Is it correct to call this email from Trump fascism?

Reply to ernestm

It's exceptionally stupid (as if it proves anything beyond the abysmal level of his supporters' political intellect), but I don't see fascism in it.

Reply to Baden You will learn to love big brother. Refusal to answer is an answer, but the wrong answer, and you will be corrected.

well I pressed accept answer, I dont know if that was the right thing to do. I would appreciate hearing more opinions.

I would call it strong arming doubters and using a political language usually reserved for obviously-biased news sites and political groups with an agenda and an audience that will agree with whatever you put forth. I would not call it fascism. To me, fascism is using explicit state (or party) power to silence opposition and specifically trying to reduce checks on power in order to use aforementioned power. But a politician using loaded language his clout and position to espouse rhetoric and garner up his voting base? Business as usual.

Calling it fascism is both incorrect in and, in the current political climate, pragmatically useless. Calls of fascism have a very real chance of turning people off in the same way the above "survey" will only turn off people who do not already agree with it.

Well thank you for your opinion. What would be the political ideology for this binary-choice question if it is NOT fascist?

It is not really about political ideology, it is about political methodology. The method being used not really that complex. The survey is not really a survey about gathering attitudes towards President Trump and his policies among Republicans who subscribed to the GOP newsletter. The "survey" might as well as been a "show your support button," because that is what it is. The choice is obviously a false one and the "survey" is designed to be that way. The political methodology is not gaining information, but reinforcing and garnering support. The fervent supporter gets reminded of Donald Trump, how they like him, and how foolish (in the person's view) the opposition is while getting to participate and voluntarily reinforce their beliefs. The second "option" also serves the purpose of eliminating doubt. If you are a Republican who does not really support Trump or are a Trump supporter who is questioning his actions or some of his policies (i.e. a sizable portion of Republicans), the false choice is meant to create an "us versus them" mentality. Either you are with us (Donald Trump and his closest allies) or you are with them (Democrats and their lies). By seeing the choice, doubters are reminded of the thing they probably dislike more than Trump: the opposition. Thus, they are more likely to assent to Donald Trump because even if they do not like him, at least he is not like the Democrats.

There is nothing about the methodology described above that prevents its use by any political, religious, or social ideology. I can easily imagine the Democratic party (or any left-leaning organization) doing the same thing with the choices: either "I stand with the Democratic party" or "I believe fascist Republicans and Faux News." The reason why I do not consider the question "fascist" is because it is not explicitly argue for any of the major hallmarks of fascism or even for some of its warning signs. It is not trying to stoke nationalism or trying to argue for removing checks and balances within the government. The questionnaire is just more of the same type of "survey" seen before.

Reply to ernestm There are real fascists in the world, but let's define what "fascism" is, once again:

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. Look at Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco and such like as exemplars of fascism. Fascism is generally characterized by:

authoritarianism
totalitarianism
dictatorship
despotism
autocracy
nationalism
militarism
xenophobia
racism
anti-Semitism
jingoism
isolationism

One might be an autocrat, but not be a fascist. One might be a nationalist, and not a fascist. One might be antisemitic but not be a fascist. But when these are added together -- a nationalist, despotic, antisemitic, racist, xenophobic, totalitarian, then you're in within the nature of fascism.

Trump is proving to be a poor high-level political operative, which makes sense because he has zero experience in that area. He is an ambitious opportunist. He doesn't seem to be very insightful about the job he acquired last November which many of us now deeply regret (and more will in the future). BUT, IF Donald Trump and the Republican Party are imbeciles, reckless fools, classist lick spittles in service to the rich, etc. (and this applies to numerous Democrats as well) they are not fascist.

Yet.

A person named "Molly Crabapple" tweeted that this survey came from "Trump Headquarters." I think before carrying her tweet down to the Governor's office and pontificating upon the definition of "fascism," I'd figure out who "Trump Headquarters" is. It might be Molly or just about anyone. I mean I get that it was on the internet and it did feed into your worldview, so it must be true, but before making the trek down to Capitol Hill, maybe double check.

As I said, I have several independent verifications.

I think authoritarianism is a better description, it is more specific. Thank you for the input.

There was also an interview with Time Magazine this week, which carried the cover page "Is truth dead?" Trump basically resolved any dispute with his statements by saying he won the election, so he is President, and we are not, therefore we have no right to claim anything he says are false. If undeniable disputes are made on specific facts, he falls back on saying he was merely repeating other people, so he is still always right. It's very interesting reading.

An independent article found Trump stated 14 factual errors as truth in that 30-minute interview. One factual error every two minutes appears to be Trump's run rate on what other people call lies now. Last year, the Toronto Star found Trump stating factual errors as truth 560 times in the 16 days before election, which was 20/day. During that time, he was publicly speaking an average of perhaps 6 hours a day. So the number of facts from Trump which others can justifiably call lies appear to have increased by an order of magnitude after 2 months in office.

