Almost nothing new is happening. Political persecution. Brutalizing protests. Hate crimes. Mutual aid between civilian fascists and law enforcement. Kidnappings. Flouting rule of law. Corruption. Undermining democracy. All these things people associate with Trump happened also under Bush and Obama. The only exception I can think of is police openly encouraging militia groups to participate in violence against protesters on the streets.
The kindling had been there longer than my parents have been alive. I'd argue it was lit in the response to 9/11. By the time Trump took office, the fire was already raging. The only reason everyone suddenly notices is he's the first to openly brag about throwing fuel on it.
I've been hearing you say this for a while. To be really quite blunt you sound like a bitter german communist in 1936, saying that the german state has long had a tendency towards authoritarianism (true), anti-semitism/"kulturkampf"-esque stances (true) and general anti-democratic positions (again all true), which leads them to claim that the current government is not unique or historically significant, and rather a logical extension of the past (untrue). Which is to say, you come off upset that people disregarded your previous warnings, so you must now argue that the current situation is not a change to in order to justify yourself. More bluntly: you're essentially a hipster, gatekeeping outrage at horrible acts because you feel like if you let any one thing be outrageous, that any individual action is "crossing the line", than it will diminish everything else you've seen in your life that was horrible. You are not permitting shades of evil because you feel that the shades are too evil as they are, and, I sense, you do not have the energy to be further outraged.
On historical novelty: Authoritarianism often manifests as a general support of authoritarian leaders no matter who they are, but it can also manifest as support for a particular authoritarian. This distinction is significant, as (in theory) an authoritarian idealogue has standards: they have an
idea of authoritarianism which any particular autocrat may or may not live up to. But an authoritarian loyalist does not have this. They support a person, and their standards
are that person. By definition such a thing cannot ever be wrong no matter their actions. This is the historically unique thing occuring in the US today; whatever other things they may wield, lent to them by history.
The narcissism of the populist authoritarian demands that things be about them. Whatever it relies on, it claims those things for its own, expands to fill the entire field of "valid" thought, and anything outside of it is no longer relevant. It is those things because it claims to be all that is good, and all that it is not is not good. It is not a single part, but rather "pervades and regulates the whole." This means that you, with your position, are in essence denying that they are what say they are and freely admit to doing: totalizing. Making everything about them. While historically they are wrong because not everything is not about them, they are very correct in that their existance makes all contemporary debates, in essence, referundums on themselves. With them or against them. This is what people are responding to, ultimately.
TL;DR: I mean, Trump is an egomaniacal narcissist and a reality-show celebrity. How can one claim to be surprised he's made the national debate all about him? There is no room for matters of policy and debate, there is only "do you like him?" That, in-and-of-itself, is the very essence of Trumpism, which otherwise lacks real positions.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4229029 times)