So I'm not sure I've ever heard a dictionary definition of fascism before. a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group Check a contempt for democracy Check an insistence on obedience...
So I'm not sure I've ever heard a dictionary definition of fascism before.
The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.
a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group
Check
a contempt for democracy
Check
an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader
Check
and a strong demagogic approach
Check
And recursing one level down:
dem·a·gogue
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument
Check
Up until this point I didn't want to believe we were here. But it's as if these definitions were written with Trump in mind.
Trump is 75 now. Average male life expectancy is 75.1. Obese individuals lose 5–10 years if I recall correctly. As macabre as it may be, I really don’t count on him seeing 2024.
do you really think "Barring health problems, he is running" is such an outlandish prediction?
Trump is 75 now. Average male life expectancy is 75.1. Obese individuals lose 5–10 years if I recall correctly.
As macabre as it may be, I really don’t count on him seeing 2024.
This is a statistical thinking-error. Life expectancy at birth is 75.4. Anyone who is still alive at 75, life expectancy is 85+ ... and for his age, Trump is still pretty healthy.
This is a statistical thinking-error. Life expectancy at birth is 75.4. Anyone who is still alive at 75, life expectancy is 85+ ... and for his age, Trump is still pretty healthy.
Thanks for following up on this. No, it’s not outlandish. But Trump makes a lot of claims that end up not happening, so I’m not sure I’ll really believe it until it’s official.
Thanks for following up on this. No, it’s not outlandish. But Trump makes a lot of claims that end up not happening, so I’m not sure I’ll really believe it until it’s official.
Focusing on Trump himself misses the bigger picture. Any number of people could pick up the Trumpism mantle, for example Trump Jr or Ron DeSantis. In fact, his successor will probably be worse. He...
Focusing on Trump himself misses the bigger picture. Any number of people could pick up the Trumpism mantle, for example Trump Jr or Ron DeSantis. In fact, his successor will probably be worse. He will be (and let's not kid ourselves with gender-inclusive language – Trump's successor will be a cis-het man) younger, wittier, and more politically savvy than Trump.
I mean, the reason the political climate is so toxic right now is because of hyper-partisanship. Obviously Trump played a massive role in exacerbating this problem, and he should be rightly blamed for his role, but hyper-partisanship will remain regardless of whether Trump runs in 2024.
I’m going to take a different take: the only worthy successor to Donald Trump is… Donald Trump, and not the junior version either. Trump became popular because he was a celebrity, because he’s a...
I’m going to take a different take: the only worthy successor to Donald Trump is… Donald Trump, and not the junior version either.
Trump became popular because he was a celebrity, because he’s a billionaire businessman with gold toilets and a supermodel wife eating fast food when he wants, because he said “Fuck you” to the “elite Washington politicians”. None of the proposed successors (including DeSantis) have these characteristics. The voters don’t want Trump-lite, or diet Trump, they want the full-bodied beverage.
One anecdote I read about 2020 voters mentioned a man who last voted in 1992. The person he voted for? Ross Perot, another billionaire businessman with an anti-establishment streak. These types of voters were strongly engaged by Trump, and while they also voted down ballot in 2016 and 2020, they didn’t in 2017, 2018, and 2021. While a bit hard to disentangle from standard midterm effects, the psychological profile of these types of Trump voters means the idea makes sense. They aren’t interested in standard Republicans unless Trump is on the ballot.
I would've agreed with you a year ago. Back then I optimistically expected Biden to win the Presidency, who would shepherd in an era of normalcy. Now, twelve months later, the attacks against...
I would've agreed with you a year ago. Back then I optimistically expected Biden to win the Presidency, who would shepherd in an era of normalcy. Now, twelve months later, the attacks against Biden have only become more vicious, and doubts about the security of our elections -- the bedrock of our democracy -- have only grown larger. These days I believe it would be a grave mistake to expect Trumpism to end with Trump.
First, let me address Trump directly. I absolutely agree that his supporters adore him for saying "'fuck you' to the 'elite Washington politicians'", but the idea of supporting Trump because he's a successful billionaire businessman sounds like a post-hoc rationalization -- plenty of politicians run successful businesses, often amassing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. For that matter, claims that Trump are a good businessman are dubious at best; there's plenty of evidence that his "success" resulted from his mendacity [1-3], not from his business acumen.
