Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fascism from Me, but Not from Thee!
Last week, RealClearPolitics posted an editorial written by a renowned authority ensconced at a prominent Washington think tank. Without question, this organization should be proud to host a thinker whose credentials burst from his resume like tiny explosions of profundity, blinding innocent readers with his brilliance, and numbing them into unquestioned acceptance of whatever words spill from his mouth. Indeed, the breadth, insight, passion, and, above all, balance of this little gem merit citing a few dollops of its wisdom to whet our appetites for more. Consider these measured phrases:
His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger…
[He] himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous…
This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.”…
“National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic…, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical…
In such an environment, every political figure confronts a stark choice: Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over…
In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then?
Okay, enough already. By now you’re on to this little game, where comments are taken out of context, which I freely admit, and a few words have been changed or eliminated. Still, to continue briefly, one might speculate that these paragraphs apply to Obama—an egomaniac possessing “the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military.”
Bernie Sanders might come to mind as well: “His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger…” These characterizations also apply to Hillary Clinton, along with her “bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed… anti-liberal, anti-democratic…, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical…” Game, set, match.
None of the above phrase-speaker connections are true, of course. First, the author in question is Robert Kagan from the Brookings Institution, writing for the Washington Post in an editorial with the introduction: “The Republican Party’s attempt to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic. If only he would mouth the party’s ‘conservative’ principles, all would be well.” The rest of Kagan’s comments are, well, breathtaking, considering the lengths he goes to clang alarm bells about the fascist menace presented by Donald Trump. Good grief, even Stalin gets an honorable mention in his word-fest of recriminations against Trump.
This is not to deny that Donald Trump strikes many, including me, as a loose cannon, but my remarks are not about Trump; they’re about those who talk about Trump; those who can’t help themselves drawing a line from the 20th century’s bevy of political monsters straight to America’s hair-style-challenged presidential contender. In fact, although Trump has indeed made many outlandish statements—no space to catalogue them all here—accusing him of being a Hitler-Mussolini-Stalin-in-waiting is simply preposterous, for several reasons.
First, Trump is not a political animal and I would guess has little, if any, grasp of the historical and political categories usually applied to his many colorful phrases and policy proposals, if that’s what they are. Hitler and Mussolini, by stark contrast, were hugely political in everything they thought, said, and did; indeed, during his Vienna days, Hitler — thoroughly evil and deranged of course, but no dummy — read one serious book per day, preparing himself for the role he wanted to assume as a political leader. Ditto for Mussolini in the political department, a man who, regardless of his strutting and chin projection — sort of reminds me of Obama, by the way — was fluent in four languages and in spite of everything, often knew what he was talking about. Even Stalin found it necessary to inflate his paltry intellectual credibility, since he cavorted with a bunch of genocidal eggheads accustomed to peppering their diatribes with apposite Marxist drivel. And we’re supposed to scoop our hand into this vile political porridge and come up with … Trump?
Not likely. Trump is into himself, of course (Who among the Democratic trio cited above isn’t?) but he is steeped in wealth creation and indignation, which is not a terrible combination. Second, for Trump’s critics, especially those on the political left, to fling aspersions of fascism against the backdrop of President Obama’s egregious constitutional violations and despicable race baiting is absurd beyond belief. Such intellectual dyslexia cannot even find a home in the word “hypocrisy,” a charge rendered nugatory by its overuse; tasteless, even — it is the celery of political accusations. Indeed, leftist intellectuals accusing anyone of possessing fascist or totalitarian tendencies would be laughable if it were not so serious.
Finally, the political left’s unholy ensemble of Obama, Hillary, and Sanders demonstrate that there isn’t an ideological onionskin thin enough to separate them from one another, nor is there much to choose among the three in terms of appealing to the mob — another of Kagan’s worries. Obama wasn’t qualified to be President when he was first elected, and his two terms in office demonstrate that his qualifications have not changed; his learning curve flat-lined sometime during his teens. Sanders’s popularity — talk about mob appeal — rests on ignorance so profound it could only be imparted by America’s educational system. And Hillary’s squawky campaigning is based on little more than rabid ambition and opportunism, flowing from an intellect that is not only shallow, but “deeply shallow.” The main thing these three have in common is a thoroughgoing commitment to statism that, if acted on without restraint, would obliterate the last vestiges of American constitutionalism.
