It is now clear that sizable portions of the Republican Party are seriously and systematically planning a fascist coup. It would be a mistake, I think, to take comfort in the buffoonish and clearly psychologically diminished leader of that coup, our former president. The lawyer who drafted the memorandum laying out the steps to be taken on January 6, after all, clerked for Clarence Thomas, and although that is not evidence of good character, it is I am afraid evidence of adequate intelligence and legal knowledge.
I really do not think we can tell at this point whether the
plotters will succeed. Lord knows, a
great many prominent people in the Democratic Party are aware of the threat and
are trying to alert the public to it. What can any of us do? The simple answer
is, anything we can to try to turn out enough votes to overcome all the efforts
to suppress the vote and subvert the count.
I cannot tell whether Biden recognizes or acknowledges the
seriousness of the situation. Nothing in his long career has prepared him for
such a threat and he is clearly temperamentally unsympathetic to the sorts of
responses that a crisis of this nature calls for, but he is not a fool and
perhaps he is capable of appreciating the danger that his reelection might
simply be stolen from him.
My days are absorbed by the concern I feel for my health and
that of my wife, about which at least there are things I can do. I began my
long engagement with politics obsessed by fears of nuclear war and I seem to be
ending it with fears for the end of democracy in America. Hardly appropriate
for someone who considers himself a Tigger, not an Eeyore.
7 comments:
Take the long view if you'd like, in the manner of a psychohistorian- there are schools that track the long duree.
Not to be fatalistic, but history is statistical and cunning
I don't see the Republicans stamping out the human face with their boots
To every action there is a reaction, not always equal and not always opposite
I really don't understand this obsession with calling what's going on in the US as fascism, let alone the claim that there is literally a fascist coup afoot. And it's not like here the word 'fascism' is being used to simply mean some kind of right-wing authoritarianism (a well-established meaning of the word, in any case); in an earlier post a direct comparison with the 1930s was drawn, and that's really not applicable (or to repeat a point I made earlier, there are more differences than similarities between Italian fascism and what people like Snyder or Stanley call American fascism; as is the case, in fact, though in much lesser degree, between Italian fascism and Nazism, as De Felice showed long ago). This is not to say that the situation in the US isn't concerning and even dangerous, but what is the point of bandying about words like that?
Chapter 4, the Fall of Liberalism, of Eric Hobsbawm's The Age of Extremes, contains a very nuanced discussion of the difference between fascism and other authoritarian rightwing regimes. For example, Hobsbawm does not consider Franco to be a fascist.
DJL,
The point of using words like “fascism” to describe the threat that Trump and his supporters present is to underscore its seriousness and get the attention of those for whom “fascism” strikes a chord. You acknowledge that whatever it is, it is a dangerous threat to our democracy. It is clearly a form of authoritarianism. What does it matter whether it is, in some pedantic sense, literally fascism, neo-fascism, totalitarianism, etc. Arguing about precisely what term properly applies strikes me as comparable to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Our country’s democracy is in serious danger – call it whatever you will.
Another,
This is a philosophy blog, so "pedantic" distinctions seem relevant.
If we were thinking up slogans for an anti-Trump protest march, the word "fascist" would be fine.
No surprise Hobsbawm didn't consider Franco's regime a case of fascism - that much is pretty standard in (at least European) scholarship on fascism, etc.
And I have no problem with using the term for certain purposes, though I think in the case of the US it is likely to bring up unhelpful disagreements more than anything (as has been the case, in fact); I just object to the claim that whatever is going on in the US now is anything at all like what took place in Italy (especially) and Germany in the 1920s and 30s, as had been claimed in a previous post.
Perhaps this is useful in a poly-sci graduate seminar,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18AzodTPG5U
but given NSM in real time. If one reads on the right it's clear we could wind up with a range of kleptocratic possibilities.
Post a Comment