Will The United States Be A Fascist State By 2020?

[Mariel33]

Will the United States likely be a fascist state by 2020?

[billvon]

Will the United States likely be a fascist state by 2020?

No.

[CraigD]

Will the United States likely be a fascist state by 2020?

"Fascist state" is a very ambiguous term.

 

What specific events do you think would result in the US becoming a fascist state?

[Mariel33]

"Fascist state" is a very ambiguous term.

 

What specific events do you think would result in the US becoming a fascist state?

I think Donald Trump and his extreme right-wing agenda will involve further disintegration of the US constitution (as a UK citizen I'm aware of what happened under Bush), and specifically be authoritarian - perhaps a much more militaristic society?  

[exchemist]

I think there is a general threat to the continuation of liberal democracy, posed by society's slowness to learn how to deal with the internet, including social media, and the exploitation of this by certain states that wish to attack Western democracy, such as Russia. I see Trump and Brexit as manifestations of a new gullibility, driven by willingness to believe all, and only, that which is fed to people by like-minded sources and contacts on the web that they have found.  

 

A new stupidity is abroad, in which people choose not to believe in the truth of any story they wish not to be true, in which attempts to understand other people's point of view are dismissed as "liberal" (in the derogatory US sense, i.e. sort of left-wing, sanctimonious and vaguely gay or something), and in which politeness in discourse and the toning down of base emotions is no no longer required, due to the anonymity of the internet. Trust in experts is undermined, due to lack of belief in objective knowledge.

 

That, I think, is the challenge for the next 20 years. Elected politicians are tempted to exploit this New Stupidity via populism and debate of an extremely low quality. The best defence may come from the judiciary, who thank goodness are not elected, and in the UK from the House of Lords, as this is not elected either. What an irony. 

[OceanBreeze]

Will the United States likely be a fascist state by 2020?

 

In my opinion, No, that will never happen. The US populace is too diverse, too cosmopolitan to be bound together by such an extreme ideology as fascism.

 

Under the Obama administration, things were becoming a bit too liberal for a certain segment of the populace who grew up after WWII imbued with respect for flag and country and American apple pie.

 

Well, that segment felt they were being ignored and they took to the ballot box and not the streets, in the hope of regaining just a little taste of that old-time patriotism they fondly remember.

 

There is nothing wrong with a little patriotic sentiment; if nurtured correctly it is beneficial for the smooth governing of a country, and not result in any extreme form of nationalism or fascism.

 

Hopefully the liberal left will learn to accept what democracy is all about and allow this current patriotic revival to run its course, and stop resorting to disruptive protests and social disorder. (Basically, they need to grow up and stop acting like spoiled brats) If history is any judge, it is disruptive protests and social disorder that sometimes leads to a fascist state, not mildly patriotic sentiment.

 

As for the year 2020, the pendulum may well swing back the other way in four years if this unique social experiment that is embodied by Donald Trump does not pan out.

[Mariel33]

I think there is a general threat to the continuation of liberal democracy, posed by society's slowness to learn how to deal with the internet, including social media, and the exploitation of this by certain states that wish to attack Western democracy, such as Russia. I see Trump and Brexit as manifestations of a new gullibility, driven by willingness to believe all, and only, that which is fed to people by like-minded sources and contacts on the web that they have found.  

 

A new stupidity is abroad, in which people choose not to believe in the truth of any story they wish not to be true, in which attempts to understand other people's point of view are dismissed as "liberal" (in the derogatory US sense, i.e. sort of left-wing, sanctimonious and vaguely gay or something), and in which politeness in discourse and the toning down of base emotions is no no longer required, due to the anonymity of the internet. Trust in experts is undermined, due to lack of belief in objective knowledge.

 

That, I think, is the challenge for the next 20 years. Elected politicians are tempted to exploit this New Stupidity via populism and debate of an extremely low quality. The best defence may come from the judiciary, who thank goodness are not elected, and in the UK from the House of Lords, as this is not elected either. What an irony. 

 

With any hope, the internet will soon mean the destruction of all national sense - but then obviously the internet will also mean the ability to create a new social construct. I'm torn between wanting the current protesters in the US to just outright destroy the national institutions, but also recognising that that's a hopeless cause: establishments actually feed off of protests, being able to win because of them. 

My actual wish is that those who are fed up with the political right and all its ideology instead rely on the internet, rather than resorting to physical action.

[exchemist]

With any hope, the internet will soon mean the destruction of all national sense - but then obviously the internet will also mean the ability to create a new social construct. I'm torn between wanting the current protesters in the US to just outright destroy the national institutions, but also recognising that that's a hopeless cause: establishments actually feed off of protests, being able to win because of them. 

My actual wish is that those who are fed up with the political right and all its ideology instead rely on the internet, rather than resorting to physical action.

The internet will do no such thing. Read "Lord of the Flies". Civilisation is only skin-deep. If something removes the social controls that prevent us behaving like crude barbarians, then that is what we will do. That is what the anonymity and the self-selection of the internet do. 

[HydrogenBond]

America formed to break away from the rule of royalty. Royalty which was essentially big government, which had it fingers in all aspect of life. It was a rigged system, like Hillary's turn to run. America was about power to the people, and limited government away from big government control. 

