strong on experts, short on detailed evidence. — mcdoodle

A tertiary piece, then. It caught my eye because it predicted the result.

Meanwhile across the pond the best the U.S. system could do was pitch a tired-looking machine politician against a maverick neo-Fascist. — mcdoodle

Neat summation. How do you think Sanders would have changed the vote? His anti-establishment credentials are stronger than Trump's.

Do you know what the word 'fascist' means? How are you so basic laaammmo

Good read, Sophisticat.

There is no truth, or if there is, no one can know it, which is just the same. There are always two sides to every story, everything can be doubted, every narrator is most likely corrupt and self-serving. Therefore, the choice of what to believe is not so much rational and empirical as moral. To wit, if you are a patriot, you should assume the attitude of "my country, right or wrong" and believe the self-serving narrative offered by the official news media and patriotic (i.e. loyal) pundits.

Source?? Just interested.

Was that addressed to me?

I guess to mcdoodle, I don't know.

I'm using the term after Umberto Eco's criteria; easily found on Google.

It's a shame Sanders didn't push on, hard to know what would have happened with him in the mix.

I suspect it would have made little difference. The ethos is such that any form of communal ownership is treated as suspect; evidenced by their utter inability to build efficient public health or education systems.

Interesting times.

Isn't the disagreement = treason narrative currently being pushed by the Dems?

You think?

Even if so, 1/14.

I maintain that the spin doctor and the bullshitter are distinct, so:

Spin doctor - That is the truth, but it means this...
Liar - That is the truth, but I am going to tell you this...
Bullshitter - I am going to tell you this... — Banno

I understand. It was the prevailing mode in American politics in the 1800's. Lincoln decided not to participate, earning the nickname "Honest Abe." But a case of complete bullshit in which Democrats said they had evidence that Lincoln was involved in an attempt to take a federal arsenal facilitated the onset of war.

Point is: bullshit doesn't necessarily result in a bad outcome. It's a social ritual.

And most of what you call healthcare originated in the USA. And that.. is not bullshit. :)

The analogies between Trump and fascism are not merely rhetorical. There are a large number of parallels between fascist parties past and Trump's path to power. And his cabinet picks seem to indicate that his campaign was not just rhetorical.

It depends on how things go from here -- there is still opposition, there are still institutions of democracy in place, and so forth -- but proto- or neo- fascist is a fair description of everything Trump's put out thus far.

Is fascism being used here as a term of political philosophy, or is it being used as a pejorative? If the former, what political positions are implied by the term, and if the latter, what is the pejorative – that the candidate is authoritarian, or that you don't like him?

Was George W. Bush a proto-fascist? If not, then why did people accuse him of being one when he came to office? Were those accusations hyperbolic and/or deluded? If not, what makes them different this time?

Is fascism being used here as a term of political philosophy, or is it being used as a pejorative? — The Great Whatever

Authoritarian, paternalistic, xenophobic, rabble rousing, anti-intellectual ... not really spotting the fascist boxes that Trump's not ticking.

Is fascism being used here as a term of political philosophy, or is it being used as a pejorative? If the former, what political positions are implied by the term, and if the latter, what is the pejorative – that the candidate is authoritarian, or that you don't like him? — The Great Whatever

The former.

Fascism is a political system which seeks to build a great nation. It is born out of humiliation, a desire for purity, a perceived ostracism from society, and a desire to return to a great past. It speaks to popular discontent and mobilizes said discontent against those who are impure (and also purportedly the cause of what many are discontent about). It's also an irrational political philosophy -- where other political philosophies we are familiar with tend to emphasize rationality, fascism is something which is more a spiritual political philosophy where man finds his purpose in the state, and is run more on emotions than on rational argument. Hence it often contradicts itself.

Umberto Eco's list is great. And I always go back to Mussolini's ghost-written essay The Doctrine of Fascism, as well as Robert Paxton's The Five Stages of Fascism

Policies which result from said philosophy include war, the stripping of Democratic institutions, the fusion of capital and labor within the state, and enacting laws which encourage racial purity.

I had hopes that these feelings and emotions which were evoked for the election of Trump were more cynical than anything, but the cabinet picks of his administration don't indicate that. I don't know how far these sentiments will go once the Trump administration actually begins interfacing with the state (and with a sizeable opposition, with democratic institutions still in power), but the sentiments which brought Trump to power are quite similar to what brought, say, Mussolini to power or Hitler to power so the comparison isn't just a rhetorical move in a game of painting the enemy in the worst light.

