They're actually making lists of loyalists to plop into critical spots. I think they're serious. This isn't the old Republican party. — frank

Right, but that makes it a power grab, I don't see how it's anti-establishment. These are not revolutionaries, they're part of the elite cementing their (relative) power.

Exactly. The Democrats stand for the status quo. The parties switched roles (again). — frank

At least partially, yeah.

I don't think that's true. The political pendulum swings and the establishment is a dragging reflection of that. — frank

That's also true, but requires some amount of comparison either in space (other democracies around the world) or time. I just wanted to note that it's hard to make definitive statements around the terms "left", "right" or "centrist" because they don't have fixed definitions.

Which is weird considering the economy is booming. — frank

By the numbers it is. Lots of people seem to "feel" that something is deeply wrong though, and have been feeling that for some time.

People are still using right/left terminology, though. It's just that they've redefined it. — frank

Sure, they're still being used as shorthand, but whereas in the past those categories actually represented a social spectrum with voting behaviours changing from left to right as you travelled from poor to rich, they no longer do.

The new American right is skeptical of liberal democracy, which would have been a blasphemous position previously. They're populist and anti-establishment. They basically want to fire everyone in the US government who isn't loyal to their cause. They've already talked about how to defy the SCOTUS if they resist this transition. I don't know who the significant elites are in this situation, but it looks like the existing establishment has nothing to gain from this and quite a bit to lose. — frank

That's their rhetoric in any event. Though in my view, the republican party can hardly be anti-establishment given that they're half the establishment. It's not like they want to abolish their own position, they intend to remain an elite. They just want to extend their power.

So some part of the establishment has a lot to lose, but not all of it. The republicans will be fine. Their donors will be fine. Republicans aren't looking to curb the power of Elon Musk.

That's what I mean by multiple elites: the republicans represent one elite (the elite of wealth), leveraging the anger of one disadvantaged group, who favor a populist nationalism, to extend their influence at the expense of another elite - the "intellectual" elite whose power is less directly based on wealth but on influence in the media and in education.

I think that's because the present establishment is very centrist, isn't it? The rising movement is rightist. That's a big switch from the old days. Everything used to be pretty moderate. — frank

This is a difficult question to answer because of the unclear definition of the terms. We could say that the establishment is centrist by definition.

I'd say the current establishment is internationalist, economically liberal, socially progressive and bureaucratic. What's historically unusual is the socially progressive part. So in that sense yes, the different establishment also means a different counterculture. What's different is also that the rising right wing movement is not traditionally conservative but progressive in the sense that they want to actively change society.

For the American right, this is specifically about jobs. They want to stop immigration and force out all the illegal aliens presently here. That would up-end the economy, so it's bizarre that they're actually thinking about doing that. — frank

I think economic anxieties are a big part of it everywhere. And young people specifically are (seemingly) facing a world of dwindling resources and intensified competition, so that might be one reason for the change in attitude.

NATO used militarization and fanatical anti-Russian elements in Ukraine to create a fait accompli with regards to its NATO membership. The Russians are looking for guarantees that that won't happen again. — Tzeentch

I find it really confusing that you're ok with that.

The key to understanding how this is happening is to see the similarities between young Democrats and young Republicans. If you listen closely, you'll notice that they're saying the same thing: get out of Ukraine, get out of the Middle East, and focus on Main St. The people who are trying to say no to that are mainstream Democrats: Bill Clinton's people with their NAFTA and reduced support for the poor. — frank

I think what you're seeing is the trend away from the old left / right distinction and the movement towards a system of multiple elites with their respective supporting and opposed groups, as put forward by Piketty.

The situation used to be that young people tend to vote against the elite, i.e. for the left. This is no longer the case as experience in Europe already shows. But the voting behaviour will depend on whether the "elite" is identified as the economic elite or the academic elite.

In addition, the big wedge issue that defines politics in the non-asian industrialised nations seems to be migration. There seems to be a culture shift where younger voters, traditionally more accepting of social changes, including migration, are now more pessimistic about it.

It may be more of a matter of not having yet coordinated a effective response than of not being able to, but that is not a prediction. — Fooloso4

Fair enough, but they're running out of time.

It's still uncertain since Biden could very well stay in or drop out at this point but what more do you think could be done here? — Mr Bee

I think what I'm missing is some kind of action plan. Everyone seems to be content with voicing their concern but then the Biden circle has already made plenty clear they're not going to step aside.

