When I read this 1998 Richard Rorty quote in 2016, I wondered the same thing.

[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words [slur for an African-American that begins with “n”] and [slur for a Jewish person that begins with “k”] will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

Richard Rorty Achieving Our Country 1998

Labor might well be the bitter and resentful collective Rorty posits. Sufficient economic distress could also motivate white collar, lower-level managerial types to turn into fascists. We need to keep an eye on Christian Nationalists (they're a thing in the US -- another abomination), fascist military types, white nationalists, of course--the Proud Boys, et al. The people who resent limitations on their right to do whatever they damn well please (on federal land, for instance) need to be watched. The wealthy are another suspicious group. Having nothing to lose can stimulate radical thinking, and so can having a lot to lose -- which the rich definitely have.

The Plot Against America is a novel by Philip Roth published in 2004. It is an alternative history in which Franklin D. Roosevelt is defeated in the presidential election of 1940 by Charles Lindbergh. It's believable, given its setting in time, but perhaps isn't indicative of how a fascist movement would operate now.

Prophet Song by Paul Lynch is a novel about Ireland under fascism. It won the Booker Prize in 2023. So people are thinking about fascism, one way and the other.

So people are thinking about fascism, one way and the other. — BC

Sure are. Us included...

How much do you expect and or fear that a strong fascist moment could be organized within the next 5 years? — BC

Trump/MAGA is unashamedly fascist. He’s openly boasted that he thinks the constitution should be suspended, the public service purged, and his enemies subjected to prosecution. He has a strong movement if polling data is to be believed. Many are saying that he will win the election, and although I don’t believe that he will, the acceptance of his threats of fascism and the escalation of violent threats against the judiciary and other institutions is alarming in the extreme.

It might have been Robert Paxton who suggested that fascists are as much identifiable as fascists by the way they operate as by what they believe. This is what makes Trump, so objectionable in so many ways as he is, a prime suspect. The January 6 riots were not spontaneous, of course. Using a mob to break up a civil proceeding to gain or keep power is a classic fascist move. He has persisted in maintaining the lie that the election was stolen from him. Politicians lie all the time, of course, but Trump's lies tie into the riots, Stop the Steal chants, and all that.

Not much I can say except that I hope Jan 6 isn't Turmp's equivalent to the Munich Putsch of 1923.

The coup is ongoing. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. 139 current members of Congress voted not to certify the last election result.

Let’s not forget that only yesterday, in support of Trump’s claim for immunity, his own lawyer argued, in a Federal Court of Appeals, that Trump should literally be allowed to get away with murder - that if he ordered a Seal team to assasinate a rival, then he should be immune from prosecution, unless he were first impeached by both houses. Let that sink in. When Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, it wasn’t empty rhetoric. He believes it. And a very large number of regular voters are apparently down with it.

My guess (wishful thinking?): the oligarchic-corporatist "neoliberal" establishment (i.e. bankers-military industrialists) is hellbent on keeping a "neofascist" coup d'etat from killing the US hegemonic goose that's still laying the postwar-globalist golden eggs (e.g. currently $32 trillion petrodollar denominated US debt). Simultaneous proxy wars with Russia, Iran & China are the collective counterweight, perhaps for another decade, offsetting what looks like an inevitable American ethnopopulist implosion. No doubt a "superpower" nightmare the world can't wake up from soon enough. :death: :fire:

I think the probability depends on 1) whether the US will face a serious economic crisis or not, and 2) whether someone with enough charisma and talent will stand up to organise that populist movement.

1) Things were way worse still in Weimar Germany. A serious crisis for the US doesn't seem that imminent at this moment, but that could change fast in a fragile global economy that has some serious issues going forward.

2) Trump maybe wants to go that direction, and maybe can get some popular support, but I think ultimately he doesn't have the skills/talent to pull it off. But you know maybe he inspired some people.

