A Reminder About Hitler Comparisons
And, more broadly, about the normalization of Trump
In light of both James Joyner’s post this morning and some rhetoric in the comment thread along the lines of “how’s literally Hitler” working out? Let me emphasize something that I wrote not that long ago and to also lay down some markers.
For the record, I personally have never said Trump=Hitler. What I did, in some detail, was show the disturbing (in my view) similarities between the rhetoric and politicking of the two men. I did, however, state that his approach to politics is clearly fascistic.
Let me note the following, from the first post linked above:
While it is true that Hitler was a fascist, not all fascists are Hitler. Neither Franco nor Mussolini had clean hands, but neither of these fascist leaders were are awful as Adolph Hitler. I note this not to exonerate anyone’s crimes, but to acknowledge the truly grave category of Hitler’s.
Further, when it comes to Hitler comparisons, there is a difference between comparing Hitler at the end of his life, with all the commensurate horrors that that life entailed, and Hitler the burgeoning politician who led the Beer Hall Putsch and who went on to write Mein Kampf.
So, sure, if the comparison is about the scale of mass murder, then no one is Hitler until they kill millions. I mean, I get the rhetorical game, which is why Hitler comparisons go off the rails or are used to mock. Hitler=genocide, so I understand why it is hyperbole to say, which no one around here anyway has, that Trump is literally Hitler. But there is no denying that Trump has engaged, more than any politician since the segregationist era, in using race/ethnicity/nationality-based us vs. them rhetoric, to include threats of force and violence against “them” to solve problems ascribed to “them.”
In all of these conversations, it is amazing to me that the topic of Trump’s behavior in and around January 6th gets ignored. He whipped up the crowd. He sicced them on his own Vice President. He watched TV for hours doing nothing when he could have helped stop the attack. He eventually told the crowd that he understood them and loved them. He recently called that day a “day of love.” And that is all in addition to the various attempts at subversion of the election via the courts, weird schemes, and even calling up the state of Georgia to demand more votes be found.
These are not the actions of a democrat. Moreover, the above paragraph describes actions when he was last in power. In other words, we are not dealing with hypotheticals. He tried to overturn an election in more than one way.
Regardless of whether he pulls it off or not, he is constantly threatening mass deportations and the use of the military on US soil to accomplish it. He threatens purges of bureaucracies. He talks about using DoJ against political and media enemies. If the neighbor constantly carried on about how they were going to rape your wife, you wouldn’t say, “Well, he never really follows through with things, so let’s not get all upset!”
He could have been held to account by the Senate. He wasn’t.
He could have been held account by the courts. He wasn’t.
The Supreme Court handed him a broadened definition of presidential immunity.
Remember, this is the guy who said, “I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” Given the immunity ruling, Trump’s own self-perception, and the people he will surround himself with, there are reasons to be very, very concerned about what he will do in this term–especially in the first two years when he controls Congress and all the member of the House and a chunk of the Senate will be worried about mid-term primaries.
The tests of his authoritarian sway (if “fascist” still seems a bridge too far for some reason): he has made four utterly abhorrent nominations: Pete Hegseth for SecDef, Matt Gaetz for AG, RFK, Jr. for HHS, and Tulsi Gabbard for DNI. Just outside that frightful four is Kristi Noem for DHS. While there have been some objections to these, they are hardly as vociferous as would be the case under normal conditions.
For example, here is the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson speaking to Fox News Sunday:
“Look, Matt Gaetz is a colleague of mine. We’ve been serving together for more than eight years,” Johnson said. “He’s one of the brightest minds in Washington or anywhere for that matter, and he knows everything about how the Department of Justice has been weaponized and misused.”
“And he will be a reformer. And I think that’s why the establishment in Washington is so shaken up about this pick,” Johnson said.
Keep in mind that Gaetz’s legal career was only a few years long, and consisted of things like working with HOAs. He is credibly accused of having sex with a 17-year-old and of using illegal drugs as part of a broad pattern of behavior. This is not the profile of someone who should even be semi-considered for Attorney General of the United States. Moreover, Johnson certainly knows the basics of the ethics investigation that was halted because of Gaetz’s resignation. And yet, he describes him on national television in glowing terms to an audience primed to believe a false image of Trump and to ignore the true horrors of it all.
At a minimum, Johnson is playing along out of partisan fealty to Trump and in acquiescence to Trump’s power. Sure, he may be hoping the Senate does its job, but he is helping solidify and, dare I say, normalize Trump’s behavior.