Fascism is a political system which seeks to build a great nation. — Moliere

Hmm.

It's also an irrational political philosophy — Moliere

Do politicians generally in your experience have rational political philosophies?

but the sentiments which brought Trump to power are quite similar to what brought, say, Mussolini to power or Hitler to power so the comparison isn't just a rhetorical move in a game of painting the enemy in the worst light. — Moliere

What are the similarities? I agree there is resentment, but then, this seems like an easy rhetorical move, to be a garbage political party, and then when people rightly resent you, to cry fascism. It can't fail.

Policies which result from said philosophy include war — Moliere

This one is interesting in particular because the narrative during the election was that the dems, not the repubs, were hotter on war (w/Russia). Do you think we are or will be on the verge of war with Trump's election? Would said war have been avoided if Clinton had been elected?

Do politicians generally in your experience have rational political philosophies? — The Great Whatever

They at least ascribe themselves to rational traditions, yes. Of course being rational is a whole different thing, but Liberalism -- classical liberalism, I mean, which Democrats are just as much in said tradition as Republicans -- is generally considered a "rationalist" type political philosophy. Research Committees, studies, arguments, and so forth are part of the political currency because of this rationalist backbone. The fascist, on the other hand, feels in his heart what must be done and that the Leader is the human manifestation of the state guiding us all to greatness.

What are the similarities? I agree there is resentment, but then, this seems like an easy rhetorical move, to be a garbage political party, and then when people rightly resent you, to cry fascism. It can't fail. — The Great Whatever

Right. I should note that I'm not defending Democrats here. I didn't vote for Clinton or Trump. Trump is a proto-fascist on his own account, not in relation to the Democratic party. So what I say of Trump here is not to also say, at the same time, that Democrats are automatically better. That being said I do think Clinton would have been better than Trump, just to be honest about that. But I don't think Clinton and Trump define one another is all that I mean (though to judge by the arguments which often pass muster as worth repeating I can understand wanting to frame Trump in those terms)

And I agree that it can be -- and has been -- an easy rhetorical move. A shame, really, because here we are seeing actual worthwhile parallels to consider and it gets drowned out in this history of using "fascist" as a kind of catch-all brush.

But, at least among the policies proposed, and in the environment we are in, the similarities are striking.


"Make America Great Again" was the perfect proto-fascist slogan in that it harks back to a mythological past which people feel has been lost. And, in particular, it was a racially coded message for white people -- because America is not great due to its PC culture, it's flamboyant acceptance of everything, it's relativism when America was strong, verile, frank, and knew right from wrong when the founders founded. In some sense America has been betrayed by the crypto-socialists (like Obama) and atheist/pagans. (On the former I'm assuming you've heard that bandied about among R-wing radio. On the latter, while there is a current of Christian fear of darkness corrupting us, I'm in particular thinking of the framing of the Podesta emails during this past election cycle)

This is very similar to the shame which fascists tapped into in the Weimar Republic. It was a common sentiment to believe that Germany itself had been humiliated and betrayed in World War 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth Further, the fascists harkened back to mythological aryan past -- our myth is just the founding fathers, which do achieve mythological proportions among the r-wing. They aren't historical figures understood in their own time as much as they are saints whose intentions we should live by.


The fascists of the past had many scapegoats. Trump's campaign was fueled by this, too -- we know you are suffering, we know that America has degenerated, but we are going to make it great again, and we are going to get rid of those who are stealing our jobs. The desire to build a wall to keep Mexicans out, and become harsher on deportation is very much along the same lines as the fascists desire to contain, deport, and otherwise make Germany clean again from degenerates. And Mexicans are not the only target of Trump's base -- the bathroom requirement story still gets fuel among r-wing blogo-social-sphere. "Black Lives Matter" is a controversial statement which can't just be accepted, but must be countered by, at first, "All Lives Matter", followed by "Blue Lives Matter". And even anti-semitism has become more pronounced since Trump's election, so perhaps there's more of the classical fascist base than I had initially thought. (I tend to think of Trump as a proto-fascist, but an American one -- there are ways in which he differs from fascists past because he's not Italian, for instance, but he really has a resemblance, in bombastic style and masculine projection, to Mussolini)

Which is to say that just as fascists prior had scapegoats for the ills of society, so too does Trump -- and they aren't the sort of usual political figures. It's not like he's just saying this or that politician or political program is bunk (though he is saying that too) -- it's that he also targets groups of people.


