What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Can Trump be considered a fascist? (2 Viewers)

Agreed - Fascism, but it's definition, refers to dictatorial power (nope, he doesn't have that), forcible suppression of opposition (nope, not there, either), and control of the means of production (not even close).  So, while people argue about what he may want, he doesn't, nor will ever have these things.

If we shift this conversation to a guy like Maduro, then all of those can be checked 'yes'.

Eh, on this point I get what he's saying here.  This isn't a condemnation of all free press in and of itself, just the ones that he sees as so biased that they're no longer news sources but political actors.


While I agree that (at present) the US has enough safeguards in place to prevent a "traditional" fascist from existing in our system, I do have a couple of issues with your argument.

Firstly, I think the "control the means of production" part is too strict a definition of fascism. Not all fascist governments had that and I think the core concepts of fascism can exist without this condition (or with other means in place of this condition, ie. control of trade, tax incentives, etc.). 

Secondly, I think it is worth pointing out that many fascist governments arose from countries that had similarly structured governments to our own. The mere presence of institutions to check these powers does not mean they cannot be eventually given.

I guess that would lead to another question of (for example) was Hitler a fascist before he became the Fuhrer, or only afterward? I would argue that he should be labeled as such before he actually had the power, as his goals were clear. 

This also ties in a bit to my belief that fascism, while it relies on strong leadership, is not automatically a cult of personality. The goals of the movement don't necessarily derive from a single person ("Great Person"), and thus the death of said person shouldn't be the death of the fascist movement. Of course, we have many counter examples to that in reality, so maybe I'm wrong.

 
Eh, on this point I get what he's saying here.  This isn't a condemnation of all free press in and of itself, just the ones that he sees as so biased that they're no longer news sources but political actors.
FTR- this may be YOUR argument, and that of many conservatives, but it is not Donald Trump's. Trump's attitude toward the press, so far as I can see, is much more based on his own narcissism than on any political agenda:

1. If the press praises him he likes them.

2. If the press criticizes him, they're fake.

3.  If the fake press suddenly praises him, they are NO LONGER FAKE- he is quite willing to behave as if they were never fake, and as if he never criticized them in the first place. And this is not forgiveness so much as it's a constant reset- I'm not sure Trump forgives anyone, because I'm not sure he ever holds a grudge. You could insult Trump 100 times and if you praise him once, all is forgotten (not forgiven.)

 
  • Continually telling lies, obviously blatant ones even, and having a regime that lies as a basic M.O. (as Goebbels said, tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth)


You are fine to let it simmer, but I recall the quote of Hitler to the effect that if you take away freedoms, little by little, over such a period of time where people don't even realize what is going on, by the time they stand up and say enough (i.e. we DO need to protect ourselves from facism), it is too late.


fore he became the Fuhrer, or only afterward? I would argue that he should be labeled as such before he actually had the power, as his goals were clear. 


Just keeping a count of how many specific Nazi references we can cram into this thread - it's a nice dog whistle to keep blowing as an undercurrent to the "intellectual argument" on the surface.

 
Maybe a better (and more neutral way) of asking this question would have been whether Trump can be considered a nationalist authoritarian. However, I don't feel like that term carries enough emotional weight in comparison to fascist. Obviously scholars have debated the exact definition of fascism for decades at this point, so it is hardly a settled thing, but rather than get bogged down in the specifics of fascist government, I'm more interested in pointing out the dangers of the political philosophy itself. This type of belief system seems to be a slippery slope to the worst aspects of humanity, and is something we (humanity) should be more vigilant of stopping than we are. 

 
Just keeping a count of how many specific Nazi references we can cram into this thread - it's a nice dog whistle to keep blowing as an undercurrent to the "intellectual argument" on the surface.
Are you suggesting we should talk about fascism without ever mentioning Nazis? Aside from avoiding hurt feelings, what is the basis of that?

