Also important to distinguish between someone who voted for Trump in 2016 (and who may or may not support him now), and those that continue to praise and support him and his policies now. — Maw

Yep. Right now the majority supports impeachment and removal.

If his base erodes enough to allow free action among republican senators, who knows?

gave a list of several factors that are to my mind and to many others, common precursors of fascism, — unenlightened

The cases I know of were preceded by military defeat followed by a depression (inflationary in the case of Germany). I don't know of any cases where fascism creeped silently in.

Yep. Right now the majority support impeachment and removal. — frank

This is why I advocated for an impeachment process in the Donald Trump thread. I sincerely doubt the GOP controlled senate will remove him, which will impact their own re-election if impeachment still enjoys majority approval.

who are the 'elites' ? Parliamentarians, the representatives, are supposed to speak for the electorate.They are being attacked by another kind of 'elite' within; the lying, extremist Tory who pretend to speak for the people. — Amity

Probably, it is difficult to single out a group that has a monopoly on
a prevailing agenda. (That is why the appearence of Trump, or "the lying, extremist Tory" looks like the "tectonic shift"). A conglomerate of leading parliamentarians, journalists, and intellectuals speaks a dominating discourse through the medium and censorship of the contemporary mass media. This situation has cardinally transformed the fundamental relations between the field of a public political discourse and so-called “real facts.” It is worth to come back to Timothy Snyder’s claim that differently from the rest of politicians,
Trump never refers to “real facts".

objective, academic analysis as explained here:

5 min Ch4 interview related to the fragility of democracy. Yale professor Timothy Snyder :

https://www.channel4.com/news/some-of-todays-politicians-have-learned-propaganda-tricks-from-1930s-fascists-says-yale-professor — Amity

It looks like Snyder mistakenly substitutes the status of a “fact” in scientific research for the use of a “fact” in contemporary politics. Any fact, spoken by a politician and taken by mass media, loses its character of an index of the apparent and transparent truth. It can be immediately challenged by a counter fact, replaced by an adjacent fact, distorted by a fact from a different area, shifted to a conflicting context, and/or confronted by a hostile, affectively charged commentary.

This from StreetlightX :
"Less than a day after President Donald Trump bragged to supporters at a campaign-style rally in Minnesota Thursday that he was working hard to bring U.S. soldiers home from foreign wars, the Pentagon announced Friday that 1,800 troops and advanced weapons systems have been ordered to Saudi Arabia"

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/11/less-24-hours-after-saying-time-bring-em-home-trump-orders-1800-us-troops-saudi

The question is: does it even matter to his core voters ? Do they even see that they are being played ? — Amity

Anyway, Trump still can say that he ordered to withdraw troops from an immediate
warfare area in Syria while sending them to relatively calm Saudi Arabia. Further, Trump could claim that his administration has initiated a process of withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. So, a Trump supporter could agree with his claim: “We are slowly going away from the Middle East,” while a Trump hater could rightly accuse him of lying.

I sincerely doubt the GOP controlled senate will remove him, which will impact their own re-election if impeachment still enjoys majority approval. — Maw

That would give us a Democratic president, house, senate, and replacement for RBG. McConnell would hang himself.

Anyway, if you’re game I’m curious about your views on immigration. Do you just go along with the Trump party line or do you have any independent views that may at all diverge?

I am game. My views of immigration are my own.

How do they diverge? assuming that you are game.

How do they diverge? assuming that you are game.

I’m not sure. I don’t have the time or energy to compare them. We can discuss immigration.

If you’re not sure how your views on immigration may diverge from the rest of Trumps followers, or his authority, then maybe they don’t. I could bring up specific issues surrounding immigration if that saves you time and effort. We’ve already touched on the Trump administration zero tolerance policy, for instance.

Maybe they don’t. But like I said, my immigration views are my own.

This is why I advocated for an impeachment process in the Donald Trump thread. I sincerely doubt the GOP controlled senate will remove him, which will impact their own re-election if impeachment still enjoys majority approval. — Maw

My only worry about the impeachment thing is that if Trump sees himself driven into a corner, he'll just resign (a la "I've got better things to do, great things, stable genius things") and Pence will be Potus and will then pardon Trump of all charges.

Trump knows that without reelection and/or a presidential pardon, it's "go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200."

Luckily, Trump Is an Unstable Non-Genius
His mental deficiencies may save American democracy. PAUL KRUGMAN

The Left should hijack the impeachment process and press their own causes. Impeachment can be about anything unlike RussiaGate, and since a lot of people are going to be paying more attention to the primaries in the coming months, we could preemptively grab the microphone and use it to jumpstart the slowed Sanders campaign. Don't let it be about Trump's mini-scandals, and use it present a visionary opposition to the current establishment. The impeachment against Nixon for Watergate was exploited by activists to strengthen the FOIA and the War Powers Act in their push against the Vietnam War.

The cases I know of were preceded by military defeat followed by a depression (inflationary in the case of Germany). I don't know of any cases where fascism creeped silently in. — frank

Italian fascism?

