Politics

10176 readers

237 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Timothy Snyder: What does it mean that Donald Trump is a fascist? - We should expect him to try to cling to power until death, and create a cult of January 6th martyrs (www.newyorker.com)

submitted 1 week ago by tardigrada@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived version

Trump has always been a presence, not an absence: the presence of fascism. What does this mean?

When the Soviets called their enemies “fascists,” they turned the word into a meaningless insult. Putinist Russia has preserved the habit: a “fascist” is anyone who opposes the wishes of a Russian dictator. So Ukrainians defending their country from Russian invaders are “fascists.” This is a trick that Trump has copied. He, like Vladimir Putin, refers to his enemies as “fascists,” with no ideological significance at all. It is simply a term of opprobrium.

Putin and Trump are both, in fact, fascists. And their use of the word, though meant to confuse, reminds us of one of fascism’s essential characteristics. A fascist is unconcerned with the connection between words and meanings. He does not serve the language; the language serves him. When a fascist calls a liberal a “fascist,” the term begins to work in a different way, as the servant of a particular person, rather than as a bearer of meaning.

[...]

Fascism is a phenomenon, not a person. Just as Trump was always a presence, so is the movement he has created. It is not just a matter of the actual fascists in his movement, who are scarcely hiding, nor of his own friendly references to Hitler or his use of Hitlerian language (“vermin,” “enemy within”). He bears responsibility for what comes next, as do his allies and supporters.

Yet some, and probably more, of the blame rests with our actions and analysis. Again and again, our major institutions, from the media to the judiciary, have amplified Trump’s presence; again and again, we have failed to name the consequences. Fascism can be defeated, but not when we are on its side.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ModestMeme@lemm.ee 29 points 1 week ago (6 children)

The non-voters and the dipshit third party voters will spend the next however many years blaming “Democrats” instead of themselves for whatever horrors come out of Trump and his administration. Was it worth it to keep a normal person like Harris out of office? Not asking now, it’s just a question to ponder if we’re allowed to have Midterm elections.

The 900 page Project 2025 document is still freely available, if you’re curious about what’s coming.

[–] averyminya@beehaw.org 18 points 1 week ago (3 children)

No need to blame third party. At least they voted.

Voters didn't show up, period. It's so bad that literally every democratic voter could have instead voted 3rd party and Trump still would have won.

Blame the DNC for not having a primary, and blame voters for not showing up to vote for things like Ranked Choice Voting.

But third party voters actually voted this time. The fault is not on them. (Unless they were saying there's no point to voting)

[–] ModestMeme@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

“No primary” is the excuse I keep hearing. Well, given the three months notice, wtf did people want? Harris is VP, next in line for the presidency. So she’s the obvious choice. They could have had an open convention. But Harris appeared to have overwhelming support from Democratic voters. So an open convention would have had no challengers. I’m sorry a whole bunch of people couldn’t muster a vote for her in light of the alternative authoritarian POS that will now run the country.

And the Greens are 100% a spoiler party, trotting out their unqualified (Stein couldn’t answer how many people are in Congress, a basic bit of civics) shill candidate every four years while doing absolutely jackshit as a party at any other time. They have never got someone elected to Congress in the entirety of their existence. Because they don’t even try.

[–] averyminya@beehaw.org 7 points 1 week ago

Oh, believe me I 100% agree with you on both points. Just look through my history, 110% agree in full. The DNC's choice, while frustrating, made sense. I think acting early would have been the way to actually get a primary, and that wasn't happening because Biden decided he wasn't a 1 term President for a little while. Because of this people around here blame the DNC for causing this situation in the first place, which I'm 50/50 on. The situation was from the DNC, but at the same time, if Harris wasn't your first choice and you have no other alternatives, why the heck didn't anyone vote for Ranked Choice Voting on their ballot? It failed nation wide. And people point out that abortion won in red states, as if that changes my point? Granted, ranked choice could have been different for each states ballot, I'm not certain on what the specifics are for each state, or why they might have failed if abortion passed.

However in post election, the Greens got what, 1 million votes? At least they voted, at all. I don't really think it's the greens and most of those voters that were telling people to not vote. The fact of the matter is that with our numbers in the electoral college, they all could have voted for Harris, all Democrats could have voted for Stein, it wouldn't have mattered, because people didn't show up to vote.

I think that it was a combination of a lack of enthusiasm for Harris after staying so strongly pro-Israel instead of more heavily actively campaigning for, at the very least, a two state solution. Though really we all know that we want the genocide to end, and that was all the campaigning that would really be needed.

It would be a different story if it was 75 million to 74 million (Harris) down to a swing state or two in the E.C., but it wasn't. It was a blowout because people didn't go vote.

So whatever caused people to choose not to vote was really the issue. What those are though will be different depending on who you ask (and in reality, any answer is probably a correct answer for about a thousand people)

[–] ranandtoldthat@beehaw.org 5 points 1 week ago

Harris did indeed have overwhelming support and the polls even showed her ahead for a decent while. Sometime after the debate, she started courting the Cheney faction and simultaneously diluted her messaging. Coincidentally, this is also soon after she brought some Clinton strategists in. She lost the enthusiasm she had built up in the summer.

I dont exactly excuse people who stayed home (or protest voted), but I do understand that Harris didn't do herself any favors with that type voter either. I felt the enthusiasm wane, and I've never missed a federal or state election.

load more comments (2 replies)