Robert Reich uses the f-word: Trump is a fascist

[Brian Howell]

In a blog post last, week, Robert Reich baldly declared Donald Trump a fascist, right up there with Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, and Francisco Franco: 

• he targets economically disenfranchised older white men (the "red meat" crowd);
• he plays on fears of terrorists living among us or capable of easily crossing our porous borders;
• he threatens harm to those who seek to impede his candidacy; and
• he presents himself as a strongman who can personally fix all the ills of his constituents

http://robertreich.org/post/140705539195

[Scott Hotes]

All rational conversation goes away when we start comparing people to Adolf Hitler.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/7b11d7be-d0ac-47b6-bd2b-5bce4d201626%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Craig Good]

> On Mar 14, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All rational conversation goes away when we start comparing people to Adolf Hitler.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law



--
--Craig WWSJD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
-- Charles Maxwell

[Brian Howell]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I know Godwin's Law. Which is not a law, after all.

Now I didn't make the comparison, Reich did. And Reich is correct when he compares Trump's stratagems with those employed by the aforementioned individuals, Hitler included. 

With that in mind, can you think of something significant to contribute, rather than just running for cognitive cover under the umbrella of a specious trope? Godwin's "Law" is merely a conceptual safe harbor for people who believe it is impossible to have rational comparative discourse about Hitler, who think that discussing Hitler in reference to any other human being throughout recorded history can involve only over- or under- statement.

What if we say, for example, that Hitler used inflammatory political speech much in the same way that Trump is now doing? So we are comparing Hitler to Trump? Is that legitimate? And if so, why not the converse? It is not an intrinsic fallacy simply to use Hitler as a comparative exemplar.

Hitler was a fascist. And he did employ much the same conceptual demagoguery as Trump is now employing. As far as I can tell, no major presidential candidate has ever employed such hate-filled, segregationist, and polemical speech. (At least not since the Civil War.) Now what does that say about a significant constituency of the American electorate? Perhaps in relation to people in Germany circa 1930? Think hard.

P.S. It can be argued that the above employs an ad hominem attack, violating my proscription. However, I take slight allowance of it in light of the foregoing responses which were clearly designed to summarily shut down all further discourse.

--

Brian Howell
www.linkedin.com/in/bdhowell

[Scott Hotes]

Brian, the point is that by invoking Hitler (which Reich did directly is his post, and

in turn you did with your post to this list), you are, in effect, shutting down any

further rational conversation on the topic.

Now the conversation turns to the oh-so-valuable point/counterpoint of whether

or not it's reasonable to compare X to the likes of Hitler and Mao.

Scott

--

"If any demonstrator ever lays down in front of my car, it'll be the last car he

ever lays down in front of."

  - George Wallace

[Craig Good]

> On Mar 14, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I know Godwin's Law. Which is not a law, after all.

It’s possible to have legitimate discussions about Hitler. I have my doubts that Robert Reich is honestly trying to do that. And my invocation of Godwin wasn’t running for cover, but an attempt at humor. Sorry if it didn’t come off that way.



--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com
I am NOT in denial.

[jack saunders]

I counsel PR students against ever invoking Hitler, for reasons Scott suggests.  It does more to inform the listener about the overwrought state of the speaker than it does to illuminate historical likeness -- which is usually bogus, Hitler having been a truly sui generis character.  Has anyone seen the fairly recent European film on Hitler, the painter?  It's actually somewhat sympathetic, and eerily so.  It basically says the young man got fucked, and so he was fucked up.

  

 

---

From: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
To: Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>
Cc: Craig Good <clg...@me.com>; Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Robert Reich uses the f-word: Trump is a fascist

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAC7%2BDAAZdAN-wFiS4nHrTNvi%2BbJsO5W%3DOLk2N%2Bd0wVDNPvDBFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Perlman]

I believe this discussion devolves from a bit of a red-herring. The Robert Reich article does not specifically compare Trump to Hitler. In fact, Hitler is only mentioned once in the article, and that in a sentence referring to several other 20th century "leaders" Reich labels as fascists.

...But Trump has finally reached a point where parallels between his presidential campaign and the fascists of the first half of the 20th century – lurid figures such as Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Oswald Mosley, and Francisco Franco – are too evident to overlook.