So either there is some avenue to remove him, in which case they need to pursue it. Or there isn't in which case further complaining just hurts them. But what it looks like is they simply cannot figure out what to do.

Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024. — Mr Bee

I wonder why there hasn't been a grassroots movement to reform the party structure after 2016. Perhaps going after Trump was too easy and allowed the party to deflect the attention. It would explain the willingness to give Trump all the attention all the time.

Well said. And arguably the state of the democratic party is more worrying than the state of President Biden. That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario.

In retrospect it seems like warning signs have been accumulating since Obama's second term that the democrats are no longer able to effectively coordinate responses to challanges - like the refusal to allow Obama to fill a SC seat.

Then ask yourself: is now the Republican party really intent on wrecking democracy? All of them? — ssu

You're assuming they think of it as "wrecking democracy". They might instead consider it safeguarding democracy from the mob.

Consider some of the rhetoric right wing pundits have been putting out there: how the USA are not a democracy but actually a republic. And they mean to imply by this that only certain people - true Americans - should be allowed a say. It's a take that relies on very old concerns about the tyranny of the majority, only adopted to feature new villains.

He already won the primary election, meaning he has already been chosen to be the candidate. That simply cannot be erased because he is not winning in the general. — NOS4A2

You're talking about the procedure.

But the reason given does sound entirely democratic to me. People don't want to vote for him, therefore he shouldn't run.

His party is telling him to step aside because he’s doing bad in the polls, and for no other reason. — NOS4A2

Isn't that the most democratic reason you can have?

So in America, criminality is more acceptable than aging? — L'éléphant

You have to understand that the mindset is that all politicians are criminals, Trump's just the only one who's honest enough to be caught.

@Lionino

I just read it as "we locked the account and turned the contents over to law enforcement", given that he states they're fully cooperating. Actually deleting the data would certainly not be cooperation.

I don't think he deserves to die. Like many, I just wish someone would assassinate him. I never claimed to be a saint. — frank

Not sure that'd improve matters for those opposed to Trumpism oder the republican platform to be honest.

I think a sufficiently ruthless politician armed with the spirit of Trump might end up much more effective at getting their way than Trump will ever be.

The discord part or the political affiliation? Discord is a pretty standard messenger for gamers.

The last three days have been wild. Trump will win. It will be a fun watch, and its a shame there are dickheads across the USA who think it's such a dire situation that some kind of "society burning down" is going to occur. — AmadeusD

There are also dickheads in the USA who are hoping and actively planning for society burning down.

And whatever one may think about Donald Trump as a person, the trajectory of the republican party as a whole is quite stark. There doesn't seem much of a doubt that the majority of active politicians in the republican party of 2024 is willing to use all legal and legalistic means available to deepen and secure it's power. Moderates have an increasingly hard time in this environment.

I mean they are endorsing a candidate who still refuses to accept the result of the last election. Sure Trump is popular and that's part of the reason. But it's also a conscious choice to engage in power politics without regards to democratic niceties. The outlook is no longer a classical liberal one.

I oppose Bush-ism and support most of Trumpism. I oppose the bipartisan neocon wars. I support the cause of peace. Anyone for peace should take a look at the track record of Trump versus the Hillerys and Pelosis and Schumers and Bidens of this world. DiFi, my own Senator for so many years. Voted for the wars while her construction business husband profited from them. That's the system Trump is fighting. — fishfry

A provocative question: Why do you support the "cause of peace"? Not why were the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan wrong, but why is peace, generally, the most important consideration?

If I was religious, I'd assume god really is on Trump's side. The last couple of weeks were an amazing string of successes for his campaign.

First the SC giving Trump very wide ranging immunity.

Then Biden exposing his mental decline at the debate, followed by a disastrously uncoordinated response in the democratic party. Weeks on the democrats have still not managed to form a united front, but did manage to further damage their (current) candidate.

And now a failed assassination attempt, leaving him hurt but only lightly injured. His reaction to this was also very good. He managed to show some restraint and called for unity, which is an unusually savvy move.

Not to be callous about the assassination attempt (I'm glad he survived) but it's hard to imagine a bigger boon for his campaign than the image of a martyr.

The Democrats sleepwalked into this mess. — RogueAI

This is a good way to put it, but it begs the question: How the hell is it that the republican party despite it's large and obvious fractures is able to put together a brazen but coherent bid for power while the democrats are asleep?

It looks to me as if the democratic party has managed to hand the election to Trump on a silver platter.

If opposition to Biden has not managed to coalesce into a united front until now, then it will not. Fear of uncertainty and sheer inertia will keep him in the race.