In fact, there’s a name for the political tendencies they share. It’s called fascism.
Published in General
Well said. We’ve been beating this around since last July about the dangers of Trump-I am not enthused with Trump, but at the end of the day, I am a “Never Hillary” guy. I am sure our betters in Congress and the Bureaucracy will thwart him daily and discover the constitution and separation of powers. If not, we are doomed anyway. Clinton or Trump-one will continue Obama’s march destroying the foundations of a constitutional republic fully backed by crony capitalists and a cheerleading media, the other will most likely gum up the works perhaps giving us a chance to rediscover the blessings of the constitutional form of government and rule of law bequeathed to us by much better men. Most likely not, but a chance. I am not optimistic about our future. People looked at all the options and this is who we end up with? After electing Obama twice? Disheartening.
Well done. We seem to have a series of very erudite people viewing populism through a fascist lens when it does not fit the social and class mode they are comfortable with.
The last time we had a president from the entertainment industry it worked out reasonably well despite some of the same pundits telling us he was a dangerous actor who starred with chimps.
Excellent commentary sir…don’t expect to see you back at this website again. I can only wonder, at this point in my 69 year life, where was all of the apoplectic disdain and third party yelping when the not very conservative Bush I and II were nominated, then the hateful McCain who never had a good word for conservatives (especially when speaking to the NY Times or Face the Nation), and finally with Romney, the namesake of the forerunner of Obamacare? Suddenly, after this man Trump, with all his failings, has shown he actually could beat the competition, including Clinton, now we have a last minute, impossible to win, revolution. OMG, he’s not conservative! Well, who amongst our list of former nominees fits the ideal? I would posit, none of them. And please spare me the Nazi crap.
Wonderful piece.
dead on.
The one yuuuuge difference between electing Trump and electing Hillary is that when you get Trump, you get, well, Trump, while if you get Hillary, you get Hillary and the entire Democrat machine.
Trump as President: “Let’s do stupid thing X.”
Everyone else in Washington: “No.”
Hillary as President: “Let’s do stupid thing Y.” (Which is basically indistinguishable from Trump’s X.)
Republicans: “No.”
Democrats: “Why NOT? You just hate her because she’s a woman, and you’re bigots, and stuff!”
Press: “Republicans continue in their campaign against Hillary’s common-sense approach.”
Spot on.
Cirby-Exactly right. And the key point-Trump’s stupid thing X does not happen, while Clinton’s stupid thing Y becomes law and fixed policy forever, while the feckless crapweasels in the Republican party (the ones whose multiple failures beget the Trump juggernaut) roll over because their commitment to the constitution and their duty comes in second to not being called mean things by “Democratic Operatives with bylines” (Thanks Powerline.) Besides, thing Y will make them rich and well liked by all the right people anyway. Compromise is part of governing and all that…
Perhaps I am being too harsh on Republican leadership?
I have a Canadian friend and she posted some meme comparing the differences between Trudeau and Trump, specially around Trudeau shoving an MP and accidentally elbowing a female MP. The meme says “Trump runs on a platform of war crimes against women and children”, then says something apologetic about Trudeau.
I am not a fan of Trump, not will I be voting for him. But war crimes? I responded by noting that if you’re looking for war crimes, take a look at the US president and his propensity to use drone strikes, and the inevitable collateral damage that causes, killing innocents. No cry about what could actually be construed as crimes of war there. Nope. Not for a second.
Idiots. I’m ok with positions I disagree with. What I really have a problem with is inconsistency and hypocrisy. I’m crazy that way.
‘Perhaps I am being too harsh on Republican leadership?’
Not at all, the crapweasels just voted for Obama’s Destroy the Suburbs plan AFFH.
Now that is what I call a column!
