Is the Trump Movement Fascist?

Is the Trump Movement Fascist?

Hidden within all of the biased and skewed rhetoric of the mainstream media Acela/West Coast elitists against the Trump populist movement is a very real danger that few discuss with any degree of equanimity.  That danger is there is a truly emergent Fascism in the Trump movement  with all of the associated negative effects on politics and society.

Some recent articles rant and accuse Trump of Fascism in a very cursory and argumentative way, because some of his campaign rhetoric seems to have implied some affinity for this political view.  The NYT, New Yorker. CNN and other blatantly liberal mainstream media are particularly egregious in this regard.

Fascism is in fact is pretty difficult to define.  More scholarly and cerebral views separate Trump’s actions from what is felt to be more classical views of Fascism. Some definitions of Fascism and a list of links to varying views are given below.

From Wikipedia:

 Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilian and combatant. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.

 Etymology

The Italian term fascismo derives from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces. This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates and at first applied mainly to organisations on the political Left. In Milan in 1919, Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, which, in 1921, became the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party). The Fascists came to associate the term with the ancient Roman fasces or fascio littorio—a bundle of rods tied around an axe, an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate carried by his lictors, which could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.

The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break. Similar symbols were developed by different fascist movements: for example the Falange symbol is five arrows joined together by a yoke.

                         

Main article: Definitions of fascism

Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism. Each interpretation of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.

One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership. According to many scholars, fascism — especially once in power — has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.

Roger Griffin describes fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism". Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: "(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence". Fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism" built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist "armed party" politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence.

Robert Paxton says that fascism is "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Umberto Eco, Kevin Passmore, John Weiss, Ian Adams, and Moyra Grant, mention racism (including anti-semitism) as a characteristic of fascism; i.e. fascistic dictator Hitler idealized German society as a racially unified and hierarchically organized Volksgemeinschaft.

John Lukacs, Hungarian-American historian and Holocaust survivor, argues that there is no such thing as generic fascism. He claims that National Socialism and Communism are essentially manifestations of populism and that, for example, the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities

From Encyclopedia Britannica

Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. At the end of World War II, the major European fascist parties were broken up, and in some countries (such as Italy and West Germany) they were officially banned. Beginning in the late 1940s, however, many fascist-oriented parties and movements were founded in Europe as well as in Latin America and South Africa. Although some European “neofascist” groups attracted large followings, especially in Italy and France, none were as influential as the major fascist parties of the interwar period.

Recent links:

Balanced & scholastic views.:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/donald-trump-fascist/424449/

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

Liberal leaning, but some valid points:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/02/is_donald_trump_a_fascist_an_expert_on_fascism_weighs_in.html

http://crosscut.com/2016/11/fascism-nazis-alt-right-trump-white-supremacy/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?utm_term=.4d415c80dee6

Rather than Fascism, it seems that the Trump movement represents a form of good old American populism similar to the actual Populist Party in the late 19^th century, Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s and Ross Perot in the 1990’s.  Other examples we might not like to highlight as much, are the Know Nothing Party in the early 19^th century and George Wallace’s American Independent Party in the 1960’s.  All of these were home grown populist parties, and some of them had trappings of Fascism, but were not Fascist.  In all cases of populism in the U.S., our system of checks and balances kept our democratic principles alive and robust.

Of course the fallout of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” is that we might sacrifice some of those beneficial aspects of recent liberal and socialist trends.  One example is the inclusiveness of all legal ethnic groups as Americans so long as they are willing to become citizens and adopt our democratic values and principles.  Trump’s threat to exclude Muslims based on religion is xenophobic.  Another example is universal availability of health and other essential services to all people.  Obamacare may need to be reworked, but virtually no one contemplates doing away with it.  Still another example is equal protection under the law, regardless of race and national origin. With respect to political correctness, elements of it are beneficial, but it should signify equality for everyone.  This means an end to special privileges for vociferous and activist special interests. There are others examples of a liberal and socialist nature that are beneficial to society.  We should examine these amenities carefully and not cut indiscriminately.