So here’s a marker: how many of these people make it through? None of the four I listed are qualified save in the sense that there are no constitutional requirements for the offices in question. While I think that Gaetz will prove a bridge too far, I am not convinced that Trump can’t whip up 50 votes plus VP Vance to get him through.
Let’s put it this way.
Under normal conditions, someone who gleefully admitted to putting down a puppy personally, would not have been nominated for a cabinet position, let alone someone whose resume does not match the office. And yet, Noem.
Under normal conditions, a TV commentator with White Nationalist tattoos, a questionable personal life that includes multiple martial infidelities and a sexual misconduct allegation would not be nominated for SecDef. And yet, Hegseth.
Under normal conditions, an anti-vaxxer with a string of bizarre personal stories to include, but not limited to a brain worm, dumping a dead bear cub in Central Park after realizing he didn’t have time to take it home so he could eat it later, and sawing the head off a whale and strapping it to his van, would not be nominated for HHS. And yet, RFK, Jr.
Under normal conditions a person who zero experience with intelligence, and who has repeatedly said questionable things about US adversities like Putin and Assad would not be nominated to be the DNI. And yet, Gabbard.
I am no expert on security clearances, but there is no way Hegseth, Gaetz, and Gabbard could get one, yet consider how much they would be allowed to know in those jobs.
The very fact of these nominations speaks poorly of Trump and his seriousness about governing. That members of the Republican Party feel the need to say nice things about any of these people and to talk about fair hearings instead of saying that, in fact, the Emperor has no clothes, is deeply concerning.
There is a non-zero chance that any one, or even all, of these people, could be confirmed. I have a very hard time seeing the Senate GOP denying him more than one or maybe two (Gaetz is the most likely sacrificial lamb, with Gabbard or Hegseth as the other, but I doubt all three).
These nominations are loyalty tests and demands that the party bend the knee.
So, not Hitlerian, per se, but clearly authoritarian. But the mass deportation thing is, just as a reminder, Hiterlian.
I would note again, that some of the elements of fascism on display here include propaganda, unreality, and anti-intellectualism
As a general matter, the common thread through all the appointment is loyalty to Trump, not expertise, not governance. I also think that when if comes to things like DHS, Defense, and DoJ he wants people who won’t stand in his way for whatever he wants to do.
And while I do not think that the recess appointment scheme is deployed, if it is, that will be crossing into a new, very bad, stage of American politics.
None of this addresses the power of people like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, who at least rhetorically sound pretty damn fascistic to me.
Then there is the whole Warrior Board proposal. Via Military.com: ‘It Could Be Very Hard to Do Our Job’: Top Military Officers Brace for Trump’s Potential Loyalty Review Boards.
On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported on a draft executive order that is under consideration by the Trump transition team that would establish a so-called “warrior board,” to review top generals over whether they should continue service or not, and whether they lack certain leadership qualities.
The proposal mirrors calls from conservative think tanks, lawmakers and Trump to weed out what they call “woke” generals — broadly defined as officials who have promoted diversity in the ranks or supported taking vaccinations.
I would note that a main pillar of Hegseth’s schtick is based on being “anti-woke.”
I will add the following headline from NPR for those who need a reminder: ‘I need the kind of generals that Hitler had’: The reporting behind Trump’s comment. Loyalty uber alles, dontcha know. And loyalty to Trump, not the Constitution.
And just to add a cherry on the Sunday, there was this: Trump Confirms Plans to Use the Military to Assist in Mass Deportations.
President-elect Donald J. Trump confirmed on Monday that he intended to declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military in some form to assist in his plans for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.
On his social media platform, Truth Social, Mr. Trump responded overnight to a post made earlier this month by Tom Fitton, who runs the conservative group Judicial Watch, and who wrote that Mr. Trump’s administration would “declare a national emergency and will use military assets” to address illegal immigration “through a mass deportation program.”
At around 4 a.m., Mr. Trump reposted Mr. Fitton’s post with the comment, “TRUE!!!”
I would submit: a compliant Noem, who thought that her story of animal cruelty would ingratiate herself to Trump, isn’t going to stand in the way of this. Hegseth won’t. Gaetz won’t. And people like Miller and Homan will be happy to proceed. As such, I don’t buy the argument that the incompetence will save us. My fear is that the goal is incompetent compliance at the Secretary level and then operatives like Miller can do what they want.
