US elections: The Trumpening

[Chaircat Meow]

According to Slate Trump is a bit like a Fascist because he says the US is in serious decline. Heck.

In 2013 China overtook the USA as the world's largest economy on the PPP measure of GDP. America's manufacturing has disappeared or been outsourced. The nation is up to its eyeballs in debt and is the world's biggest debtor. Real wages haven't risen for middle class Americans in something like 20 or 30 years. It has lost every war it has tried to fight since 2001.

Looks like there is a serious case for serious decline to me.  

 

[drawkcabi]

Here's an Slate interview with a historian and fascism expert on whether Trump is a fascist. Answer: Sort of. 

For why Trump is like a fascist.

“Making the country great again” sounds exactly like the fascist movements. Concern about national decline, that was one of the most prominent emotional states evoked in fascist discourse, and Trump is using that full-blast, quite illegitimately, because the country isn’t in serious decline, but he’s able to persuade them that it is. That is a fascist stroke. An aggressive foreign policy to arrest the supposed decline.

And why he's not like a fascist.

To start with, in the area of programs, the fascists offer themselves as a remedy for aggressive individualism, which they believed was the source of the defeat of Germany in World War I, and the decline of Italy, the failure of Italy. World War I, the perceived national decline, they blamed on individualism and their solution was to subject the individual to the interests of the community. Trump, and the Republicans generally, and indeed a great swath of American society have celebrated individualism to the absolute total extreme. Trump’s idea and the Republican plan is to lift the burden of regulation from businesses.

 

Trump is a Trumpist.

[MerenthaClone]

13 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

According to Slate Trump is a bit like a Fascist because he says the US is in serious decline. Heck.

In 2013 China overtook the USA as the world's largest economy on the PPP measure of GDP. America's manufacturing has disappeared or been outsourced. The nation is up to its eyeballs in debt and is the world's biggest debtor. Real wages haven't risen for middle class Americans in something like 20 or 30 years. It has lost every war it has tried to fight since 2001.

Looks like there is a serious case for serious decline to me.  

 

And a man who wants to outsource (to Mexico) the only public works project he has announced is the guy you want to fix it?  Real wages continuing to drop will somehow improve if we elect someone who isn't pro-labor?  Remember, its not that the productivity is down:  the American worker continues to be noticeably more productive than in the past, yet wages aren't rising.  Why is that?  And how would someone who is demonstrably on the side of businesses help alter that trajectory?  Trump and his ideology are, in part, the cause of the problem you describe!

I'd also disagree that the US "lost" wars because, well, it frankly hasn't been engaged in any wars.  Failed at nation-building?  Yeah.  Failed to stabilize a region without any coherent plan to do so?  Yeah.  Lost as a measure of military power?  Not so much, we're still completely unquestionably the most powerful military in the world.  

e:  Trump's entire platform, ephemeral as it may be, is based around making you not feel bad for the failures of the US, both domestic and foreign, because there have been many.  But forget about that, it can't be our fault, its all those damn blacks and Mexicans and Muslims and Chinese.  Otherize all of your failures and feel good again!  Forget actually making progress, just feel better about it.  Anesthetize yourself and let the corporatism wash over you.  

[Sullen]

I'm not a native English speaker, but my understanding of what the concept of "Fascism" entails to most people is simply a right-wing party with a disproportionately popular support, a strong focus on national identity, and a noted disdain for the current establishment, which they see as corrupted and decadent (Which is why, ironically, Trump supporters have been somewhat warm to Bernie, in my experience)

Fascism is also usually dependent on the charisma of the leader.

The people in this thread saying that it became a throwaway pejorative term to designate somewhat to the right that you disagree with a right though. The word has been overused to the point where its meaning has been muddled, lost, to the point where using it to designate a candidate becomes pointless.

