The Don

Hawk said:
1968 was a tumultuous year. You had the deaths of MLK and Bobby Kennedy, the Tet Offensive, Draft Card burnings en masse, riots on college campuses (birth of the Weathermen Underground), the out of control scene at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago ("The whole world is watching" chant on the bloody streets of Chicago). I think the nation craved order and direction at such a tense time. If you look at various polls taken across the country in 68' an almost overwhelming majority of citizens supported law enforcement, even directly in the face of rising policy brutality and excess. So it's not much of a surprise that Nixon won with Professional/White Collar types, although it is surprising that it he handily took College students. That debunked the myth that the 'youth' were universally opposed to the War, and laid the groundwork for the "Silent Majority" rhetoric that Nixon later championed.

The problem the Democrats had was mostly Vietnam -- but the party also never coalesced around a leader or a central platform. First it was McGovern (who was anti-war by an opportunistic stroke of luck), then it was Robert Kennedy (who really sparked the anti-war movement politically), then Eugene McCarthy (much like McGovern). For some baffling reason the Democrats turned back to Hubert Humphrey who was a) a supportive Veep to the guy who took the country into Vietnam b) not clearly anti-war.

The results of the election were closer than many remember (and certainly in incredibly stark contrast to 1972) -- and I actually see Wallace as having acted as more of a roadblock to Nixon in terms of the polls than a boost as you suggested.

I perceive the New Deal coalition as having died in 1968 -- literally on the floor of the DNC, but it's interesting that you still see the influences up through the Carter administration and beyond.
Click to expand...

1968 is the first campaign in which I was truly aware (15 years old) and you're right in that it was an extremely tumultuous time. The assassinations. McCarthy winning New Hampshire against a sitting President (I think you have your timeline a bit reversed. McGovern stayed on the sidelines--although he considered a candidacy early--until after Robert Kennedy was assassinated). The 1968 Democratic convention with Richard Daley going bat-crap on Abraham Ribicoff on the convention floor. A lot of tension and spectacle throughout the year. I think an argument can be made either way on the Wallace effect. Wallace carried four Goldwater states from 1964 (Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana) and Arkansas (he didn't carry South Carolina) and while opposition to the Civil Rights Act and other Federal efforts had begun to turn the South Republican, I think those states would have been toss-ups. Where Wallace may have had a bigger effect was in stealing votes from both candidates in closely contested states, but in the 13 states in which Wallace garnered mor than 10% of the vote (arbitrary level chosen by me), Nixon won 10 of those states and if you look at Wallace's showing in a strong Labor state like Michigan, you can see the New Deal coalition and the birth of the Reagan Democrat begin to take shape (more on that later). Nixon did break 300 electoral votes without the Wallace states, but I remember going to bed not knowing who the next President was going to be as Missouri and a couple of other states remained in the balance. One interesting thing looking at the 1968 results, Texas went Democratic and California went Republican.

The New Deal coalition started to peter out beginning in 1964 with he passage of the Civil Rights Act. It's important to remember that although many Southern Democrats had a states' rights view of the world and fought against Federal desegregation efforts, they also supported elements of the New Deal and the South benefited greatly from the New Deal. They were very effective in bringing Federal projects to the South and they usually kept the spending pump going on the programs that benefited them and their constituents. But the Civil Rights Act in the South and the Vietnam War and the Great Society in the North started to fray the New Deal coalition. I think the culmination of the disintegration came with Reagan's re-election in 1984 when he thumped Walter Mondale, who was the last New Deal liberal to run for President. I was indirectly involved in the Mondale campaign and they were constantly worrying about John Glenn and I kept saying, "Gary Hart. Gary Hart. Gary Hart." It's interesting that 48 years later, the challenge to the Democratic front-runner is coming decidedly from the left as opposed to the center. There was a "new" Democrat vs. "old" Democrat tug-of-war, part of it regional, part of it generational, and part of it philosophical that took place throughout the period from 1964 to 1984 (of course, Democrats have always been a scrappy, diverse bunch going way back) perhaps best personified by the Tip O'Neill/Jimmy Carter fracas during Carter's tenure. Ted Kennedy challenged Carter (from the perspective of the traditional New Deal left). I agree that the influence of the New Deal coalition was waning from 1964 onward, but the Reagan landslide in 1984 put an exclamation point on its demise. I think both parties have been scrambling ever since trying to figure things out. The South is solidly Republican now and California and New York solidly Democratic, but it has become increasingly difficult to pidgeonhole the rest of the country.
 