As far as I am concerned, this is a damning indictment of the democratic party as a vehicle of political action. They allowed the Republicans to run rings around them during Obama. They mishandled Hillary's campaign. They allowed Trump to gain absurdly outsized importance during his term. They then made the most conservatice choice possible by going with Biden, narrowly managing to win. Then instead of immediately planning for his replacement, they decided to just stick it out, simply crossing their fingers that Biden would be well enough 4 years down the line to beat Trump.

And now that it turns out he isn't, they made a panicky and half-assed effort which has practically ruined Biden's chances to win without actually having any chance to replace him.

Really the party (at the federal level) should just be dissolved at this point.

I don't think so. Only when those security interests are expressed through policy action that extends power over foreign countries. But just investing in defensive capabilities, for instance, would not be imperialistic. — Benkei

Yes, I also think my statement was too general. But it might highlight an important notion: That there is no hard dividing line between a security interest and an imperialist ambition without introducing a value judgement.

Fundamentally, purely defensive capabilities don't exist, since even a bunker technically frees up capacity for operations elsewhere. So in a geopolitical context the goals are critical.

I think you're correct in identifying that most analyses presuppose such (potential) objectives - as I mentioned later with my gripe about typical real politik analysis. Russia has always argued that the potential capabilities of NATO lead to its security concerns. The same is NATO's reason for expansion; the potential capabilities of Russia to invade Europe. I think those capabilities and the Soviet political framework supported that assessment during the Cold War; they found the invasion plans in Eastern Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall after all. But after the disintegration of the USSR, I don't think this was realistic for a long time and there certainly was no reasonable fear to justify expansion for the existing members at the time. That was driven by a policy of containment, which in turn fed Russia's fear of NATO capabilities. — Benkei

It does seem to have a familiar rhyme to it: the fear of "encirclement", the resentment of having lost a contest of strength, the lack of an adequate re-integration of the former enemy into the international community.

Yet it also needs to be said that nothing about Russia's approach to the changes in the geopolitical landscape after 1990 was preordained. It was the Putin government that explicitly undertook to integrate Russia's imperial past and it's claim to great power status into it's mandate.

I don't see that expansion as fundamentally different from Russia placing ballistic missiles in Cuba. — Benkei

But the context certainly is different. The Cuban missile crisis was deliberate brinkmanship by Khrushchev with the aim of recalibrating US-Soviet relations on a more favourable basis. The NATO expansion did not treat Russia as a threat to be dealt with but as a non-factor.

With the Cuban nuclear missiles, the SU really did mean to threaten the US militarily. NATO didn't expand eastwards to threaten Russia militarily.

Expansion is inherently aggressive (and imperialistic) yes. So there's no catch-22 in my view. In the absence of an actual threat, expanding so-called "defensive" alliances is an aggressive geopolitical move. NATO's "expansion" into space is an aggressive move as well. — Benkei

I guess this leads us back to my initial point: from an amoral geopolitical perspective, aggression and defense are fluid and relative. What matters is goals and capabilities.

Russia's reaction to NATO expansion isn't based on whether that expansion is "aggressive" or not. It's based on Russia's goals and capabilities, and the goals and capabilities they ascribe to NATO.

NATO expansion was against Russia's goal of maintaining it's influence, but it lacked the capability to do anything about it. When the capability was available, it was used.

This view avoids treating Russia as an automaton that merely reacts to aggression.

I would think the goal of geopolitical policy is to avoid costly wars so you'd expect parties to manoeuvre away from them, instead of towards them. — Benkei

So, whoever has the more costly war loses? Because from this perspective, it's not really clear whether the Ukraine war isn't a net benefit to NATO, even if Ukraine ends up losing a bunch of territory.

Yes, you like to ignore twenty years of warning in favour of a single instance and then focus on one speech by Putin in which he claimed Ukraine was artificial. So one country and not countries. And my definition of imperialism doesn't relate to figleafs at all. The imperialist ambitions of Russia are limited if they existed at all since the dissolution of the USSR. — Benkei

Well regardless of whether we want to class Russia's goals as "imperialist", they clearly judged that their goals required a war and the annexation of territory. This decision was not forced on Russia by external circumstances.

Either you lead by example and build a rule based order, or you do what has been happening in the past 3 decades and fuck up the UN. — Benkei

I think the argument that the West mortally undermined it's own standing and thus created a world where the invasion of Ukraine no longer seemed out of the question is a much better one than the argument that NATO expansion specifically drove Russian foreign policy.

