes to the presidency by the death or resignation of their predecessor can be elected twice in their own right if that predecessor had less than two years left in their term, but only once if the succession was any earlier than that.
And what was the argument in favour of only two terms of office in the first place?
Mostly it was a reaction to Franklin Roosevelt's unprecedented four elections. The idea that presidents should only serve two terms was a norm established by George Washington. There were previous attempts to break that norm (Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt) but FDR was the first person who actually did. The Twenty-Second Amendment insured he'd also be the last*. An argument can be made that the presidency is such a uniquely powerful office that long tenures are destructive to democratic norms.
*Technically whoever was president when it was ratified was not bound by this amendment, so Truman could have run again as many times as he wanted to. He just didn't want to.
@Croesos quite right on Harding/Coolidge and McKinley/Teddy Roosevelt - for some reason I thought Harding had died almost immediately. I think I must have been foolishly mixing him up with Harrison.
@Robert Armin they would be permitted to fight two more elections. So both Truman and LBJ could have stood for re-election but chose not to (or perhaps were deselected by their parties? More knowledgeable Shipmates will elucidate I'm sure...).
I think the term limit must have been introduced because of FDR's four victories and an uneasy feeling of "it was just about OK with that guy but we might not be so lucky next time".
Yes, the Soviet state has been labelled fascist. The subject of heated debate over the years, I suppose the Nazis tended to favour big industries such as Krupp, whereas Stalin would presumably have nationalized them.
In the Soviet Union the state ran the businesses. In America the businesses run the state. Really six of one when you look at how they treat people.
The 22 amendment was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1947. It was finally was ratified by the states in February 1951. I think the Republicans were more afraid that the presidency would stay in Democratic hands.
I can argue both ways on this. It was obvious FDR was becoming too frail to continue to govern; but, on the other hand, many of us would have liked to have seen Obama continue in office. At least it does prevent a tyrant from getting a lifetime term.
At least it does prevent a tyrant from getting a lifetime term.
Here's hoping we can still claim this in January '21.
No problem. Should you-know-who refuse to leave, the Secret Service would escort him out in handcuffs. What defense against the Secret Service would an overweight old geezer with heel spurs have?
At least it does prevent a tyrant from getting a lifetime term.
Here's hoping we can still claim this in January '21.
No problem. Should you-know-who refuse to leave, the Secret Service would escort him out in handcuffs. What defense against the Secret Service would an overweight old geezer with heel spurs have?
(a) The armed forces have already stated that they aren't interested in being used as a police force, and (b) A good number of boots on the ground are themselves white supremacists and very much support the president.
Hey, speaking of Donald Trump and his willingness to defy the law, there's this:
The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it will continue to defy a federal court order compelling the full restoration of DACA, the Obama-era program that allows 700,000 immigrants to live and work in the United States legally. By doing so, the administration has chosen to flout a decision by the Supreme Court, effectively rejecting the judiciary’s authority to say what the law is.
Donald Trump first attempted to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in September 2017, a move that would’ve stripped its beneficiaries of work permits and subjected them to deportation. But his administration continually cut corners, failing to explain the basis for its decision and refusing to consider the impact of DACA repeal on immigrants, their communities, and their employers (including the U.S. Army). This June, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious” under federal law and therefore “set aside” DACA repeal.
To implement that decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm compelled the administration to restore DACA to its pre-repeal condition on July 17. Grimm’s order required the Department of Homeland Security to let DACA beneficiaries renew their status for two years, accept new applicants, and restore “advance parole,” which permits travel outside the country. But DHS did not do that. Instead, the agency maintained that it would reject new DACA applicants. It also declined to accept DACA renewals or reinstate advance parole.
At a hearing Friday, Grimm tore into Justice Department attorneys for flouting his order. The government’s actions, he explained, created “a feeling and a belief that the agency is disregarding binding decisions” from the Supreme Court. DOJ attorneys insisted that DACA applications were merely “on hold,” or “placed into a bucket,” while the administration decided how to proceed. But, as Grimm retorted, “it is a distinction without a difference to say that this application has not been denied, it has been received and it has been put in a bucket.” The judge once again directed DHS to comply with the law by accepting new applicants and processing renewals.
Incredibly, the agency has decided to disobey this order, as well. On Tuesday, acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf declared that it would not accept new applications and would only grant one-year extensions to current beneficiaries “on a case by case basis.”
The only quibble I have with this article is where it describes the Trump administration*'s defiance of the courts as "incredibl[e]". I find it quite credible that they would do so. The technique used, as far as I can tell, is finding a line, stepping over it, daring someone to do something about it, and when they don't, find a new line and step over it.
My favorite current comic strip is the wonderful "Breaking Cat News" by Georgia Dunn. The premise is that household cats have their own news broadcast. Some of the funnier bits are in the chyrons shown under the cat announcers, written by the AV cat, Burt.