From Salon: What Trump's surging popularity says about the GOP base
So is the GOP becoming the new fascist party? That might be an exaggeration, but it does share many similar features, and Trump, with his demagogic style, is simply exposing how very similar the passions of the GOP base are to the passions of fascism of the early 20th century.

"The modern GOP is a party of unwavering and dogmatic patriotism mixed with traditionalism and intolerance. The social progression we have been witnessing over the past decade in America, most clearly with the acceptance of the LGBT community, seems to be triggering a reactionary movement on the right. We see this most recently with the religious freedom controversies and the angry protests of the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Fascism of the early 20th century was also largely a negative reaction to modernity (in a social sense at least; fascists did tend to worship technology). Communism, which was the ultimate evil to fascists, promoted the destruction of traditional institutions such as the family, the bourgeois state and organized religion. In some ways, fascism was the conservative answer to communism — the defender of tradition."
 
Runnin said:
From Salon: What Trump's surging popularity says about the GOP base
So is the GOP becoming the new fascist party? That might be an exaggeration, but it does share many similar features, and Trump, with his demagogic style, is simply exposing how very similar the passions of the GOP base are to the passions of fascism of the early 20th century.

"The modern GOP is a party of unwavering and dogmatic patriotism mixed with traditionalism and intolerance. The social progression we have been witnessing over the past decade in America, most clearly with the acceptance of the LGBT community, seems to be triggering a reactionary movement on the right. We see this most recently with the religious freedom controversies and the angry protests of the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Fascism of the early 20th century was also largely a negative reaction to modernity (in a social sense at least; fascists did tend to worship technology). Communism, which was the ultimate evil to fascists, promoted the destruction of traditional institutions such as the family, the bourgeois state and organized religion. In some ways, fascism was the conservative answer to communism — the defender of tradition."
Click to expand...

So is the GOP becoming the new fascist party? That might be an exaggeration

Uh... you think?
 
Runnin said:
He would do that in a heartbeat if there were a reason to do so, but his followers are clearly among the GOP and independents.
Click to expand...

Independents love him. I am indifferent, because there are things I like about him and other things I don't. He has my attention though.

There is a lot of liberalism that the Conservatives do not like in him. He hates Common Core education and outsourcing of jobs, this is what made me want to pay attention to him. My number one thing I want any president to do is bring our jobs, especially manufacturing back to America where it belongs. That is where the middle class is losing their people. Both parties now are not doing anything about it.
 
weso1 said:
So is the GOP becoming the new fascist party? That might be an exaggeration

Uh... you think?
Click to expand...

Usually when people struggle to explain their definition of fascism beyond 'demagogue' 'passions' and 'patriotism' then they have no clue what the concept actually represents and are just trying to use it as an insult.

http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/03/fascism-a-useful-insult/

George Orwell (in 1946): “The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable”

It is interesting, although nobody ever wants to actually admit it: Fascism, historically, has been leaps and bounds more successful than Communism.
 
Sounds like you guys didn't read the article.

"Giovanni Gentile, the “philosopher of fascism” and ghostwriter for Mussolini, said of the definition of fascism in the Encyclopedia of Italiana: “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” This definition may very well fit the GOP ideology: a kind of corporate fascism, where large corporations have the ultimate power; where the politicians spew a hateful, intolerant ideology based on “traditional” values, on a platform funded by corporate interests, elected by the people to serve those very corporate interests; and deny environmental degradation because it would be unprofitable for the funders to do anything about it, using the anti-intellectual hostility to convince the people that it is nothing more than a left-wing conspiracy."