The Plot Against America is a novel by Philip Roth published in 2004. It is an alternative history in which Franklin D. Roosevelt is defeated in the presidential election of 1940 by Charles Lindbergh. It's believable, given its setting in time, but perhaps isn't indicative of how a fascist movement would operate now. — BC

Hmm... Joe Steele by Harry Turtledove, published in 2015, is a horrifyingly plausible alternative history along the same lines. Now I wonder if there was some plagiarism going on.

Still, it was a good book. While reading it, it was somewhat of a relief to know that Trump doesn't read.

The scary thing is the denial of fascism from Trump supporters. It’s sort of a gaslighting version. He says dog whistle stuff and then it can be interpreted more ambiguously later on and people just move forward. You say it enough it’s just part of the landscape and normalized. HE gets to say it, if no one else. He praises and encouraged riots to stop counting of votes. He said he’d use the government to attack political enemies. His legal team thinks the president is fully immune from criminal wrongdoing. Then he redirects his actually alarming fascist tendencies to run of the mill corruption like Hunter Biden. It’s the psychology of a cult of personality. He can do no wrong, so he is immune.

In a sporting game, both sides follow the referee. If one side encourages the crowd to believe the referee is corrupt, then all the calls will be questioned and they will rig the game.

It’s also scary that other Republicans would think that if he is elected he won’t turn it into a semi-fascist style government to exact revenge.

I would quibble about Trump as actually fascist though. Fascists generally have an ideology. His is just narcissistic self-serving agenda for himself, co-opting the right for this agenda. He runs it more like a mob style organization so that loyalty gets favors and uses the primaries to outvote those who are against him. Liz Cheney was not liberal but she was voted out for one main reason.

Also fascist tend to be supporters of military. He has oddly called dead soldiers “losers and suckers”. You’d have to have an eerie mesmerizing hold to have any let alone most military people supporting you (not sure the latest polls but probably the case). So perhaps BC, can we split up a cult from fascism and just say its elements of both? Does fascism need a cult of personality or only ideology? Which is worse? Delusional support for person or belief en masse?

Mcarthyism deserves dishonourable mention in this context.

• Fascism is the revolution of the entitled.
  
  
• Declining powers are vulnerable, because we have been taught that growth is normal and decline is a crisis.
  
  
• There is no special virtue in the American psyche, that would make them immune.

The scary thing is the denial of fascism from Trump supporters. It’s sort of a gaslighting version. — schopenhauer1

So Trump is fascist and anyone who thinks that's nonsense is a Trump supporter and trying to gaslight you? :brow: Casting suspicion on anyone who disagrees with you is not a great starting point for discussion, and would sooner suggest that what you're looking for is an echo chamber.

Personally, I think the idea that the US is anywhere near or even nearing fascism is so humurous it's hard for me to take it seriously.

So Trump is fascist and anyone who thinks that's nonsense is a Trump supporter and trying to gaslight you? — Tzeentch

Why jump to conclusion without reading the post? Didn't schopy actually say:

I would quibble about Trump as actually fascist though. Fascists generally have an ideology. His is just narcissistic self-serving agenda for himself, co-opting the right for this agenda. — schopenhauer1

I think what schopenhaur1 implies, rather than that Trump himself is fascist, is that many Trump supporters are fascist, and they see his actions as an opening of the door, inviting them in. In reality he's just using them for his own personal gain, what schop describes as narcissistic. And, it appears like the number of fascists is sufficient to make opening the door to fascism worthwhile for him.

I think what schopenhaur1 implies, rather than that Trump himself is fascist, is that many Trump supporters are fascist, and they see his actions as an opening of the door, inviting them in. In reality he's just using them for his own personal gain, what schop describes as narcissistic. And, it appears like the number of fascists is sufficient to make opening the door to fascism worthwhile for him. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

It’s the psychology of a cult of personality. He can do no wrong, so he is immune. — schopenhauer1

I think though that a bunch of the personality cult is tongue-in-cheek. The Trump voter base seems far more concerned with their enemies than with their "glorious leader". Arguably Hillary Clinton as the embodiment of evil is as important to the Trump movement as Trump is.