There's also the social conditions which are similar to the Weimar Republic, too -- just prior to the fascists winning power there was a fairly progressive administration in charge, and people were suffering economically and there was seemingly no end in sight. What the fascists did was tap into this economic despair, just as Trump did (and he did it better than Hillary), and really did offer some genuine basic benefits to the right kinds of people. They offered pensions, minimum wage, workplace safety, etc. They appealed to the laboring class. Trump also appeals to the laboring class, in his own particular way. I don't buy the White Working Class myth peddled by the liberal rags, mostly because the data doesn't support it. If anything the reason Trump won is because the Democratic candidate wasn't inspiring enough to her base to turn it out enough. But I also know many working class families who voted for Trump on the basis that he was not a political insider, and Hillary Clinton was. So he was seen more "underdog", and therefore appeals to the identity of working class families by that token. Further, Trump did at least appeal to jobs -- he didn't offer a plan, but he had a scapegoat and said that we are going to get people to work. So he has this sort of bread-and-butter appeal to working class and middle-class persons, which combined with right wing populism is exactly what brought the fascists to power in the past. Whereas the Democrats who have been in power for the past 8 years haven't delivered the goods (not as measured by econometric data, but in terms of feeling secure and having a job that gets you stuff), so why believe a Democratic insider when she says she's going to help the middle class? Especially when she quibbled a popular and concrete policy for working class people, the minimum wage?

This is just to say there are strong similarities to the sentiments of the two electorates and in their appeal and path to power.



So we have a mythological past which has been lost, a desire to make the state pure again, scapegoats who have made the state impure, humilitation due to this impurity, and similar social conditions to the Weimar republic in that working and middle class people feel economically insecure. And this sort of story is being launched through right-wing populism which does not have a high regard for argument or even consistency. Further there has been an outright increase in racial tensions concurrent with the Trump campaign.

There is a kind of reverance for violence among his base at least. And then there's the bizarro phenomena where the Christian right is deeply wed to the Republican party, introducing elements of spirituality into their statecraft. But, eh, that strikes me as distinctly American. There's a kind of analogy there, but the other stuff I'd say is stronger.


It's a bit too early to say whether or not the Trump administration is going to crack down on political freedoms, but it would actually be in line with many administrations past, and then taken up a notch by Bush, and further exacerbated by Obama. So given the other parallels, well -- all I mean to say is that it's not just a rhetorical move. There's a fair comparison to be made. They are not identical, but it's not just hot air.

This one is interesting in particular because the narrative during the election was that the dems, not the repubs, were hotter on war (w/Russia). Do you think we are or will be on the verge of war with Trump's election? — The Great Whatever

Yes. It will be focused in the Middle East, I believe, but the Republican party has been beating the war drums for quite some time -- even during the Obama administration they were picking a fight with Iran.

Would said war have been avoided if Clinton had been elected?

I think we would have basically been continuing the Obama administration's foreign policy. Which is to say, no, war would not just go away with Clinton. Clinton has explicitly endorsed "humanitarian" military intervention.

But I don't think Iran would have been a potential enemy with her. Or China. There's something absolutely horrible about Obama's foreign policy -- in some way he's sanitized what is actually a gruesome affair that still kills innocent people across the world. He was just as much into projecting American power as, well, most American presidents have been since the end of WW2. (in truth, I think Obama's foreign policy, especially with respect to the war on terror, is the worst part of his presidential legacy. He expanded presidential powers like no other president -- Bush was an innocent, naive schoolboy by comparison)

But he didn't express a belief that Islam is somehow the enemy we need to defeat to ensure freedom will be granted to our posterity. That seems to be the story I get from the Republican party. Will they go through with it? I don't know. But I'd rather the people in power weren't saying these things to begin with.

The fascist, on the other hand, feels in his heart what must be done and that the Leader is the human manifestation of the state guiding us all to greatness. — Moliere

In what way is it fair to have this description of Trump, but not of Obama? Did Obama not have a cult of personality surrounding him at his election? Was he not a charismatic up-and-comer billed as an outsider (against Hillary Clinton, no less!)? Did he not base his campaign using the word of an emotion, 'hope?'