As Trump promised, what we must do is unwind those elements of liberalism and socialism that have denigrated and weakened our country.  We need to establish viable borders and enforce them.  If that requires a wall, so be it, but there may be other means available.  We need to provide some rational path for the roughly 12 million illegal aliens living in the country to either leave the country, or eventually legalize their status through a series of fines, study, and going through a defined legalization process.  We need to enforce our laws equally for everyone.  We should do away with so called “sanctuary cities” that break the law by harboring criminals.  Not only should “black lives matter”, all lives should matter equally without preferential treatment for a segment of society.  We should increase and support our police forces and protect citizens in hot spots like Chicago’s south side.  We should strengthen our military and bring it back from the deplorable condition Obama is leaving it in.  And we should eradicate Daesh or ISIS from the face of the earth and impose unequivocal death penalties on terrorists, foreign and domestic.  This may require additional boots on the ground in Iraq and possibly Syria. And we should isolate and quarantine Iran and North Korea until they conform with international laws and conventions.  We should reduce redundancy, but modernize our nuclear capability, so that our weapons are not stuck with 60 year old technology.

All of the above are Nationalistic, rather than Fascistic ideals.  As after many democrat/liberal interludes, our country is weak and an international laughingstock.  Russia and particularly China are in ascendancy.  We should either partner with them in a mutually advantageous manner or stand our ground with them and their expansion moves.  As Reagan did in the 1980’s, we indeed need “To Make Our Country Great Again”.  But this needs to be done with care, and with informed guidance.  Trump seems to have a good start with his emerging cabinet. Let’s hope he continues in a similar vein.

Concerning Twitter, YouTube and social media, the mainstream media is beside itself and twisting out of shape because Trump simply does not cater to them in the old fashioned way.  He delivers short tweets which the massed elitists respond to as if they are spontaneous and egotistical, whereas they are mostly spot on, and tweak the media mercilessly.  Longer messages can also be delivered by Twitter, or YouTube.  ABC, CBS, NBC. CNN. MSNBC simply are not required.  What better way for a populist president to communicate with the people? 

Ray Gruszecki

December 8, 2016

Thrashing and Gnashing of Teeth

Thrashing and Gnashing of Teeth

I know I said I’d shut up, but the continuing rancor against a legally elected populist president just continues unabated.  The country is divided, as it has been before after past elections, but this continued barrage by the amassed left wing liberal clique is beyond belief.  The “no we won’t all get along” tweets, sanctioned by an ostensibly responsible pundits like Charles Blow are a case in point. The riots and looting on our streets by left wing thugs are another.  The sedition preached by proponents of “sanctuary cities” that hide criminals and defy future federal law is another egregious example.

Liberals/progressives should have chosen a more viable candidate, although that may not have been possible in light of the dissatisfaction with the machinations of the Washington crowd over the last eight years.  Suck it up and act like adults, all you screaming, foot stamping, spoiled children.  The country needed a reset from the irresponsibility, corruption, laisser-faire approach to governing and law: and from the cloying political correctness of the last eight years.

The contention is that Hillary won the popular vote.  Neglected is the fact that without California, Trump won the popular vote in the rest of the country by 2 million votes.  California does not rule the country.  The people that voted to end the nonsense in Washington do.  

Trump has never been my favorite person.  But one thing I’ve observed about him through the years, that he is a pragmatic and no nonsense executive.  Also, he does not take anything on that he won’t be successful at.  He also is a showman that got a tremendous amount of free TV and air time and exposure by virtue of his sometimes outrageous statements.  He spent a tenth of what his opposition spent, took on the massive, powerful liberal establishment, including an incumbent government and popular president – AND WON.  Unfortunately the liberals took him literally as regards his outrageousness, but didn’t take him seriously as a candidate, right from the start.  I can still hear the din of the loud, derisive laughter when some of his supporters said that he had a good chance of winning.

I have to believe him when he says that he did this for the good of the country.  Why else?  He certainly has all the wealth and power he’ll ever need.  The White House and Air Force One are a step down for him when it comes to creature comforts.  Why endure a year and a half of a grueling political campaign to then take on the toughest job in the world?  He says it’s to make America great again.  I have to believe him.

And I’m also sure that he will continue to prevail against the left wing forces massed against him.  Conflict with the biased media over air time and content?  No matter. He uses Twitter or Youtube to talk to the people of the country directly.

Trump is a phenomenon and I understand some fears.  Like Berlusconi in Italy he is an extremely wealthy and powerful figure even before the presidency.  He leans toward Nationalism and Nativism.  His politics are not defined.  He has taken on both political parties as part of the Washington establishment.  However he can make deals and what is politics if not deal making at the national and international level?  Also, we have checks and balances, although with predominantly Republican House, Senate and State legislatures, these will be in his favor.