Maybe none of this comes to pass, which will be a relief. But every indication is that some form of deportation is coming, as is Trump’s destruction of DoJ’s independence and his politicization of the DoD. I haven’t even gotten into the damage he is going to do to US foreign policy long-term. See Daniel Dresser for that, The End of American Exceptionalism.
So, is he literally Hitler? No.
Are his politics authoritarian, if not fascistic? Yes.
Is he actively trying to tear down competent government and replace it with unqualified lackeys? Absolutely.
Should people like Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski go make nice with him? Absolutely not.
And so, I have less confidence than my dear friend and co-blogger about treating Trump as described in his post.
In that case, it seems to me, one in fact normalizes him in the sense of treating him as though he were indeed the President and then holding him to the standards of a normal President.
When he nominates reasonably qualified people to key posts, it seems perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that. In so doing, it makes calling out obviously-unqualified nominees more impactful.
When he proposes perfectly normal policy ideas one happens to disagree with, disagree with them as though they were a normal policy idea proposed by the leader of a legitimate opposition party. And when he opposes policy ideas that violate the Constitution or basic norms of human decency, label them accordingly.
For me, I am simply relieved when he nominated reasonably qualified people, but think that the overall grade has to factor in the grossly unqualified. I can certainly acknowledge that Rubio to State is a different universe than Hegseth to Defense. But Hegseth plus the others named above clearly demonstrate that he is looking to govern in a way that is more reflective of the Hegseths than the Rubios. It also occurs to me that he, as president, can ignore his Secretary of State pretty easily insofar as to do the kinds of things he wants done in foreign policy that are directly in the President’s control.
But I do not think he deserves any benefit of the doubt or that he deserves a wait-and-see, judge-each-move-on-its-own-merits kind of approach. Sure, I can easily assess the difference between a Rubio pick and a Hegseth pick. However, the grading should not be solely case-by-case in isolation. Because picks like Hegseth, Gabbard, Gaetz, et al. mean more, in the broader context than Rubio or some of the other more standard picks.
A case-by-case approach still treats him as a normal president. He isn’t.
His behavior in office was not normal.
The way he handled the 2020 election (and has continued to do so) should be seen as disqualifying.
His selection of the persons noted above for positions of power underscores this fact.
And, to be clear, I am not saying James disagrees with me on most of this, but temperamentally I think he is more willing to try the case-by-case approach while at this point in this saga, I think a holistical assessment is the way to go.
Again, I will be relieved if I am wrong. I still hold out hope that Senate Republicans will stand up to the nonsense and the mid-terms will come and help stop Trump from doing damage.
But I realistically have to say that he has been demonstrably awful in key ways and that there has always been the hope that the “normals” will stop him or that, this time, he has finally gone too far.
And yet, here we are.
If none of these kooky picks are confirmed, I will both feel better, and critics can tell me I was overreacting (predicated, of course, as to who he still manages to get in there). But for each one who is confirmed, the more it will be confirmed that he will face very little opposition from his party, and that is the real issue on the table right now.
And no one should be going to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring unless they are cool with being complicit in it all.
Fundamentally, we agree. Trump is not a de novo politician. Aside from the horrible things he said during the campaign, he was already President for four years and tried to steal an election through violence. That radically changes the lens through which I’ll assess his second term. He deserves no benefit of the doubt.
I think my approach is similar to John Fetterman‘s:
So, keep your powder dry but also stock up on (figurative) ammunition.
You don’t need to reach across the Atlantic for examples of fascism and dictatorship. We’ve had some homegrown thugs right here in America we can compare Trump to, all deeply committed to white supremacy, antisemitism, communism and America First. They loved Mussolini and Hitler.
There’s Virgil Effinger, founder of a real American fascist party ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Effinger ), Father Charles Coughlin ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin ) who had one of the most powerful radio programs during the 1930s and who managed to be against both communism and capitalism, which I think we can agree takes some special athletic ability to pull off, and Huey Long, the man who scared a lot of people before he was stopped by an assassin’s bullet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long ).
We got plenty of home talent without reaching for comparisons to Hitler.
Very well-written essay. I’m in total agreement, and really, it all seems obvious to anyone that has been paying a bit of attention. The sanewashing, the normalizing, the incremental frog-boiling has gotten us to this dangerous point and I am expecting it to be a very ugly period in our country’s history. (Thanks, America. You just had to not vote for him.)
