Conservatism and Fascism Are Not the Same Thing

[pecksniff]

But they're related.

The Republican evolution into an authoritarian party is the most important development of the current political era. The conservative movement has a long tradition of anti-democratic thought, which Donald Trump catalyzed and which has accelerated since he departed office into his movement’s defining ethos.

Hardly a day goes by without some horrifying new expression of the right’s contempt for democracy. Here is Republican senator Rand Paul defining a “stolen” election as “targeting and convincing potential voters to complete [ballots] in a legally valid way.” Here is conservative talk-show host Jesse Kelly warning, “When I take power, communists” — Kelly’s term for liberals — “will not be allowed to hold jobs. Their children won’t be allowed in schools.” Here is an essay in a conservative journal urging the right to openly celebrate January 6 “as our Storming of the Bastille … One side is prepared to do everything necessary to secure their political power, so the other side must be prepared to resist every step of the way with equal determination.”

Ideas like this are not representative of the Republican Party — at least not yet. What they represent is a fringe that is creeping closer and closer to control over the GOP and meeting less and less resistance.

It is vital to understand the interplay between authoritarian logic and standard-issue conservative politics. My long-standing contention is that the two overlap heavily — that is, rather than having descended suddenly in the form of Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the party, right-wing authoritarianism grew out of the conservative movement organically. Trump articulated deep-seated fears that the conservative agenda could not prevail under liberal democratic conditions because the right would be outnumbered either economically (the takers would confiscate the wealth of the makers) or demographically. Conservatives turn to authoritarianism for the same reason communists turn to revolution: They don’t believe they can accomplish their policy goals democratically.

Jason Stanley has proposed a much more sweeping claim. Stanley, a philosophy professor at Yale, argues in the Guardian that the Republican Party has entered what he calls “fascism’s legal phase.” Stanley’s essay, which attracted widespread praise from progressive intellectuals on Twitter, treats conservative policy goals as inherently authoritarian. The total conflation of conservative policy goals with authoritarianism is ill conceived and ultimately counterproductive to the goal of defending democracy and clearly understanding the threats it faces.

 

[GothTalk]

"The Republican evolution into an authoritarian party is the most important development of the current political era."

LOL they aren't the authoritarians here.

Their liberalism is the #1 complaint from the authoritarian left.

 

[LupusDei]

"The Republican evolution into an authoritarian party is the most important development of the current political era."

LOL they aren't the authoritarians here.

Their liberalism is the #1 complaint from the authoritarian left.

Says an excited brownshirt stormtrooper wannabe playing a fascist on a porn board for twisted fun. Perhaps imagining anybody cares.

 

[Rightguide]

Peck goose-steps into the board and projects his party's reality onto its political opponents. Nobody but the left buys into this crap, however.

 

[LupusDei]

Peck goose-steps into the board and projects his party's reality onto its political opponents. Nobody but the left buys into this crap, however.

In principle there's nothing inherently wrong in being slavery loving nazi, but you guys ridiculously lack even minimal self awareness.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Democratic Fascism

Many Trump supporters are what I would call "democratic fascists." They want to maintain a semblance of democracy while denying the ability to vote to eligible voters likely to vote against them. They realize that they represent declining demographics, and that their ability to win fair elections is diminishing.

 

[pecksniff]

The point of the article is that the authoritarian tendency of current American conservatism is not necessarily in the direction of fascism.

Why am I quibbling with Stanley’s logic, or lack thereof, if I agree with his conclusion that the Republican Party is increasingly authoritarian? Because it’s impossible to detect or stop authoritarianism without having a clear understanding of its meaning. Stanley isn’t exaggerating the danger so much as he is misdiagnosing it completely. What’s dangerous about the modern right is not its social-policy agenda but its refusal to share power or accept the legitimacy of Democratic election victories and majoritarian governance.

The idea that conservatives can’t pursue their policy goals democratically is dangerous. Treating all conservative politics as undemocratic is paradoxically to reinforce that poisonous belief.

 

[LupusDei]

Many Trump supporters are what I would call "democratic fascists." They want to maintain a semblance of democracy while denying the ability to vote to eligible voters likely to vote against them. They realize that they represent declining demographics, and that their ability to win fair elections is diminishing.

