Paxton on parallels and non-parallels of Trump w/ fascism

  • Thread starter Thread starter bcrowell
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the parallels and non-parallels between Donald Trump and 20th-century fascism, particularly as articulated by historian Robert Paxton. Participants explore various aspects of Trump's political persona, the historical context of fascism, and the implications for American democracy. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, personal opinions, and reflections on political dynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note parallels such as Trump's portrayal of the U.S. as in decline, the need for a strong leader, and aggressive nationalism.
  • Others argue that Trump's impulsive personality and lack of political awareness differentiate him from historical fascist leaders like Hitler and Mussolini.
  • Concerns are raised about the appeal of outsider candidates, with some questioning the effectiveness of individuals without political experience.
  • Participants discuss the historical context of fascism, including the socio-economic conditions of 1930s Germany compared to contemporary America.
  • Some express skepticism about the likelihood of a fascist dictatorship in the U.S. due to the checks and balances inherent in American democracy.
  • There are reflections on the nature of political campaigns, with some viewing Trump's approach as appealing to base instincts rather than substantive policy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the parallels between Trump and fascism. While some find the comparisons valid, others challenge the applicability of historical fascism to contemporary politics, leading to an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the discussion, including varying definitions of fascism, differing interpretations of political outsider status, and the complexities of historical comparisons.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring political theory, historical comparisons of political movements, and the dynamics of contemporary American politics.

  • #31
krater said:
I strongly disagree that "power > $$$". In fact I think this has been more or less illustrated not only by Trump but the vast majority of policymakers. Truth is these days when just about everyone is for sale, money in fact wholly equates to power.
I don't think Trump thinks he has enough money to bribe the government into adopting his brand of fascist agenda. He's going to need a lot of popular support and to be in the most powerful position in government to even contemplate attempting that kind of change.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
zoobyshoe said:
I don't think Trump thinks he has enough money to bribe the government into adopting his brand of fascist agenda. He's going to need a lot of popular support and to be in the most powerful position in government to even contemplate attempting that kind of change.

You are right. But this whole stunt by Trump really goes to the fact of, no matter what a guy is running on, no matter how crazy he comes off, if he has enough dollars to bring to the table he can get his run. IF HE BRINGS ENOUGH DOLLARS.

Money, not politics or even having a sane political view, is the barrier to the election process. Maybe not by law but certainly by practice. Ergo money == power.
 
  • #33
krater said:
You are right. But this whole stunt by Trump really goes to the fact of, no matter what a guy is running on, no matter how crazy he comes off, if he has enough dollars to bring to the table he can get his run. IF HE BRINGS ENOUGH DOLLARS.
No. Bernie gets a run. That pretty much disproves your idea.
 
  • #34
zoobyshoe said:
No. Bernie gets a run. That pretty much disproves your idea.

Bernie has a solid platform. Previous voters. Campaign infrastructure and donors. Something Trump had nothing of. And yet they are still very comparable contenders. Because Trump has effectively unlimited funds at his disposal.
 
  • #35
krater said:
Bernie has a solid platform. Previous voters. Campaign infrastructure and donors. Something Trump had nothing of. And yet they are still very comparable contenders. Because Trump has effectively unlimited funds at his disposal.
Trump is not using his own money to campaign:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/donald-trump-fec-fundraising-214838
He's "using his money" primarily in the sense of a psychological substitute for actual political experience, kind of :"I made all this money, therefore I must be competent to run the country." It has served him in creating a Halo Effect in regard to his governing abilities: good corporate skills = good presidential skills. That's a way to go, but Bernie proves it's certainly not the necessary route.
 
  • #36
Bernie would never garner an equal voice in the race as Trump were Bernie absent his funding base. It's certainly arguable that this is untrue but evidence strongly supports it.

Trump has done very well replacing the substance of his message with funding. Absent the dollars backing him I think you would find very little support for him as a presidential candidate. His wealth and public image (which he continues to prop up through funding) have basically granted him a pulpit from which he could substantively replace his whole message with the slogan "FREE BEER tomorrow! TRUMP '16!" He approaches the political process no differently than a reality TV show (with which he has ample prior experience, also contributed to the wealth and image he's running on) and in spite of a marked failure for his campaign to stand up positively to any real scrutiny he continues to charge forward.

Do you need further proof that in the US electorate process money == power?