Reich then goes on to make comparison between the political and social attributes of the Trump campaign and those of the aforementioned individuals.  With the exception of Stalin, who I doubt would have thought of himself as a Fascist, the other 4 clearly identified as such.

You may, or may not, agree with the comparisons Reich makes. But, to dismiss Reich's arguments out of hand as "..comparisons to Hitler." seems to me to be disingenuous at best. As Reich summarizes...

Viewing Donald Trump in light of the fascists of the first half of the twentieth century – who used economic stresses to scapegoat others, created cults of personality, intimidated opponents, incited violence, glorified their nations and disregarded international law, and connected directly with the masses – helps explain what Trump is doing and how he is succeeding.

Here is a clearly stated premise. If this is wrong, then let's hear why, backed up with some reason and data. But, let's not descend  to "ipse dixit" logic in place of reason and discourse.

Richard

On Mar 14, 2016, at 13:19 , jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net> wrote:

I counsel PR students against ever invoking Hitler, for reasons Scott suggests.  It does more to inform the listener about the overwrought state of the speaker than it does to illuminate historical likeness -- which is usually bogus, Hitler having been a truly sui generis character.  Has anyone seen the fairly recent European film on Hitler, the painter?  It's actually somewhat sympathetic, and eerily so.  It basically says the young man got fucked, and so he was fucked up.

---

From: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
To: Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>
Cc: Craig Good <clg...@me.com>; Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Robert Reich uses the f-word: Trump is a fascist

Brian, the point is that by invoking Hitler (which Reich did directly is his post, and

in turn you did with your post to this list), you are, in effect, shutting down any

further rational conversation on the topic.

Now the conversation turns to the oh-so-valuable point/counterpoint of whether

or not it's reasonable to compare X to the likes of Hitler and Mao.

[Matt Fish]

This is fun. It's beginning to look like Robert Reich is a wee bit out of control. 

Here's another article about what might be a more rational explanation for Trump's rise, which is that he's addressing the concerns of blue collar workers, in large part by focusing on trade: 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support

My opinion is that there's about a 5% chance that Trump could be a good president. Therefore voting for him is a huge risk IMO. Nonetheless, Trump is giving voice to what seems to be deep discontent with the way the U.S. government serves and is controlled by corporate interests over the interests of "the people." There is also an intense amount of snobbery in dismissing his supporters out of hand. And, absolutely, there is also a dark underbelly of bigotry that springs up at his rallies, and that should obviously be condemned. 

Perhaps I am I stating the obvious? 

  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/50118338-F1C6-4670-93FE-A36A3F995BD2%40me.com.

[Larry Rosenthal]

BobR's post should be subtitled "You Heard It Hear Twenty-Ninth."
Rare bandwagonism from the oracle.
LR

[jack saunders]

I feel confident that Reich's piece was an emergency essay timed to the like I posted Saturday night.

Donald Trump’s Tampa Office Is an Unlikely Melting Pot

				Donald Trump’s Tampa Office Is an Unlikely Melting Pot Conversations with volunteers at a small Trump campaign office in an old cigar factory yielded some surprises on the subjects of race, ethnicity and bigotry.
				View on www.nytimes.com	Preview by Yahoo

Under the media mantra, "The story has to change," the original "Outrageous!" story was running out of gas.  When Reich et al saw the editors of the Time green-light the narrative linked above for Page One of the Sunday paper, they needed to go with their emergency Hitler piece.  You can't go back to this well often, so they were saving this, but felt it was be a political disaster if the "harmless suburbanites" meme got legs.  

Buried in this Times piece is the bigger story -- elites left these people pandered to, promised to, and ignored.  And now it's too late for new promises.  This makes Bernie and Trump two sides of the same coin.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Baseball-Comes-Out-Revolutionary-ebook/dp/B00C2VCI82/

---

From: Richard Perlman <r...@yikes.com>
To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Hitler talk

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/8D12D862-CF90-400C-9F4D-3AA61FE61694%40yikes.com.

