While Democratic strategists debate whether or not their attack ads labeling Donald Trump a fascist have been effective, experts and academics told the Guardian his campaign and the Republican party he now heads have clear autocratic sympathies and political qualities that are firmly in line with fascism movements historically.
Put together, that makes any Trump victory this week and his return to the White House for a second presidential term a clear threat to US democracy, they added.
“There couldn’t be a more obvious example of a fascist social and political movement about to take power,” said Jason Stanley, a Yale philosophy professor whose new book, Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future, looks at the global playbook of fascists through the lens of America and beyond.
I don’t think the media was/is equipped to deal with the quantity of bad faith arguments coming from Trump.
If you look at historic presidential primaries, one mistake can be enough to have donors pull funding and tank a candidacy. In contrast, Trump was able to bulldoze through that because he treated the primary campaign as a business to make money.
Your explanation is a continuation of the fallacy … (please don’t take this the wrong way as a personal attack against you)
Your explanation starts off by accepting that someone like Trump is a legitimate political leader. The Democrats presented legitimate candidates, who did some minor faux pas and were ridiculed for it or the Democratic leader or politician was accused of wrong doing and then hounded for it relentlessly.
Trump was the anomaly, he said and did things that any previous politician would have been ridiculed and blasted by the public media of all sides … but for whatever reason, everyone allowed him to stay in the limelight and never called him on his deranged antics … everyone enabled his behaviour … for years.
Someone like Trump doesn’t come out of thin air or through the force of their own will … if that were the case, we’d have people like him everywhere. People like him come to power because other powerful people allow him to get that position … and then a population is conditioned to allow him to stay in the public eye through constant marketing and promotion.
At one point, Trump became a “legitimate” political leader. He won his party’s primary three times and has won the Electoral College once. He is a convicted felon and he probably should have been one in 2016, but that is another matter.
And as for the rest, there is a combination of complicity and stupidity. Most of the Democratic Party thought he was an easily beatable joke candidate in 2016 until he wasn’t. In 2016, Trump knew how to get ratings, which got him a lot of media coverage trying to cover him. And, as my point was earlier, he didn’t have to worry about donors pulling out. And it turns out that being mask off fascist is something that a lot of Americans are willing to vote for.
I agree Trump has been enabled by a lot of people to get this far, but if Trump is anything, he is a great self promoter and knows how to stall legal action taken against him.
This is the classic argument or debate I have about political figures like this in history.
They don’t appear out of a vacuum of their own will … they are not just some all powerful persuasive figure that just pushes people to do what they want. Maybe that could have happened in the distant past but not in our modern world.
Political leaders today get to their position because others with power allow them. Money is poured into them, money to promote, to advertise, to market, to manage, to manipulate … in short, the political figure of Turnip came to be because it was allowed by those with power. It didn’t have anything to do with his ability to promote, stall or politically manoeuvre around.
He came to be because he was allowed to take the lead and those with power wanted him there and kept him there.
That’s assuming one all-knowing and competent group in charge, but reality isn’t like that. Sometimes people in power don’t recognize events in having significance in the moment or they respond poorly to the situation.
It is clear that Trump’s election caught a lot of people by surprise in 2016, including Trump. It is also clear that a lot of conservative Republicans saw Trump as being willing to go along with their policies most of the time.
There isn’t a single cabal responsible for choosing Trump.
I agree but the point I was trying to make is that there are extremist groups out there (and yes, they are sometimes reasonable business people or wealthy political backers) that often act in such a way to allow people like Trump to come into power either through their support or by simply not acting in way to stop anyone.
There will always be those people in power who are willing to allow certain things, events or people to just happen even if they know it will be terrible for others or run the risk of destroying or corroding democratic norms if it means it will serve their ends in the long run. The benefit of not overtly supporting terrible events or people up front is that you can plausibly deny ever being part of anything if it all falls apart. Either way, those with wealth and power maintain their control by either openly supporting things or just merely standing aside to allow things to happen even though they have the power to stop it.
Those with wealth and privilege win in any situation … if fascists or authoritarians gain control, they can step in line as friends who had shown some support … if authoritarians lose, they can step in anyway and say that they never supported anyone.
When you look at this way, you realize that those who are beholden to wealth, power and control only have an allegiance to one thing … maintaining their power and control at all costs … even if it means supporting those they disagree with or those they know will destroy morals and ethics.
I get that a lot of billionaires support Trump because he’s going to keep taxes low and kill regulations.
Right and this election campaign is so much worse: at times he seems to be just an “influencer” huckster, spending his time shilling for any product that will pay him
How does anyone think that’s acceptable behavior for a presidential candidate?
It turns out a lot of Americans are fine with that behavior.
I’m fine with Spotify buying out his show and featuring it next to Joe Rogan where I can ignore them both, but it’s horrifying that anyone whpould vote for that