Republican Drift Into Fascism-- Why?

[Estro Felino]

Please listen to it again, but maybe do so v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, as it goes 100% with what I posted in #34 even though I didn't mention that anti-Semitic aspect of it that's what also has been reflected in her party.

With all due respect...really... you know how much I appreciate your threads.
But I am not understanding whether this thread is about American conservatives endorsing Meloni or Meloni herself.

 

[metis]

With all due respect...really... you know how much I appreciate your threads.

And I very much appreciate yours, my friend.

But I am not understanding whether this thread is about American conservatives endorsing Meloni or Meloni herself.

Reread the OP as it's mainly about today's Republicans here and their affiliation with "Christian nationalism".

BTW, Trump recently cut loose with another racist attack, this time on Mitch McConnel's wife of Asian ancestry whom he had appointed.

 

[pearl]

Your 100% correct, they are desperate, attacking people with ad hominems like crazy and haven't the least bit of understanding about Republicans nor facisism.

Seems to me that recent history of the Republican party certainly doesn't have maintaining democracy as its number one goal.

 

[pearl]

A lot of people also would have found it difficult to understand why the Jews in Germany had not already fled in large groups.

To go ware?, in the hopes of being excepted and not turned away?

instead choosing to believe that the Germans would have been sensible and that the Nazis would not have been insane enough to do such a strange thing as what they did.

Even more shocking is that there remain Holocaust deniers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

...and Meloni.

I'm not here to stroke your nationalist pride.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seems to me that recent history of the Republican party certainly doesn't have maintaining democracy as its number one goal.

Only if they win every election.
Then democray's okey dokey.

 

[sun rise]

Of course Democrats have reasons for discrimination.
There are always reasons. Nonetheless, it is what it is,
ie, discrimination (race & gender) by government,
& its requirement imposed upon the private sector.
Democrats like it. I don't.

Call it discrimination if you like, but I believe in equal opportunity. If someone's history for 100 years has been one of discrimination in many different ways, having equal opportunity means nothing unless the opportunity is truly equal which means sometimes giving someone a bit of help.

 

[sun rise]

Only if they win every election.
Then democray's okey dokey.

Democrats and independents believe in accepting the results of elections; republicans mostly don't both on a percentage basis and the statements of those running for office. And of course Trump. That says it all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Call it discrimination if you like...

To give benefits & jobs based upon race & gender....
Yes, that is discrimination.
You can gussy it up by re-naming it "affirmative action",
but it is what it is, ie, discrimination that you favor.

....but I believe in equal opportunity. If someone's history for 100 years has been one of discrimination in many different ways, having equal opportunity means nothing unless the opportunity is truly equal which means sometimes giving someone a bit of help.

The difference here is that you're looking only
at the groups (blacks, whites, men, women).
I look at the individuals.
It's understandable to want to give reparations
to groups for past injustices. But you seem to want to
do it by giving a lesser qualified person an advantage
based upon group identity. The more qualified person
endures a loss because of it. I oppose that.

 

[Shaul]

Keep telling yourself that while taking positions that simply do not recognize the dangers that we have today while you're forgetting the warnings of the Holocaust.

I was a Republican, taught a poli sci course for 25 years dealing with the Constitution, and I studied the Holocaust here, in Poland, and in Israel and taught a three-week unit on it. If you think that I don't know what I'm talking about, then it's on you, so go ahead and wear your MAGA cap while going around blind to what's happening all around you.

Um, I don't have any MAGA hat to wear. I guess you don't know as much as you think you do.

 

[PureX]

It's understandable to want to give reparations
to groups for past injustices. But you seem to want to
do it by giving a lesser qualified person an advantage
based upon group identity. The more qualified person
endures a loss because of it. I oppose that.

But in many instances, those qualifications cannot be obtained unless we are willing to give them exceptions. If they could, they would not be unqualified in the first place.

Our culture puts up these huge barriers that only one in a hundred poor black men could possibly get over. And then when ONE of them does, we tell ourselves that anyone could overcome those barriers if they "really wanted to". Which is a lie, of course. And the only way to fix this systemic dishonesty is to take down those barriers, behind which there will be many "unqualified" people, because they were trapped behind those barriers and kept from all the opportunities that would have enabled them to become "qualified". This is why your "most qualified" requirement is just another barrier that we are pretending isn't there.