America seems to have a kind of closet fascism, with both the Rep and Dem parties mostly guided by corporate interests.
 
America may be guided by corporate interests, but the author's reconstructed definition of fascism is still inaccurate and clearly used in a pejorative sense in relation to the GOP base.

It's interesting that he talks about Trump stoking these kind of latent demagogic flames, but then circles around to 'platform funded by corporate interests', which is the antithesis of Trump's campaign.

The article was a miscarried hit piece, IMO.
 
Runnin said:
Sounds like you guys didn't read the article.

"Giovanni Gentile, the “philosopher of fascism” and ghostwriter for Mussolini, said of the definition of fascism in the Encyclopedia of Italiana: “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” This definition may very well fit the GOP ideology: a kind of corporate fascism, where large corporations have the ultimate power; where the politicians spew a hateful, intolerant ideology based on “traditional” values, on a platform funded by corporate interests, elected by the people to serve those very corporate interests; and deny environmental degradation because it would be unprofitable for the funders to do anything about it, using the anti-intellectual hostility to convince the people that it is nothing more than a left-wing conspiracy."

America seems to have a kind of closet fascism, with both the Rep and Dem parties mostly guided by corporate interests.
Click to expand...

This is the main problem with Americans, both Dems and Reps are responsible of it.

This I would vote for a Carson or Trump, they are not embolden with these entities. I just wish there was a Dem that own this but they are too stupid to go this way....their pound the rich with taxes, or make too much money approach is never going to fly, EVER. Carson and Trump don't need special interest and that why both parties try to silence them, because both parties need that interest to make a lot of money on our dime.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...p-candidates-in-new-hampshire-nbc-news-marist

New polls out Sunday show presidential candidate and real estate mogul Donald Trump still ahead among Republican hopefuls, even amid fallout from his controversial comments about Arizona Senator John McCain a week ago.

A CNN/ORC poll out Sunday showed Trump leading the pack with 18 percent support among likely Republican voters nationwide, with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in second place at 15 percent. And crucially, Trump's doing well in early-nominating states, two new NBC-Marist polls show. A New Hampshire poll had Trump leading with 21 percent. In Iowa, Trump is in second place, with 17 percent support, to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with 19 percent.

---

Pundit fail. Take the nails out of the coffin for another week.
 
Hawk said:
America may be guided by corporate interests, but the author's reconstructed definition of fascism is still inaccurate and clearly used in a pejorative sense in relation to the GOP base.

It's interesting that he talks about Trump stoking these kind of latent demagogic flames, but then circles around to 'platform funded by corporate interests', which is the antithesis of Trump's campaign.

The article was a miscarried hit piece, IMO.
Click to expand...
Reconstructed definition? From Mussolini's speech writer is not reconstructed. I though the piece was pretty fair and its author avoided personal commentary...mostly. But I think a Trump presidency would be a train wreck of diplomacy and terrible for America and the world. One has to admit that this latest version of Trump looks more like a dictator than a President.

Does it feel like the American electorate is moving to the left (at least demographically), while the government and corporate power continues to move to the right?
 
Runnin said:
Reconstructed definition? From Mussolini's speech writer is not reconstructed. I though the piece was pretty fair and its author avoided personal commentary...mostly. But I think a Trump presidency would be a train wreck of diplomacy and terrible for America and the world. One has to admit that this latest version of Trump looks more like a dictator than a President.

Does it feel like the American electorate is moving to the left (at least demographically), while the government and corporate power continues to move to the right?
Click to expand...

If the piece is fair, then so is my belief that Obama is a socialist.

The Italians (or Mussolini's speech writer) didn't invent Nationalism -- although they did fail at it with respect to Fascism.
 