You also didn't make any attempt to address anything I said to you, so kudos for that. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just keeping a count of how many specific Nazi references we can cram into this thread - it's a nice dog whistle to keep blowing as an undercurrent to the "intellectual argument" on the surface.
It's not a dog whistle, and calling it as such is actually engaging in the very behavior you suggest.

These are literally the same tactics, as pointed out by folks far better versed than either you or me.   Do you suggest that Trump does not engage in telling lies constantly, and more so, taking a concerted effort to (1) undercut objective facts in general while (2) propagating certainly lies with the intent that eventually they will be seen as truth?

Call them what you want. Ignore the (apt) comparisons.  Do so at your own peril, and at the peril of democracy.  If you want an "intellectual argument" then be "intellectually honest" in the repeated use of the very same tactics employed by "those people" you don't want to be honest enough, utilized a similar playbook.  The extent of the behaviors to date may be vastly different. The tools and propaganda are scarily similar. 

To suggest otherwise is to be intellectual dishonest.

 
Time for some hard honesty here from Trumpites, people he supports:

  • Putin
  • Kim
  • Orban
  • Duterte
  • Xi
  • Far right parties in Europe
Institutions he opposes:

  • Constitution
  • Judges
  • Press
  • NATO
  • EU
  • G7
- Come to the table and deal with this.
If Trump really does withdraw the USA from the UN Human Rights Council as reported, does the United Nations get added to the "Institutions he opposes" board?

 
Yet it is a massive leap to say or conclude that any president under our system could hold fascist powers.  They can't.  Nor can I see, unless we dissolve the legislature, that anyone ever could.

Based on that this whole line of discussion is simply grouse bait for those who despise Trump.  I see no reason, without changing the title, that this thread has any reason to exist.
Yet he, Giuliani, and others are claiming he has absolute power and isn't legally capable of committing a crime. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there are reasons to have the thread.  I don’t think he is there...but agreed that he would probably love to be.

His authoritarian tendencies are undeniable.

 
Are you suggesting we should talk about fascism without ever mentioning Nazis? Aside from avoiding hurt feelings, what is the basis of that?
Absolutely.  Repeatedly mentioning Nazis and all their added baggage (World War, killing millions of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.) is a bit overkill for a top level discussion of Trump and the current administration.  There are more modern examples that are more applicable - Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc., are better references against which to argue.

Continuing to equate a Trump presidency with Naziism and all that it represents is likely to have Joe kill the thread.  And rightfully so.  As someone of Jewish descent you have to show a whole lot more than "Trump hates WaPo" or "Tump lies repeatedly" to throw in those equivalencies.  

 
Absolutely.  Repeatedly mentioning Nazis and all their added baggage (World War, killing millions of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.) is a bit overkill for a top level discussion of Trump and the current administration.  There are more modern examples that are more applicable - Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc., are better references against which to argue.

Continuing to equate a Trump presidency with Naziism and all that it represents is likely to have Joe kill the thread.  And rightfully so.  As someone of Jewish descent you have to show a whole lot more than "Trump hates WaPo" or "Tump lies repeatedly" to throw in those equivalencies.  
Trump has said there are good Nazis and takes children from their parents, people trying to escape unspeakable horrors, and puts them in cages. Better? 

 
To have a free press, you have to let a lot of unpleasantness slide. The Post and NYT are enemies of Trump because they don't publish the party (state) line, not because they fail to be independent  bastions of journalism. A real fascist considers the media to be the tool of the state.
Isn't the POTUS' presence on social networking kind of substitute for this?   

 
Yet he, Giuliani, and others are claiming he has absolute power and is legally capable of committing a crime. 
Politically that was certainly the wrong thing to come out and say or indicate that he may do (and Guiliani should never have exercised his law license, he's making a fool of himself).  Constitutionally he's exactly correct - the document is crystal clear.

This is what the impeachment process is for - he in no way has absolute power.  

 
Absolutely.  Repeatedly mentioning Nazis and all their added baggage (World War, killing millions of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.) is a bit overkill for a top level discussion of Trump and the current administration.  There are more modern examples that are more applicable - Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc., are better references against which to argue.