Yet if you were to point out that Trump schemed to commit tax fraud, refused to pay contractors, or stole from charities, his supports would remain unphased and probably mumble something about the liberal media. When Trumps is confronted on these topics, he shrieks about the liberal media and rejects their claims absolutely. That is Trump's real superpower: when he's backed into a corner, he'll double down rather than backtrack, or he'll denies that there's a wall behind him at all.
So, given these credible accusations of fraud that strike at Trump's successful businessman narrative, why do people still flock to him? I'd argue that people are drawn to his vision, not his celebrity (though of course his celebrity helped draw attention). Trump sells a vision of America that is fundamentally at odds with reality, one where China conspired with Democrats to steal the election and where the Southern border is under constant siege by droves of immigrants. Most politicians (until Trump at least) resisted that sort of vitriolic language and disdain for facts. (Who could forget these moments from John McCain's campaign?) Those politicians operated under the assumption that, while hyperbole was fine, some kernel of truth should remain, lest those politicians be held accountable at the polls. Donald Trump eschews that philosophy, instead molding facts to policy rather than policy to facts.
Now in 2021, this sort of hyperbolic, hyper-partisan language has become normalized and well-established outside of campaign rallies. This brings me to my second point: Trumpism never flourished through Trump alone.
Behind the scenes of the Trump administration lay his enablers. While Trump busied himself with flagrantly violating the spirit of the Constitution, these people advanced improbable legal theories justifying his transgressions. After Trump lost the 2020 election, Trump associates pushed bold, outrageous lies about the election. Hundreds of lawsuits were filed in any attempt to subvert the results of the election, with essentially all of them being thrown out. Even after these lawsuits were rejected on their merits (eg, [4]), right-wing media continued (and continues still!) to sow mistrust about the results of the 2020 election. This year the leading challenger to the California gubernatorial recall claimed election fraud before ballots were even tallied [5]!
These false claims of election fraud will damage our democracy greater than any policy decision the Trump administration ever enacted. Unfortunately their attacks were not only indirect; allies of the Trump administration also took direct action to overthrow our democracy. Some tried to persuade Secretaries of State to (illegally) overturn results [6]. One of Trump's lawyers proposed an absolutely batshit six-point plan to overthrow our democracy [7] by only counting some of the electoral votes, particularly leaving out those "contested" states with "ballot irregularities", and sending the vote to the House, where Republicans would have an advantage. Ultimately the plan failed because Pence was dissuaded by another former Vice President, but it was certainly unconstitutional anyway. However, human beings interpret the Constitution, and one could easily imagine an alternate universe where a more partisan VP and Court selectively interpret the Constitution to expand political power.
This post has gone on for too long, so let me summarize. (1) I believe what Trump supporters truly want is a strongman, someone who will sell them a vision of America that appeals to their prejudices. Trump is effective at that, but so is Tucker Carlson, for example. I think aspiring Trump successors learned a valuable lesson from the Trump administration, namely that they should never concede to a mistake. (2) Trumpism cannot survive through the whims of a single man alone; an entire industry of lawyers, judges, and journalists must carry it. In that sense, the enablers who legitimize the strongman are at least as important as the strongman. These people erode trust in our institutions, making the next coup attempt easier.
I’ll clarify; Trumpism and Trumpian rhetoric is not going anywhere, although I’m skeptical as to the effectiveness of the movement without the defining figure. Regarding Trump’s business success,...
I’ll clarify; Trumpism and Trumpian rhetoric is not going anywhere, although I’m skeptical as to the effectiveness of the movement without the defining figure.
Regarding Trump’s business success, you are right that he’s actually lost a lot of money. However, think at a lower level: the image of success matters more than actually being successful. Trump has mastered that, fitting working and lower-middle class conceptions of wealth: NYC penthouse and Florida mansion, both with copious amounts of gold and generally gaudiness; supermodel wife; eats fast food (one of his “connections” to the common man), celebrity status outside business. All of those are played up, and useful in deflecting his actual lack of business acumen. People flock to him because they believe he isn’t a bad businessman, instead that “the libtards are colluding with the deep state to make him look bad”.
I agree the message Trump sells aligns with his voters (look at what happened when he briefly countenanced gun control; gun owners were pissed and he retracted it). Trump has the charisma to sell it (see above). He has his enablers (and often his policy architects, cf. Steven Miller), but they lack the charisma Trump has. Even someone like Tucker Carlson lacks the gaudy and blatant “success” (being one of the good ones in the media pales in comparison to Trump).