Let’s lower the bar a little (ie a lot):
Assuming high grocery prices and high rents and scarce housing were the major drivers in Harris’ defeat, or even a major driver, then when most of these don’t come down*, the Democrats ought to score a major victory in the 2026 midterms.
Will this be allowed?
On the plus side, US elections are highly local, thus very hard for a central authority to meddle with. On the downside, if the felon lets the army lose and confiscates ballots at polling site, who’d going to stop him?
*I figure gas en eggs will come down, as those are high in part due to supply issues and oil is a commodity with volatile pricing. The rest won’t, absent price controls and subsidies.
Steven,
First, the comments below aren’t aimed at you, they are general points tagging off this post.
IMO, the fascist and Hitler comparisons have been so overused that they’re essentially meaningless. The fact that Trump got elected with bigger margins among almost every demographic despite all the talk of fascism proves the point that the label isn’t as powerful or meaningful as people would like. What, exactly, is continuing along that line of rhetoric going to accomplish?
And I won’t rehash the huge disparity in arguing for a label vs. acting like the label is true and accurate, which I’ve made in the other thread.
Secondly – Operationally, it doesn’t matter whether anyone’s definition of fascist fits Trump or not. Unless one is willing to use extra-legal means to oppose Trump-as-fascist, we are all back to utilizing the small-d democratic institutions and means we have available. Too much time, IMO is spent trying to prove a rhetorical and subjective judgment about what box to fit Trump into compared to focusing on what he does and says and taking concrete actions based on that. The various attempts to convince or bully people like me into accepting the fascist/Hitler label do nothing to stop or meaningfully oppose what Trump is actually doing, what he says he wants to do, and what he will try to do.
I don’t think Trump is a fascist, and yet, somehow, I agree with almost everyone here that Trump is bad, most of his nominations are terrible, and that is policies, as we understand them, are bad and should be opposed. But there continue to be people in the comments here (and around the internet generally) who cannot seem to accept that kind of agreement on general principles and goals and seem much more concerned that someone on the internet is wrong.
Edited to add: And yeah, James’ Fetterman quote hits it exactly. Fetterman isn’t wasting his time on definition enforcement or freaking out over every potential worst-case scenario.
@Kathy:
“I figure gas en eggs will come down, as those are high in part due to supply issues and oil is a commodity with volatile pricing.”
I think that Trump is sufficiently in Saudi Arabia’s pocket that it would be willing to increase supply to drive down prices in order to help Trump stay afloat. And if gas prices drop sufficiently, that would reduce the cost of transportation, which would help keep the cost of many other goods down as well.
I’m on west coast time, so by the time I write a post, it is been superseded by new posts. The following is a post I made in response to Dr. Joyner’s earlier post.
@DK:
And this is the real issue, in my view.
For years many Americans, including Trump supporters, have assumed that our Constitution and governing norms would prevent conversion of our democracy to a fascist–or other–autocratic state. And for Trump supporters, they think they can have their cake (immigration control, Christian influence in schools, control of open expression of internal gender and sexual preferences, etc.) and eat it too (reliance upon election of leaders, one of the least corrupt national governments in the world, freedom from fear that your could be reported by your neighbors for your opinion, etc.)
In this forum, and in the press, I have heard reference to “the next election,” as though it is still a given then we will have free and open elections in the future.
My fear is that we are experiencing a paradigm shift and few people realize it. Not just Trump, but also the cabal around him, are attempting to execute a decapitation strike to assume control of the military and the tools necessary to gain control of the economy to serve their purposes.
Many of us in the days ahead will be asking how a decision might compromise our integrity but also ensure our comfort and, perhaps, survival. Joe and Mika made a very public decision, and it is impossible at this point to divine their true intentions. Military, law enforcement, elected leaders, religious leaders, and each and every citizen will be asked to make similar decisions.
I have grieved so much since Trump was elected over the changes in country. At first it was the loss of shared American identity. But now it’s grief that Americans don’t appreciate their country’s history and that–despite its flaws–made continual progress in keeping them safe from the worst cruelties of life.
@James Joyner:
I agree with Fetterman. However, part of the Fetterman Problem here is that Trump dominates the headlines in every media format, every day.
So, I have a modified off-the-grid Fetterman Plan.