Continuing to equate a Trump presidency with Naziism and all that it represents is likely to have Joe kill the thread.  And rightfully so.  As someone of Jewish descent you have to show a whole lot more than "Trump hates WaPo" or "Tump lies repeatedly" to throw in those equivalencies.  
Hi Sand. You may not know (many don't), "gypsy" is a racial epithet on the same level as any other racial insult. They prefer to be called Rom or Romani.  Thanks! :thumbup:

 
Trump has said there are good Nazis and takes children from their parents, people trying to escape unspeakable horrors, and puts them in cages. Better? 
If you're going to throw all this around I think we can all agree, then, as a baseline, that FDR was a fascist, yes?

 
If Trump really does withdraw the USA from the UN Human Rights Council as reported, does the United Nations get added to the "Institutions he opposes" board?
The United Nation's is an anti-semitic, anti-Israel, often anti-USA cabal that serves the needs of actual dictatorial regimes, strong men and oligarchs far more so than it appears to stand for doing what is right and using a level hand for all nations. Screw the U.N.

(that said, it's an abomination that we'd seed our roll on the Human Rights Council. Then again, when you look at the construct of the council, well, see point #1)

 
Absolutely.  Repeatedly mentioning Nazis and all their added baggage (World War, killing millions of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.) is a bit overkill for a top level discussion of Trump and the current administration.  There are more modern examples that are more applicable - Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc., are better references against which to argue.

Continuing to equate a Trump presidency with Naziism and all that it represents is likely to have Joe kill the thread.  And rightfully so.  As someone of Jewish descent you have to show a whole lot more than "Trump hates WaPo" or "Tump lies repeatedly" to throw in those equivalencies.  
This is trying to soften the reality, and not speak to the hard and difficult nature of the truth... for what purpose? Are we not adult enough to have nuanced conversations whereby we can admit that this admin and it's closest cohorts continually utilize the same tactics as were seen in Germany before the Holocaust, even if they are not complete parallels?

Why must we be afraid to speak the truth, especially when it's factually supported by examples (and many of them)... and MOREso when the VERY CALLING of NEVER FORGET means we need to have the courage to admit to ourselves when our own leaders are walking down that same similar path, even if at quite different extremes (so far, and hopefully and I'll think it will remain that way...but vigilance requires honesty and a fearlessness to call out spades as spades. If it makes someone uncomfortable that Trump et all use these same tactics, don't blame me for ACCURATELY pointing that reality as a scary fact... call out the damned tactics themselves)

To suggest we need to whitewash a difficult conversation so a thread doesn't get axed is to suggest we can not actually confront what could, possibly, one day, maybe become a far more distressing situation today... before said situation becomes even more aligned with the examples given.

 
If you're going to throw all this around I think we can all agree, then, as a baseline, that FDR was a fascist, yes?
Rounding up American citizens of Japanese decent and putting them in internment camps was horrible and I think would be considered fascist.  However if you look at his actions as a whole I don't think you could consider him a fascist.

 
When the news is 95% negative toward the current administration we have a long, long way to go to get to a "tool of the state" condition.  Under this argument we could easily argue that Obama was much closer to fascist on this one subject. (I don't think he was either, but just to make the point).
Besises shep on fox news its pretty much trump state tv....40% of the nation watches that channel alone...

 
Politically that was certainly the wrong thing to come out and say or indicate that he may do (and Guiliani should never have exercised his law license, he's making a fool of himself).  Constitutionally he's exactly correct - the document is crystal clear.

This is what the impeachment process is for - he in no way has absolute power.  
Maybe i am misunderstanding. To what specifically are you referring with the bold?

Because I don't think its crystal clear at all that Trump can't be charged with a crime as sitting President.

 
@Sand - I think we need to be careful with our words, but not afraid to use them accurately. IF, that is, we are willing to conduct legit conversation, engage in nuanced and contextual discussion so stating "we see some similarities between A and B" does not connote "A and B are the same thing" or "A is just being B"

That said, and perhaps to illuminate your point, when people were calling out Bush as "a Nazi" or the entire Republican party for any number of things, that sets a stage whereby the term itself is misappropriated, loses it's impact, and, eventually, becomes somewhat of a joke along the lines of "oh, guess we are going to call them Nazi's, now!"