I see your point, but on the other hand, a certain amount of categorization is important for social, political action. If we look at everyone's exact position and exact reasons for that position, there is no way to effect social change. Winning an election, changing a society's general outlook, are social problems. You cannot solve them without some categorization into people who are on the right side and people who are not.

Accounting for every nuance will bog you down, and allow less scrupulous people to take the initiative. — Echarmion

Imagine I responded to your post like this: 'Oh here's another person who thinks every one who voted for Trump should be treated as a literal nazi. Big surprise.'

That's not what you were saying, but it does certainly make categorization easier. And it prevents me from getting bogged down in nuance.

I pose this challenge to you. Reject my hypothetical response to you, while defending the substance of your post, and all without using undue nuance. (As an added challenge explain how your rejection and defense is different than what I was saying when responding to Maw.)

I of course agree that we should constantly be checking ourselves morally. 'Not as bad as the worst' isn't a good standard of measurement. But, then, 'any given poster who disagrees with me politically is inches away from being as bad as the worst, if not there already' isn't a good way of approaching things either.

One side begins to see Hitler purging the clearly marked Other, & the other side begins to see Stalin or Mao purging those suspected of having the wrong ideas in their hearts. Neither approach is good, and both, while being good occasional gut-check ways of appraising the situation, quickly fester if treated as anything more than that - if they begin to dictate our entire way of engaging. (As I said in an earlier post, I was shocked and scared enough to study fascism seriously with my other liberal friends. I did the check you mention, the check which I support, as check. We're not in a near-fascist situation.)

There's a common phenomenon where Trump + immigration camps gets smeared together as part of the same thing - an irruption of proto-fascism. But the US tradition of camping, caging and expelling immigrants was alive and well with Obama. I don't say this as a kind of 'what about' political scoring, I loathe trump and am temperamentally inclined to like Obama, who I voted for and, if I could go back, would vote for again. I say it because we become politically impotent when we can't address immigration camps unless the issue is tied to a wrong party and personality. If you can't address inhumane conditions without couching them in fascist analogies, you won't be able to address them. You'll be titling at windmills, while the real conditions/policies/laws that lead to these camps remain untouched, ultimately helping no one.

You & I are both susceptible to the allure of composing a well-written, koan-y, paradox-spiced, passion-posts in favor of a clear moral cause. But -as I often tell myself next-day lying in bed, ignoring the alarm - sometimes the rush of making the Good Post bulldozes over important details.

Italian fascism? — Janus

Italian Fascism took root in the Po Valley. It made use of a political/economic space outside real state control to build a parallel de facto state. It leveraged this control, in connection with currents of dissatisfaction with Italy's post-WW1 lot, to go national. I can't stress enough how our incapability as 21st century americans to understand the what it means to have major territories outside state control leaves us handicapped in understanding Fascism. You have to try to imagine say West Virginia developing their own extra-national system of governance that rivals the power of the federal government, and using that to gain seats in the senate, and coming to be seen as a viable alternative to the entire US government.

Think about the scope required for something like that and then think about stuff like the unite the right rally. You can - and should- hate unite the right ralliers without giving them the absurd credit of being as politically powerful as Italian Fascists.

, 'any given poster who disagrees with me politically is inches away from being as bad as the worst, if not there already' isn't a good way of approaching things either. — csalisbury

Of course. One has to add up the inches. Of course one will be more inclined to make excuses for someone whose views one shares. Here in the UK, I see the best, the most honourable of the opposition (to my views), resigning or being ejected. I see the executive attacking the judiciary I see outright lying pass as good tactics and so on. I see a pattern.

And I see the same pattern elsewhere. As I have mentioned here already, it's not just the lies, it's the fomenting of hatred, the focus on borders and us them, the inhumane internment, the packing of the judiciary. It's not just Trump any more than it was ever just Hitler. It's a pattern, a heap of things inching in the direction of arbitrary, divisive and unaccountable rule. It's above all the loss of balance, the loss of basic common sense protections of the environment and public health in the name of a fantasy of freedom.
And of course it is cyclic; the last of those who experienced the war are dying and the rhetoric of war replayed as nostalgia returns. The good old days when the US and Britain saved the world return in irony as we lead the world to the fascism from which we then saved it.

It looks like Snyder mistakenly substitutes the status of a “fact” in scientific research for the use of a “fact” in contemporary politics. Any fact, spoken by a politician and taken by mass media, loses its character of an index of the apparent and transparent truth. It can be immediately challenged by a counter fact, replaced by an adjacent fact, distorted by a fact from a different area, shifted to a conflicting context, and/or confronted by a hostile, affectively charged commentary. — Number2018

So, I haven't returned to the Ch4 interview to check that out, yet.
However, I have looked more into what Snyder has to say, and his background.
Here is an interview and a transcript which I have just skimmed over.
It covers points about facts, media, agenda, German history, and issues warnings and practical advice in a potential slide towards tyranny.