So, today, CNN ran the following chyron:
Trump As U.S. Nears 150,000 Deaths: "Nobody Likes Me"
I have to believe that the chyron writer for that was a BCN fan. That is SOOOOOOO Burt!
(a) The armed forces have already stated that they aren't interested in being used as a police force, and (b) A good number of boots on the ground are themselves white supremacists and very much support the president.
The military is sworn to defend the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. At the beginning of the year, half of all active-duty military did not support Trump and I would argue it has gotten worse, with the resignation of Mattis, his use of active-duty and forces to clear Laffeyete square and now the strong reports that Russia had put a bounty on American servicemen in Afghanistan. The Pentagon is not too pleased with the forced withdrawal of American troops in Germany either, and IMHO he also shot himself in the foot with the pardon of Eddie Gallagher plus a few other Army personnel accused of war crimes.
The Navy people also have not forgotten how his administration bungled the COVID outbreak on the Teddy Roosevelt. I forgot to mention when he inexplicably withdrew the troops that had been the buffer between the Turks and the Kurds in NE Syria.
No, the military may not forcibly remove T from the White House, but they definitely will be prepared to intervene on the orders of the new president if right-wing militias try to keep him in office.
(a) The armed forces have already stated that they aren't interested in being used as a police force, and (b) A good number of boots on the ground are themselves white supremacists and very much support the president.
The military is sworn to defend the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Do police swear to uphold the law? It doesn't mean 100% of them will, while a minority do what they want, commiting serious crimes or assitsing other in doing so.
I hope the US military are better trained and disciplined and more likely to be working together in large groups. Following legal orders from a new administration while keeping to their pledge would show the small numbers following illicit orders from an electorally defeated ex-president. It'd be mutiny with severe individual penalties.
Word has reached this side of the pond that POTUS has or is repealing an Obama era law about fair housing in the suburbs. That way middle class suburban home owners will see their houses increase in value and crime will go down because hey there are fewer poor people. 😡
I know the military is *supposed* to defend the Constitution, and it may be very comforting to believe that they would. And I hope they would.
But it's not necessarily the case.
I know I am only a distant observer but it seems to me that a very large proportion of Americans are at least in principle committed to the US Constitution and the ideals of those who crafted it. It's always seemed one of the more admirable features of the USA, however cringeworthy us cynical Brits sometimes found its expression. It's also in stark contrast to conditions in inter-war Europe, where many powerful segments of society were not even nominally in favour of democracy.
So I'm still hopeful, even at the risk of being quaintly naive...
Word has reached this side of the pond that POTUS has or is repealing an Obama era law about fair housing in the suburbs. That way middle class suburban home owners will see their houses increase in value and crime will go down because hey there are fewer poor people. 😡
Certain types of crime, maybe. Probably see a rise in money laundering, securities fraud, election tampering et al
Comments
How many of those make you think of Trump or a MAGA rally?
I don't think the US is a fascist state. Being authoritarian is not fascism. But possibly Trump is looking down that road. It might require a civil war.
T hopes there will be a civil war, and there may be some rumblings should he be voted out fired. But our military is loyal to the constitution and I do not see any state seceding.
Nice moving of the goalposts there, switching off from the question of whether Donald Trump would be willing to enable fascism to the question of whether or not the U.S. currently is a fascist state.
Do you think he would go for a civil war? It's a huge step, and to fail consigns you to ignominy.
I don't see a contradiction.
If you ask is Trump a far-right authoritarian willing to undermine democratic and liberal institutions to further his personal authority then the answer is clearly yes.
Fascism proper and Nazism proper shared a belief that war is a positive goods - that peace as such was ignoble and that war as such is intrinsically good even apart from the glory of winning. Trump doesn't share that belief. (He likes violence as an opportunity for winning, not in itself.) He doesn't dress in military uniform. To that extent, he's not "fascist". But that seems much less important than Trump's disregard for liberal institutions.
Trump doesn't have any particular ideological stance - that would require him to have principles. But ideological principles don't hold the importance for the authoritarian right than they have for the authoritarian left. Mussolini I think had something of a ideology (he had been an actual socialist in his time). But Mein Kampf is by all accounts nothing more than an extended rant written because Hitler had no other way to feed his self-importance while in prison. (I have next to no personal knowledge of Mein Kampf.) Hitler's program in government was to rant ambiguously, and if he liked the agenda that emerged when his underlings tried to interpret his rant he took the credit and if he didn't they took the blame.
I don't think Trump has any worked out far-right agenda; he didn't come into office with a program of undermining liberal institutions for the sake of undermining liberal institutions (though some of those around him did). He's just perfectly happy to undermine them if they get in his way or they make a handy target or he got out of bed on the wrong side.