Normally, I read the NYT everyday. These days I scan the articles’ headers/titles, maybe 1st and last paragraphs, I then know what I will not be reading, and I find myself NOT reading almost any article about Trump and his pre-inaugural manuevers. The same goes for the digital platforms: I will not read most of the opinion pieces about Trump’s transition planning, or about the carnage he is planning to inflict. Even so, I’m not completely isolated from ‘Trump News.’ But it helps to limit daily intake of Trumpian dystopia.
Also, if there is some genuine good news – e.g. Matt Gaetz, Kristi Noem, Pete Hegseth, Steve Bannon, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk all eaten by gators while celebrating at Mar a Lago – I’m going to hear about it, and I will again go back to reading most articles about the impending Sh*t Show again.
@Skookum:
I agree with your post, and I just wanted to comment that I don’t even think it’s as deep as you write above. I think the majority of Americans are either too busy/ignorant/uninformed to even give the idea any thought, or think that sort of thing just happens in other, less-exceptional places. Stuff from the history books in school that happened before we were alive, so it may as well have been 10,000 years ago or fictional for that matter. America in our lifetimes is just how it was and will always be. Nothing could possibly change that. So frustrating.
I disagree with so many assertions about Trump. He’s not my cup of tea, and I could make laundry lists about the LBJ’s, Clintons and Obama’s of the world. But reactions to Trump have been, in my opinion, simply hysterical for years. But let’s give it a rest, eh?
Fetterman has turned out to be a wise person:
“If you’re already exhausted, freaking out, and it’s not even Thanksgiving, then you really ought to pace yourselves. Because he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet. So you really have to chill out, and you’re going to have to be more discerning or discriminate on what’s going to freak you out or what’s just trolling. Because it’s not the weather, it’s the climate now for the next four years.”
If you all could cut me some slack for the moment, I’d like to just give you an example of the lawfare injustice that has been used against Trump – purely political.
Trump cites a value for NY properties; asks Deutch Bank for a loan. He is aggressive in valuation, as all borrowers are.
Deutch Bank is one of the most sophisticated lenders in the world. They know how to appraise property. They know how to underwrite loans. They know how to say “no, we will only lend you X.”
Trump gets loan, pays it off; Deutch Bank wants to do more business.
Political hatchet job on Trump. “You scoundrel! You overvalued your property!!
Let me personalize this. Although I generally pay cash for homes, people do mortgages all the time.
You contract to pay $1MM for a home.
You apply for a $800K loan.
After underwriting process, the bank says, OK, $800K. Standard 80% loan to value. You make payments monthly, as scheduled.
Later, the local officials bring charges against you: “you crook, the home is only worth $800K.” We are charging you with fraud and will fine you $5MM.
That’s basically what happened. Lawfare. Pure and simple. It has no place in our system, and should be criticized as such.
@Andy: what behavior would be required for you to label someone a fascist? Sadly, I suppose I need to note that this is a genuine question. You seem to be threading a needle and I’m honestly curious where the boundary lies for you.
@Kathy:
Bird flu has reared its ugly head again. Watch out for eggs.
@Andy:
Or, alternatively, that fascism is currently rather popular in the US. It is, after all, what The People voted for…
@DrDaveT:
As I pointed out in my first post above, fascism has a domestic American tradition – it’s not necessary to reach out for Hitler analogies. So my question is: is Trump a logical descendent of Huey Long and Charles Coughlin and other authoritarians?
@Erik:
An excellent and fair question.
The core for me is the expansion and centralization of state power under an authoritarian regime. This would also entail the regular use of political violence to achieve that end. These two aspects are also extremely common and necessary elements for standard authoritarian leaders who aren’t considered fascists.
I do not think either of these pertain to Trump.
In the first case, Trump has not demonstrated the ability or desire to centralize the power of the state. Here in the US that would require the end of federalism or at least work in that direction, and the transfer of authority to the federal government. As annoying as our federal system is to many people, it makes actual fascism extremely difficult to pull off. Trump hasn’t even tried, even when he had a golden opportunity with the Covid crisis. Most fascists and authoritarians have to create a crisis to justify seizing and keeping control of the government. Trump was handed a crisis and did nothing. He’s promoted this dumb DOGE idea, which is the opposite of what a fascist would do, as it would weaken the federal government.
Instead, Trump believes he can simply appoint loyalists in the most senior positions, which is foolish if one is serious about fascism. Meanwhile, he also wants to reduce the authority of the federal government, which would effectively make it more difficult, not less, to be a fascist. I’m not aware of any fascist or authoritarian who toyed with cutting the very things that could be tools to cement power and loyalty.