And I think this is ultimately why nothing "sticks" to Trump. His supporters do not care so long as he destroys the evil they are convinced is trying to rule their lifes.

And this brings us back to fascism: the overwhelming sense of crisis and the threat by evil outsiders.

I think what schopenhaur1 implies, rather than that Trump himself is fascist, is that many Trump supporters are fascist, and they see his actions as an opening of the door, inviting them in. In reality he's just using them for his own personal gain, what schop describes as narcissistic. And, it appears like the number of fascists is sufficient to make opening the door to fascism worthwhile for him. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, Trump is the wrecking ball. The people with a real understanding of the political movement, people like Bannon, are the scary ones.

How much do you expect and or fear that a strong fascist moment could be organized within the next 5 years? — BC

Certainly possible, but not so probable, because a (too) strong fascist (or other political) movement is a threat to the ruling business movement. :cool:

There will be fascists fighting liberals fighting socialists, and postmodern professors and activists relativizing away knowledge from being taken seriously.

Certainly possible, but not so probable, because a (too) strong fascist (or other political) movement is a threat to the ruling business movement. :cool: — jkop

I'm no longer so sure about that. The "ruling business elite" knows the risk of some kind of major crash is high and rising. For example: "two thirds of risk experts surveyed expect a multipolar or fragmented world order to emerge in the next decade"

It seems plausible that some people opt to take the "disaster capitalist" route, that is ride the waves of catastrophes to amass and notably power that can be used to safeguard their interests.

How much do you expect and or fear that a strong fascist moment could be organized within the next 5 years? — BC

Well, what is sure to happen is that any movement that gains power, will likely be called (rightly or wrongly) fascist. Because calling the other side fascist is the usual insult.

Political polarization is now quite structural in the US political field. The two-party system simply enforces this. When there is little to show of your own achievements, then it becomes simply a game of telling how dangerous and evil the other party is and hence you have to vote for us. This message is spoon fed to Americans all the time. It's amazing just how little political violence the US has seen.

And then there is populism, be it leftist or right-wing populism, that will also fuel the polarization. After all, in the heart of populism there's the hatred against the rich, the powerful and the elites that are against the common people.

There is also the disenchantment to the state, the country itself. There's a fine line between being critical about implemented policies and then being self loathing. Many Americans find their own state as this potential enemy to themselves. One could naively think that this would counter the lure of fascism, but unfortunately it goes the other way. The state and it's power is only held by the wrong people, the correct people have to take the power and be uncompromising to those others!

In a similar way, you could assume that conspiracy theorists simply want transparency and sound policies that aren't high-jacked by special interest groups. As the Trump ensemble of Q-ANON people showed, this is the farthest from the truth. These people simply believe all is propaganda and they have to fight it with their own propaganda.

And as an foreigner, what I'm surprised is that Americans don't seem to understand that their perpetual deficit funding of their government relies on the status of the US dollar, which itself enjoys that status because of the Superpower status itself that the country has. Once the dollar loses it's status as the back up currency and just becomes the largest currency among others, then the perpetual deficit funding cannot be sustained.

This kind of economic crisis might then indeed turn the US into a policestate as it has all the trappings of one already in place. If the middle classes then start fearing for their own safety, then you can easily get a state that is quite fascist.

If one wants to understand what is going on politically, first we must dismiss buzzwords like "fascism". There's nothing going on in the western world currently that even remotely resembles fascism. Nothing that even hints of it - no, Trump isn't fascist either. Talking about "fascist elements" is just rabble-rousing nonsense.

A better word would be "bad loserism", since it more closely captures the nature (and ultimately the limited gravity) of what is going on, namely adults throwing tantrums because their team didn't win the race.

This isn't unique to the US. A similar thing happened in other countries, including my own, where a somewhat controversial party came out the biggest in the last election. In Germany we see the same sort of thing with the AfD (though they have yet to win).