I will agree this far about Trump: he has a certain something to his personality that other candidates don't. They, for lack of a better term, look weak compared to him. Not on certain policies, but just like weak people, or maybe sub-people, in that a politician doing their job can never really be a person. It's difficult to put into words. Trump creates an uncanny valley alongside other politicians who we realize are behaving quasi-humanly when they speak, whereas Trump as a celebrity out of politics seems inured to this and only has one register of speech he can't turn off. This might be what gives him the illusion of 'heart' in his speeches that even an Obama can't have, since an Obama still has to be a faux-folksy smiler, whereas Trump once in a while genuinely laughs, and sometimes in derision. Trump bullshits about facts, but Obama is a deeper bullshitter, a bullshitter about himself, he himself is entirely false as a constructed quasi-human being that faces the public, and when his masks slips, the impression I get is one of barely veiled disdain for the general public, whereas Trump's 'true self' seems to revolve around living large and doing whatever he wants and being the big man.

But, at least among the policies proposed, and in the environment we are in, the similarities are striking. — Moliere

What are they?

There's also the social conditions which are similar to the Weimar Republic, too -- just prior to the fascists winning power there was a fairly progressive administration in charge, and people were suffering economically and there was seemingly no end in sight. What the fascists did was tap into this economic despair, just as Trump did (and he did it better than Hillary), and really did offer some genuine basic benefits to the right kinds of people. They offered pensions, minimum wage, workplace safety, etc. They appealed to the laboring class. Trump also appeals to the laboring class, in his own particular way. I don't buy the White Working Class myth peddled by the liberal rags, mostly because the data doesn't support it. If anything the reason Trump won is because the Democratic candidate wasn't inspiring enough to her base to turn it out enough. — Moliere

I agree with this. The Democrats project weakness in every way. Their party is weak, their candidate is weak, their moral fiber is weak, their voter base is weak. That's why they lost. Their only conviction seems to be that history itself is on their side and will carry them along to its end.

But I also know many working class families who voted for Trump on the basis that he was not a political insider, and Hillary Clinton was. So he was seen more "underdog", and therefore appeals to the identity of working class families by that token. Further, Trump did at least appeal to jobs -- he didn't offer a plan, but he had a scapegoat and said that we are going to get people to work. So he has this sort of bread-and-butter appeal to working class and middle-class persons, which combined with right wing populism is exactly what brought the fascists to power in the past. Whereas the Democrats who have been in power for the past 8 years haven't delivered the goods (not as measured by econometric data, but in terms of feeling secure and having a job that gets you stuff), so why believe a Democratic insider when she says she's going to help the middle class? Especially when she quibbled a popular and concrete policy for working class people, the minimum wage? — Moliere

So are we against populist leaders on grounds that they're proto-fascist? Is populism fascist? Is appealing to the working class fascist? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. My general impression is that the tables have turned somewhat due to a real resentment that white Democrats have for the working class, except insofar as the working class in non-white (in which case their lack of whiteness 'balances out' their unfortunate lack of education).

"Make America Great Again" was the perfect proto-fascist slogan in that it harks back to a mythological past which people feel has been lost. — Moliere

I'm just going to go ahead and say I don't believe this at all, and believing it shows a profound lack of memory or knowledge of how political slogans are used. Just take a look through political slogans used by past U.S. presidential candidates, or politicians at other levels. We know, for example, that Bill Clinton used the very phrase 'make America great agin' when he campaigned in the early 90's; whether or not this statement is 'reactionary' or ;racist' or whatever has nothing to do with reality, but when it;s convenient to label your opponent as racist or reactionary. There's no memory or consistency in any of this, just propaganda.

Further there has been an outright increase in racial tensions concurrent with the Trump campaign. — Moliere

Racial tensions are deep; presidential campaigns reflect them rather than creating them. I don't believe the story that left alone we'd all be buddy buddy and it's just mean old fearmongers saying mean old things that make people hate each other. The Democratic party has a lot at stake that revolves around, in its own way, hating white people. Different racial blocks want different things, and you simply cannot please all of them coherently. I think it's utterly naive not to recognize this, and utterly naive to think white people, when pushed to a point, will not start to protect their own interests, which historically they have refrained from doing (never forming a coherent voting 'block'). This may happen in the future as effectively the Republicans become the white, and the Democrats the anti-white, parties.

