Lorenzo From Oz has a very odd apologia for Trump. He explains Trump is not a fascist-'he's just a demagogue.' Whatever that's supposed to mean.
"If we are to understand The Donald, we have to keep focused on the dynamics of demagoguery. The Donald is not Hitler redux, he is not Mussolini redux, he is not a fascist. He is not fascist in so many ways--no overt rejection of democracy, no paramilitary movement, no organised street violence (except by opponents), not in favour of a belligerent foreign policy, no fetishising of violence. (Indeed, a persistent theme in comments supporting voting for The Donald, is that The Donald is the less belligerent choice.) He does engage in Jacksonian rhetoric, but the notion that violence is the way the deep nobility of man manifests (a deeply fascist idea) is not what he is selling."
"Moreover, fascism has an ideology (albeit somewhat protean one) and if you think The Donald has an ideology, you haven't been paying attention. Looking at the list in Umberto Eco's 1995 New York Review of Books piece on Ur Fascism (pdf) certainly shows The Donald's rhetoric has some echoes of Italian Fascism, but rhetorical echoes are not enough. The Donald simply lacks the notion of purifying and ennobling violence which is so central to fascism in its various form."
http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com.au/
I'm quite dubious about this neat division between a demagogue and a fascist.
There may be ways that he differs from Hitler and Mussolini, there are also ways that he's very similar to them.
I'm not so sure fascism has an ideology. If so, what is it? It seems to me that fascism is very similar to Trumpism in its attitude towards ideology.
1. Trump does not reject democracy? Actually Lorenzo rightly says 'overtly.' Ok, so what about a covert rejection of democracy? Many things he says from his admiration of dictators the world over, to his desire to crackdown on the press, to the way he goes after protesters sounds like he may well reject democracy.
He also keeps copies of Hitler's speeches by his bed. Scott Sumner thinks this is so he can study the greatest demagogue. If this is true, then we know that a demagogue and a fascist or nazi are not necessarily the same thing.
Then there is Trump's buddy Peter Thiel who supports Trump. Thiel has had it with democracy and says as much:
"To me, the good news/bad news of the situation is that we don't really need to worry about a Thiel-induced slippery slope leading to the collapse of the free press and the democratic system. Thiel has a much more plausible path to achieving this through his support for Trump's presidential campaign."
"Recall that back in mid-March during a swirling controversy about violent behavior by Trump supporters, Trump tweeted what can really only be interpreted as a threat to send goons to beat up Bernie Sanders supporters."
"He then followed this up by suggesting that he would use the resources at his disposal to help his supporters obtain immunity from legal consequence for violent acts they undertook on his behalf."
JUST IN: Trump tells @MeetThePress' @ChuckTodd he's going to look into paying for legal fees for the man who threw the sucker punch on Sat."
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11798470/peter-thiel-donald-trump-gawker
As for the idea that he will run a less belligerent foreign policy, I wonder what this is based on. He may criticize the Libya intervention now but people forget that at the time he was criticizing Obama for not being tougher in Libya.
Remember, he criticized Mitt Romney in 2012 for not releasing his tax returns. He's now demanding that his for VP vet, all candidates must release their own tax returns.
What this demonstrates is that Trump is perfectly capable of criticizing something that he does even more egregiously himself.
Most of what he does say about US foreign policy sounds like the ingredients for a more rather than a less belligerent world.
He wants Japan and South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons, he talks openly about using them himself. His talk about leaving Nato shows that his 'America First' policy is going to be about a more unilateral America that will break its treaties and alliances.
"If we are to understand The Donald, we have to keep focused on the dynamics of demagoguery. The Donald is not Hitler redux, he is not Mussolini redux, he is not a fascist. He is not fascist in so many ways--no overt rejection of democracy, no paramilitary movement, no organised street violence (except by opponents), not in favour of a belligerent foreign policy, no fetishising of violence. (Indeed, a persistent theme in comments supporting voting for The Donald, is that The Donald is the less belligerent choice.) He does engage in Jacksonian rhetoric, but the notion that violence is the way the deep nobility of man manifests (a deeply fascist idea) is not what he is selling."
"Moreover, fascism has an ideology (albeit somewhat protean one) and if you think The Donald has an ideology, you haven't been paying attention. Looking at the list in Umberto Eco's 1995 New York Review of Books piece on Ur Fascism (pdf) certainly shows The Donald's rhetoric has some echoes of Italian Fascism, but rhetorical echoes are not enough. The Donald simply lacks the notion of purifying and ennobling violence which is so central to fascism in its various form."
http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com.au/
I'm quite dubious about this neat division between a demagogue and a fascist.
There may be ways that he differs from Hitler and Mussolini, there are also ways that he's very similar to them.
I'm not so sure fascism has an ideology. If so, what is it? It seems to me that fascism is very similar to Trumpism in its attitude towards ideology.
1. Trump does not reject democracy? Actually Lorenzo rightly says 'overtly.' Ok, so what about a covert rejection of democracy? Many things he says from his admiration of dictators the world over, to his desire to crackdown on the press, to the way he goes after protesters sounds like he may well reject democracy.