Russians call this "controlled democracy" allegedly constantly fighting with evil foreign influence.

 

[LupusDei]

The point of the article is that the authoritarian tendency of current American conservatism is not necessarily in the direction of fascism.

No, but it is amazingly simple mechanism for enforcement of minority rule.

 

[pecksniff]

"The Republican evolution into an authoritarian party is the most important development of the current political era."

LOL they aren't the authoritarians here.

Their liberalism is the #1 complaint from the authoritarian left.

That is irrelevancy. In this discussion, it's not authoritarian vs. libertarian but authoritarian vs. democratic -- IOW, it's not about what government as such should do or not do -- the problem is that the GOP is rejecting the legitimacy of democratic processes to the extent that it cannot win under them -- and we all know what happens when a political party does that and gets away with it. The result might be something like the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile -- which was highly libertarian in an economic sense (many American economic-libertarians openly admired Pinochet's regime for that reason, even served as advisors to it), but no more tolerable and no less authoritarian for that -- Pinochet was out to put down socialism in a society where the voters had freely chosen it. Does any Republican on this board seriously want to follow that example?

Pincohet was not a fascist as such. (Neither was Franco, really, though he included fascist Falangists in his government.) There are other forms of authoritarianism.

 

[Dribble]

The key factor that identifies Fascism is the use of racism to justify their beliefs. Pick and choose who the present day Fascists use.

 

[pecksniff]

The key factor that identifies Fascism is the use of racism to justify their beliefs. Pick and choose who the present day Fascists use.

Well, I don't know about that. Mussolini's Fascist regime was not especially racist* -- it included many Jews, at first -- until his alliance with Hitler forced it to be. What is essential to fascism is the idea that the whole nation (defined, perhaps, by culture rather than race) should march in step behind a charismatic leader to accomplish collective goals; distinguished in that regard from Communism in that national loyalty is presumed to transcend class loyalty, and there is not even a theoretical internationalist element in the ideology.

*Italians, after all, are descended from the ancient Greeks and Romans and Etruscans and Samnites, etc. -- and from all the various people the Romans brought to Italy as slaves, Gauls and Moors and Egyptians and Greeks and Spaniards and Britons -- and from the Germans who invaded Italy after the fall of the Western Empire -- and from later Arab, Berber and Norman invaders. They can't exactly claim racial purity.

From the beginning, many Italians were dubious about the Axis -- they thought of Germany as Italy's natural enemy (Italy having had territorial disputes with Austria for many decades), and were painfully aware that the Germans despised them as racially inferior.

 

[GothTalk]

Says an excited brownshirt stormtrooper wannabe playing a fascist on a porn board for twisted fun.

LOL.....where do you come up with this shit??

I'm not the "progressive" democrat here.

Perhaps imagining anybody cares.

Yet here you are.

 

[GothTalk]

That is irrelevancy.

Only because you don't like it.

In this discussion, it's not authoritarian vs. libertarian but authoritarian vs. democratic -- IOW,

Democracy is not opposite authoritarianism though. Democracy in fact often leads to it.

So your idea about what this conversation is about is based on totally made up fantasy.

 

[pecksniff]

Only because you don't like it.



Democracy is not opposite authoritarianism though. Democracy in fact often leads to it.

So your idea about what this conversation is about is based on totally made up fantasy.

It's what the article is about. The author does not even address such libertarian tendencies as conservatism embodies. It's all about the GOP's rejection and delegitimization of democracy. His point is that that is authoritarian, but not necessarily fascist.

Pinochet's economic libertarianism is irrelevant to the authoritarianism of his regime.

 

[Rightguide]

In principle there's nothing inherently wrong in being slavery loving nazi, but you guys ridiculously lack even minimal self awareness.

Enough to know how far gone your awareness is. There's nobody on my side of the political spectrum who supports slavery or could be a Nazi. get an education before posting.

 

[pecksniff]

Enough to know how far gone your awareness is. There's nobody on my side of the political spectrum who supports slavery or could be a Nazi. get an education before posting.

But there are plenty who would support a Pinochet-like dictatorship.