A question on this front, then, because I'm curious: My impression is that the American media and many American politicians are deliberately trying to foster conflict with Russia that is out of step with the attitudes of the American public, who by and large do not hate Russia and have no desire to be in conflict with it. My questions are:

1) Do you agree that there has been a sudden increase in supposed tensions with Russia,
2) Do you believe that these tensions are largely manufactured by politicians and the media, and do not reflect the values of the public,
3) Do you agree that the Democrats are doing more to exacerbate this situation than the Republicans?

I think 'yes' to all of these, which made me shit my pants in fear of the Democrats this election. My impression is almost that there is a contingent in the party that, for some reason, badly wants to start a war. I don't get that impression from Trump; I get the impression of blustery machismo, not of a disturbing attempt at rigging up a war. Maybe blustery machismo can start wars, but the Dems are far scarier to me right now.

But he didn't express a belief that Islam is somehow the enemy we need to defeat to ensure freedom will be granted to our posterity. That seems to be the story I get from the Republican party. Will they go through with it? I don't know. But I'd rather the people in power weren't saying these things to begin with. — Moliere

I think this resonates with a lot of people because the extent to which westerners are expected to actively suck Muslim dick right now is unprecedented and confusing. I don't think Islam is an enemy, but I think in high places there are artificial pushes to romanticize Islam as an underdog (staffed by brown, i.e. virtuous, people), when it's nothing of the sort, but across the world is an oppressive force with untold political and religious power, and that any country that accommodates it too readily is in danger of becoming theocratized. For all the whining about Christians in the U.S., they just don't have the pull Muslims do worldwide. Christian attempts at theocracy are impotent; Muslim ones are real. This is especially confusing in that those pushing this tend to be those most against the policies Islamic states actually implement. And I think a lot of people would genuinely and rationally fear for their lives in a majority Muslim state.

What if the bullshitter is so deep in his bullshitting that they believe it to be the truth?

No matter what evidence, his mind cannot be persuaded from his own conception of truth.

In what way is it fair to have this description of Trump, but not of Obama? Did Obama not have a cult of personality surrounding him at his election? Was he not a charismatic up-and-comer billed as an outsider (against Hillary Clinton, no less!)? Did he not base his campaign using the word of an emotion, 'hope?' — The Great Whatever

Obama also had policies which he campaigned on along with his sloganeering. Obama certainly had a cult of personality surrounding him. That I don't deny. But he also had a political history, one which is clearly in line with classical liberalism.

Trump has no such history, nor any policies, and he contradicts himself. His emotional appeals have no rational backing, and they even use scapegoat imagery.

What are they? — The Great Whatever

That's what the rest of the post was laying out. This was kind of the "thesis statement" -- the paragraphs following were the examples in which they are similar.

So are we against populist leaders on grounds that they're proto-fascist? Is populism fascist? Is appealing to the working class fascist? — The Great Whatever

All fascists are populists, but not all populists are fascists. In fact that's the general argument I've read from the academy against Trump being a proto-fascist is that they would describe him as a right wing populist, but not a fascist. But I'd say that no historical circumstance is like any other, and we can always isolate any moment in history by requiring our comparisons to approach identity to one another. I'd say that there is something generalizable about fascism which can carry on in other localities, differ, but maintain the core.

And appealing to the working class is not necessarily fascist. Obviously so, given how fascists hate Marxists and vice-versa. I bring up the working-class appeal because it's something that is really particular to the evolution of fascism that marks it as fairly distinct from just a general right wing populism. Fascism is anti-capitalist and claims to move beyond class antagonisms by fusing the classes together into the state. The right-wing populism which Trump has brandished makes it's appeal to traditional left-wing base. It's one of the reasons fascism is actually hard to classify on the left-right dichotomy -- as it has evolved it begins with left-wing sounding ideas but then develops into something else. Trump is even a business elite and yet appeals to working class voters -- so it's something that's really distinctly fascist.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. My general impression is that the tables have turned somewhat due to a real resentment that white Democrats have for the working class, except insofar as the working class in non-white (in which case their lack of whiteness 'balances out' their unfortunate lack of education).