When "their side" doesn't win, suddenly people start questioning democracy, talking about how "fascists" are taking over, etc.

Trump did it when Biden won. In the Netherlands some lefties did it when Wilders won. Germany is now questioning democracy because the AfD might win. Undoubtedly if Trump wins the next election we'll see the same type of thing from the Democrats, etc.

It's all very childish.


So, why is this happening?

- Countries all throughout the West are going through a transitional period, where the ruling political class is being replaced ("populists are taking over"). The desire for meaningful change is high, and elections are close, so all the major sides (and even wild cards like Trump) believe they have a shot at winning.

- A thorough poisoning of the information landscape by propaganda and wrong-headed adverstisement (through algorithms and AI, for example) makes the legitimacy of governments plummet even further. This is something all parties are guilty of, the ruling political class perhaps most of all. Creating internet echo chambers further cements in all sides this belief that they are going to win.

And as such, the democratic process loses its credibility, and people start to refuse to accept the outcomes of elections and fueled by emotion will take all sorts of foolish actions and make foolish statements.


Not fascism, but "bad loserism".

We need to keep an eye on Christian Nationalists (they're a thing in the US -- another abomination) — BC

:up: Yes definitely. I was raised Catholic / Christian. Now lapsed, but the core beliefs linger in me.

Core beliefs that in bitter irony are now rejected by militant Fundamentalists as “too soft”.
Forgiveness, love, compassion, humility… Soft Power is unfortunately out of fashion.
(I’ve thought about starting a thread entitled ‘Christian Nationalism is neither truly Christian nor truly Nationalist…’)

I like simple answers as much as anyone, but demanding quick and neat, black / white solutions regarding national (and international policy) is a fool’s game… and irresistibly tempting.

There’s a theory that peoples’ patience and attention span has been on the wane for decades, and the internet has exacerbated the trend.
Another trend is thinking that one is extremely smart, because of insta-google searches.
Join that with the simultaneous spread of misinformation / disinformation.

It is clearly a type of psychological projection when the Alt-Right whines about “wokeness” when (taken as a whole) their own movement rests on an unstable and bizarre (and often contradictory) patchwork of lies, blame, intolerance, paranoia, mythology, etc.

What’s the old saying about “small lies attracting small numbers, and big lies attracting large numbers of followers”?

The leader who appears ‘strong’ and ‘confident’ during turbulent times has an advantage, even if he is a cowardly selfish gasbag who doesn’t care about anything beyond their little fantasy bubble.

A quick glance at the collection of loonies that “stormed the Capitol” is a handy reference.

Not that long ago in the USA, the Constitution was near-sacred to many, especially conservatives.

Now it seems that many of them would (as in a fairytale) trade it like a cow for some magic beans.

When given the choice between a Democrat who won't police the border and a fascist who will, Americans will at least contemplate voting for the fascist. Or tell pollsters they're going to. I don't think Trump has a chance, though. What Americans are telling pollsters is the equivalent of a scream of rage at the incompetent Democrats. When push comes to shove, they won't bring themselves to vote for Trump.

So Trump is fascist and anyone who thinks that's nonsense is a Trump supporter and trying to gaslight you? :brow: Casting suspicion on anyone who disagrees with you is not a great starting point for discussion, and would sooner suggest that what you're looking for is an echo chamber. — Tzeentch

No, that's not what I mean. It's not that if you support Trump's policies, therefore you must be gaslighting me. Specifically, if you bring up what Trump has said and done to take of the guard rails of the American democracy, and introducing dangerous rhetoric into the political system that echoes things you might here in a rightwing rally in the 1930s, instead of acknowledging that this is indeed alarming, and despite agreeing in various policies, the person is too dangerous, they will say that it's no big deal, or that they haven't read what is all over MSM (because they have their own echo chamber of rightwing podcasts/takshow hosts curating what matters). Or, exactly as was stated here:

I think though that a bunch of the personality cult is tongue-in-cheek. The Trump voter base seems far more concerned with their enemies than with their "glorious leader". Arguably Hillary Clinton as the embodiment of evil is as important to the Trump movement as Trump is.

