And I've never known a politician who wasn't behaving in very human fashion.

lmao

Perhaps you don't meet many politicians in real life?

True. Some people are alive because of medicine that probably wouldn't have been developed in an efficiency loving environment. A lot of people suffer because of it...

if the phenomenon of politically-driven fact-indifference is a perennial one

&

if a new term has been coined, to refer to this same perennial phenomenon as though it's unprecedented

&

if one is interested in what is new about this situation

then: the phenomenon in question is not 'post-truth' but 'a collection of groups claiming that there is an unprecedented event/era/atmosphere called post-truth' — csalisbury

It is not unprecedented, but it feels like it is becoming more common and accepted. As for "a collection of groups" - tu quoque again in lieu of addressing the issue. Instead of reflexively pointing a finger at the opposition you could argue that there's really nothing special here, no sea-change in the culture, no "new era" - and I might agree with you. I am not too certain about my characterization of the phenomenon, perhaps I am just picking out what irks me rather than identifying an objective trend.

But it does feel like a new development. In the past authoritarians sought to tightly control and restrict information. They were very much concerned with preventing the truth from getting out. Remember what event started Winston on his fateful path? He was charged with destroying a photograph that would have exposed a lie that was currently being promulgated by the Ministry of Truth. Orwell was uncannily prescient: such expurgation of incriminating records in newspapers and books was indeed practiced in Stalin's Soviet Union. But you see much less of that today, not because the propaganda lies less, but because it seems less concerned about hiding the truth.

When Russian troops invaded Crimea, the obvious fact was denied by Russian officials and the media. The soldiers, whose only cover was the lack of national insignia, were ironically nicknamed vezhliviye liudy (polite men) by the locals who were not deceived by the ruse. (The troops were mostly just strolling around in their spiffy new uniforms and top-of-the-line gear, and although armed to the teeth, their behavior was markedly reserved - hence the nickname. The task of brutalizing opponents of the occupation and closing down pro-Ukrainian media was mostly outsourced to civilian volunteers and off-duty security officers bused in from the mainland.) By and by, after the annexation Putin, followed by others, acknowledged the invasion. Putin even boasted of his role in directing the operation in a later interview. But as a rule, the earlier lie was never acknowledged or apologized for, although no attempt was made to erase it from the public record. What's more, the vezhliviye liudy - once a symbol of duplicity and underhanded hybrid warfare - quickly became a popular meme, emblazoned on tee-shirts and even memorialized in a goofy public sculpture. People who just months earlier dismissed them as an insidious fabrication of the west never seemed to take an issue with being lied to - they took the about-face in stride.

And this cynicism and indifference to the truth characterized not just poorly educated provincials who only ever watch government-controlled TV channels, but even well-educated, well-traveled, English-speaking Moscow professionals who had all the information at their fingertips (I knew some of them). No burning of pictures was necessary - the pictures were all over the Internet, and nobody minded.

That quote was fabricated by yours truly ;)

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. — The Great Whatever

Eh, to get all hipster about it, I've been saying this since before that line began running on the liberal rags. I've argued these same points with liberals, especially when they thought Trump's loss was a foregone conclusion, and also prior to Trump as a phenomena (the base has been growing and building before they had a Trump, and liberals were especially reticent then to discuss the parallels to fascism particularly because they thought it made them look silly and out of touch due to the overuse of 'fascist' as an insult). Trump is just a manifestation of a base which has been growing, plus, as I noted before, a poor candidate and campaign from his opposition.

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. — The Great Whatever

Insofar that a Democrat believes white people are Satan then, sure. But I don't think that most Democrats believe this. I think this goes in hand with the perception of persecution and humiliation I was talking about, though.

Eh, to get all hipster about it, I've been saying this since before that line began running on the liberal rags. I've argued these same points with liberals, especially when they thought Trump's loss was a foregone conclusion, and also prior to Trump as a phenomena (the base has been growing and building before they had a Trump, and liberals were especially reticent then to discuss the parallels to fascism particularly because they thought it made them look silly and out of touch due to the overuse of 'fascist' as an insult). Trump is just a manifestation of a base which has been growing, plus, as I noted before, a poor candidate and campaign from his opposition. — Moliere

Again, the Dems have called every Republican candidate fascist, at least it was commonly applied to Romney and Bush during both of his elections. So I don't think your testimony is trustworthy here, since your claim about the Dems not wanting to use the insult is false.