I think the working class just feels abandoned, mostly because they are abandoned -- whether that be because they should just work harder and fuck you I got mine or because, hey, who else are you going to vote for?

I'd like to reiterate, though, that Trump stands out as a proto-fascist on his own. The Democrats are fucked in so many ways, and I have no problem saying so. I've never had a problem saying so. But my thoughts on Trump are not fueled by my thoughts on the Democrats -- by saying Trump is a proto-fascist I am not, in turn, saying the Democrats are good.

I'm just going to go ahead and say I don't believe this at all, and believing it shows a profound lack of memory or knowledge of how political slogans are used. Just take a look through political slogans used by past U.S. presidential candidates, or politicians at other levels. We know, for example, that Bill Clinton used the very phrase 'make America great agin' when he campaigned in the early 90's; whether or not this statement is 'reactionary' or ;racist' or whatever has nothing to do with reality, but when it;s convenient to label your opponent as racist or reactionary. There's no memory or consistency in any of this, just propaganda. — The Great Whatever

It's not just the phrase, though, it's everything that's attending -- it's a summation of R-wing radio talking points and their blogo-social-sphere.

When Trump says "Make America Great Again", he is appealing to white culture. That's why white nationalists were in support of Trump. It's not just convenient, it's who is being mobilized as his base, and the reasons why it is a mobilizing phrase. And the who is white people, at least by the demographic data. It is reactionary because it taps into the founding father's myth which is told and retold in the propaganda machine that even predated Trump. But he managed to fuse these two impulses into one slogan -- America is a white nation, and we can make it the way it was.

I'm not repeating propaganda or writing propaganda here. And I'm familiar with political slogans, how they are used, and have used and written political slogans so it's not just ignorance or a lack of memory on my part. I may be in error, or we may just end up disagreeing too, but that's different from propaganda or ignorance.

Also, it's worth noting that we are all ignorant, to some degree, on these things. Not one person in the world, even the staffers at various departments with access to pertinent and restricted information, knows how all the pieces fit together. The political machine is huge. There may be gross ignorance, which is the only thing I'm pleading against, but surely there is no point in saying that I know enough. I, as are we all, am largely ignorant on the many details that comprise the political machine. But I am not grossly ignorant in the sense that I am totally unfamiliar with the topic or naive on how the basics work.

Racial tensions are deep; presidential campaigns reflect them rather than creating them. I don't believe the story that left alone we'd all be buddy buddy and it's just mean old fearmongers saying mean old things that make people hate each other. The Democratic party has a lot at stake that revolves around, in its own way, hating white people. Different racial blocks want different things, and you simply cannot please all of them coherently. I think it's utterly naive not to recognize this, and utterly naive to think white people, when pushed to a point, will not start to protect their own interests, which historically they have refrained from doing (never forming a coherent voting 'block'). This may happen in the future as effectively the Republicans become the white, and the Democrats the anti-white, parties. — The Great Whatever

I don't believe that story, either, but I do believe that there's something common to people deeper than their race. Black interests and white interests are a product of history, but there isn't a racial desire as much as there are human desires -- we are separated by race by circumstance and history, and so it is possible to come together on common ground as people.

Not that it is easy. Only that it is possible.


Regardless, it's the case that hate crimes surged post-Trump election. This evidences that the base which was mobilized by Trump was in fact racially motivated, hence why it is fair to compare Trump to fascists -- who also mobilized people through racial identity and hatred.

1) Do you agree that there has been a sudden increase in supposed tensions with Russia, — The Great Whatever

Yeah, that seems about right.

2) Do you believe that these tensions are largely manufactured by politicians and the media, and do not reflect the values of the public,

I am uncertain, to be honest. I don't find it out of the realm of possibility, but I'd have to see more evidence to believe that it was manufactured. More often than not the news cycle is less controlled than that. The focus on Russia could just be the result of recent events between the two countries. Ukraine, for instance.


I don't think it reflects the values of the public, but I'm rather uncertain what the values of the public are with respect to foreign policy. Insofar that war affects our families then people care, or insofar that patriotism or nationalism is a part of a person's identity then they also seem to care about foreign policy. But in general it seems that foreign policy is out of sight out of mind.

It is, from my perspective, utterly bizarre because it does read like a portal opened up to the cold war and decided to write our newspapers for us, though. I admit it strikes me as odd, but I wouldn't draw conclusions yet.