 

[GothTalk]

It's what the article is about. The author does not even address such libertarian tendencies as conservatism embodies.

Yes, the article is ignoring reality and making shit up.

It's all about the GOP's rejection and delegitimization of democracy.

Yea, it's (R) grievance porn from never never land.

His point is that that is authoritarian, but not necessarily fascist.

A) it's not.

B) the only people getting authoritarian are Chuck and the (D)'eez threatening to change the rules if they don't get their way.

Pinochet's economic libertarianism is irrelevant to the authoritarianism of his regime.

Sure...whatever.... bring up other totally irrelevant stuff.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes, the article is ignoring reality and making shit up.

There is nothing made up about the GOP's rejection and delegitimization of democracy.

A) it's not.

Of course it is. Dictatorship, defined as unelected government, is authoritarian by its nature -- regardless of the content of its policies.

B) the only people getting authoritarian are Chuck and the (D)'eez threatening to change the rules if they don't get their way.

The rules say they get to do that, there is nothing authoritarian in it. The Senate is constitutionally authorized to set, and change, its rules of procedure. That's the only reason the filibuster rule exists -- it is not in the Constitution.

 

[GothTalk]

There is nothing made up about the GOP's rejection and delegitimization of democracy.

The made up part is that they are the only ones doing so.

It's partisan trash because it's ok when (D)'eez do it!!!

Of course it is.

No, it's not.

Dictatorship, defined as unelected government, is authoritarian by its nature -- regardless of the content of its policies.

Wrong again. Dictators can be as liberal as democracies can be authoritarian. These things are not related. The content of the policies is everything, not nothing as you try to claim here.

The rules say they get to do that, there is nothing authoritarian in it.

No they don't and that doesn't make the move not authoritarian.

The Senate is constitutionally authorized to set, and change, its rules of procedure.

Yup...and doing so to get your way because you can't get the votes (democracy) is another fine example of (D)'eez rejection and delegitimization of American democracy.

 

[pecksniff]

The made up part is that they are the only ones doing so.

They are the only ones doing so and you know it.

Wrong again. Dictators can be as liberal as democracies can be authoritarian. These things are not related. The content of the policies is everything, not nothing as you try to claim here.

Pinochet's dictatorship was authoritarian. It was also in your terms "liberal" -- what made it authoritarian was that Pinochet alone got to set the policy, and the voters were powerless to say different.

No they don't and that doesn't make the move not authoritarian.

The rules do say that. Read the Constitution. It sets a basic criterion for a quorum necessary for either house of Congress to do anything; otherwise, it leaves it to each house to set its own rules.

Yup...and doing so to get your way because you can't get the votes (democracy) is another fine example of (D)'eez rejection and delegitimization of American democracy.

That depends on what you mean by "the votes." At this level, that's a complicated question. The votes to elect a Dem Senate majority were not there, discounting the VP's tiebreaker role. OTOH, I'm sure that, as in most elections to the U.S. Senate, more votes nationwide were cast for Dems than Pubs. But all that really is relevant here is the votes of Senators, and if enough of those can be mustered to change the rules, that is entirely legitimate and constitutional. And then, any legislation passed under the new rules is similarly legitimate.

 

[GothTalk]

They are the only ones doing so and you know it.

No, they aren't, and you know what you said here is a big fat lie.

 

[pecksniff]

No, they aren't, and you know what you said here is a big fat lie.

It's the Democrats proposing the Help America Vote Act. It's the Republicans proposing legislation that would allow a state legislature to overrule the voters.

 

[GothTalk]

It's the Democrats proposing the Help America Vote Act.

Yes Democrats are trying to destroy American Democracy.

While undermining the rule of law that democracy is supposed to stand for at every turn.

It's the Republicans proposing legislation that would allow a state legislature to overrule the voters.

Yes, Republicans are trying to preserve American democracy.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes Democrats are trying to destroy American Democracy.

While undermining the rule of law that democracy is supposed to stand for at every turn.

The Help America Vote Act would not do that.

Yes, Republicans are trying to preserve American democracy.

And allowing state legislatures to overrule voters would not do that.

You have to begin by admitting here, that any reasonable definition of "democracy" would in principle allow for even Communists to win legitimately.