And I think this is ultimately why nothing "sticks" to Trump. His supporters do not care so long as he destroys the evil they are convinced is trying to rule their lifes.

And this brings us back to fascism: the overwhelming sense of crisis and the threat by evil outsiders. — Echarmion

I really can't say much more than that. It is exactly what seems to be going on with that.

I mean look at Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. In their debates, they are afraid to trash on the frontrunner who is the most corrupt president we've had in terms of blatantly using democratic means secure his power and whose divisive rhetoric has made the divisions that much greater. They know this, but they barely address Trump's unsuitability to take office, and his offensive behavior because that would mean the base would reprimand by not even considering such blasphemy of their dear leader. But that just shows the lack of backbone on their part. Only Chris Christie has spoken out forcefully in the presidential primary. Hell, Nikki Haley might even be letting open the possibility of being Trump's VP!

But that just speaks to the fact that its the VOTERS who are keeping these spineless politicians beholden to their dear leader.. And instead of taking a moral stance against him, they cowtow to their will. Where does that leave politics in general then? As slimy as it's ever been.

The United States has had fascist movements in the past. The KKK is an example. Father McLaughlin had a popular radio show during the 1930s, reaching up to 30,000,000 a week. "The broadcasts have been described as "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture". Coughlin died in 1979. — BC

In an odd way, I sometimes find it comforting that such ideologies (or ‘idiot-ologies’ lol) have been kept at bay in the past (though never completely eradicated of course).

And perhaps the intolerance acted roughly like a vaccine to spur a counter-action to increase resistance to short-sighted tribalism, stupidity and hatred, by its very noxiousness.

(This is probably looking through rosy glasses, and desperately searching for a diamond in a pile of manure).

Reading about the history of the Prohibition in the USA during the 1920’s gives a similar effect.
(Or watching the Ken Burns documentary about that tumultuous time).

How much do you expect and or fear that a strong fascist moment could be organized within the next 5 years? — BC

Unless someone wants to define our current system as fascist (which I don't), I put the chances at right around zero. The forces maintaining the status quo are well forged, and not seriously challenged by those marching in the street, writing scathing articles, and or even by the voting booth.

Your post could have appeared during any 5 year period from 1950 until today, and I expect the same sort of responses would have been given, with back and forth about how the political and economic environment will never sustain with way things are going.

The only reason I don't say it's outright zero is because there is always the chance of an unforeseen disruptive force, like a meteor slams into earth, nuclear war, or a zombie apocolypse.

The most likely of those deals with war. Which means its less our morals that offers us protection than it is our military.

Edit: I'd change 1950 to 1865, but I might be convinced to roll it back to 1776.

Trump himself is a narcissist and will say and do anything to stay in power and protect his brand. That’s obvious. But the party he’s chosen to attach himself to won’t go along with everything. They’ve got no souls or spines, so they stick with him because of his large base— but the core element of their agenda is neoliberal, through and through. Not fascism.

Trump was happy to let them (mostly) carry out this agenda, and his rhetoric (mostly) reflects this as well — code words like liberty, freedom, small government, security, law and order, etc. Meanwhile every policy decision helped the wealthiest people and the corporate sector, the most obvious being his one legislative “achievement”: the tax cuts of 2017. He also stacked the regulating agencies with insiders from the industries being regulated — Scott Pruitt heading the EPA the most glaring example, in my view.

So while his rhetoric has become even more extreme, and the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” policy plans is scary indeed, I don’t think the powers that be really want a civil war or suspending the constitution; they don’t want fascism. Rather, they want a well run system, preferably with even more wealth transferred to them. They very much need the state to subsidize them and bail them out when their profiteering crashes the economy.

I’m not too worried about fascism. A second Trump term will be catastrophic enough, perhaps even worse than fascism.