3) Do you agree that the Democrats are doing more to exacerbate this situation than the Republicans?

No, I don't. I don't think I'd agree with the converse either, though.

Obama, perhaps, and so by extension we might say Democrats. But that could just be Obama having access to information which neither Democrats or Republicans have access to, and acting on said information on the basis of national interest rather than party. It's really hard to say from my vantage.

My impression is almost that there is a contingent in the party that, for some reason, badly wants to start a war. I don't get that impression from Trump; I get the impression of blustery machismo, not of a disturbing attempt at rigging up a war. Maybe blustery machismo can start wars, but the Dems are far scarier to me right now. — The Great Whatever

I think both parties want war. It's good for business, it doesn't affect them on a personal level anyways (unless they choose it to), and it helps to project American power across the world. Also, if you're gonna build a toy, why not use it?

I don't see Trump as better in this light.

Of course it's worth noting we're sort of just sharing impressions here, too.

I will agree this far about Trump: he has a certain something to his personality that other candidates don't. They, for lack of a better term, look weak compared to him. Not on certain policies, but just like weak people, or maybe sub-people, in that a politician doing their job can never really be a person. It's difficult to put into words. Trump creates an uncanny valley alongside other politicians who we realize are behaving quasi-humanly when they speak, whereas Trump as a celebrity out of politics seems inured to this and only has one register of speech he can't turn off. This might be what gives him the illusion of 'heart' in his speeches that even an Obama can't have, since an Obama still has to be a faux-folksy smiler, whereas Trump once in a while genuinely laughs, and sometimes in derision. Trump bullshits about facts, but Obama is a deeper bullshitter, a bullshitter about himself, he himself is entirely false as a constructed quasi-human being that faces the public, and when his masks slips, the impression I get is one of barely veiled disdain for the general public, whereas Trump's 'true self' seems to revolve around living large and doing whatever he wants and being the big man. — The Great Whatever

What guff. Romanticism is the go-to justification of the fascist. And politics is a social construction, so of course a skilled politician is going to be presenting a mask to match the occasion.

The very idea that people have "true selves" is where your attempted psychoanalysis goes wrong.

I think the notion that people do not have true selves is the result of being so mired in cynicism that the very notion of being ingenuous no longer makes sense to you.

Nonetheless it all falls apart when we see people's masks break. In any case, politicians do not behave like human beings.

I'd like to reiterate, though, that Trump stands out as a proto-fascist on his own. The Democrats are fucked in so many ways, and I have no problem saying so. I've never had a problem saying so. But my thoughts on Trump are not fueled by my thoughts on the Democrats -- by saying Trump is a proto-fascist I am not, in turn, saying the Democrats are good. — Moliere

I just want to highlight that these things aren't separate, in that the narrative that Trump is a fascist is inseparable from the Democrats, because it is they who drafted that narrative, and so the narrative makes little sense except with respect to Democrat propaganda. Whether you believe that propaganda is another story. The point is that chances are you literally have these thoughts in your head because a Democrat said them and you heard them, even if you don't subjectively experience it that way.

For what it's worth, the Democrats call every Republican candidate a fascist. This is why it's so important to contextualize.

When Trump says "Make America Great Again", he is appealing to white culture. That's why white nationalists were in support of Trump. It's not just convenient, it's who is being mobilized as his base, and the reasons why it is a mobilizing phrase. And the who is white people, at least by the demographic data. It is reactionary because it taps into the founding father's myth which is told and retold in the propaganda machine that even predated Trump. But he managed to fuse these two impulses into one slogan -- America is a white nation, and we can make it the way it was. — Moliere

Maybe. I would just add that I disagree with the Democrats in thinking white people are Satan, etc. and think that throwing a tantrum when they stand up for themselves is probably not a good idea, until you've destroyed their demographics, which they will have done in a couple generations. At which point white people may form just another minority voting block and be subsumed into broader liberal identity politics.

...most of what you call healthcare originated in the USA. And that.. is not bullshit. — Mongrel

I was referring to the efficiency of the health system. This sort of thing:

Dreadful.

Its nothing to do with cynicism and everything to do with psychological science. And I've never known a politician who wasn't behaving in very human fashion. So nothing you are saying is making sense.

Maybe you're just autistic? :S

Or more likely, I'm not talking out of my arse.