At any rate we have him for four years (and most likely eight years) irrespective of the thrashing and gnashing of teeth in opposition.  Let’s get used to it and realize that our country will change and become less soft as regards ours borders, applying our laws and perhaps we will be not as kind and gentle as we have been.  Most likely this will all be mitigated by the next Liberal torch bearer, but what we have now is Trump.

November 24, 2016

Ray Gruszecki

More Ramblings on the Election, Trump et al

More Ramblings on the Election, Trump et al

I am an American patriot.  Always have been, always will be.

I’ve lived a long time, back through the Second World War.  As I come to the final years of my life, I’ve become somewhat introspective.  A year or so ago I undertook to research and blog a list of moral and ethical issues that are important in our world, and how I stood on these issues.  My research was long on facts, and short on anecdotal views.  I modified my views on several key issues.  In a nutshell, I found that I was more Libertarian in nature than I had thought.  You can read my rather lengthy blog by googling my name, Ray Gruszecki.  I won’t bore you by repeating the blog, other than highlighting a couple of key points.

My heritage is Polish-American.  My background is blue collar middle class from New England, and hence, originally FDR Democratic.  I have been a Republican from age 17 or so, onward, but have voted for Democrats on several occasions.  For Lyndon Johnson vs Goldwater in 1964 (In my mid twenties, I thought Goldwater was appallingly too right wing).  For Ann Richards as Governor of Texas in 1990 after her opponent Clayton Williams joked that a rape victim should just “lay back and enjoy it”.  I would have voted for Jack Kennedy in 1960, but I was disenfranchised in both Massachusetts and New Jersey when I moved to The New York City area.  The rest of my voting career has been pretty much straight Republican

I am a pragmatic conservative with some libertarian leanings.  I reluctantly voted for Trump, and primarily against the corrupt Clinton cabal.  There wasn’t much there to choose from folks.  The other choices were Gary Johnson, who couldn’t remember what and where Aleppo, the largest city in Syria was, and Jill Stein, a raging left-winger, who made Bernie Sanders look like Sean Hannity.

I have always considered myself a “pragmatic conservative”.  I believe in personal responsibility, that we are responsible for our own actions and well-being.  I believe in helping others who are less fortunate by providing the wherewithal for them to improve their own lot.  This means a “hand up” rather than a “hand out”.  I am proud of America, and have never been apologetic about being an American, no matter where in the world I lived. I won’t go on about American conservatism or libertarianism or liberalism there is plenty available on the internet, and tomes have been written on those topics.

I would like to comment briefly on the recent election result.  I’ll try not to be offensive or controversial, but my personal honesty comes first.

First, the media.  - What can I say? They all unabashedly backed Clinton rather than reporting the news (except Fox), and they were all woefully wrong, as were their vaunted polls.  Now they are back pedaling and justifying and figuring out who to throw under the bus.  They all should be ashamed, but they won’t be, because they are part of the corrupt and dishonest cabal that won’t go away, and that the voters in this election rebelled against.  The media will continue to support “cry ins” and demonstrations against an election that expressed the voice of the people.

Then, the Obamas and all of their Washington minions.  Try as they may toward the end of the race, they failed to put glitter and shine on the corrupt and inept Clintons.  The same can be said for the free concerts by numerous pop stars brought out, presumably to popularize the Clintons and energize the millennials.

Next, all the rest of the liberal elitist thinkers, plotters, intelligentsia, professors, newspapers, liberal bloggers and others – all so badly wrong. And all of this amassed agglomeration of so called intelligence was unable to accurately gauge the true will of the people.  They were so blinded by their own distorted view of their own touchy-feely and politically correct importance, to see the forest for the trees.  One way of categorizing it is by calling it Brexit 2.  Unfortunately, the election didn’t end the lies and bias.  Just turn on CNN, NBC, ABC. CBS and read the New York Times for more of the same slanted news.

Trump, Clinton, Obama – So far they have all acted with responsibility and grace.  Let’s hope it continues.  At some point Obama and our current government needs to rein in the rioters and looters before something serious happens.  There have been virtually no pro-Trump or right wing demonstrations, although the biased media rolls out individual incidents perpetrated against minorities as if these single events represented a more general movement.  There have also been reports of left wing groups trying to frame Trump voters, and also reports of left wing paid looters and rioters.  A timely warning might be to “remember that these deplorables that these riots are against do indeed have their bibles and guns”.