However, when you have as many parallels in the actions and tactics taken by this admin and some of its supporters (including, um... actual Nazis, self proclaimed white supremacists, and when you have those groups and their leadership repeatedly calling out how Trump is fullfilling their wishes!) to similar tactics employed at say an fairly early stage of what become one of history's greatest and most extreme examples of a slippery slope, I think it is our RESPONSIBILITY to be honest and call them out as such.

Just do so in a way where we are not proclaiming Trump et al to "be" Nazis, nor to "be" fascists" but it's just as disingenuine to suggest they are not following many of the same tactics.

Now, if you prefer to use Venezuela, Philippines or other "more recent" examples, go ahead - but that doesn't lessen the comparisons to an example that, imo, has more parallels to our society (one of the world's great economies, a nation that represents the pinnacle of higher thought, learning, and an integrated society etc).  

The reality is before last year, I never thought we were under any real threat of "following the footsteps of Germany" - but as the son of a Holocaust Survivor, I was always cognizant that Naziism happened not just as a result of fascism, but fascism that took root in arguably the MOST learned and culturally/academically/institutionally rich societies.  So when people would say 5 years ago "Nazi Germany could NEVER happen here!" my contention would be that our society would be "just" the place such a horrific event could occur, only because the examples like Venezuela or Philliphines dont match the parrallels between our society and that of Germany's.

Now, I'd use that as an example, but in my heart, never thought we would ever be at any actual risk. Not in my lifetime.. but I also knew EVENTUALLY of course we'd be succeptible, as all cultures are.  

However, when SEEING the employment of gaslighting, hyper nationalism, increased racism, bigotry, anti-semitism and hatefully inspired anti-immigrant sentiment, along with efforts to undercut the press and even the concept of truth (I could go on, it's the bulleted list I wrote)... well, suddenly I realized, MAYBE this IS how that long slippery slope works. 

I KNOW we are not "immune" from falling into that darkness (just as the Germans, with all their rich history and educated populace, were not). I KNOW we are seeing the SAME tactics employed.  That tells me it's time not to hide from scary truths, but to speak up and HOPE the situation is not nearly as bad as it could be, or even as it seems. But I'll be damned to be the boiled frog who only recognizes the slow creep of proven tactics of authoritarianism and fascism when it is already too late.

You may call that alarmist. I call it well founded vigilance.

 
Rounding up American citizens of Japanese decent and putting them in internment camps was horrible and I think would be considered fascist.  However if you look at his actions as a whole I don't think you could consider him a fascist.
That was certainly a fascist act / behavior. It's also where the overall context comes into play (on any number of levels, not the least of which was an actual declared war and Americans who were Americans, but were literally a generation removed or less from being part of the nation we were warring with - in no way excuses it, but that is one of many pieces of context and nuance that is necessary to discuss delicate and difficult issues such as this).

I'd also suggest McCarthyism, in an ironic twist, saw fascist and totalitarian tendencies bubble up not by the individual leading this nation, but rather a people willing to give up and sacrifice both personal freedoms and actual fair justice, in the name of false security and a "pledge" of faux patriotism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe i am misunderstanding. To what specifically are you referring with the bold?

Because I don't think its crystal clear at all that Trump can't be charged with a crime as sitting President.
Oh, I think he can be charged.  But he also has the power to pardon himself.  The Constitution lays out pardon powers and it is very specific and would allow this.

" he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

 
That was certainly a fascist act / behavior. It's also where the overall context comes into play (on any number of levels, not the least of which was an actual declared war and Americans who were Americans, but were literally a generation removed or less from being part of the nation we were warring with - in no way excuses it, but that is one of many pieces of context and nuance that is necessary to discuss delicate and difficult issues such as this).