Have all Democrats called every Republican candidate a fascist since Bush?

Some have. I would say that most did not, though. And guess which one's might be reticent to use the epithet? Probably those Democrats which didn't call Bush or Romney a fascist. These sorts of statements are not so easily ruled true or false simply because they can apply to people who do different things from one another. I'm willing to accept that this is your perception of Democrats -- it's not like I live where you do, or interact with the same people. But it is also the case that Democrats resist the 'fascist' epithet simply because it sounds ridiculous.

And, it's still worth noting that the parallels I've lain out here are still independent of what Democrats have called who in the past. The standard I'm using is not what Democrats say, but Mussolini's essay and Robert Paxton.

Interesting stuff, Mollie.

If Trump was a fascist would his supporters be able to tell?

Hitler was definitely a fascist but the people in his party saw that as a strength.

I would say that Trump is closer to a fascist than any other president.
He is a trend in that direction in my opinion.

In regard to the OP, this has been my favourite analysis of Trump's political "philosophy" so far....

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/12/13/putin-paradigm-how-trump-will-rule/

Lying is the message. It’s not just that both Putin and Trump lie, it is that they lie in the same way and for the same purpose: blatantly, to assert power over truth itself...Putin’s power lies in being able to say what he wants, when he wants, regardless of the facts. He is president of his country and king of reality...

Both Trump and Putin use language primarily to communicate not facts or opinions but power: it’s not what the words mean that matters but who says them and when...

Then there is also this that explains the post truth phenomena ... algorithmic news feeds create self-reinforcing bubbles of opinion where data is mined for the facts which best support some subset of prejudices.....

But perhaps the most important insight came from Buzzfeed, which analyzed over a year’s worth of Trump’s tweets to figure out where the president-elect gets his information. Trump’s mental universe, as it turns out, is dominated by Breitbart...

It appears that Trump receives a view of the world that is vastly different from that not just of the “liberal bubble” but of the majority of Americans: on one hand, The New York Times seems not to figure in his world, but on the other hand, neither does network television and, it would seem, CNN.

There is no reason to think that Trump will broaden his world view once he is president. He has shown a notable lack of interest in daily intelligence briefings and in the State Department, whose expertise he has entirely ignored in his initial contacts with foreign leaders....

Which also speaks to a basic issue of ADHD in Trump's case ...

The real-estate magnate and the KGB agent share a peculiar trait: both seem to be lazy and uninterested in the world they want to dominate. Putin, as a former intelligence man himself, has not been known to shrug off intelligence briefings, but he prefers to take information in small doses, and in large type. He does not use a computer. With rare exceptions, he does not spend much time preparing for meetings, and he takes few meetings. But he makes grand public gestures, often ones that are at odds with established policy....

Trump, much like Putin, has neither views nor priorities: he has a thirst for power, and he has interests.
He is interested in the military, which is why he appoints generals. He took an interest in the secretary of state job in particular, taking the time to interview multiple candidates and maintaining an Apprentice-like intrigue around the process before finally announcing early Tuesday morning that he had chosen Tillerson. But he is not in fact interested in foreign policy as such, which is why the post of the American ambassador to the United Nations was handed out quickly, to Nikki Haley, the South Carolina governor who has no international experience and no history of supporting Trump...

And for those who don't like the fascist tag - which indeed smacks too much of Germanic dedication to a cause - then this seems accurate...

The best available definition of the kind of state Putin has built is provided by the Hungarian sociologist Bálint Magyar, who calls it a mafia state: it’s run like a family by a patriarch who distributes money, power, and favors. Magyar uses the word “family” to mean a clan of people with longstanding associations; it is important that one cannot enter the family unless invited—“adopted,” in Balint’s terminology—and one cannot leave the family voluntarily. In this model the family is built on loyalty, not blood relations, but Trump is bringing his literal family into the White House. By inviting a few hand-picked people into the areas that interest him personally, he may be creating a mafia state within a state. Like all mafias, this one is driven primarily by greed.

And then another dangerous ingredient of the mix is this ... a facist/romantic antipathy to intellectual social order (very appealing to those with ADHD or feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of modern society(...