To make things right we have to help them become qualified, because we had denied them that ability until now. And yes, that will impede those who are already qualified because they did not have those same barriers to hold them back.

 

[Revoltingest]

But in many instances, those qualifications cannot be obtained unless we are willing to give them exceptions.

I prefer giving aid such that it enhances qualifications of those in need.

 

[Brickjectivity]

To go ware?, in the hopes of being excepted and not turned away?

Its not a rational process. We typically just think "Well if it were really that bad then everyone would leave" and don't think about the particulars. Thought takes energy, and human minds try to conserve energy just like our bodies will make us both fat and tired in order to conserve more calories. I'm not excusing people, but I'm explaining that its very easy to think on a shallow level. It feels natural to do so.

Even more shocking is that there remain Holocaust deniers.

That appears to be something different and is seems perpetrated by purposeful hatred. Perhaps there is a political aim or some kind of malicious joy involved. Its not the same as when Europe was at war and words were weapons of war.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If there were more compromise between Conservatives and Liberals in the United States, there would not be such a polarization.

That sorta seems like a truism...

 

[Stevicus]

In each case it was driven by reactions to the status quo that many, if not most found unacceptable, but in the process of doing that just remember what occurred next in each case. IOW, they talked-the-talk of democratic socialism but definitely didn't walk-the-walk, and consider how many millions of people "disappeared" one way or the other because of this. The proof of this is in the history books.

Consider reading "Strongmen" by NYU poli sci professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat, the daughter of Holocaust survivors.

Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

Although my main point was not so much about the personalities of the individuals who rose to power under fascism. I think those personality types are not that uncommon in politics and society at large. We've seen fascists in this country before, such as George Lincoln Rockwell, David Duke, Pat Buchanan, and perhaps a few others here and there. But politically, they never went anywhere. They never came close to any kind of political success.

So, I'm not really convinced that merely having a loud, aggressive, strongman image would be enough, in and of itself, to turn an ordinary citizen into a dictator with absolute power. I believe there must be another necessary component which is required to make that happen, mainly a populace where the level of fear, angst, cynicism, pessimism, and overall uncertainty gets high enough to reach a certain breaking point.

I'm not saying we're at that point yet. Ultimately, I don't think we're dealing so much with fascism as much as we're dealing with the same internal ideological dispute which existed even before the U.S. gained independence. An American fascist would more likely look like Andrew Jackson than either Hitler or Mussolini, if we're drawing historical parallels. Of course, Old Hickory would be bad enough.

 

[Stevicus]

It's better than other candidates for savior,
eg, Jesus, Muhammed, L Ron Hubbard,
socialism, communism, anarchy, AOC.

Well, you know, AOC might someday become the General Secretary of the Party in the United Socialist States of America.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not here to stroke your nationalist pride.

Actually it is certain journalists who are obsessed with Italy and how fascist Italy is.
We Italians don't care what America is.
Let's respect each other.

 

[esmith]

Democrats and independents believe in accepting the results of elections; republicans mostly don't both on a percentage basis and the statements of those running for office. And of course Trump. That says it all.

How about Stacy Abrams?

 

[metis]

So, I'm not really convinced that merely having a loud, aggressive, strongman image would be enough, in and of itself, to turn an ordinary citizen into a dictator with absolute power.

I was not implying that but merely stating that previous fascist leaders generally followed a pattern that could have tipped off where they were going with their rhetoric and actions.

An American fascist would more likely look like Andrew Jackson than either Hitler or Mussolini, if we're drawing historical parallels. Of course, Old Hickory would be bad enough.

Oh, I very much agree and, btw, Andrew Jackson was Trump's favorite president prior to himself getting elected in 2016. And when hosting some Amerindians at the White House, he had a picture of Jackson in the background.

 

[pearl]

And when hosting some Amerindians at the White House, he had a picture of Jackson in the background.

I believe it was ironic because Trump was presenting an award under that painting of Jackson, and of course, the news media were quick to pick up on it.