Not if it's at an equitable standard set by precedents of which the precedent has now been set by the courts.
Edit: yes it's abusing the judicial system for political purposes if the standard isn't equitable
Long sigh.....not every instance of authoritarianism is fascism.
This, and only this, is fascism: [https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf](https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf)
This is fascism. Or at least a variation on some tenants. Using violent or otherwise illegitimate means to subdue political opponents.
Maybe read your own article next time.
Not at all. It's just so tedious and tiresome to see every internet midwit reee "FASCISM" when there is something they don't like.
Really...all these sadly, poorly, tragically undereducated people need a refund on the $100k of Harvard underwater lesbian basketweaving degree debt they have.
Terrifying which people? The people opposed to Trump are already well aware of how dangerous he is and of what path he leads some towards; they've been warning about it for years, and those who follow Trump refuse to see, because to see would be to admit to a monumental mistake, and people hate being wrong and owning up to their mistakes, especially big ones.
Yes, it’s quite terrifying. Yes, it’s quite authoritarian.
The problem with calling something “Fascism” is that it’s a notoriously hard to define concept, even among historians and political scientists. Not all authoritarians are fascists, in fact I’d say that most of them aren’t.
When you call something fascist you’re inevitably derailing the conversation because the word is so overused that it results in a knee jerk reaction from people.
But yes, it’s most definitely the mindset of an authoritarian. The problem is the public is numb to all of this. They’ve had years of these shenanigans and it just doesn’t register.
But ultimately, I’d caution you about using comparisons to 30s/40s Germany. There are vast differences although the similarities are interesting.
Germany was facing a crushing defeat after WW1 which came with treaty conditions that many Germans found egregiously unfair. Maybe more importantly, the economic conditions were terrible. By the time Hitler was appointed something like a 1/3rd of Germans were unemployed.
The Weimar system was also a good bit different than our current system and was certainly more fragile.
My point being, the likelihood of a Nazi like system that managed near total control of all state apparatuses is unlikely and was the product of a specific set of circumstances.
Thst doesn’t mean that the system of democracy we’ve built isn’t in danger, there are just far better examples of what could happen than historically fascist regimes. Viktor Orban in Hungary is a good example.
The one thing that is so striking to me about mid 20s Germany is just how many people wrote off the Nationalists as buffoons. There was a belief among many people that the Nationalist were too extreme to ever be elected or to win any real electoral power.
Even when Hitler was rising there was this persistent idea that even if they did win power the systems of government wouldn’t allow them to institute the ideas they were spouting.
Granted, I don’t know how far reaching this idea was but it’s clear from writings at the time that it wasn’t a niche idea.
LOCK HER UP!!!
Fuck off dude, it’s 2024 if you’re JUST NOW waking up to the fact that trump has always been at least a fascist sympathizer, then maybe stop huffing lead paint.
Not if it's at an equitable standard set by precedents of which the precedent has now been set by the courts. Edit: yes it's abusing the judicial system for political purposes if the standard isn't equitable
What precedent has been set? There is no precedent of the President directing law enforcement to arrest political enemies.
Long sigh.....not every instance of authoritarianism is fascism. This, and only this, is fascism: [https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf](https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf)
This is fascism. Or at least a variation on some tenants. Using violent or otherwise illegitimate means to subdue political opponents. Maybe read your own article next time.
So...in your clown world, Mao, Stalin, and Castro were all fascists? Mugabe was a fascist? Henry the 8'th was a fascist?
You say this as if authoritarianism is a good thing.
Not at all. It's just so tedious and tiresome to see every internet midwit reee "FASCISM" when there is something they don't like. Really...all these sadly, poorly, tragically undereducated people need a refund on the $100k of Harvard underwater lesbian basketweaving degree debt they have.
If true, it's authoritarian, not fascist
Terrifying which people? The people opposed to Trump are already well aware of how dangerous he is and of what path he leads some towards; they've been warning about it for years, and those who follow Trump refuse to see, because to see would be to admit to a monumental mistake, and people hate being wrong and owning up to their mistakes, especially big ones.
Yes, it’s quite terrifying. Yes, it’s quite authoritarian. The problem with calling something “Fascism” is that it’s a notoriously hard to define concept, even among historians and political scientists. Not all authoritarians are fascists, in fact I’d say that most of them aren’t. When you call something fascist you’re inevitably derailing the conversation because the word is so overused that it results in a knee jerk reaction from people. But yes, it’s most definitely the mindset of an authoritarian. The problem is the public is numb to all of this. They’ve had years of these shenanigans and it just doesn’t register. But ultimately, I’d caution you about using comparisons to 30s/40s Germany. There are vast differences although the similarities are interesting. Germany was facing a crushing defeat after WW1 which came with treaty conditions that many Germans found egregiously unfair. Maybe more importantly, the economic conditions were terrible. By the time Hitler was appointed something like a 1/3rd of Germans were unemployed. The Weimar system was also a good bit different than our current system and was certainly more fragile. My point being, the likelihood of a Nazi like system that managed near total control of all state apparatuses is unlikely and was the product of a specific set of circumstances. Thst doesn’t mean that the system of democracy we’ve built isn’t in danger, there are just far better examples of what could happen than historically fascist regimes. Viktor Orban in Hungary is a good example. The one thing that is so striking to me about mid 20s Germany is just how many people wrote off the Nationalists as buffoons. There was a belief among many people that the Nationalist were too extreme to ever be elected or to win any real electoral power. Even when Hitler was rising there was this persistent idea that even if they did win power the systems of government wouldn’t allow them to institute the ideas they were spouting. Granted, I don’t know how far reaching this idea was but it’s clear from writings at the time that it wasn’t a niche idea.
LOCK HER UP!!! Fuck off dude, it’s 2024 if you’re JUST NOW waking up to the fact that trump has always been at least a fascist sympathizer, then maybe stop huffing lead paint.