Hawk said:
It is interesting, although nobody ever wants to actually admit it: Fascism, historically, has been leaps and bounds more successful than Communism.
Click to expand...

To be fair, however, fascism never really got the extended run communism (in its various permutations) did, so it's a bit hard to soundly ground or thoroughly substantiate that historical comparison.

I personally think Italian fascism had a lot better chance of long-term success than German fascism—but, leaving that aside, the experiments with both communism and fascism we saw were largely opportunistic, relatively short-sighted, extreme-statist solutions to (being overly broad here) nineteenth-century power-structures meeting twentieth-century social realities.
 
jpx7 said:
To be fair, however, fascism never really got the extended run communism (in its various permutations) did, so it's a bit hard to soundly ground or thoroughly substantiate that historical comparison.

I personally think Italian fascism had a lot better chance of long-term success than German fascism—but, leaving that aside, the experiments with both communism and fascism we saw were largely opportunistic, relatively short-sighted, extreme-statist solutions to (being overly broad here) nineteenth-century power-structures meeting twentieth-century social realities.
Click to expand...

You looked that up on wikepedia. Admit it.
 
jpx7 said:
but, leaving that aside, the experiments with both communism and fascism we saw were largely opportunistic, relatively short-sighted, extreme-statist solutions to (being overly broad here) nineteenth-century power-structures meeting twentieth-century social realities.
Click to expand...
I thought the article painted Trump pretty savvy to know this nationalistic rhetoric would work in the current political climate.
 
jpx7 said:
To be fair, however, fascism never really got the extended run communism (in its various permutations) did, so it's a bit hard to soundly ground or thoroughly substantiate that historical comparison.

I personally think Italian fascism had a lot better chance of long-term success than German fascism—but, leaving that aside, the experiments with both communism and fascism we saw were largely opportunistic, relatively short-sighted, extreme-statist solutions to (being overly broad here) nineteenth-century power-structures meeting twentieth-century social realities.
Click to expand...

I typed another response to this but my browser refreshed and lost it.

The bullets:

- The essence of government is constantly evolving -- there's not a particular system that we can really treat in isolation as having received the kind of long-term stasis you allude to.
- A better qualifier might be European Fascism / Marxist (Leninist) Communism.
- But even still, can't discount that Communism has never been fully realized (and, broadly, that's due to Capitalism).

---

RE: Italian Fascism

- Yes, culturally -- Nazism had a weird and overreaching obsession with 'purging' the state of certain mindsets (and people). Italian Fascism tended to embrace it as long as it didn't interfere with the governmental status quo.
- Economically, though, Nazism was much more adept at intervening on the state level and enjoyed historically unparalleled financial success under circumstances which were not remotely conducive to growth.
- I tend to believe, based primarily on the economic tactics witnessed in Germany, but also on the virtually impermeable solidity of their authoritarian structure, that Nazism would've enjoyed a longer shelf-life had Hitler not been a militarily inept megalomaniac who thought he could succeed in a 3-front World War (acknowledging, of course, that expansion is a component of Fascism).
 
Runnin said:
I thought the article painted Trump pretty savvy to know this nationalistic rhetoric would work in the current political climate.
Click to expand...

I think you might be slightly misreading why people are interested Trump (at least according to the most recent polling data): he represents anti-establishment sentiment. I guess I don't see 'let's make our country great again' as a uniquely nationalist comment.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/27/politics/donald-trump-cnn-orc-poll-2016/index.html

CNN/ORC Poll finds that just 30% of registered voters nationwide say they feel their views are well represented by the government in Washington, while 40% say they are not represented well at all. That figure spikes among Republican and Republican-leaning voters. Among GOP voters, 53% say they don't feel their views are well represented in Washington at all, nearly double the 27% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who feel the same way.

---

Same poll has Trump ahead of Hillary 50-46%. That's pretty incredible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top