I'd also suggest McCarthyism, in an ironic twist, saw fascist and totalitarian tendencies bubble up not by the individual leading this nation, but rather a people willing to give up and sacrifice both personal freedoms and actual fair justice, in the name of false security and a "pledge" of faux patriotism.
Well stated and after posting was going to edit that back in.  We were at war with Japan, we are not at war with Mexico.  LIke you said, that in no way excuses it but the context is important.

 
Oh, I think he can be charged.  But he also has the power to pardon himself.  The Constitution lays out pardon powers and it is very specific and would allow this.

" he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
I don't want to derail this thread. Especially since I think I actually agree.

But I don't think its settled law at all. And there are smart people who disagree.

 
I think we came to a pretty solid conclusion on this a couple months ago.  He’s not because this far our institutions have mostly held up on this front, but he clearly aspires to be. Don’t know how anyone can argue otherwise.
This is a reasonable take on this question.  

 
German government facing a challenge from anti-immigrant hard right, while Italian right-wing nationalists call for a "census" of Roma. Right-wing Austrian government calling for an "axis" between Italy, Germany and Austria against immigration.

US President cheering it all on. https://t.co/sPRLqqF3Fu

 
So, after two pages of "discussion"....has any opinions about President Trump been changed .... or is everyone just more confident it the opinion they had of Trump when they first opened this thread?

 
Again, I'd suggest it's "fascist tendencies" rather than "being a fascist" at this point, but:

  • Hyper Nationalism
  • Scapegoating segments of the population
  • Using language to dehumanize people - then putting into practice policies that do so even more, justified by said language
  • Militarism and idolization of military might, power and strenght
  • Demand for loyalty, and purging those who do not show it
  • Unwillingness to admit fault and/or come to a compromise (because a totalitarian is always right, by definion.  His definition, but that's the only one that counts)
  • Attacking and undermining the free press and denying access to those that don't portray the story as you demand
  • Creating complete media channels that are essentially propaganda machines - and utilizing them in a concerted manner
  • Continually telling lies, obviously blatant ones even, and having a regime that lies as a basic M.O. (as Goebbels said, tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth)
  • The above two and other efforts to essentially undercut what is "objective truth" - so the fascist regime can insert "its" truth in an envioronment that no longer has an objective measure by which to clearly call out their lies
  • Seek to deny voice to certain populations
  • Looks to inflict pain and suffering upon those who do not see things his way, and in general, to populations that may be weak/without political standing and/or clout
  • Lack of empathy and self awareness / awareness of others
  • Undercut the ability for people to vote and other efforts to undercut democratic institutions (which the Republicans have done the former for some time, Trump doubled down with the lies about election and voting fraud with "millions" of "illegal votes" and Trump has continued to work to erode our underlying faith in democracy itself)
  • Aligning with and speaking in support of / looking to curry the favor of and align with other known fascists/dictators/totalitarians (Kim, Putin, Duerte) while doing the exact opposite for democracies around the globe
  • Repeated use of false equivalencies
  • Demands that political opponents be "locked up"
  • Seeking to further consolidate executive power, and acting as if one is (and working to create a system where one actually is) above the law
  • Looking to bully and debase others, especially political opponents, as a means by which to prop oneself up
  • Coordinated efforts to influence and taint the judicial process, while simultaneously seeking to undercut any public confidence in gov't watchdogs, especially those tasked with oversight of the executive branch
  • Instituting over the top, draconian and cruel measures to achieve policy goals (like separating children from their families in a manner that we have never done before)
  • Instituting policies that make the leader and "our nation" look strong, even if they result in the exact opposite (i.e. trade, the threats and bombastic rhetoric trump uses)
  • Demanding others show patriotism, but moreso that they show it according to the way the fascist leadership demands, while castigating those who may even peacefully, protest
  • Demanding that showing patriotism is a personal issue, and must show allegiance to country, to symbol (flag) and to person (the authoritarian)
  • Quotes like “(Kim is) the head of a country, and I mean he’s the strong head. Don’t let anyone think anything different. He speaks, and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”
  • Don't listen to me, listen to BUSH'S top advisors, like: Eliot A. Cohen, a Trump critic and senior State Department official under President George W. Bush, said Trump “has classic traits of the authoritarian leader. The one that’s always struck me most is this visceral instinct of people’s weaknesses and a corresponding desire to be seen as strong and respected and admired.


