Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Fantastic Anarchist

Fantastic Anarchist's Journal
Fantastic Anarchist's Journal
February 5, 2017

Is the US becoming fascist under Trump? - My Response on Quora

Edit: Please note that my response doesn't deal with the original question; only to a response to the question dealing with the (false) premise that the two political sides operate on the same foundation in reality.

The Original Question:

Is the US becoming fascist under Trump?

I'll provide my response first, and the post replied to, second.

My Response:

It’s impossible to not be biased when offering a political opinion, so with due respect, please indulge me as I try to remain impartial.

I’m having difficulty accepting your premise, which seems to indicate that both sides exists as absolutes, and more importantly, that both sides are on equal footing when it comes to objective facts and reality.

First, there may be a great political divide in this country - I do not contest that, however, the divide may not be as clear as you imply. I think it may be pretty hard to discern as you approach the middle of the continuum. However, that being said, empirically, it appears that the Left side of the continuum seems to accept facts and reality more than the Right side. It seems to me, again through observation, that the Right seems to have an aversion to events and information. Whether or not the Left has acceptable or agreeable policies and solutions to the objective facts they are dealing with is not the issue here (of course, I believe they do, but it is immaterial to this conversation). It is my opinion, from observation, that the Right tends more towards deception, or outright denial of the facts and information provided. Sometimes, they will invent facts out of thin air. They seem to not care about the objective universe around them, because it doesn’t fit with their ideology or policy prescriptions. They are more comfortable, when an issue is at odds with their views, just simply to dismiss them and offer “alternative facts,” which of course, to any reasonable and objective person, is an oxymoron. The term “alternative facts” is self-contradictory. You can not have a fact and alternative fact. That may exists in Quantum Theory, but it does not exist as a phenomenon in the macro world.

It just doesn’t appear to me that the Right is more accepting of a science-based ideology. The more that they have to justify their policies and actions by deception, or even just inventing things out of whole-cloth (the Bowling Green Massacre that never existed is a great example), the more they appear to be dogmatic. I’m not saying that the Left is incapable of being dogmatic, but I think the Right is definitely susceptible to it simply because their foundation exists on deception and alternative facts.

It is simply amazing to me that when discussing the political divide in this country, that it’s automatically assumed, even axiomatic, that the two sides’ political and social foundations are on equal footing in terms of reality. By observation, that is just not true. The Left, at least policy-wise, tends to conform to the objective information given to them. The Right tends to stick with ideology when it comes to policy and decision making, which may or may not align with the facts given to them. They’re not interested in modifying their policies to align with the objective reality around them, but are ready to modify reality to conform to their policy, which is rigidly tied to their overall ideology.

If we’re going to find solutions to the problems this country faces, and if we are going to progress in a world filled with nations who are more grounded in science-based solutions, then we are going to have to deal with the elephant in the room. The Right is not interested in progress or solutions. It’s raison d'être is simply to gain power and maintain power for an exclusive group of people, science and empirical facts be damned. The Religious Right, the far-right (white supremacists), and the rural working class (all three categories can overlap), will not get what they paid for, unless they fall within that aforementioned exclusive group. Any policies that happen to be enacted that are agreeable to them, is not by design, but simply an unintentional byproduct of the overall agenda to gain and maintain power.

I have tried to provide as impartial a response as I could - believe me, I could have been far less kind regarding my opinion of the Right, but the degree of my opinion is not pertinent to my argument.

Response Replied To:

Trump is in power because of a great and growing division in America, a symptom at best of something far more ominous—a deepening social/political war in US society.

What has emerged, is what political writers have termed the great “digital-divide.”[1] [2] [3]Nowadays every citizen has full access to media tools like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, and can potentially communicate for free, to anyone else on the planet.

But with no echo, your views are lost.

The Internet now drowns-out the voice of anyone who either lacks celebrity already, or who expresses mixed views on one or several powerful political and social issues.
To stay afloat, individuals , and even news outlets, must stick to specific agendas that mirror and affirm the social/political beliefs of their core base of “friends,” or viewers.
No longer is it profitable to give genuine time to opposing viewpoints on climate-change, LBGQT rights, women’s health, immigration, terrorism, international trade or any other political hot potatos.
The most popular news sources now have the most opinionated news, ie., eg. FOX and Breitbart, vs CNN and The New York Times.
What would happen:
to Bill O’Reilly’s ratings, were he, in his “talking points,” to “point” out the baseless fear-mongering among those who rail against open borders?

to Anderson Cooper’s ratings were he to give an exclusive interview to conservative pundit Milo Yiannopolous?

Like bad electronic feedback loops in a poorly tuned radio oscillator circuit, only a few powerful “signal” patterns emerge in this otherwise noisy overpopulated system.

For America, it’s the…
Progressives who hate Trump, the “wild-card” president.

Conservatives who consider Trump to be the “law & order” president.
This is not a partisan rant, so please do not respond in support of your “side.”

Instead try this little Twitter experiment done by a friend of mine:

Make two separate profiles on Twitter.
On one, tweet “what an A-hole President Trump is.”
On the second, tweet “how great President Trump is.”
Your starting feeds will be very different, but don’t stop there…

For each profile, click every suggested “follow” profile that comes up.
The two feeds you get will start to eerily resemble descriptions of life on two separate planets from different galaxies.

Each feed will have tweets that link to “solid news.”

Go to the those linked news and “information” websites from each feed, but
FIRST start with the Twitter profile you created that annoys you the most. Scan over some of the links. Notice how you feel.
THEN scan the links to views from the Twitter profile that has views you prefer. How does your feeling change? Perhaps a sigh of relief like you’re happy that there ARE some rational people in this world?
Fascist leaders seize power from hate and demonization of one or another political, social or religious group. This is a very vulnerable time for the United States.

[1] The Real Digital Divide Afflicting American Politics - BillMoyers.com
[2] The Internet and Social Media Are Increasingly Divisive and Undermining of Democracy
[3] US election 2016: Divided nation split into 'alien tribes' - BBC News

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Aug 3, 2011, 02:43 PM
Number of posts: 7,309

About Fantastic Anarchist

I consider myself a mutualist, but also identify as a collectivist. Proudhon and Bakunin\'s ideas are not that far apart in terms of setting up a workers\' democracy. Mutualism appeals to me because it still retains a free-market (read: free-market socialism where the producers own the means of production and via free association can market their products based on Labor Theory of Value). I\'m also appealed by the syndicalism and collectivism because everyone shares in the responsibility for society in which everyone is free from want. As a matter of fact, I\'m also attracted to anarchist-communism, because I\'m very impressed with Prince Kropotkin, too, because regardless of the various currents, the end result would be a classless, stateless society. I read his Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (available free online), and his conclusions were that societies that foster cooperation tend to produce cooperative individuals (individuals and society are nothing without each other). Those societies that foster competition tend to produce competitive individuals (where competition is stressed as important). His final conclusions were that societies (animals and humans) that were more cooperative (either interspecies or intraspecies) tended to be more successful than societies that were more competitive (his theories building upon Darwin). You could call me a hodge-podge really, or like Voltairine de Cleyre, an anarchist without adjectives. But then again, I also admire the individualists (who still considered themselves as socialists) like Benjamin Tucker and Josiah Warren. The above is a copy/paste of my OWN words.
Latest Discussions»Fantastic Anarchist's Journal