Isn't it pretty obvious that Trump is taking a very business-like approach to the campaign that sets him apart from most others? He's more than capable to run as an independent but he chooses a party because it comes with financial backing as well as a ready-made constituancy. He makes broad inflammatory comments because he knows that the free publicity pays off in a way that so far seems to negate any bad press it gets him; opportunity cost is still working in his favor. He appeals to the lowest common denominator because he knows that's a reliable model for maximum effect with minimal investment. I could cite the very article you linked above as a solid proof of how absent his pre-existing wealth and image he would probably have no relavant basis for a political campaign; the only reason he isn't currently going out of pocket is because he formulated himself as a republican candidate. It has nothing to do with any previous track record of politics.
 
  • #37
krater said:
Bernie would never garner an equal voice in the race as Trump were Bernie absent his funding base.
(Sorry, I'm just going to concentrate on this.)

How does a potential candidate get a funding base? POWER! The power to run for president usually comes from years of gathering a history of public support, and private political alliances. The power to run for president precedes the money, because if you can't demonstrate power, no one will give you money. Trump demonstrated his power in an unusual and anomalous way: by already having crap loads of money.

The Nazis started with squat. When Hitler joined the NSDAP, he was member #7. Hitler personally typed announcements of upcoming National Socialist meetings on hundreds of little slips of paper, and passed them out to people on the street: they couldn't even afford to get flyers printed. They slowly accrued power first, and later, having power, they got money.
 
  • #38
Trump isn't as wealthy as he appears, he is a smoke and mirrors wizard. However he is very charismatic and he really hasn't spent a whole lot out of pocket. If he were to magically be worth 90% less (without appearing to actually lose THAT money ie appear a dismal LOSER!), he would still be where he is in this presidential race.
.
It is almost a statistical impossibility for a third party candidate to win a general US presidential election! John Anderson (1980) and Ross Perot (1992)were the two most viable candidates. Neither of them could actually win though as nearly, if not ALL of the ballots in the general election allow for straight party voting. And surprisingly, a lot of Americans vote the party, enough so that no third party candidate can get THAT vote.
.
Donald's flamboyant showmanship and counter establishment behavior is what makes him so popular. I just don't think that his ardent supporters realize what they're actually buying, they just don't want the same old crap we've been getting. Sadly, I am probably going for the Devil I know vs the Devil I don't. :nb) ie Kind of like on "Let's Make a Deal" where I got a goat (Hillary), and I hear a pig squealing behind Monte's option to take Curtain #3.?:)
.
Maybe it's the stereo system of a Mercedes?:woot:
 
Last edited:
  • #39
CalcNerd said:
.
It is almost a statistical impossibility for a third party candidate to win a general US presidential election!

Abraham Lincoln was more or less a third-party candidate. There were four parties in that election. The Republican party was only about 6 years old.

In 1824 Henry Clay almost became President with 13% of the electoral college vote. The rules haven't changed, so that could still happen today. Congress might not brave the ensuing outrage, but you never know.

The UK's electoral system is similar to ours, but there are three parties.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
CalcNerd said:
Sadly, I am probably going for the Devil I know vs the Devil I don't. :nb) ie Kind of like on "Let's Make a Deal" where I got a goat (Hillary), and I hear a pig squealing behind Monte's option to take Curtain #3.?:)
.

Kang vs. Kodos.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CalcNerd
  • #42
Maylis said:
...You can come up with parallels between anyone and Hitler if you look.
In 2008 see the "transformation of america", "stop the rise of the oceans" rhetoric. Also children similarly idolizing the president in song.
 
  • #43
mheslep said:
Yes he is now, about 2/3 at this point. He funds his campaigns mostly via personal loans, but he can't recoup 2/3.

Looks like you're right. He has started self-funding in this quarter:
While the billionaire candidate often boasts about self-funding, in the previous quarter, small donors actually provided more money to the campaign than he did. The new data shows Trump is willing to invest more of his own wealth, even as he succeeds in the polls.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ending-campaign-even-polls-go-his-way-n508311
 
  • #44
mheslep said:
In 2008 see the "transformation of america", "stop the rise of the oceans" rhetoric. Also children similarly idolizing the president in song.

But, the problem with saying "you can compare anyone to Hitler," is that you're implying it is never an apt comparison, which is false. If I say, "Like Hitler, Hamen wanted to exterminate all the Jews in Persia," or, "Like Hitler, Idi Amin was rabidly anti-semetic," I am not making irrelevant comparisons.

If a person says,"Jews are greedy and will screw you over in every negotiation." And another person responds, "Cracks like that are how Hitler got started," the second person is not making an irrelevant comparison.

BUT:

If a person says, "I love my dog!," and a second person says, "Hey, Hitler loved his dog. Are you some kind of Nazi?" that second person is making an irrelevant comparison to Hitler, an authentic Reducio ad Hitleram.
 

Similar threads

ECONOMICS: It's stupid to be afraid (Lee Kuan Yew to Der Spiegel)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K