To add to Kalbear's comparison of the arguments American conservatives used to dismiss Obama vs those used against Trump, John Oliver's push to "rename" Trump Drumpf reminds me of the birthers who made sure to always emphasize the "Hussein" in Obama's full name. Essentially, they're pushing for a connotation-filled name to be used for the candidate they disagree with, whether it's to make them look more "Muslim" in the case of Obama, more "buffoonish/dumb" in the case of Trump.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You continued on and on  about how much the South Carolina protester (who was not a BLM protester) was such a game changer, and have done so several times even after the SC primary indicated otherwise. I figured it was only a matter of time until you started thinking that because it didn't work it must be because of Nefarious Causes.

So you're defending your mischaracterization with more mischaracterization?

I never described it as a game changer. I said it looked bad. I said that there is a way it could be used against her. I said it could be part of the death by a thousand cuts strategy against HRC. Please debate what I've actually said, not what you want to project I've said.

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, pretty much. He was certainly open about throwing out the old government. 

 

A =/= B in this case.

 

He was always very open about what he wanted Germany to do/be, but in terms of personal power, that really evolved/expanded over time. By 1933 I think it's fair to say he'd resolved it as a necessity brought about by what he saw as a state of emergency, but the 25 point manifesto that stood in place since 1920 pretty clearly disputes the idea that he's openly espousing dictatorship. Statism, certainly, but I wouldn't be surprised if an earlier Hitler wouldn't have considered his anti-revolutionary stance as being partially anti-dictatorship.

[Sullen]

12 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

Trump is a Trumpist.

Trump is an ultra-capitalist armed with strong nationalism and a popular support base, which he gained due to the formerly mentioned nationalism and claims of being anti-establishment. 

His ideology is really not that different from the American right, or the American left (Bernie notwithstanding) for that matter, he's simply using different tools to achieve power.

[Chaircat Meow]

7 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

A =/= B in this case.

 

He was always very open about what he wanted Germany to do/be, but in terms of personal power, that really evolved/expanded over time. By 1933 I think it's fair to say he'd resolved it as a necessity brought about by what he saw as a state of emergency, but the 25 point manifesto that stood in place since 1920 pretty clearly disputes the idea that he's openly espousing dictatorship. Statism, certainly, but I wouldn't be surprised if an earlier Hitler wouldn't have considered his anti-revolutionary stance as being partially anti-dictatorship.

He tried to seize control of Bavaria by force in 1923, in imitation of Mussolini's march on Rome where the threat of violence had caused the Italian king to give Mussolini power.

 

[James Arryn]

19 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

He tried to seize control of Bavaria by force in 1923, in imitation of Mussolini's march on Rome where the threat of violence had caused the Italian king to give Mussolini power.

 

Not exactly. 

Bavaria was already under a state of dictatorship; s.o.e. had been declared and Von Kahr's triumvirate had already been given pretty absolute powers, and were using them to, among other things, ban Hitler's political meetings wherein he'd rail against (among other things) their abuse of power.. So, rising against dictatorial powers is...dictatorial, or anti-dictatorial? As I said, it was an evolving philosophy, and too complex to define with slogansm. But certainly I'd object to the idea that he was openly espousing dictatorship as evidenced by the putsch, wherein he opposed dictatorship.

edit: to expand on the complexities, you might argue that he'd not have opposed their dictatorial powers if he'd been included or agreed with how they used them. Hard to say...he was often all over the place, or 'evolving'. I think the only things he was clear about were bigger picture ideas of the neo-Sparta he wanted Germany to be, the betrayal of Versailles and the resistance to immigrants/foreigners. 

The nuts and bolts of getting there changed through experience.

[Kalbear]

Please don't turn this topic into another history lesson on world War 2.

[Balefont]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ormond,

Are you saying my education is getting in the way of understanding Trump supporters' point of view?  Is it wrong for me to be perplexed by peoples' historic illiteracy?

Perhaps.  Given the crap taught in US schools (America!  Fuck Yeah!) and the fact that most adults don't have the time*, even if they have the inclination, to educate themselves with history and current events, I find Ormond's perspective supportable. 

 (*so they rely on biased and bullshit news sources because so many major networks have been hijacked by ideology)

[James Arryn]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Please don't turn this topic into another history lesson on world War 2.

Aimed my way?

[Kalbear]

Aimed in general. I think it's a totally interesting thing to compare trumps rise with ww2, but it's also not much on topic.