I guess I broadly agree with many of the points you make, but I disagree that Trumpism can thrive without the central figure. Like many other authoritarian cults of personality, once the central figure leaves or dies, the close allies tend to begin infighting with each other. While Trump isn’t dead, since he hasn’t yet entered the race, we see various politicians and figures trying to out-Trump each other in order to gain the support of GOP voters, support that will be moot if Trump runs.
So I'm not sure I've ever heard a dictionary definition of fascism before.
Check
Check
Check
Check
And recursing one level down:
Check
Up until this point I didn't want to believe we were here. But it's as if these definitions were written with Trump in mind.
I don't think he gives any evidence that Trump is running? For all we know Trump hasn't even decided yet.
Trump is 75 now. Average male life expectancy is 75.1. Obese individuals lose 5–10 years if I recall correctly.
As macabre as it may be, I really don’t count on him seeing 2024.
This is a statistical thinking-error. Life expectancy at birth is 75.4. Anyone who is still alive at 75, life expectancy is 85+ ... and for his age, Trump is still pretty healthy.
Thanks for the correction, that's a very good point.
Sadly, he has access to the best healthcare in the world and all the money to spend on staying alive.
He has to be a bit more than just alive, though. For example - I don't see him winning if he can't stand on his own.
Thanks for following up on this. No, it’s not outlandish. But Trump makes a lot of claims that end up not happening, so I’m not sure I’ll really believe it until it’s official.
Focusing on Trump himself misses the bigger picture. Any number of people could pick up the Trumpism mantle, for example Trump Jr or Ron DeSantis. In fact, his successor will probably be worse. He will be (and let's not kid ourselves with gender-inclusive language – Trump's successor will be a cis-het man) younger, wittier, and more politically savvy than Trump.
I mean, the reason the political climate is so toxic right now is because of hyper-partisanship. Obviously Trump played a massive role in exacerbating this problem, and he should be rightly blamed for his role, but hyper-partisanship will remain regardless of whether Trump runs in 2024.
I’m going to take a different take: the only worthy successor to Donald Trump is… Donald Trump, and not the junior version either.
Trump became popular because he was a celebrity, because he’s a billionaire businessman with gold toilets and a supermodel wife eating fast food when he wants, because he said “Fuck you” to the “elite Washington politicians”. None of the proposed successors (including DeSantis) have these characteristics. The voters don’t want Trump-lite, or diet Trump, they want the full-bodied beverage.
One anecdote I read about 2020 voters mentioned a man who last voted in 1992. The person he voted for? Ross Perot, another billionaire businessman with an anti-establishment streak. These types of voters were strongly engaged by Trump, and while they also voted down ballot in 2016 and 2020, they didn’t in 2017, 2018, and 2021. While a bit hard to disentangle from standard midterm effects, the psychological profile of these types of Trump voters means the idea makes sense. They aren’t interested in standard Republicans unless Trump is on the ballot.
I would've agreed with you a year ago. Back then I optimistically expected Biden to win the Presidency, who would shepherd in an era of normalcy. Now, twelve months later, the attacks against Biden have only become more vicious, and doubts about the security of our elections -- the bedrock of our democracy -- have only grown larger. These days I believe it would be a grave mistake to expect Trumpism to end with Trump.
First, let me address Trump directly. I absolutely agree that his supporters adore him for saying "'fuck you' to the 'elite Washington politicians'", but the idea of supporting Trump because he's a successful billionaire businessman sounds like a post-hoc rationalization -- plenty of politicians run successful businesses, often amassing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. For that matter, claims that Trump are a good businessman are dubious at best; there's plenty of evidence that his "success" resulted from his mendacity [1-3], not from his business acumen.
Yet if you were to point out that Trump schemed to commit tax fraud, refused to pay contractors, or stole from charities, his supports would remain unphased and probably mumble something about the liberal media. When Trumps is confronted on these topics, he shrieks about the liberal media and rejects their claims absolutely. That is Trump's real superpower: when he's backed into a corner, he'll double down rather than backtrack, or he'll denies that there's a wall behind him at all.
So, given these credible accusations of fraud that strike at Trump's successful businessman narrative, why do people still flock to him? I'd argue that people are drawn to his vision, not his celebrity (though of course his celebrity helped draw attention). Trump sells a vision of America that is fundamentally at odds with reality, one where China conspired with Democrats to steal the election and where the Southern border is under constant siege by droves of immigrants. Most politicians (until Trump at least) resisted that sort of vitriolic language and disdain for facts. (Who could forget these moments from John McCain's campaign?) Those politicians operated under the assumption that, while hyperbole was fine, some kernel of truth should remain, lest those politicians be held accountable at the polls. Donald Trump eschews that philosophy, instead molding facts to policy rather than policy to facts.