...20 key lessons that can help the United States avoid descending into authoritarianism. “I was trying to get out front and give people very practical day-to-day things that they could do,” Snyder says. “What stood behind all of that was a lifetime of working on the worst chapters of European history, a sense of how things can go very wrong.” — Timothy Snyder interview

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/5/30/on_tyranny_yale_historian_timothy_snyder

Truth and countertruth. Facts and counterfacts. 'Affectively charged commentary'.
Yes. All the the spin can make us dizzy, confused, crazy. And that is the idea.
To ramp up the divisions. Create conditions for civil unrest and then...
Politicians using the rhetoric of war is worse than calling people 'deplorable' but that is where it starts.
We need to watch our language.
Challenge and call out the lies. And that is what good journalism and interviewers do.
And just possibly philosophers...

I see the executive attacking the judiciary I see outright lying pass as good tactics and so on. I see a pattern. — unenlightened

As do I and many others.

It's a pattern, a heap of things inching in the direction of arbitrary, divisive and unaccountable rule — unenlightened

So, what can be done ? I've been reading Snyder. Amongst other things, he advises 1:1 conversation.
I have tended not to engage politically with relatives who have voted for Brexit. Many families have been spilt in both UK and America.
How can we persuade if people won't listen...
How can we make people see the similarities between us...the humanity.
When politicians attempt to dehumanise by language...
Address each concern by providing facts ?

I'm a deplorable. you may talk to me.

I've had the same concerns you express. I came to this conclusion:

Your body is presently colonized by organisms that are potentially lethal to you. Your immune system will be activated if they try to take over.

Stage 1: You're speaking in behalf of your community's immune system and announcing that the threat is present, and possibly about to arise. Cool. Although that's always true, it's good to remember what's possible.

Stage 2: You're sounding the alarm and saying its time to mobilize the defense, okay. Although it's usually triggered naturally by the invading organism. Your voice is part of the mobilization.

Stage 3: You're saying that the organism is invading and the immune system isn't doing anything about it. Let me explain what that would imply. It means we're doomed. It means something catastrophic has happened so that the immune system is ineffective. At this point our only hope is that another part of the world will provide intensive care for us in the form if an antibiotic army to kill our Nazis. Otherwise, we will die as the Nazis ravage our souls.

Which stage do you identify with? (If you choose to ignore my question, that's cool. We all have busy Sundays I imagine.)

I dunno, Frank. What's the immune system represent in this analogy? What's the lethal organisms?

The problem is that this is a typically fascist analogy from the start; the body politic under threat from foreign bodies and so on. I reject the framing of the crisis in terms of us and them, and so I reject the notion of 'deplorables'. Actions, policies, speeches can be deplorable, and i think I have specified what I deplore in broad terms already. I think is the business of philosophers to critique this kind of framing analogy, and not to indulge in it so casually. People are suffering, people are being misled, and manipulated, and it is being done by people. And people are objecting to it. There are no aliens - no pathogens.

Cool.

Democratic institutions are at risk. I am thinking of recent events in the UK.
Following the court decisions on the prorogation of Parliament, there were hostile accusations against both Parliament and the judiciary.
There are extreme right wing forces gathering, using similar tactics and chipping away... — Amity

I assume that in the US, there is the process quite similar to what is going on in the UK. Recently, the GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has accused Nancy Pelosi that she started impeachment against Trump in an unconstitutional manner. Should we consider it as a fascistic or proto-fascistic attack against a democratic institution?

People are suffering, people are being misled, and manipulated, and it is being done by people. And people are objecting to it. There are no aliens - no pathogens. — unenlightened

You're right.

Otherizing people is the wrong approach entirely.

Recently, the GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has accused Nancy Pelosi that she started impeachment against Trump in an unconstitutional manner. Should we consider it as a fascistic or proto-fascistic attack against a democratic institution? — Number2018

I don't know. What do you think ?
Does the label matter ?
Arguably, the contempt for and attacks on democratic institutions, the rule of law; incitements to mob violence; attacks on the press, etc. are similar enough to warrant concern.

Either way, I'm done here. I've enjoyed the discussion. I think @unenlightened hits the nail on the head.

It is the behaviour of individuals, political policies that can be described as 'deplorable', at the very least.
It is how we deal with this, that is the question.

Does the label matter ? — Amity

the body politic under threat from foreign bodies and so on. I reject the framing of the crisis in terms of us and them — unenlightened

Nevertheless,, this is precisely our situation: it is the formation of different "foreign bodies" within our societies through various gradations of hatred: dehumanization, labeling, delegitimization, and intolerance. Essentially, the true borders are not the outer ones, but the invisible internal barriers, so that the extreme partisanship has been advancing.

Anyone who has been keeping up with post-2016 political discourse and election analysis should have found it fairly easy to point out the bullshit discussed in that documentary, as I did. I've spend the last few years making the effort to keep myself informed, and I'm not going to take kindly to people who continually think they can get away with not doing their homework, yet act as if their thoughts and speculation on the matter are more valid than mine. — Maw

Again you show your arrogance quite well.

People that give protest votes think far more just about protesting than anything else.

Interesting account, thanks CS. I am woefully ignorant of the history of this; I was just putting it out there as a possible counterexample to what @frank had said about fascism being characteristically preceded by "military defeat".