Clinton wins the popular vote – according to the New York Times, as of November 17, she won the popular vote by about one million votes.  She won California by about 3.1 million votes.  Hypothetically, taking extremely liberal California out of the mix, Trump won the rest of the country, including New York and Illinois, by about 2.1 million votes.  We know where ultra-liberal California’s sensibilities are.  Doing this exercise shows where the rest of the country’s preferences are, in addition to the 306 electoral votes Trump won.

Who voted for Trump? – An analysis on the Pew Research report on the election shows that Trump did very well across the “rust belt, but did not really do much worse with the voters that the massed so called “experts” said would be his demise, i.e., women, blacks and Latinos.  It also shows that Hillary failed to energize these same voters, that were to be her bulwark.  A closer look also shows that the few percent that Johnson and Stein accumulated had a massive effect on the final result. I’ve heard commentary by responsible media people (Chris Matthews of MSNBC, if I remember correctly), comment on The crowds amassed at the Trump rallies,  Not only the large numbers, but also the nature of the very enthusiastic attendees.  Flannel shirts, jeans, work boots _  “my God, most of them are Democrats”.

The Pew study also shows that Trump did very well among non-college graduate white voters, and with evangelicals.  This has already been seized upon by the amassed liberal cabal described above, that Trump was elected by “white trash uneducated white men”, and by the “deplorables holding on to their guns and bibles.  While true that Trump did do well with these groups, the study also shows that Trump also did reasonably well with college educated men and women, with blacks and with Latinos, particularly in Florida.  Hillary failed to resonate with the groups that were supposedly solidly in her camp.  She did not improve with women, blacks, Latinos and college educated voters over what Obama did in the last two elections.  It is obvious, that even among these normally pro liberal groups, Clinton was a flawed candidate.  She carried simply too much baggage, too much lawbreaking and getting away with it, too much corruption, too much collusion with special interest groups, too much elitism and smugness, too much cloying political correctness from the Obama years.

And what about Trump’s reason for running?  One thing that can be said about him is that he has lived 70 years without being a politician, has been very outspoken and not very careful about his verbiage.  He was only running for political office for a little over a year, and his loquaciousness and gregariousness certainly did not diminish.  In fact it seems to have increased as part of a plan to stay on top of the news because of his outrageousness.  It appears that some of this outrageousness came from his reality show and Hollywood years.  He turned serious and reasonable as the presidential race drew to a close, reflecting his education and long business experience.

He obviously was a high living, brash, promoter, playboy and ladies’ man for many years, owning his own palatial apartments and homes, planes, helicopters, yachts, etc.  In terms of creature comforts, Air Force One and the White House are downgrades for Trump.  So why expose himself to the abuse and vituperativeness of a year and a half of political campaigning, followed by the toughest job in the world?  I believe we have to acknowledge that he saw this country in dire straits and decided to do something about it.  It seems that just doing it for the power would not be worth it. So I think we have to accept his patriotism.

What now?  The media hasn’t changed, as I mentioned above.  Trump is working on his cabinet and tweeting occasionally on his activities and mostly against the false coverage by the NYT and other media.  Maybe some of these media will shape up and become more truthful now that they have someone as powerful as Trump vetting them, but let’s not hold our breath.  The media collectively continues to be anti-Trump, pro law-breaking rioters and looters and a continuing divisive force in the country.  Hey, it’s time to shape up.  Voters in the country spoke on election night.  It’s time to support the President-Elect and not try to second guess his appointments or back protests or sign petitions against him.  Not that these media actions will have much impact on Trump.  They didn’t during the election, and they won’t now.

It’s interesting to see the activity in the Congress and amongst other Washington insiders.  He doesn’t owe them anything and they don’t know what he is yet, other than a populist phenomenon that won the presidency.  Of course the Congress don’t owe Trump anything either, so that sort of equalizes things.  Remember Trump was a Democrat once and has expressed Democrat, Republican and Libertarian sentiments in his mostly self-financed run to the top.  Also, no one really knows if any of the outrageous points he made during the election are real, or mostly election rhetoric.  So far he seem to have taken a measured approach as regards his transition team, (notwithstanding Steve Bannon), and is acting quite presidential in other ways. 

I heard Bob Woodward, famous for Watergate, a Democrat and liberal, and currently an associate editor of the Washington Post at a luncheon at the Belo Mansion in downtown Dallas recently.  From my notes on Woodward’s comments on Trump (whom he has interviewed) - Trump likes to bring out the rage in people.  Trump prides himself as the Lone Ranger, meting out old fashioned Western justice.  Trump has great velocity and ferociousness.  However Woodward feels Trump’s leadership will be pragmatic, not dogmatic.