Now in 2021, this sort of hyperbolic, hyper-partisan language has become normalized and well-established outside of campaign rallies. This brings me to my second point: Trumpism never flourished through Trump alone.
Behind the scenes of the Trump administration lay his enablers. While Trump busied himself with flagrantly violating the spirit of the Constitution, these people advanced improbable legal theories justifying his transgressions. After Trump lost the 2020 election, Trump associates pushed bold, outrageous lies about the election. Hundreds of lawsuits were filed in any attempt to subvert the results of the election, with essentially all of them being thrown out. Even after these lawsuits were rejected on their merits (eg, [4]), right-wing media continued (and continues still!) to sow mistrust about the results of the 2020 election. This year the leading challenger to the California gubernatorial recall claimed election fraud before ballots were even tallied [5]!
These false claims of election fraud will damage our democracy greater than any policy decision the Trump administration ever enacted. Unfortunately their attacks were not only indirect; allies of the Trump administration also took direct action to overthrow our democracy. Some tried to persuade Secretaries of State to (illegally) overturn results [6]. One of Trump's lawyers proposed an absolutely batshit six-point plan to overthrow our democracy [7] by only counting some of the electoral votes, particularly leaving out those "contested" states with "ballot irregularities", and sending the vote to the House, where Republicans would have an advantage. Ultimately the plan failed because Pence was dissuaded by another former Vice President, but it was certainly unconstitutional anyway. However, human beings interpret the Constitution, and one could easily imagine an alternate universe where a more partisan VP and Court selectively interpret the Constitution to expand political power.
This post has gone on for too long, so let me summarize. (1) I believe what Trump supporters truly want is a strongman, someone who will sell them a vision of America that appeals to their prejudices. Trump is effective at that, but so is Tucker Carlson, for example. I think aspiring Trump successors learned a valuable lesson from the Trump administration, namely that they should never concede to a mistake. (2) Trumpism cannot survive through the whims of a single man alone; an entire industry of lawyers, judges, and journalists must carry it. In that sense, the enablers who legitimize the strongman are at least as important as the strongman. These people erode trust in our institutions, making the next coup attempt easier.
[1] "Long-Concelead Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance." New York Times.
[2] "Donald Trump’s Business Plan Left a Trail of Unpaid Bills." Wall Street Journal.
[3] "How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business." Forbes.
[4] "In blistering ruling, judge throws out Trump suit in Pa.". Associated Press.
[5] "False Election Claims in California Reveal a New Normal for G.O.P." New York Times.
[6] "Ga. secretary of state says fellow Republicans are pressuring him to find ways to exclude ballots." Washington Post.
[7] "The Eastman memo was alarming. Legally speaking, it was also nonsense." Washington Post.
I’ll clarify; Trumpism and Trumpian rhetoric is not going anywhere, although I’m skeptical as to the effectiveness of the movement without the defining figure.
Regarding Trump’s business success, you are right that he’s actually lost a lot of money. However, think at a lower level: the image of success matters more than actually being successful. Trump has mastered that, fitting working and lower-middle class conceptions of wealth: NYC penthouse and Florida mansion, both with copious amounts of gold and generally gaudiness; supermodel wife; eats fast food (one of his “connections” to the common man), celebrity status outside business. All of those are played up, and useful in deflecting his actual lack of business acumen. People flock to him because they believe he isn’t a bad businessman, instead that “the libtards are colluding with the deep state to make him look bad”.
I agree the message Trump sells aligns with his voters (look at what happened when he briefly countenanced gun control; gun owners were pissed and he retracted it). Trump has the charisma to sell it (see above). He has his enablers (and often his policy architects, cf. Steven Miller), but they lack the charisma Trump has. Even someone like Tucker Carlson lacks the gaudy and blatant “success” (being one of the good ones in the media pales in comparison to Trump).
I guess I broadly agree with many of the points you make, but I disagree that Trumpism can thrive without the central figure. Like many other authoritarian cults of personality, once the central figure leaves or dies, the close allies tend to begin infighting with each other. While Trump isn’t dead, since he hasn’t yet entered the race, we see various politicians and figures trying to out-Trump each other in order to gain the support of GOP voters, support that will be moot if Trump runs.