He also keeps copies of Hitler's speeches by his bed. Scott Sumner thinks this is so he can study the greatest demagogue. If this is true, then we know that a demagogue and a fascist or nazi are not necessarily the same thing.
Then there is Trump's buddy Peter Thiel who supports Trump. Thiel has had it with democracy and says as much:
"To me, the good news/bad news of the situation is that we don't really need to worry about a Thiel-induced slippery slope leading to the collapse of the free press and the democratic system. Thiel has a much more plausible path to achieving this through his support for Trump's presidential campaign."
"And make no mistake about this — Thiel wrote in 2009: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" because a system of universal suffrage subjects capitalists "to the unthinking demos that guides so-called 'social democracy.'"
It's like the old joke: if HItler is not an anti Semite then why are you supporting him?
Just as Trump has lots of racist friends he has lots of anti democratic friends. Just a coincidence.
It's like the old joke: if HItler is not an anti Semite then why are you supporting him?
Just as Trump has lots of racist friends he has lots of anti democratic friends. Just a coincidence.
https://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/is-donald-trump-racist.html
2. As for the idea that Trump lacks the notion of purifying and ennobling violence, I read this as Lorenzo has never watched a Trump rally. If he did, he'd realize how absurd this claim is.
Sorry, but this claim doesn't even pass the laugh test.
"Trump's campaign manager allegedly assaulted a reporter covering a Trump event.
Trump himself has incited crowds at his rallies against specific reporters. "
2. As for the idea that Trump lacks the notion of purifying and ennobling violence, I read this as Lorenzo has never watched a Trump rally. If he did, he'd realize how absurd this claim is.
Sorry, but this claim doesn't even pass the laugh test.
"Trump's campaign manager allegedly assaulted a reporter covering a Trump event.
Trump himself has incited crowds at his rallies against specific reporters. "
"Recall that back in mid-March during a swirling controversy about violent behavior by Trump supporters, Trump tweeted what can really only be interpreted as a threat to send goons to beat up Bernie Sanders supporters."
"He then followed this up by suggesting that he would use the resources at his disposal to help his supporters obtain immunity from legal consequence for violent acts they undertook on his behalf."
JUST IN: Trump tells @MeetThePress' @ChuckTodd he's going to look into paying for legal fees for the man who threw the sucker punch on Sat."
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11798470/peter-thiel-donald-trump-gawker
As for the idea that he will run a less belligerent foreign policy, I wonder what this is based on. He may criticize the Libya intervention now but people forget that at the time he was criticizing Obama for not being tougher in Libya.
Remember, he criticized Mitt Romney in 2012 for not releasing his tax returns. He's now demanding that his for VP vet, all candidates must release their own tax returns.
What this demonstrates is that Trump is perfectly capable of criticizing something that he does even more egregiously himself.
Most of what he does say about US foreign policy sounds like the ingredients for a more rather than a less belligerent world.
He wants Japan and South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons, he talks openly about using them himself. His talk about leaving Nato shows that his 'America First' policy is going to be about a more unilateral America that will break its treaties and alliances.
He also wants a trade war with a rising China.
Someone should ask him about the rules of the UN. I'm sure if you listen you'll hear that he thinks this is also an illegitimate curb on US power.
We have tried unilateralism-the pre WWII status quo. Whatever you want to say about the postwar multilateral status quo it's a huge improvement. Europe has seen 71 years of peace.
This didn't happen by accident but through the political will to form multilateral agreements and alliances.
America First of course was about leaving Hitler to his own devices. Sort of understandable that Hitler 2.0 would have given Hitler 1.0 a pass.
You are seeing all kinds of specious arguments like Lorenzo from Oz.
1. He doesn't mean it, he's just a Master Persuader. To which I say, you have to hold Trump accountable and the only way to do this is to assume he means just what he says, Is this somehow unfair?
https://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/assume-donald-trump-means-just-what-he.html
2. He's actually Noam Chomsky who just happened to be audited 25 years in a row.
3. He's not a racist, it just happens for some weird reason that the racists all love him.
At the end of the day, these are the sorts of arguments that were made in 1933 as well and not just from the Right and Center, but the Left.
We have tried unilateralism-the pre WWII status quo. Whatever you want to say about the postwar multilateral status quo it's a huge improvement. Europe has seen 71 years of peace.
This didn't happen by accident but through the political will to form multilateral agreements and alliances.
America First of course was about leaving Hitler to his own devices. Sort of understandable that Hitler 2.0 would have given Hitler 1.0 a pass.
You are seeing all kinds of specious arguments like Lorenzo from Oz.
1. He doesn't mean it, he's just a Master Persuader. To which I say, you have to hold Trump accountable and the only way to do this is to assume he means just what he says, Is this somehow unfair?
https://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/assume-donald-trump-means-just-what-he.html
2. He's actually Noam Chomsky who just happened to be audited 25 years in a row.
3. He's not a racist, it just happens for some weird reason that the racists all love him.
At the end of the day, these are the sorts of arguments that were made in 1933 as well and not just from the Right and Center, but the Left.
No comments:
Post a Comment