I could go on, but I hope the point is clear.
Secondly, on the regular use of political violence, Trump has no paramilitary, military, or auxiliary organization that is a necessary element for fascists and standard run-of-the-mill authoritarians to employ. Such organizations are loyal to a fascist or authoritarian movement and act as an extralegal force that supplements or bypasses traditional state institutions, which might resist or be unreliable in carrying out authoritarian aims.
Examples include: The Blackshirts, the Brownshirts (and SA and SS), the Colectivos, the various “republican” and “revolutionary” guards, Latin American deaths squads, etc.
I’m sure someone will point at the Proud Boys, but they are not a Trump-controlled paramilitary or are even a paramilitary force at all. In any event, they are minuscule and irrelevant for the purposes paramilitaries are used for.
Neither is Trump a general who can use loyal military units in place of paramilitaries to fill this role – another common way for fascists and authoritarians to gain power from the inside. Indeed, Trump has not base of support inside the government, which is why we wants to appoint loyalists.
There is no fascist regime I’m aware of that hasn’t displayed these two aspects, and most merely authoritarian regimes have the same features. Trump does not.
I think the biggest potential is for Trump to become more like Erdogan in Turkey, but Turkey is a much different society and government than the US, and Trump’s narcissism makes him far less disciplined than Erogan. Opinions vary, but I don’t think most consider Erogan to be a fascist.
There are more things I could list, but those are the biggest two.
If you’re already exhausted, freaking out, and it’s not even Thanksgiving, then you really ought to pace yourselves. Because he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet. So you really have to chill out, and you’re going to have to be more discerning or discriminate on what’s going to freak you out or what’s just trolling.
There’s just something very funny about telling ordinary citizens not to be trolled by the incoming President. Like, he’s a Senator and he’s yelling at his constituents about being trolled by Trump. All of this talk about how men are struggling and you get these unfuckable Rogan/Reddit weirdos who learned how to talk to people by watching dad insult mom and then yell at the kids for taking her tears too seriously.
Equally funny is most people are not freaking out. Four years ago a pathetic imbecile like Jack was busy getting ready to cheer on storming the Capitol and now he’s shows up 24/7 to be shocked at how mean a few people are online re: Trump and Trump supporters. Even trans people (who should be getting ready to do stuff underground, and I count myself happy to help anyone break some Christian pedophile’s version of a law restricting trans care, up to and including fucking up said Christians) are handling it better than a 2024 or 2020 Jack.
@DrDaveT:
This. Your statement reminds me my home state of Georgia has in its record multiple governors who were KKK members while serving. They were white supremacists, party to an antisemitic, xenophobic, anti-black terror organization. It’s a stain on the history of our state.
These fellas having won elections doesn’t mean they didn’t or don’t deserve to be labeled with whatever the opposition called white supremacists back then. It means our state’s former embrace of white supremacist leaders was disgraceful. The Georgians who had the guts to call out their racism — and, yes, they existed — despite election results should be lionized.
Decent people must vociferously decline to throw ethics to the wind because Trump won an election by 1.5%. Doing otherwise is pitiful. The implication a free people should shy from calling a fascist a fascist because of an election result is Orwellian — and how free people end up enslaved.
Trump is fascist, a racist, and a rapist. Patriots will keep saying so with our whole chest — whether or not voters catch up before historians inevitability do.
@Modulo Myself:
“Calm down, guys, we’re giving our nuclear arsenal to an elderly internet troll. Relax.”
That this now legitimately sounds like reasonable discourse in American politics is highly irregular, cringe, and dystopian. Not normal.
By Any Other name
Trumpeo, Trumpeo wherefore art thou Trumpeo?
Deny thy father’s bent and refuse thy own shame.
Or if thou wilt not, be but less vain.
And I’ll longer remain a Capitalist.
‘Tis more than thy name that is my enemy.
Thou art thyself, thoroughly not a Moral Person.
What is a Moral Person?
It is, nor hand over fist into thy own pocket.
Nor Palmer reference, nor any other part,
Belonging to that man.
You must bear your own name’s shame.
What’s in a name?
That which we call a rogue,
By any other name would smell as schlecht.