[Chaircat Meow]

 

7 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Not exactly. 

Bavaria was already under a state of dictatorship; s.o.e. had been declared and Von Kahr's triumvirate had already been given pretty absolute powers, and were using them to, among other things, ban Hitler's political meetings wherein he'd rail against (among other things) their abuse of power.. So, rising against dictatorial powers is...dictatorial, or anti-dictatorial? As I said, it was an evolving philosophy, and too complex to define with slogansm. But certainly I'd object to the idea that he was openly espousing dictatorship as evidenced by the putsch, wherein he opposed dictatorship.

In 1923 Hitler wanted to seize power by force in both Bavaria and Germany as a whole and thereby overthrow the democratic Weimar Republic, yes. The Bavarian government had taken emergency powers to try and deal with the unrest, which was not a crazy thing to do given they had faced coups before. 

[Balefont]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Aimed in general. I think it's a totally interesting thing to compare trumps rise with ww2, but it's also not much on topic.

Seconded. 

[James Arryn]

Kal, fair enough. I tend to enjoy debates on historical models, but I get that others might find them less apt. 

 

meow, to simplify, here is the Nazi manifesto:

 

The 25-point Program of the NSDAPEdit

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the people's right to self-determination.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.
4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislationfor foreigners.
6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that:

    a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race;

    b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language;

    c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecutionof artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.^[9]
25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

 

You can decide for yourself whether/to what degree it openly advocates/opposes/is related to dictatorship, and/or is similar to Trump.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

58 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

According to Slate Trump is a bit like a Fascist because he says the US is in serious decline. Heck.

In 2013 China overtook the USA as the world's largest economy on the PPP measure of GDP. America's manufacturing has disappeared or been outsourced. The nation is up to its eyeballs in debt and is the world's biggest debtor. Real wages haven't risen for middle class Americans in something like 20 or 30 years. It has lost every war it has tried to fight since 2001.

Looks like there is a serious case for serious decline to me.  

 

The real wages thing is complicated and other people will address it.

China overtaking us in PPP GDP doesn't really matter. PPP is only really important on a per capita basis to represent an individual citizen's standard of living. Exchange rate GDP is a better measure of a countries' international clout. The US has the largest national debt because it has the world's largest GDP. Other countries have more public debt as a percentage of GDP. China's total debt as a percentage of GDP is still a bit lower than the US's but it's rising fast.

But regardless, China will (barring the humanitarian disaster that would be a major Chinese civil war) inevitably overtake the US in total GDP simply because it has 5 times as many people.

Manufacturing is still strong in America, it just doesn't need very many employees.

 

[Fez]

So, predictions?

Mine are that Clinton wins every Democratic state by double digits, except Vermont where she's blown out and Massachusetts where she wins a close race.

And on the Republican side, Trump wins everything except Texas and Arkansas, which Cruz wins. Rubio gets second in most of the other states. 

No one drops out tonight or tomorrow, except if very unlikely things happened. For instance, Sanders would drop out if he somehow lost Vermont, a state he is currently projected to win around 80%-20%, and didn't have any surprising wins elsewhere. Cruz would drop out if he lost Texas and comes behind Rubio in every other state. I don't think Rubio drops out no matter what; but maybe he does if Cruz comes ahead of him in every state and Kasich also beats him in at least a couple of them. Nothing will make Kasich or Carson drop out. 

[Kalbear]

I think Oklahoma goes to Sanders but otherwise I largely agree. I also predict blowout wins in the southern states for clinton.

I also think Rubio gets nothing.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think Oklahoma goes to Sanders but otherwise I largely agree. I also predict blowout wins in the southern states for clinton.

I also think Rubio gets nothing.

It is funny that I think the media would spin Rubio winning a single state as a big upset and possibly as sign of waning enthusiasm for Trump.  But I don't think it will happen either.  I expect Cruz wins Texas, Trump takes the rest. 

Sanders takes Vermont, wins Mass and OK very tight, loses Minn very tight.  Clinton wins Texas, Georgia, Virginia and the rest by margins sufficient to put real distance between them.