Many of Trump’s cabinet picks have one thing in common: they are opposed to the very mission of the agencies they have been chosen to lead. For secretary for housing and urban development an opponent of public housing; for secretary of education a foe of public schools; for health and human services a Congressman who wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid; for labor secretary an executive who is opposed to labor rights, for energy secretary a former governor who wants to scrap the department of energy, and for attorney general, a senator who was once denied a judgeship, is an opponent of civil rights laws giving protection to minority groups. These appointments may or may not be broadly consistent with Trump’s vaguely expressed political views, but they are clearly consistent with the core belief he shares with many of his voters and with Putin: the government ruins everything.

So Trump could be summed up as a sloppy corporate raider.

The US government was a fat opportunity just lying around. He rode a public mood of dissatisfaction - quite legitimate given the level of inequality and loss of social capital in the US - and grabbed something which was on offer. However Trump isn't really interested in his latest acquisition any more than he ever really cares about the business side of his businesses. They are simply vehicles to fulfill a narcissistic sense of personal destiny.

So Trump will peck away at this and that crisis to keep his ADHD entertained, with no long term strategic intent in mind. The US will drift in confused fashion like all his investments as a result.

Back in the day, people used to call themselves fascists, so it was easy to tell. These days people call each other fascists, which is another use of the word entirely. So what is the problem with opposing people under the banner they choose for themselves rather than trying to impose a historical identity on them? Would it be out of line - I think it would - for me to point out that the attempt to impose identities and labels is a fascist tendency?

I think many successful politicians tend to have psychopathic personalities traits with superficial charm, a grandiose notion of self-worth, the need for stimulation and impulsiveness, pathological lying, the ability to manipulate others and a lack of remorse and empathy. HRC & Trump both share these kinds of traits, but I think there is a spectrum, with people like Stalin, & Hitler on the extreme end.

Hm. Hitler was a Nazi. The emphasis is on the superiority of the imaginary 'Aryan' race. The state is there for the benefit of the race. Fascism, as the symbol implies, brings together corporatism, nationalism and militarism for the benefit of the state, denying the place of the individual.

So Nazism might be seen as a racist Germanic sub-genre of fascism. Falangism also included pan-Hispanic racist elements.

Well I don't agree that Hilary is at the same spot on the spectrum as Trump.

I did not intend to say that Trump is as bad as Stalin or Hitler, but given the opportunity to wield the same power as they, I am not so sure he would less prone to abuse.

At least Trump won fairly. HRC cheated to win her nomination.

Cheated?

Then again, it is worth noting when history repeats itself.

So Trump could be summed up as a sloppy corporate raider. — apokrisis

Cute.

Yes, she stacked the DNC against Bernie Sanders in an attempt to sabotage Bernie's campaign. When this became public Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned the DNC chair.

I am not sure how it is cheating though?

Why is it cheating if the DNC supports the candidate they believe is stronger?

The Florida congresswoman did not go quietly. She reportedly resisted stepping down, and blamed subordinates for the content of the leaked emails that were released Friday, which clearly showed the committee’s posture of neutrality in the Democratic primary to have been a hollow pretense, just as Bernie Sanders and his supporters long contended. She finally relinquished the convention gavel only after receiving three days of strong-arming, a ceremonial position in the Clinton campaign, and a raucous round of boos at a convention breakfast.

Atlantic Magazine

Have all Democrats called every Republican candidate a fascist since Bush? — Moliere

Since Gore Vidal said it, probably. People regularly compared GWBush to Hitler. There was nothing particularly fascist about him. I haven't heard many people call Trump fascist, but he did heavily promote nostalgia and what appeared to be scape-goating. Didn't see much war-mongering, but who knows what he'll say next week?

The question is: what difference does it make? It's hard for me to think of a scenario where the US crashes into a fascist ditch. But whatever it is, it's not something to be glib about. It's horrendous.

Yes but Hilary had more delegates than Sanders, how did she cheat to get them?

The DNC subverted the procedure, for getting delegates to favor Clinton.

So your claiming the DNC cheated and Sanders would have won more delegates than Hilary if the DNC had been truly impartial?

No, I have no idea who would have won if it had been a fair contest by the time they got to the convention there was little that could be done.

I am still not sure how it is Hilary who is responsible for the cheating?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was HRC's surrogate, & she still is.

So Hilary forced her to stack the DNC in her favor, or bribed her or something?