In a recent essay George Friedman touches on a point I’ve made here from time to time. Worries about a rising tide of fascism, either here in the United States or in Europe, are overblown and rely on a bad definition of “fascism”:
Recently, there have been a number of articles and statements asserting that fascism is rising in Europe, and that Donald Trump is an American example of fascism. This is a misrepresentation of a very real phenomenon. The nation-state is reasserting itself as the primary vehicle of political life. Multinational institutions like the European Union and multilateral trade treaties are being challenged because they are seen by some as not being in the national interest. The charge of a rise in fascism derives from a profound misunderstanding of what fascism is. It is also an attempt to discredit the resurgence of nationalism and to defend the multinational systems that have dominated the West since World War II.
Read the whole thing. I don’t think that nationalism is re-emerging so much as that internationalism is falling on its face.
The reality is that people in different countries have different values and there’s nothing wrong with that. The missionary fervor to spread your own culture is more a problem than a solution.
The Trump phenomenon has some commonalities with fascism, but not enough to be considered fascism. I think we are seeing a mix of nationalism and loss of internationalism. In the US, Russia, East Europe and East Asia it seems more tilted towards nationalism. In the UK and Western Europe, it feels more like a rejection of internationalism.
Steve
I don’t think there’s ever been any move towards internationalism in Russia or East Asia. They’ve always pursued strictly nationalist goals. They’re happy to let us shoot ourselves in our collective foot pursuing a phantasmic internationalism.
No other comments so will go OT. At some time, if it interests you, would appreciate your thoughts on the media. Half of the country, roughly (meaning somewhere between 40%-50%), identifies as conservative or leans that way. The other half, roughly the opposite. Yet there is constant complaining, maybe reflects what I read and with whom I communicate, that the media is overwhelmingly biased to the left. If half the country is conservative, and there is pretty good data showing that more than half of the wealthy donate primarily to the GOP, and there is good reason to believe corporations donate mostly to the GOP (Citizens United anyone?), then why doesn’t the right have more media expressing views it likes? They certainly have plenty of funding available. They have an audience, so the advertisers should be there. What gives? I have my own ideas, but would be interested in yours and don’t think you have explicitly covered this unless it was when I was on call and too tired to read.
Steve
I can think of several factors. The first is that people tend to be more predisposed to activities that interest them and for whatever reason those whose politics lean left tend to be more interested in communications (print and otherwise) or education than libertarians or those whose politics lean right.
The other is that people tend to hire people who are like them (whatever that means) and the media and education have been left-leaning for generations. Now it would take a conscious policy to change that and the tribalism of modern society strongly suggests that won’t happen.
BTW, where did you ever get the idea that corporations donate mostly to Republicans? Based on the data a few corporations donate mostly to Republicans, e.g. The Sands or Koch Industries, a few corporations donate mostly to Democrats, e.g. Newsweb Corp., Soros Fund Management, but most hedge their bets and donate approximately equally to both Republicans and Democrats.
Labor unions donate overwhelmingly to Democrats and indeed donate an order of magnitude more than corporations do.
I would favor a constitutional amendment limiting political donations as long as it pertained equally to all individuals and organizations.
Citizens United was approved and corporations became people too. (Actually they were all along. Who knew?) Suddenly 501c donations on the conservative side rocket up. Coincidence? I think not.
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_summ.php?cycle=All&type=viewpt
Anyway, I agree that when corporations donate openly they mostly hedge, but when they can do it secretly, it goes to the GOP. And, as always, we need to acknowledge this is just the tip of the iceberg. You are the one who always says just give me the business card.
Also, the wealthy donate more to the GOP and corporations are mostly instruments for their benefit.
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/05/more-on-the-politics-of-the-super-rich/
I think that one aspect is that government has been found wanting, and not representing the people. Issues like free trade, immigration and foreign military commitments are particularly viewed differently between the elites and the masses, they weigh and experience the costs differently. Elites also tend to describe their benefits in global terms, and not as particular benefits to the average voter. This is also true about populist reaction to the bail-out of Wall Street and the expansion of government bureaucracy. Populism is pretty much the opposite of fascism, and it might overlap with nationalism, but I think they are ultimately independent.
Trump is not a fascist. Fascists subvert everything under the nation as represented by the state. They stand opposed to liberal democracy. Trump doesn’t want to eliminate liberal democracy, bu just wants to limit its benefits to those he thinks are like him. Fascists also believe that violence is the most natural expression of national vigour.
Trump is not a fascist, but a right wing nativist demagogue.
I think that’s a more accurate description but I’m skeptical that he fits into a neat category since I don’t think he’s either ideological or even political.
I think he views everything as a negotiation and he’s always looking for the best deal possible. On what his decision function for the “best deal possible” might be I have absolutely no insight.
Steve:
1. I don’t think there’s as sharp a skew of the super-rich by party as you do. See here. In particular this chart:
2. Your hypothesis is by definition untestable. How can we tell what people do in secret? We can’t. Consequently, it’s an article of faith.
No, we can’t test it, but it is awfully suggestive. You make it legal for corporations to donate and to do it in secret and suddenly those donations skyrocket. It is interesting. I hope someone at the IRS took a close look at that sudden rise in 501c monies. Looks awfully fishy.
Steve
Since this is already Off-Topic, here is Putin negotiating a deal:
Vladimir Putin Rage
While I am at it:
ACLU Director Quits After Daughters’ Bathroom Ordeal