How much do you expect and or fear that a strong fascist moment could be organized within the next 5 years? — BC

It's not clear to me that we don't have one already, although I can't say that it's organized. Let's say there are plenty of fascists, or crypto-fascists.

Ever read Sinclair Lewis' novel It Can't Happen Here? It's American dictator, Buzz Windrip (love the name), is described as disturbingly similar to You Know Who.

And this brings us back to fascism: the overwhelming sense of crisis and the threat by evil outsiders.

I really can't say much more than that. It is exactly what seems to be going on with that. — schopenhauer1

In my opinion, this is a classic example of framing.

One hardly needs to be fascist to believe that the United States political ruling class is rotten to the core and should be removed for the sake of the people. In fact, looking at it from across the pond that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. Obviously whether Trump is a suitable alternative is a whole other question, but this doesn't make him or his supporters fascist.

I mean look at Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. In their debates, they are afraid to trash on the frontrunner who is the most corrupt president we've had in terms of blatantly using democratic means secure his power and whose divisive rhetoric has made the divisions that much greater. They know this, but they barely address Trump's unsuitability to take office, and his offensive behavior because that would mean the base would reprimand by not even considering such blasphemy of their dear leader. But that just shows the lack of backbone on their part. Only Chris Christie has spoken out forcefully in the presidential primary. Hell, Nikki Haley might even be letting open the possibility of being Trump's VP! — schopenhauer1

What of the Democrats, who shunned RFK Jr. and forced him to go independent? What of Hillary and Bernie?

Undemocratic and tasteless though such things may be, they're hardly exclusive to Trump or the Republican party. It actually seems to be a core feature of American democracy.

And it's also typically democratic to point fingers at the other side and ignore the own side's role in the myriad of problems that plague the system.

One hardly needs to be fascist to believe that the United States political ruling class is rotten to the core and should be removed for the sake of the people. In fact, looking at it from across the pond that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. Obviously whether Trump is a suitable alternative is a whole other question, but this doesn't make him or his supporters fascist. — Tzeentch

Yes, and this is the more subtle version of what is going on.. To morally equivocate standard corruption of politicians (making money from being in office generally in some fashion is usually the corruption here, but also hiding agendas etc.), doesn't mean that these politicians DISMANTLE the very system and MANIPULATE their voters to do their bidding. Also, they do not dog whistle (generally) in blatant and egregious forms of divisive/shocking racial/identity/supremacy rhetoric.

Certainly, I will say, I find it so interesting that the "moral majority" (mainly white evangelicals) go along with him, despite their railing against the Clinton years and so on. Obama gave them nothing to hate in that department, but Trump brought it back a thousand time over, but because of his court appointees regarding abortion, anything goes.

Obviously whether Trump is a suitable alternative is a whole other question, but this doesn't make him or his supporters fascist. — Tzeentch

I wouldn't say they are fascist. But they may (unconsciously) hold views that conform with fascist tendencies. I might characterize it more as cognitive dissonance. In normal conversation they would condemn such things, but once the cult leader says it, it is defended. It really becomes an identity thing more than anything. It started as sort of a joke.. he's an outsider, and he's pissing off "the libs", and then it becomes actually embracing him no matter what.

What of the Democrats, who shunned RFK Jr. and forced him to go independent? What of Hillary and Bernie?

Undemocratic and tasteless though such things may be, they're hardly exclusive to Trump or the Republican party. It actually seems to be a core feature of American democracy. — Tzeentch

That's not the same of what I am talking about. If RFK, Jr. Ran as a democrat, and was afraid to bash Biden because he was afraid Biden voters would be angered, that would might be the same. There is nothing comparable on the Democratic side.

And it's also typically democratic to point fingers at the other side and ignore the own side's role in the myriad of problems that plague the system. — Tzeentch

That's just politics in general. Blame the other guy for your failings. There is a general "my party above all else" that permeates all of it, but that is a different, systemic problem- one that Washington clearly predicted in his Farewell Address.