But if the Great Simulator in the Sky (and exactly how is that any different than God?) is implementing my consciousness as well as my perceptions, then we have made NO progress since the days of Pong, since we have no idea how to implement or simulate consciousness. So that argument fails. That's one of my objections to simulation theory. The "progress in video games" argument" fails. We've made no progress in simulating consciousness. — fishfry

I would put things differently. We have clearly made tremendous progress in simulating all manner of physical processes, including those happening inside brains. Where we have made no progress is in developing a conceptual framework for connecting such physical processes with the subjective experience of consciousness.

We are already able to create systems that appear like a conscious subject on a passing glance (though humans also occasionally ascribe consciousness to anything from cats to rocks, so perhaps that's not surprising). It seems likely that we'll be able to create artificial systems which are indistinguishable from conscious subjects in a number of circumstances in the near future.

Perhaps this will bring us closer to understanding our own consciousness, but perhaps not.

But an interpretation of these actions as "imperialist" isn't necessary where Russian security interests suffice to explain their actions. — Benkei

Aren't security interests in foreign countries inherently imperialistic?

Only Ukraine could be affected by the "near abroad" doctrine and we can hardly complain about economic integration. So we can wonder in what sense Western security concerns were protected by expanding eastwards. — Benkei

But since NATO has no doctrine for expanding into Russia, the same can be said of Russian security interests. The idea of security interests presupposes the sides inherently have imperial objectives, or at least that such objectives are always significantly likely.

Those considerations can only be of a geopolitical nature and not a direct military threat for which NATO is in principle the answer. For existing NATO members there never was a reason to expand NATO after the cold war when the threat had actually largely dissipated. And yet we did it any way. — Benkei

This is a bit of a catch 22 in geopolitical terms though. Expanding into areas not under threat is bad because it increases tensions for no immediate gain. Expanding into areas under threat is bad because it can lead to a direct confrontation. So never expand at all? But then all security concerns are meaningless.

1. from a geopolitical/international relations point of view both Russia and the West are equally to blame for the war in Ukraine — Benkei

What does it mean to say that someone is "to blame" from an explicitly amoral geopolitical point of view?

Revenge attacks are not justified — RogueAI

Right. So we do agree that one is allowed to select an effective means to meet an attack, even if that means heavy casualties, but that intention matters. So your goal needs to be justifiable as well. And from this follows also that you must have a reasonable plan for how your selected end leads to your goal. E.g. noone in the 21st century can reasonably claim that terror bombing civilians will lead to the collapse of your opponent's morale, because this assumption has been pretty conclusively disproven in the 20th century.

Now in the real world intentions are never as pure nor as easily discernible as in the thought experiment. So usually we need to look at what people do and try to figure out what the goal might be, as well as how reasonable an approach to that goal it is.

To get back to the topic, the criticism of Israel's military action is not simply that it is prima facie inadmissible. It's also that it seems to be calculated not for defense, but for displacement, and that it seems unreasonable to assume it will be succesful unless the goal is actually to (mostly) depopulate the Gaza strip, in which case we are no longer talking about defense, are we?

OK, so anything is on the table.

Let's spin this further: Shmoland knew about the plans and has anticipated the plans for years. They easily turn back the attacker, suffering limited casualties. The leadership now believes there is no actual threat to their country. However, motivated purely by revenge, they now nuke Shmermany's main cities into oblivion.

Justified?

So, do we research who each of the dead voted for to determine our level of concern?

Right. I thought you were arguing that releasing someone's (actual) tax return was a danger to democracy. Which would be weird because whatever else it is, it is truthful information.

They are trapped in a moral panic, like Pizzagate, but far more prevalent, far-reaching, and consequential. They are the existential threat. They are threatening democracy. — NOS4A2

How are they threatening democracy exactly?

This appears to be an unsympathetic source trying to be balanced. — AmadeusD

How is this an unsympathetic source?

The Author is Marc Thiessen, a conservative pundit and, among other things, apologist for torture.

For example, what is the most costly naval vessel that the German navy has? What has been the most expensive in the long run? It might surprise you, but it has been the Gorch Fock. Which is the ship below: — ssu

Well, let's not be unfair, the Gorch Fock is not dependent on oil or gas and thus provides an important asset in case Germany's access to these resources is cut.

What makes this whole affair so weird is that the ship is pretty ordinary in technical terms. It's not some wooden ship of the line of ancient heritage. It's a steel-hulled sailing ship from 1958, you could have probably build a new ship to the same specifications for a fraction of the cost.

