Post by CassandraW on Dec 14, 2016 13:51:30 GMT -5
Yup. Really, it came down to how you interpreted the question. Interpreted Christine's way, I strongly disagree. Interpreted from the subway perspective, it's another matter.
A woman brought her obviously-suffering-from-dire-chickenpox toddler on the other day -- it was definitely chicken pox because she and the kid's aunt were discussing it. Poor mite looked feverish, too. Now, I've had chicken pox. But a lot of people on that car might have been vulnerable. And the car was packed -- nowhere to move. WTF. Based on the conversation, they were not headed to a doctor's, either.
Last Edit: Dec 14, 2016 17:49:12 GMT -5 by CassandraW
That said, that's one of the silliest tests I've ever taken. The questions are loaded with assumptions.
____________________________________________________ Economics puts parameters on people’s utopias. ~Peter Boettke "It's the voter's fault" is victim-blaming in its purest sense. ~Don The 'social contract' is to the politician what 'original sin' is to the priest. ~Don The vision of the helpful and protective state is the most pervasive and counter-productive ideology in the world today. ~Don ____________________________________________________
Rob might like this article (he was right!). Trump's not a facist; he's an extreme right-wing populist:
This debate over labels may seem merely semantic. But definitions matter. The point of labels is to identify, clarify, understand, and, if relevant, figure out ways of coping with the phenomenon at hand. Labeling Trump or other new-right parties and politicians “fascist” implies something not just about what these people and movements stand for but how the opposition should deal with them.
As a student of fascism and National Socialism, particularly in the 1930s, I side with those who say that Trump still falls on the “populist” side of the spectrum. That hardly means that he or the people who claim to be part of his movement do not pose a threat to democracy, but the type of threat differs from that posed by “classical” fascists.
In order to be able to check Trump, the Democrats will need to overcome or reconcile their internal divisions over both cultural and economic issues; only then can they hope to build the type of broad, cross-class coalition that would enable them to win elections at the national, state, and local levels and prevent Trump and his Republican enablers from playing different groups of Americans against one another, as they did so successfully in our most election as well as in many of the ones proceeding it.
Populism, in short, should not be blithely equated to fascism, nor does 2016 look like 1933. But in politics, as in much of the rest of life, nothing lasts forever, and for democracy to not just survive but thrive, democrats — including Democrats — will need to start doing better.
Okay, that's a fairly even-handed bit (which is easy for me to say, since it's pretty much doing what I suggest: seeing fascism in an historical context, first and foremost).
I suppose the relationship between fascism and capitalism described in the piece is going to annoy some people, since a good chunk of the people screaming "fascist!" are quite certain that fascism and capitalism are intricately linked (mostly because of their misunderstanding of Mussolini and "corporatism").
The critical point is, I think, that just because Trump isn't a fascist, that doesn't mean he can't be bad news. People have a hard time with such situations, I think, where they assume that the label is some sort of necessity.