And that took but a few minutes to compile. Hope that's enough "meat" and "examples" to start with to demonstrate that this not only is a thread which should continue, but a discussion that must be had. Hard as it may be.

@Joe Bryant
This should be pinned.

 
Agreed - Fascism, but it's definition, refers to dictatorial power (nope, he doesn't have that), forcible suppression of opposition (nope, not there, either), and control of the means of production (not even close).  So, while people argue about what he may want, he doesn't, nor will ever have these things.

If we shift this conversation to a guy like Maduro, then all of those can be checked 'yes'.

Eh, on this point I get what he's saying here.  This isn't a condemnation of all free press in and of itself, just the ones that he sees as so biased that they're no longer news sources but political actors.
Let me know when WaPo reporters have conference calls every night with Democrats in Congress to plot strategy and "news" releases like Donald does with Fox and Hannity.

 
Let me know when WaPo reporters have conference calls every night with Democrats in Congress to plot strategy and "news" releases like Donald does with Fox and Hannity.
Without addressing the factual assertion that the Trump admin is having daily conference calls with Hannity saying Hannity is a reporter is objectively false.  He's a commentator.

Now, whether we can consider WaPo reporters to be reporters is another matter entirely.  :P

 
No. Would he be one if he could? Maybe. But we’ll never know.
I don't have a strong opinion about tim's conclusion, but I disagree with his approach.

I would call someone a fascist based on his beliefs or intentions -- not based on how successful he is in carrying out plans or actions grounded in those beliefs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, after two pages of "discussion"....has any opinions about President Trump been changed .... or is everyone just more confident it the opinion they had of Trump when they first opened this thread?
What do you suggest everyone do in the Political Forum?  The point is to discuss topics.  Maybe some opinion will change and hopefully we all learn something new.  I'm not sure if any of my opinions have changed much but I know I have learned a lot from what everyone has to say on here.

 
German government facing a challenge from anti-immigrant hard right, while Italian right-wing nationalists call for a "census" of Roma. Right-wing Austrian government calling for an "axis" between Italy, Germany and Austria against immigration.

US President cheering it all on. https://t.co/sPRLqqF3Fu
I need to go back about a year and a half ago - I was talking about research by Bain that had talked about and overall historical swing to more authoritarian rule - basically some 80 year pattern of cycles of push for more freedom then to more authoritarianism. 

Hopefully I can find it, because it was somewhat eye opening then, but it's all become so damn crystal clear, since. 

 
I think we came to a pretty solid conclusion on this a couple months ago.  He’s not because this far our institutions have mostly held up on this front, but he clearly aspires to be. Don’t know how anyone can argue otherwise.
Who is "we" in this statement? 

 
Fwiw I do not think Trump is a fascist. I do think he's authoritarian and a nationalist. A caudillo.

I mentioned this in the Free Speech thread but at least two times I can specifically recall Trump insisting that WaPo be required to register as a lobbyist. Frankly I think Trump believes the press should be regulated, that judges should be appointed, removable or ignoble, that federal or even local officials should be jailed at his whim, and I think he has likely never ever looked at the US Constitution.
In so far he has any ideology I agree. To me it is far more likely it's all about self aggrandizement and damn the consequences for anyone else (including his children AFAICT)

 
I don't have a strong opinion about tim's conclusion, but I disagree with his approach.

I would call someone a fascist based on his beliefs or intentions -- not based on how successful he is in carrying out plans or actions grounded in those beliefs.
It’s an interesting question for sure. I actually debated it when I wrote my response. You may be right. 

But even if you are right I still think it’s inaccurate to call him a fascist. I believe my description was much more precise. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top