What I like about about David Volodzko is that he is fair and nuanced. This article is an example of that. Facism, totalitarianism, manipulation, and control are abundant on both sides.
Robert Reisch is not fair or nuanced. He is just another shill for power for the Left. One could certainly go through comments and behaviors of most politicians on both sides to find enough to indict them on Fascist qualities. Granted that Trump's undisciplined bombastic persona makes it easy for them to scream.
I agree with Vlad the Inhaler's comment except where he blames only Trump for the idiotic effect he has had on politics. I believe that this is mostly the Democrats' fault. If they had only let him just be President, as the opposition historically has done. Realistically, he didn't have that much power because he had little support from his own side in Congress and no support from the Democrats. The amount of sheer power plays and hysteria created by the Democrats has created a living hell for us political addicts! And the amount of hate and neuroses created is literally hurting people and the country.
"I would argue that China is fascist but Trump is not." Thanks again, David, for your nuanced analysis.
One of the things I find so frustrating about the "Is Trump a fascist" discourse is that the answer is so obvious: no, of course Trump isn't a fascist, because in order to be a fascist he'd need to have SOME sort of ideology or political philosophy, and he palpably does not. Trump is a narcissist; he seeks political power solely for the attention and affirmation. He's a gifted enough politician to have realized--I think intuitively rather than consciously--that the easiest way for him to earn that affirmation from the public is to position himself as responding to, and righting, several of the sorts of populist discontents that traditionally DO get used by fascists. But just because he's using fascist political tricks doesn't mean that he, himself, is one.
This is by no means meant as a defense of the man, by the way; I can't stand him as a person or a politician, and I loathe the truly idiotic effect he's had on American politics for the last decade or so. One of those effects has been on the fascism discourse: while America has always had people willing accuse anyone to the right of FDR of "fascism," the current discourse tends to treat that kind of accusation as much more interesting and meaningful than it actually is.
The flexibility of his ideology is based almost entirely on what he thinks the public wants to hear and if you watch old videos of his rallies you can see him throwing comments out to gauge the response and if he gets a poor one, you never hear that comment again, and if he gets a good response you hear him say the same thing 10 times at the following rally. It's echo-chamber populism and it works remarkably well at building a devoted base that loves to hear their own opinions reflected back at them by a famous politician. But it's not leadership.
Sure... but as if Obama, Bush Jr., or Clinton reflected or upheld anything resembling leadership. Trump gets this shower of vitriol for his bombast and lack of character, but if you believe Tucker Carlson (and I do), Obama was smoking crack while shagging men, Bush stone cold lied resulting in the deaths of millions and Clinton's indiscretions are largely unspeakable. "Idiotic effect on American politics." Ha. Right. Ya.
Nov 16, 2023·edited Nov 16, 2023Liked by David Josef Volodzko
For very good reasons, Fascism has been considered a greater threat than Communism in the last 70 years. I say, 'for very good reason' because the horrors of fascism are beyond the pale, eclipsing even those of communism (at least on an emotional level). But those 'very good reasons' end there.
The holocaust has blinded popular perception to far greater dangers from the left, and it is important with the benefit of time and reflection to begin dismantling those perceptions.
A 'racism' based on religion or (well!) Race is really no different than a 'racism' based on economic level. Any political order that requires the creation of devils will soon begin finding them in whatever place that is most convenient for its own sustainment.
Sep 29, 2023·edited Sep 29, 2023Liked by David Josef Volodzko
Robert Reich works backward; from the conclusion he wants he generates a definition unrelated to historic fascism.
David Volodzko, you exhibit finesse, drawing out the nuance. Thank you. Again you have given me much food for thought.
I do wish we could move away from these redefined labels such as fascism, and talk about the authoritarian power games on both sides of the "official" political spectrum (as if other parties do not exist).
What I like about about David Volodzko is that he is fair and nuanced. This article is an example of that. Facism, totalitarianism, manipulation, and control are abundant on both sides.
Robert Reisch is not fair or nuanced. He is just another shill for power for the Left. One could certainly go through comments and behaviors of most politicians on both sides to find enough to indict them on Fascist qualities. Granted that Trump's undisciplined bombastic persona makes it easy for them to scream.
I agree with Vlad the Inhaler's comment except where he blames only Trump for the idiotic effect he has had on politics. I believe that this is mostly the Democrats' fault. If they had only let him just be President, as the opposition historically has done. Realistically, he didn't have that much power because he had little support from his own side in Congress and no support from the Democrats. The amount of sheer power plays and hysteria created by the Democrats has created a living hell for us political addicts! And the amount of hate and neuroses created is literally hurting people and the country.
"I would argue that China is fascist but Trump is not." Thanks again, David, for your nuanced analysis.
One of the things I find so frustrating about the "Is Trump a fascist" discourse is that the answer is so obvious: no, of course Trump isn't a fascist, because in order to be a fascist he'd need to have SOME sort of ideology or political philosophy, and he palpably does not. Trump is a narcissist; he seeks political power solely for the attention and affirmation. He's a gifted enough politician to have realized--I think intuitively rather than consciously--that the easiest way for him to earn that affirmation from the public is to position himself as responding to, and righting, several of the sorts of populist discontents that traditionally DO get used by fascists. But just because he's using fascist political tricks doesn't mean that he, himself, is one.
This is by no means meant as a defense of the man, by the way; I can't stand him as a person or a politician, and I loathe the truly idiotic effect he's had on American politics for the last decade or so. One of those effects has been on the fascism discourse: while America has always had people willing accuse anyone to the right of FDR of "fascism," the current discourse tends to treat that kind of accusation as much more interesting and meaningful than it actually is.
The flexibility of his ideology is based almost entirely on what he thinks the public wants to hear and if you watch old videos of his rallies you can see him throwing comments out to gauge the response and if he gets a poor one, you never hear that comment again, and if he gets a good response you hear him say the same thing 10 times at the following rally. It's echo-chamber populism and it works remarkably well at building a devoted base that loves to hear their own opinions reflected back at them by a famous politician. But it's not leadership.
Sure... but as if Obama, Bush Jr., or Clinton reflected or upheld anything resembling leadership. Trump gets this shower of vitriol for his bombast and lack of character, but if you believe Tucker Carlson (and I do), Obama was smoking crack while shagging men, Bush stone cold lied resulting in the deaths of millions and Clinton's indiscretions are largely unspeakable. "Idiotic effect on American politics." Ha. Right. Ya.
For very good reasons, Fascism has been considered a greater threat than Communism in the last 70 years. I say, 'for very good reason' because the horrors of fascism are beyond the pale, eclipsing even those of communism (at least on an emotional level). But those 'very good reasons' end there.
The holocaust has blinded popular perception to far greater dangers from the left, and it is important with the benefit of time and reflection to begin dismantling those perceptions.
A 'racism' based on religion or (well!) Race is really no different than a 'racism' based on economic level. Any political order that requires the creation of devils will soon begin finding them in whatever place that is most convenient for its own sustainment.
Robert Reich works backward; from the conclusion he wants he generates a definition unrelated to historic fascism.
David Volodzko, you exhibit finesse, drawing out the nuance. Thank you. Again you have given me much food for thought.
I do wish we could move away from these redefined labels such as fascism, and talk about the authoritarian power games on both sides of the "official" political spectrum (as if other parties do not exist).