Obama recently spoke in Greece and Germany and commented on the new President Elect.  Now Obama is quite intelligent and a very good orator. He is a nice guy – personable, charismatic, witty, charming.  His approval ratings are in the mid 50 percent range even though he has mismanaged or failed to manage both our domestic and foreign affairs.  Lack of any apparent foreign policy is one glaring defect.  Obamacare here is a social and economic disaster.  The Iran nuclear deal is a foreign policy disaster.  Yet he is popular, probably primarily to the younger set because of the attributes listed above, handsome, personable, witty, etc.  Obama’s comments in Greece and Germany were nicely stated, as many of Obama’s speeches are.  While he didn’t criticize Trump directly, his admonition that Trump become serious as president reflected the same old liberal smugness and superciliousness that our electorate found so stifling in Hillary.  Obama seems taken with his own empty, rock star popularity, to the exclusion of his deficiencies.  Another quote from Bob Woodward after interviewing David Cameron of the UK several years ago, Cameron opined  “Obama is a nice chap, but no one in the world is afraid of him”  -  i.e. no one in the world respects him, or the U.S.  Unfortunately, Obama views the world as he would like it to be, not as it actually is.

What can I say further about the amassed media and news manipulation apparatus in the country?  They haven’t missed a beat, (well maybe a little one early morning November 9^th, when they realized how woefully wrong they and their polls were).  They continue to smugly criticize and try to second guess the President Elect and his cabinet choices.  They continue to echo what they posit as humanitarian concerns which actually mask the same cloying liberal “holier than thou” attitudes that the country voted against. They can’t seem to absorb that the real down to earth people of this country have had enough of the Northeast and West Coast elitists telling then what to do, how to think and ridiculing their morals, ethics and religious beliefs.  And this same liberal elitist cabal goads on the rioters and looters hiding as lawful protesters in our streets.  They also support the “cry-ins”, safety pin zones and other maudlin responses to a lawful election, rather than calling for calm and rational responses to what is to many of our young people a life disappointment.

Some further thoughts.  The whole world has become and is continuing to be less restrictive and more liberalized with time.  This is an obvious and measurable trend.  Some recent examples in our own society are legalization of marijuana, increased acceptance of same sex marriage, legalized gambling and many other such activities that were once prohibited or off limits, and are now legal and acceptable.  Simultaneously, the “thinkers” and “elitists” of the world have posited morals, ethics and behavior which reflects this liberalization and which fosters secularism, globalism, political correctness and socialism. This thinking has been inculcated in our universities, media and intelligentsia to the point of becoming ubiquitous and pervading the mores of our centennials, millennials, gen x-ers and, particularly university graduates.  This same elite group comprises the people with six figure incomes in our economy who partake of their five dollar lattes, send their kids to private schools and otherwise live an abundant life.  Left out of this eclectic mix are the remainder of Americans, not only those in the rust belt and fly-over country, but also many others who have seen their jobs disappear, their morals eroded, and their values ridiculed by the elitists on both coasts.  Try as they may, they are economically moribund,  many times with second tier jobs with two wage earners, while the powers in Washington tell them how low unemployment and the crime rate are, and how great Obama has made the country.  They don’t see it, their life sucks, - and along comes Trump, identifying with them and offering to “make America great again”.  Of course they voted for him in such substantial numbers.  Something needed to be done, and here he was to do it.

A similar reaction is taking place in Europe.  The UK leaving the EU is one example.  Other examples are the Euroskeptic populist parties in virtually every European country.  I made a survey about six months ago of the various European countries comprising the European Union and found the same kind of dissatisfaction in Europe as in the U.S.  See my blog.

I believe that the Trump reset here and similar ant-establishment actions in Europe are temporary.  They will not stem the tide of liberalization across the world, but they will give us an opportunity to take pause and review our values and where we are going, hopefully with some positive impact.  We certainly will not revert to some form of repressive tribalism.  Simply, too many people have smart phones for that.  But Trump and his administration for 4 or 8 years will give us pause, give us time to rethink some of our values, and perhaps establish some guidelines that are a little less wishy-washy than the completely permissive and otherwise moribund government of the last eight years.

November 20, 2016

Ray Gruszecki