Unfortunately Germany currently seems to be slipping into a deep domestic political crisis, with record high dissatisfaction with the ruling coalition, a serious far-right threat and a long-honed aversion against pursuing an active foreign policy.

The British empire has always consisted of several countries, kingdoms to be exact. See also the treaty of westphalia which speaks of "Princes and States of the Empire" from 1848, which describes how empires were understood. — Benkei

I didn't expect someone to bring up the treaty of Westphalia as an argument... Anyways this is just undermining your own argument, as your explanation for why Britain didn't simply establish a Jewish state was "because they wanted to retain Palestine". Yet now you're arguing they could have done this with a Jewish state in Palestine. So which is it?

This just underlines you're illiterate when it comes to writings of that time. Marx wrote extensively about nationalism decades before these idiots drafted this document. It's right there in the "internationale". Bentham requested to a Committee for the Reform of Criminal Law, "I will be the gaoler. You will see ... that the gaoler will have no salary—will cost nothing to the nation." - who died in - checks notes - 1832. It's in Theodore D. Woolsey's Introduction to the Study of International Law from 1864.

But don't let history get in the way of actually interpreting a text in light of the times. What a "national home" meant was crystal clear nationalism, nations, etc. were established words used by everybody with an education at the time. — Benkei

Well, if I'm so illiterate it should be no problem for you to make a convincing argument against me. Obviously I don't claim people in 1917 didn't know what a nation or nationalism is. What I'm claiming is that the phrase "national home" was chosen intentionally to allude to the concept of a nation state without actually committing Britain to one.

Hence why your own source (the only actual part of "everybody" you have so far relied on for your argument) doesn't know what it means and has to assume.

It's not enough to just
A repeat what you read about the balfour declaration on wikipedia, which seems your source as every point you make is made there. — Benkei

If Wikipedia agrees with my assessments, that's an argument in my favour, unless you additionally want to establish that the Wikipedia page contains false claims.

It's clear that everyone understood what was meant by "national home". — Benkei

So the opinions of a single prominent person are indicative of "everyone"? I think not. I mean your quote literally starts with the words "I assume"...

Edit: and actually the sentence immediately preceding your quote is "I don't know what this involves".

Just because it wasn't previously used in international legal documents, does not mean that it had no then-current, common sense meaning. — Benkei

You can't turn absence of evidence into an argument for your preferred interpretation.

Because it was not Britain's place to create it — Benkei

Why not? If, as you claim "everyone understood" that "national home" meant nation state and the Balfour declaration became part of the official British mandate, then it would follow that Britain was thereby obligated to create a jewish nation state.

as an empire did not wish to relinquish what it thought it was its right to Palestine. — Benkei

And yet you're claiming that Britain nevertheless promised to do exactly that.

The point is that the narrative "Britain gave Palestine to the Jews with the Balfour declaration and thus Israel was created" is simplistic and doesn't reflect the actual history of the region.

You're simply assuming that Lord Balfour's personal opinions about Jews - as reported - were British official policy. But there's no actual evidence for this that I can see. If you're certain this was the case I'd like to hear your argument.

It also seems odd to claim that "national home" had a clear meaning when it doesn't refer to any established concept, then or now. It's precisely the kind of phrase you would use if you wanted people to read into it what they like to hear, without actually being committed to anything.

And the facts are that Britain did not actually ever create a Jewish state, nor did it allow unchecked jewish immigration and ultimately refused to even implement the UN plan for the mandate.

The Balfour declaration probably tried to balance a lot of interests at once, in typical British imperial fashion. It played the Zionist card to gain influence with Jewish factions and position Britain as the caretaker of the region. It also pointedly did not include any actual provisions about creating a jewish state and Britain thereafter studiously avoided making any such moves so as to not antagonise the Muslims. It may also have been seen as a convenient way to get rid of Jews in Britain.

The ongoing power struggle between France and Britain in the region makes it difficult to establish intentions accurately, since both tried to play all kinds of local interest off against each other. "A line in the Sand" by James Barr gives an interesting account of the conflict, though since I'm not a historian I cannot vouch for it's accuracy.

Why exactly did Britain give Palestinian land away is the real question. — Vaskane

Britain did not give anything away, they just ended their mandate and fucked out of there. Britain, having at that point still various muslim subjects, did not want to be associated with the jewish state so blatantly.