Ok. The Left is hypocritical. This is news? Of course Obama and Clinton and Sanders share a thoroughgoing commitment to statism. That’s not news either. However, the fact that these things are true does not diminish the fact that Trump seems to share the same thoroughgoing commitment to statism. The goals of Trump’s use of state power might be different, but the commitment to statism is the same. And we are hypocritical if we fail to acknowledge that. Whatever else a Trump presidency might yield, a smaller, more decentralized, less intrusive, less expensive central government won’t be among them.
Interesting statement concerning Trump’s commitment to statism. Could you possibly be more specific? Also the POTUS could most definitely nudge a smaller bureaucracy, e.g., as chief executive, refuse to replace retiring employees, but doesn’t Congress set the pace for government size as well?
Its difficult to be very specific with Trump because he himself isn’t. But every policy pronouncement the man makes involves the central government ( with him at the helm) doing something. Central goverent is building the wall, coercing Mexico into paying for it, deporting aliens, rewriting trade deals internationally and libel laws domestically, punishing American businesses that might want to move to Mexico, punishing women who get abortions, instituting single payer healthcare where “everybody’s going to get taken care of .” I have never heard him talk about free markets, individual liberty, or limited government. Ever. And who can forget his core functions of government … Security, healthcare, education, and “many many other things” including housing and providing great neighborhoods. It seems to me that his only problem with big government is that he’s not driving.
He is running for President. It is pretty rare that a candidate says, “I am running for President and I will do nothing.” Candidates always talk about the great things they will do. When was the last time you heard a candidate say specifically they would make the government smaller? I believe it was Reagan, and he failed. Yes it is the function of the Federal government to secure our country from invasion, amongst other nefarious things. Building a wall is part of that job. The President is the negotiator in chief for the USA. You call it coercion. Fine. I call it negotiating on behalf of the USA. Mexican citizens steal their way into our country, good people they may be, but illegal residents of our country. They work here, get healthcare here, educate their children here, and send billions back to Mexico. I say the Mexican government owes us. Maybe you disagree. Have you been to his website and read his positions? He wants to get business taxes lowered to 15% for all corporations. For that he needs congress to assist. That is pro growth and will allow corporations that have many billions of dollars stashed abroad to bring that money back for reinvesting. It will attract foreign corporations to move to the USA. He is not a studied conservative ideologue. He will say things that make us cringe. Bottom line is he will not sell us out like the lying influence peddler, Hillary Clinton.
Hi cdor. I have indeed looked at his positions. He is busy disavowing them or re-thinking them, or suggesting that they are merely suggestions so fast that I can hardly digest the old one before there is a new one to consider. His tax plan for instance. We are now on version 2, written I’m told by Larry Kudlow et al. Verson 2 was needed because Trump had already disavowed version 1 by saying that it was only the opening position of a negotiation and that despite the plan saying taxes would decrease, he freely admits that at the end of the negotiation taxes will probably go up. And he said he’s OK with that. Enter version 2. Not that I think he believes in the new one any more than he did the old one. For Trump, EVERY position is maleable. EVERY position is nothing more than the opening gambit in a negotiation to come. And to those with ears to hear, he tells us that all the time. He’s going to make deals. Though he assures us they will be “good deals” and that we’ll “be very happy.” Pardon me if I roll my eyes. Pretend conservatives making deals is how we got to this sorry state in the first place!!!
EKOSJ…indeed taxes will go up for hedge funders who have taken their income as CapGain instead of ordinary income because of loopholes that Trump’s plan intends to remove. Other simplifications would raise taxes for some who also have special allowances in the law that they paid to have installed. I remember when Reagan’s plan went onto effect the commercial real estate business took huge hits because of some special tax deals on limited partnerships that were eliminated. We do have a congress that used to have a say in these things. As far as his deals are concerned, I feel a lot more comfortable with any projected Trump deal concerning our country than any Clinton deal. Until something unexpected and unlikely happens, we have two choices. Mine is Trump. Thanks for the chat EKOSJ. God bless the USA.