@Jack: That’s just an entirely inadequate version of what happened in New York City, and what Trump was found guilty of. The fact that it’s normal practice doesn’t make it right. While he is allowed to be aggressive in valuation, he’s not supposed to lie, and he’s not supposed to assert one value in one place and one value in another at the same time. And other people absolutely are convicted for similar behavior.
And as always, I note that you didn’t address the rape conviction, the January 6th incitement, the serial lying about almost everything, his charitable foundation fraud, and on and on. I can honestly think of almost no redeeming qualities the man has. Again, tell us: what do you think Trump is actually good at? What did he achieve in his prior term? If you had a daughter, would you want her to be involved with someone like him? Is he a terrible judge of character, given the chaos that surrounds him, and the number of people that resigned/quit/were fired/want nothing to do with him, or what, exactly?
Someone in the Mar-a-Lago inner circle made no secret of Trump’s intentions (my emphasis):
Evidence?
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2669951036/
Trump is a megalomaniac convinced he is the greatest president in history, who can do whatever he likes without fear of legal or political consequences once he gets rid of all the trash who obstructed him last time. To paraphrase Groucho, he wouldn’t want to employ anyone the Senate was delighted to confirm. Arguments about whether he resembles Hitler or other fascists are pointless distractions. He’s a unique figure in American history, and it’s difficult to see how anything short of his death will prevent him causing continuing chaos at home and abroad.
@Jack:
Seems like I should be able to write what I want to write, yes?
@Kevin:
Careful, Kevin. Before I went to the principal side, I was a lender in sophisticated transactions. And as a principal, I’m the guy asking for loan proceeds. 35 years. What I described is exactly what happens, all day, every day, in America. You may not want to acknowledge it, but its a fact. Its a constant tension between borrower and lender. And neither side are spring chickens.
Your usage of “liar” exposes you. That tells me you really don’t want to deal with the reality of the process; you are making a politically based charge. Borrowers overstate their enterprise values. Their inventory. Their machinery and equipment. Their receivables. Sophisticated/competent bankers deal with this every day.
You don’t have to believe me. Go read the commentary of serious people who know NY real estate. They were horrified by this situation. You are just a partisan.
Carry on.
@Jack: BTW, none of that has much of anything to do with my post.
@Jack:
And yet, you always defend him.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Dr Taylor
I’m laughing. So now I know you have a sense of humor like mine. I just meant maybe we just agree to disagree on some things and let the tensions lessen. That’s all. I am an in your face type of guy.
You have been patient. Appreciated.
@Andy: thank you for treating my question at such depth and length. You make excellent points that are making me reconsider my position, at least on definitions. Much appreciated
@Steven L. Taylor:
Actually, no I don’t. Most of my reactions are about the absolutely hysterical criticisms.
I think his reaction to Covid was awful. And I’ve said so. I think his first term picks and demeanor were awful. But pre-Covid, it was pretty good times. I dont understand Gaetz, but on balance, his picks are OK. Commerce is beautiful. I understand differences of opinion.
He is a disruptor, and I think that’s why he is hated. Wash DC needs disrupting, IMHO. You may differ.
So you know what I do, I think. Its not keep the status quo. We are change agents. It can be ugly, but necessary. We don’t acquire properties to see them fail. We exist to improve them.
Its not for the faint of heart. Its not internet debate; its real life. And I have employees and their families I am responsible for, and I take that very seriously. Sometimes you can’t be nice. So, I tend to be very direct.
@Steven L. Taylor: “Seems like I should be able to write what I want to write, yes?”
But but but… Jack buys houses with cash… ALL THE TIME!!! He’s a rich and powerful master of the universe with an unparalleld understanding of how finances work… even if he is completely incapable of figuring out how Trump was scamming the system and committing crimes… You must let him tell you what you are allowed to write and not. He’s better than all of us. HE BUYS HOUSES IN CASH!!!!!
@Andy: @Erik:
20th century fascism was oriented around war and anti-communism. Trump’s not going to be a 20th century fascist fighting the ghosts of the Spartacus uprising and Bolshevism, because there’s no actual threat.
To me, if Trump’s a fascist, it’s because he’s psychologically pushing a version of the present as if there were an revolution around the corner that needs to be fought. There isn’t. His followers all sound exactly that insane, by the way. This goes back to that Flight 93 guy who is now working for Trump, Michael Anton. Whatever you thought about Hillary Clinton, she wasn’t a metaphoric hijacker who was going to crash a plane into a building.