It's pretty embarrassing to be defeated. Bush Sr, Carter and Hoover are the only ones in the last century to have been elected and then kicked out by the voters. Others have withdrawn when they could have stood again, died in office or resigned in disgrace
https://www.thoughtco.com/one-term-us-presidents-3322257
For those interested, there is an English translation of the Historians' Debate. It's difficult to imagine a similar debate in the pages of an American newspaper, even the NYT. Perhaps in the New York Review of Books.
As regards MAGA, I'm remind of Mircea Eliade's The Myth of The Eternal Return. Again, Eliade is a conservative thinker (he served as a diplomat for both the Iron Guard and Antonescu regimes), but I think that it's a worthwhile read for putting MAGA in a more conceptual context.
While it might seem that I'm tending to over-abstraction, to bring the current movement(s) in American politics under categories has helped me to clarify my thinking. And to eat my double-serving of crow regarding my caution in 2016-17. I should have been more awake. I should have known better.
20th & 21st Century American presidents elected twice (or more)
20th & 21st Century American presidents elected once (or less)
Some of this is, of course, historically contingent. Kennedy was supposed to go to a re-election fundraising dinner later in the day on November 22, 1963. But for whatever reason the trend seems to be towards two term presidents. (Note how recent presidents dominate the first list.) The same could be said of the 19th century. In his day Abraham Lincoln was the first American president to be elected twice (1860, 1864) since Andrew Jackson (1828, 1832).
While Nixon was elected twice, he resigned because he was about to be impeached.
There were enough irregularities surrounding the 2000 election to have legitimate doubts about whether or not George W. Bush actually won it. I borrowed the custom from the Baseball Hall of Fame which notes certain controversial accomplishments and records with an asterisk. (e.g. If a player holds the record for the most home runs hit in a season it will be marked with an asterisk if the baseball season had fewer games in it when the previous record-holder was playing. It sometimes also denotes players who are suspected of using performance enhancing drugs.)
Trump may not think of himself as facist but that does not mean he is not behaving like one.
I was weaned on various Marxist ideas, particularly the corporate state. This means that the fascist state absorbs various bodies, normally considered independent, such as trade unions, professional bodies, etc. However, this is but one pattern. There is also the issue of private militias, for the use of the leader, e.g., SS, SA, etc. Hitler also had the Gauleiters, local leaders, who were also Nazi paramilitaries. Overall, the priciple of Gleichshaltung, coordination, meant that most aspects of life were Nazified, e.g., sport. Also, "working towards the Fuhrer", which involved local initiative, Hitler often avoiding decisions.
Of course, this is not the fascist template.
I would say that mutatis mutandis these are features of any totalitarian state of whatever political label.
Yes, the Soviet state has been labelled fascist. The subject of heated debate over the years, I suppose the Nazis tended to favour big industries such as Krupp, whereas Stalin would presumably have nationalized them.
I'm only assessing number of elections won, but Harding served more than half his term before dying, putting Coolidge in more or less the same position as LBJ. Teddy Roosevelt, on the other hand, ascended to the presidency only six months after McKinley was inaugurated for his second term and seems more reasonably to be considered a two-term president. Nonetheless, he was only elected to the office once.
(And also referring to Quezacoatl's comment)
Each fascism is its own thing. Communism has at least the 'virtue' of having canonical texts to bring about some degree of conformity movement to movement. One thing that defines a fascist movement is a strong collective ethno-cultural identity, hence the heterogeneity of fascist movements, and I think that white nationalism in the US seems to be fulfilling that role, or, starting to as it expands. Fascist action vs being an actual fascist? One can use armed force against one's civilian population and not be a fascist, e.g., Uganda, Zaire (as it then was), Brasil, at various times.
Q refers to corporatism* and Gleichschaltung (bringing parts into a single activity). The Franco state was mutable over time. Initially through the Falangist influence it displayed definite totalitarian hallmarks, moving toward a more authoritarian profile. The two terms are not interchangeable. One way of differentiating the two is that the former is prescripitive (you must think this, you must do this), and the former is proscriptive (you cannot do this). One consist aspect was its corporatism even as it became ideologically less restrictive. I do not see this happening in the US; at least, not yet, and the sense of freedom of association I think would be a strong impediment to it.
As to the Marxist critique of fascism, some critics are better than others. The poorer ones, like Georgi Dimitrov, did damage to the term fascism, and the Marxist critique, by labelling social democracy "social fascism". Yeah, thanks for that contribution, George. Lumping the SPD in with the NS was, plainly, idiocy. Further, I find that limiting oneself to the economic/political critique misses some important facets of fascist movements: anthropological and psychological, not least.
