SuaveSocialist said:
Leadified said:
Bush Jr. and McCain* were hardly fringe, especially the former who defeated both Al Gore and John Kerry. Trump and Palin can be considered fringe, especially Trump, due to appealing to fringe groups in the Republican Party (the alt-right and paleoconservatives) and even being in conflict with the rest of the mainstream party. The Republicans currently control the Congress and Senate, and will probably to continue to control at least one of them after the election, not to mention that most governors are Republican. The Republican Party is a long ways from being a fringe party.
I'm no fan of Trump but to suggest he's a fascist is ridiculous, something that even Trump's critics have conceded, and not a proper synonym for authoritarian.
|
I call Drumpf a Fascist because his "policies", methodology and rhetoric are consistent with fascism. Authoritarians are on both sides of the Political Spectrum; Fascists only on the Far Right.
The "Party of Lincoln and Reagan" has a future...the Party of Nixon and Palin does not. That's why Republicans are in the midst of the Great Pants-Crapping of 2016, anyways; their hold on the House and Senate has been considerably weakened by Drumpf and those who support him.
The GOP will need to worry about bigger issues than banning dildos or worrying about who uses which bathroom if they want to halt their steady march into political obscurity.
|
No, I'm afraid you are mistaken. Trump's policies, methodology and rhetoric make him a populist first, nativist second and conservative? third. I can see why one may draw parallels between nativism and fascism, there are some similarities mainly in terms of nationalism and economics but overall they're different ideologies. Nativism in itself has roots in American politics all the way back to the late 1700s with connections back even earlier to colonization of the Thirteen Colonies.
Fascism is rather complex, it's much more than just far right authoritarianism. I mean it's debatable on where fascism actually falls due to it's influences coming from all sides of the political spectrum along with the Italian Fascist Party having members from both the left and right. It had the advantage of being fairly malleable so it could stick on to monarchies and former liberal republics. I'm getting kind of off topic but until Trump decides to march down to DC with his Trump shirts and declare a one party state based on his Trumpism in opposition to both liberalism and socialism, he's not a fascist.
That is not to defend Trump, afterall there were plenty of non-fascists in the past who have done tremendous amount of damage, but simply a request to call him for what he really is and not fall for buzz-words like "fascist" which at best is ignorance and at worst is propaganda. The irony about this is that the most dangerous thing Trump has said, which is his comments about nuclear weapons has nothing to do whether or not he's a fascist.
It's difficult to say where the future of the Republican Party is, I have to agree that their focus on petty social issues is not going to get them anywhere especially since the Democratic Party is riding high on victories such as the legalization of same-sex marriage. Their future will be decided depending on how this election goes, if the election is close then the Republicans may turn more towards Trumpism, if he loses in a landslide then they'll be back to the drawing board.