It’s the psychopathic fixation on death, destruction, and civilization when applied to random stuff like page 4 of a college syllabus or the five trans people who play women’s sports at a decent level or the idea we have an open border destroying America which makes Trump a fascist.
@Jack:
No they weren’t. Trump was an outlier in the NY real estate world. He was a mob-like guy from Queens who ended up in a situation with big deals, all of which ended up exploding in his face. The Tisch family isn’t out there with Trump’s reputation for ripping people off. Anyone who had any relationship with Trump knew that every number and promise was an abject fiction.
Also, it’s spelled Deutsche Bank. Like, being able to spell is privilege, I guess. But it shows that a guy like you, rich or not, deals or not, has no contact with the kind of people who are actually sophisticated.
@Andy:
So are we talking about a matter of degree here? At what point could Trump be considered a fascist, or even fascist-like?
Because clearly his thinking is “evolving” (devolving); this is not a static situation. Trump’s vision is not static; his thirst for power is expansive.
Sure, this assignment of a label is relative to the beholder. Some knowledgeable people have already applied the label of “fascism” to Trump’s vision quest. Some people might not ever go that far even if body counts start appearing on our radar.
Let’s revisit this conversation in about 2 to 4 years.
@Modulo Myself:
Actually, the “anti-communist” shtick has been one of MAGA’s memes in heavy rotation. You and I know that communism is now just so much “vaporware,” but they’re using it to to demonize Social Security, Medicare, etc. Objects of their “libertarian(ish)” scorn.
So maybe what is unfolding isn’t 20th Century fascism. Maybe our definition needs to evolve with the times. But one thing’s for certain, fascists have traditionally been very good at creating scapegoats and whipping up mass frenzy over them.
@Jack: Trump wasn’t found guilty about lying about valuations. He used material falsehoods in his loan document like, for example, saying his residence at Trump Tower had triple the square footage he actually did.
He didn’t say “I think my 10,000 sq ft is worth $1 million” – he said it’s worth a million because it was 30,000 square feet even though it was 10,000. This, among MANY OTHER STATEMENTS is where the fraud came from.
Disagreeing over value and making material misstatements of fact are two different things! Why don’t you actually learn facts of the matter before spouting off your takes?
@Jack:
“Lawfare.” From the Trump-o-ganda meme machine to your fingertips. You’ve minimized Trump’s legal transgressions to comport to your own personal real estate experience filters bypassing, well, things legal.
You want to talk “lawfare?” The mere dismissal of all of Trump’s illegalities on the basis of his wealth, celebrity, and political ambitions pretty much qualifies as “lawfare.” Especially considering average Joe Schmuck doesn’t get that consideration when breaking laws (plural, lots of plural).
But we both veer off topic if we confine discussion to the real estate transaction that landed Trump in court. The depth and breadth of his deliberate malfeasance in his sworn role as protector of this democratic Republic to the point of destruction of our foundational values, is what really evokes comparison to fascism. Not his one or two real estate deals in which you find resonance. Or, have we forgotten what our parents and grandparents struggled against to give us a more humane society with opportunity for all?
@Andy:
Immaterial. He said he wants to. And he’s taking steps to do so. His SCOTUS is on board.
@Greg B:
Since Jack is obviously ok with those practices, anyone dealing with him must need to be constantly counting their fingers.
There’s a distinct bizarreness to the idea that ‘If you really think Trump is a fascist you have to prove it by arming up and disappearing into the woods’. Most people simply.. do not. Even when under external occupation very few people actually take up arms. After all, for all their talk of how Medicare led to the end of freedom in the US (for a start!), not that many people on the right were shooting up CMS offices.
@Jack:
You keep telling yourself that.
First, the inherent implication of a lot of what you say is defense of Trump, such as your statement about the appointees comparing them to Democratic ones. That is normalizing the picks, and therefore defending Trump.
Second, when you utterly ignore specific things he has said or done cited in a post, but you attack the post, you are defending him by omission.
Third, your overall tone is opposition to the this site, its posts, and its commenters, who are almost all anti-Trump. You are inherently attacking that side, which puts you on the other side, especially when you do nothing to suggest you are on some third side.
The fact that there are some issues you have complaints about doesn’t make you anti-Trump.
@wr: You make a strong case.
@Rob1:
This is at least in part why I used Stanley’s approach, which discusses fascism as a way of doing politics.
@rondo1342: Wow dude, you sure pwned us libtards today. I was so traumatized I peeded my pants.