Trump is also tweeting an average of one lie per day. Yesterday he took credit for a deal with a cable company to create 20,000 jobs in the USA. That deal was announced two years ago. Also yesterday he again claimed the Keystone Pipeline would be made with US steel due to his negotiations. In fact the steel had already been purchased before he took office, and 40% is from Russia.

Trump has repeatedly accused Obama of playing too much golf rather than working. When it was pointed out he has already played golf 50% more than Obama, he claimed he was doing it to make business negotiations. He then banned reporters from seeing him during any golf he plays, claiming it does not help him make the deals. Today he was caught on camera sneaking out for golf by himself. For about 4 1/2 hours. It could be fair to say about 25% of the man's actual efforts are what other people would call intentional deceits.

The 'questionairre' looks bogus to me.

If you google Trump + Facisim, you will find many articles, for and against.

My view is that Trump has tendencies towards fascism, but that's he's not fascist. I don't think he's vicious enough, or single-minded enough, to be one; and besides there are many safeguards in the American political system, which, the astute observer might have noticed, have landed quite a few bruised shins, bloodied noses, and black eyes on the subject already (metaphorically speaking). Were he an actual fascist, or trying to institute fascism, he would have to take steps to neutralise those threats; whereas all he is actually doing is railing about them on twitter.

As I already said twice, I have several independent verifications.

Quoting ernestm

As I said, I have several independent verifications.

And yet you withhold the verifications from us. Why? It was signed by "Trump Headquarters," as if that's some real entity. And now the conversation had turned to Trump's other factual mistatements and some golf hypocrisy, as if my attention span is so short that I'll be unable to realize you've changed the subject from the OP. Set out your proof, or admit that you have none, making you no different from your characterization of Trump.

The only thing that I can imagine is the Trump HQ is supposed to be the GOP website or maybe the email subscription people signed up for during the election campaign on his campaign website. This seems odd because it is pretty brazen. I can easily imagine some third party supporter doing this. Until specifics are given on who this is supposed to be by, there is no way to verify its authenticity.

Quoting ernestm

An independent article found Trump stated 14 factual errors as truth in that 30-minute interview.

Quoting ernestm

Trump has repeatedly accused Obama of playing too much golf rather than working. When it was pointed out he has already played golf 50% more than Obama, he claimed he was doing it to make business negotiations. He then banned reporters from seeing him during any golf he plays, claiming it does not help him make the deals. Today he was caught on camera sneaking out for golf by himself. For about 4 1/2 hours. It could be fair to say about 25% of the man's actual efforts are what other people would call intentional deceits.

I DETEST Donald Trump, but bitching about Obama's time on the inks, or spewing factual errors doesn't make him a fascist, a proto-fascist, or a crypto-fascist. It makes him a poor excuse for POTUS.

Fascists tend to have a certain style, but what makes fascism dangerous is that it is a movement aimed at establishing a totalitarian dictatorship. Why? Because overcoming democratic institutions and practices generally requires subversion and violence. It takes blunt force applied to the body politic to suppress any likely reaction to fascism.

At the present time, the Republican Party and the President do not appear to be using subversion (as far as we can tell so far) and are not using violence. Nixon, for instance, employed criminal acts and subversion, but his aim was quite personal -- to get elected. If Trump invited assistance from the Russian government (as contemptible as that would be) it wasn't to establish a fascist state--it also was to get elected. These sorts of things are not excusable, but they are not fascism either.

The style of fascism appeals to some people, and attempting fascism-in-fact is an option which, so far, most American politicians have found very unsavory. Granted, that might not always be the case. It's not hard to imagine what American fascism might look like. But let's stick with solid definitions of what fascism is, so we don't waste the term on people who are not fascists, however bad they might be otherwise.

Thank you for your replies. As I said, I think authoritarianism is a better label. I was just a little in shock at the brazen binary choice that Trump posed. Since that time, his interview with Time magazine on 'is truth dead' made it rather clear what his attitude is. He believes he is always right because he won the election.

Today, he again raised the fake claim that Clinton made money from selling uranium to Russia. The Washington Post is now tabulating his lies, and has detailed 316 lies in his first 63 days of office. The problem confronting the educated is that his lies are so frequent, it is impossible to nail him down on any one of them without him kicking off some new scandal. But it seems people are starting to catch on, as even Fox News prefixed its first statement of creating new jobs at Ford today with 'it could be another attempt credit for plans made before he took office, but Trump is claiming it again."

I should point out that nepotism is another characteristic of fascism.