fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3367 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3367 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #481.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Fascism is obviously a hugely weighted term. So let's consider it on two levels: as a historical comparison, and as a term of rhetoric.

As a historical comparison, does the Trump phenomenon bear the weight of the term? Well, there are a lot of senses in which fascism is specific to the post-WWI milieu - the emphasis on the modern and novelty, for instance. On the other hand, when you look at things like the rejection of fact, the emphasis on violence in action and rhetoric, the total disinterest in ideological consistency or coherence, the appeal to a mythologized past - those things are I would say clearly present in Trump and his followers, and that's profoundly worrying.

From a rhetorical point of view, what is the use of fascism meant to denote? It is meant to - first - associate something with a tradition of radical, violent right-wing politics - to separate it from the political mainstream as something distinct and distinctly threatening - and second to call up the idea that opposition to the thing is necessary both politically and morally. And I think the Trump campaign is distinctly dangerous, in the open violence of its rhetoric and it's whole-sale rejection of liberal norms, and I think that kind of respons is merited.

So in other words: what I am shortcutting here is the idea that the Trump campaign belongs in a lineage of violent, radical, anti-liberal democratic, dangerous right wing political movement, and I think worry and concerted action are both justified on those grounds. I hope this answers your question.

Would you agree that maybe "authoritarian" is a better word for people studying Trump?

I'm speaking in terms of formal analysis rather than just normal discussion. For the latter you can't really get as visceral as the F word and it's less important to be precise.

Edited 2016-03-24 00:47 (UTC)

To be honest, I think fascist is really much more accurate. The advantage of authoritarian is that it's less freighted and easier to use. But the pitch and tenor of Trump's run - the wild unpredictability, the hostility to the establishment, the faith in the character of the man as savior, the pronounced irrationalism - those are things that are much, much closer to fascism for me than they are to authoritarianism. It's not like he's appealing to a visceral desire for order or spending a ton of time talking about national honor, nor does he as a political figure really have the qualities you'd associate with an authoritarian figurehead. So, really, no, from a political science view I think fascist is a more accurate term. If you wanted to avoid the politicization, I'd go to right-wing populist before authoritarian.

Do you know what I, as a liberal, consider anti-liberal? Infringing on others' right to free speech and free assembly. This is equally as alarming and disgusting to me as the hatred and bigotry on the right. They are both rooted in authoritarianism.

Well, one, I don't agree that they're both rooted in the same thing necessarily, but that's a minor point and I do see where you're coming from.

My thing is, I would also call myself a liberal in the sense you're using it here. And I agree that the protests are, in a meaningful sense, illiberal. But to me, Donald Trump represents precisely the kind of threat that justifies illiberal action. This is precisely the case where these kinds of protests are justified because the basic idea of a liberal body politic is what Trump threatens.

Liberalism is not a suicide note and there are movements and views that absolutely threaten it. And ultimately to me a belief in liberalism entails a belief that sometimes there are times you have to stop this kind of threat to maintain liberalism. It's an existential threat.

But that is just my view.

Yes, I understand that view.

Where we disagree is that I don't believe anything justifies authoritarianism. Not even Trump.

Not anything at all? Go down with the ship and be buried on your principles, that kind of thing?

Yes. Freedom is that important to me. Everything else depends on it in a democratic society.

Would you say the freedom to destroy freedom is more important than the preservation of freedom?

I'll say this: I believe those fighting to preserve freedom by protesting Trump are doing the right a favor. The more outrageous the protests, the better he looks to his nutjob supporters, and the less stable the protesters look to moderates.

[ SECRET POST #3367 ]

Re: Jesus Christ.

That's an awesome breakdown, but:

Re: That's an awesome breakdown, but:

Re: Jesus Christ.

Re: Jesus Christ.

Re: Jesus Christ.

Re: Jesus Christ.

Re: Jesus Christ.

Re: Jesus Christ.

Re: Jesus Christ.