[jack saunders]

Now is time to laugh at all those Republican candidates and party grandees who have been clucking and sputtering for months about discrepancies large and small littered in Trump's campaign -- discrepancies between his vision of the moment and Republican orthodoxy.  

Get over the apoplexy, Marco.  The voters don't give a SHIT about ANY OF THAT.  They are picking a leader.  And leaders don't need 6-point plans.  They literally want Trump in that oval office making decisions as he calls them, and kicking ass.  

That will be enough to win the Republican nomination.  For the general election -- quite possibly.

 

---

From: Matt Fish <mattfi...@gmail.com>
To: Craig Good <clg...@me.com>; Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>; Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:51 PM

Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Robert Reich uses the f-word: Trump is a fascist

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAEyQXcwpxG0NM0xo2epk_poX%2BRPScg_OjvjHT3Xfk0fj_N%3DKMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vince Koloski]

I think that while they might be picking a leader, that leader has to be someone who doesn't just ignore but rather refuses to endorse the supposed values of their political party. The Guardian has published several articles about this over the past few months about the voter anger driving the primaries including the one Matt provided the link to. Another person who lays out the electoral anger is Matt Taibbi in this Rolling Stone piece a few weeks back.  The Republicans have been lied to for years about small government, abolishing abortions, reintroducing prayer in schools, immigration and other "values" that have immediately been sold out once the votes were in. The Democrats have been lied to about jobs, health care, the "safety net", education, etc. and then sold out as soon as the votes were in. Both sides were sold on the idea that you'd better vote for us because if you vote for them you have NO chance at these values. A vote for us means we might someday get around to acting on them. The democrats always adding the fillip that you'd better vote for us or the Supreme Court will turn into a bunch of conservative ideologues. Both sets of actual party voters, having been sold out for 3 decades and watched their standard of living stagnate or collapse while the oligarchs who own the parties get obscenely rich, have finally begun to say no. The fact that both parties have transparently bought and paid-for mainstream candidates has made the outsider in both parties look good enough to vote for. If a completely insubstantial television personality and media manipulator on one side and an almost completely charismaless media unknown on the other can both scare the crap out of their parties establishments, it says even more about the bankruptcy of the current two parties in the two party system than it does about the candidates. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/1585396562.1546918.1457990246296.JavaMail.yahoo%40mail.yahoo.com.

[jack saunders]

Vince and Rolling Stone have it right about the limits to decades of lies.  Both parties shine on the C students and use the power to the advantage of oligarchs.  Anything positive for working households is merely a positive form of collateral damage, but never the primary driver.  Even health care reform was mainly the re-tooling of the health care industry to account for the digital revolution.

Now imagine this:  For the first time ever, we could have a president whose ONLY responsibility (as he sees it) is to his own poll numbers.  And he would enter office with a Congress whose credibility stands near zero.

When a congress obstructs the very proper Barack Obama, gridlock happens.  When a congress blocks Trump....who knows?

It won't look or feel like Obama.

 

---

From: Vince Koloski <vkst...@gmail.com>
To: jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net>
Cc: Matt Fish <mattfi...@gmail.com>; Craig Good <clg...@me.com>; Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>; Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>; Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] when the voters don't care about the platform, only the leader

[Scott Hotes]

It's very possible that what we're witnessing here are the final death-throws of the GOP.

Their many compromises to maintain a large enough base to be relevant (starting, say, with their welcoming and empowering the Evangelicals) is no longer tenable.

Moderates like Boehner and McCain no longer recognize what has become of the party.

Having a Congress that serves only to block any progress from the Executive Branch is not sustainable.  No doubt we are seeing some of that as well.

My question:  what will emerge from the ashes?

Scott

[jack saunders]

Scott wants to know what might emerge from the ashes.

If Trump is elected, he tells his followers to build him a thoroughly Tea Party congress.  

That is quite doable, given the large Red state sway now.  Incumbents either kneel before Trump, or the local Tea Parties replace them, a fairly easy two-year project.  

Then you've got a Manhattan Mussolini.  

 

---

From: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>

To: jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net>
Cc: Vince Koloski <vkst...@gmail.com>; Matt Fish <mattfi...@gmail.com>; Craig Good <clg...@me.com>; Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>; Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 10:53 AM