*Corporatism does not refer to 'corporation' in the current capitalist sense, but to the various sectors (labour/professions/capital/[various others, depending on the pre-existing profile of the given polity]) of society being organised and brought under the aegis of the state/party.
One unhappy parallel that I've noticed is the portrayal of the protests by many politicians and media (and not just Fox), is that the out-equipped demonstrators are being demonised ("criminal", "anarchist") wheres the federal forces are indulging in obviously criminal behaviour with impunity. Or the armed occupiers of the state capitol in Lansing, none of whom, to my knowledge, were charged. Yet unarmed demonstartors in Portland are beaten and spirited away in unmarked, often rented, vehicles. This looks a great deal like Weimar Germany. If one looks at the statistics for conviction rates for political street violence, conviction rates for those on the Left vs on the Right, it was (I'm relying on memory of my grad research here, so I might be slightly off) in excess of 4:1, despite the Right more often being the initiator of the violence.
My pessimism grows.
And what was the argument in favour of only two terms of office in the first place?
That depends. The Twenty-Second Amendment states, in part:
So someone who comes to the presidency by the death or resignation of their predecessor can be elected twice in their own right if that predecessor had less than two years left in their term, but only once if the succession was any earlier than that.
Mostly it was a reaction to Franklin Roosevelt's unprecedented four elections. The idea that presidents should only serve two terms was a norm established by George Washington. There were previous attempts to break that norm (Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt) but FDR was the first person who actually did. The Twenty-Second Amendment insured he'd also be the last*. An argument can be made that the presidency is such a uniquely powerful office that long tenures are destructive to democratic norms.
*Technically whoever was president when it was ratified was not bound by this amendment, so Truman could have run again as many times as he wanted to. He just didn't want to.
@Robert Armin they would be permitted to fight two more elections. So both Truman and LBJ could have stood for re-election but chose not to (or perhaps were deselected by their parties? More knowledgeable Shipmates will elucidate I'm sure...).
I think the term limit must have been introduced because of FDR's four victories and an uneasy feeling of "it was just about OK with that guy but we might not be so lucky next time".
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/
Should have Googled first.
Turns out that if you have served more than two years of "someone else's" term then you can only fight one election.
In the Soviet Union the state ran the businesses. In America the businesses run the state. Really six of one when you look at how they treat people.
amen
I can argue both ways on this. It was obvious FDR was becoming too frail to continue to govern; but, on the other hand, many of us would have liked to have seen Obama continue in office. At least it does prevent a tyrant from getting a lifetime term.
Here's hoping we can still claim this in January '21.
No problem. Should you-know-who refuse to leave, the Secret Service would escort him out in handcuffs. What defense against the Secret Service would an overweight old geezer with heel spurs have?
A hundred million well-armed minions?
The only quibble I have with this article is where it describes the Trump administration*'s defiance of the courts as "incredibl[e]". I find it quite credible that they would do so. The technique used, as far as I can tell, is finding a line, stepping over it, daring someone to do something about it, and when they don't, find a new line and step over it.
So, today, CNN ran the following chyron: I have to believe that the chyron writer for that was a BCN fan. That is SOOOOOOO Burt!
Actually, according to Nuremberg, it is.
The military is sworn to defend the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. At the beginning of the year, half of all active-duty military did not support Trump and I would argue it has gotten worse, with the resignation of Mattis, his use of active-duty and forces to clear Laffeyete square and now the strong reports that Russia had put a bounty on American servicemen in Afghanistan. The Pentagon is not too pleased with the forced withdrawal of American troops in Germany either, and IMHO he also shot himself in the foot with the pardon of Eddie Gallagher plus a few other Army personnel accused of war crimes.
The Navy people also have not forgotten how his administration bungled the COVID outbreak on the Teddy Roosevelt. I forgot to mention when he inexplicably withdrew the troops that had been the buffer between the Turks and the Kurds in NE Syria.
No, the military may not forcibly remove T from the White House, but they definitely will be prepared to intervene on the orders of the new president if right-wing militias try to keep him in office.
That's really sweet. Quaint, even.
But it's not necessarily the case.
I hope the US military are better trained and disciplined and more likely to be working together in large groups. Following legal orders from a new administration while keeping to their pledge would show the small numbers following illicit orders from an electorally defeated ex-president. It'd be mutiny with severe individual penalties.
I know I am only a distant observer but it seems to me that a very large proportion of Americans are at least in principle committed to the US Constitution and the ideals of those who crafted it. It's always seemed one of the more admirable features of the USA, however cringeworthy us cynical Brits sometimes found its expression. It's also in stark contrast to conditions in inter-war Europe, where many powerful segments of society were not even nominally in favour of democracy.
So I'm still hopeful, even at the risk of being quaintly naive...
Certain types of crime, maybe. Probably see a rise in money laundering, securities fraud, election tampering et al