Israel had to belong where its roots were and this is the problem, there was no other solution for Israel either. — Vaskane

There were other solutions. Zionism was not always the majority opinion in jewish communities, there was a lively debate. But then the debate, along with the people participating in it, died. And in the aftermath of that, Zionism suddenly seemed the only logical conclusion.

In my opinion, that was a perfect template for long-term stability, and it's hard to see why the Russians would have wanted to break that status quo by arbitrarily warmongering. — Tzeentch

Unless the Russians were already aggreviated at being treated as merely a second-rate "regional power" by the west, and the status quo was always unacceptable to the Putin government.

Basically your view assumes the "primacy of economics", as the western governments generally did post 1990. Under this assumption, China would have no reason to create tensions over Taiwan either.

The membership of one Superpower would make it more easy to coordinate any actions. It's basically that the US proposes an operation and countries either commit or not. Otherwise you would have to have the "Troika" of France, UK and Germany. They should work together, have an unified objective. Otherwise it is improbable that EU will act in coordination. Germany has huge problems in creating and operating an effective armed forces in the current situation. Not only has it difficulties creating that "bang for buck" in defense spending, it has (like Japan) huge sensitivities in using military force. Only France and the UK have capabilities to project power out of the area. They also do have the "can do" spirit of a Great Power. All other nations are basically supportive. — ssu

Don't write off Poland. Poland may well be a very important player in the EU of the future.

I suspect that it's less the actual military staffs that are worried about nuclear escalation, and more the politicians that worry about the fears of their voters.

Putin's trump card in this conflict appears to ultimately be the right wing movements that Russia has sponsored in the West for years. Despite not being in a majority in most countries, everyone's so afraid of loosing votes to the new right that they end up compromising.

Who knows if, by the time this war is over, the Europe that Ukraine wanted to join still exists. The pull of xenophobic isolationism currently seems irresistible.

So yes, that US policy makers are hypocrites and aren't making any sort of "stand" in Ukraine is essential to understanding the conflict. — boethius

Noone in this thread has cared the argue that the US is not duplicitous or self-interested.

Only that a) not literally anything that happens is a US plot and b) the US interest is not necessarily opposed to local interests, and the US does actually do good things.

Their hypocrisy is immaterial in and of itself.

As for Europe ... what's the evidence of that European change in sentiments. A lot of people like cheering on the war in Ukraine, that's for sure, but the current protests spreading over Europe: Netherlands, Germany, Poland, France and so on, are not to insist on a mad dash to rearm to fight the Russians but on subjects like wages and the cost of living and fuel and so on. — boethius

A lot of people want nothing more than to be left alone and go back to business as usual as it was 30 years ago. But this is not a new sentiment and it's not caused specifically by the war in Ukraine, the war is simply another sign of the crisis a significant portion of people wants to simply wish away.

The West should get its own house in order before it starts lecturing and antagonizing other countries, because currently it has zero credibility. — Tzeentch

How does credibility come into this?

There's plenty of evil in the world the West condones and profits from and there's plenty other evil any Western decision maker or policy analyst will giddily explain at some length how we don't have practical means to do anything about it and so "making a stand" would be counter productive.

The West has created a theatrical performance in Ukraine (at a severe cost to Ukraine) of pretending to be "standing up" to something, because it serves US interest. — boethius

Everyone is a hypocrite, so what? Hypocrisy is an ad hominem charge.

The US has defeated the Euro as a competitor to the dollar, with plenty of money to throw at the defence industry in the process, which is also now rebranded as intrepid peace warriors almost overnight (rather than the corrupt military industrial congressional complex that ruined Afghanistan and then fled like cowards when it turned into a liability). — boethius

The US military has always been both. The real rebranding is that of the European militaries, which suddenly have gone from necessary evil to integral part of the state again.

But I think it better to look at January 6th as a defeat rather than a success. — Moliere

Yes, the abortive coup itself was a defeat. But since then the anti-democratic forces have fought a seemingly successful campaign to rehabilitate themselves.

For a few weeks after Jan 6 it looked like there'd be a bipartisan effort to curb these tendencies, but it unraveled and the GOP seems more firmly than ever on the path towards an entrenched minority rule, as @Count Timothy von Icarus has argued in detail.

Incidentally I think one aspect of fascism that Paxton in his definition from the OP is missing is the disdain for the democratic process.

For a few years now right wing pundits and influencers have adopted the propaganda line that "the US is a republic, not a democracy". This could certainly be taken in a direction which sees the "will of the people", as a metaphysical force, as the main determining factor.

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.