 

The US government under Obama and the Democrats grew in size and debt, with more new laws and regulations than even before; too much government control. Obama Care was taxation without representation since 60% of the people did not want it but are forced to but it. 

 

Trump is about streaming government and returning power back to the states and people, which is the direction of grass roots America. If you make the government smaller it is harder to be a fascist dictator. The Democrats are better at forming a dictatorship. 

[A-wal]

Utter BS! The fastest way to a dictatorship is to privatise what should be social institutions like health and education to create monopolies.

 

All Trump represents is fear, hatred and ignorance. A huge backwards step!

[Mariel33]

The internet will do no such thing. Read "Lord of the Flies". Civilisation is only skin-deep. If something removes the social controls that prevent us behaving like crude barbarians, then that is what we will do. That is what the anonymity and the self-selection of the internet do. 

Day to day, people need to express themselves, but at the same time there needs to be an equality of expression - which is what's currently absent. Trump's election represents the rejection of equality, in which corporations, jobs, violence and unhealthy routines will continue to be the norm.

 

If the protesters don't protest (because really what they're protesting at is a routine of life that involves jobs and money), but are unhappy about their routines of life, what else besides the internet can help them?

 

Isn't it fair that "all people" get to live a routine that makes them happy?

The way I look at it is that if people believe in the right to a routine that they want, but at the same time aren't willing to make sure that all people have that right - due to capitalism and society being life's way - violence isn't then something to criticise.

 

If people want to live on the basis that they can presume to be able to ignore others, they then have no right to criticise violence.  

Edited November 19, 2016 by Mariel33

[billvon]

America formed to break away from the rule of royalty. Royalty which was essentially big government, which had it fingers in all aspect of life. It was a rigged system, like Hillary's turn to run. America was about power to the people, and limited government away from big government control. 

 

The US government under Obama and the Democrats grew in size and debt, with more new laws and regulations than even before; too much government control. Obama Care was taxation without representation since 60% of the people did not want it but are forced to but it. 

 

Trump is about streaming government and returning power back to the states and people, which is the direction of grass roots America. If you make the government smaller it is harder to be a fascist dictator. The Democrats are better at forming a dictatorship. 

Trump has admitted he will increase the deficit by over $100 billion a year and grow the government massively.  The more ignorant Trump supporters never noticed.

 

Clinton wanted to support small businesses in America; Trump supports billionaires. He will bring back the era of the robber barons, and end the sort of small businesses that made America great.  Trump supporters want this because they are authoritarians; they want strong, powerful father figures to make their decisions for them, rather than face the bewildering array of choices that free citizens face.

[OceanBreeze]

Day to day, people need to express themselves, but at the same time there needs to be an equality of expression - which is what's currently absent. Trump's election represents the rejection of equality, in which corporations, jobs, violence and unhealthy routines will continue to be the norm.

 

If the protesters don't protest (because really what they're protesting at is a routine of life that involves jobs and money), but are unhappy about their routines of life, what else besides the internet can help them?

 

Isn't it fair that "all people" get to live a routine that makes them happy?

The way I look at it is that if people believe in the right to a routine that they want, but at the same time aren't willing to make sure that all people have that right - due to capitalism and society being life's way - violence isn't then something to criticise.

 

If people want to live on the basis that they can presume to be able to ignore others, they then have no right to criticise violence.

I find this so ironic!

As I wrote earlier, there is a significant segment of the populace who share the sentiment that they were being ignored by the government, particularly under the Obama administration. So, they went to the polls, not the streets, and prevailed through the democratic process. Now the “democrats” (what irony) are in the streets protesting against a free and fair election!

 

These ignored people are the ones who work full-time jobs but make just enough that they do not qualify for benefits such as food stamp and welfare programs. They have friends and neighbors getting government assistance while they themselves are being financially “punished” for working. They don’t want to remove assistance to the poor; they want to increase assistance for the middle class.

 

That is the sentiment that Trump has managed to tap into, and he has some proposals that appeals to the working middle class :

 

1).  The Trump Tax Plan will collapse the current seven tax brackets to three brackets, Less than $75,000: 12%, More than $75,000 but less than $225,000: 25%, More than $225,000: 33%. The Tax Foundation determined that, on average, taxpayers will receive a tax cut of $1,818 under the Trump Plan, but a tax increase of $176 under the Clinton plan.  [Tax Foundation, Sept. 23, 2016]

 

2).  The Trump Tax Plan will increase the economy and grow jobs by almost 2 million, while Hillary Clinton’s tax plan will shrink the economy and lose 300,000 jobs. In combination with the total economic reform agenda, the Trump economic plan will create at least 25 million jobs over the next 10 years. [Tax Foundation, Jan. 26, 2016]

 

3). Under the Trump Plan Americans will be able to take an above-the-line deduction for children under age 13 that will be capped at state average for age of child, and for eldercare for a dependent. The exclusion will not be available to taxpayers with total income over $500,000 Married-Joint /$250,000 Single, and because of the cap on the size of the benefit, working and middle class families will see the largest percentage reduction in their taxable income.

 

4). The Trump Plan will repeal the “death tax”, but capital gains held until death and valued over $10 million will be subject to tax to exempt small businesses and family farms. To prevent abuse, contributions of appreciated assets into a private charity established by the decedent or the decedent’s relatives will be disallowed

 

All of these things (and more) appeal to the “forgotten” working middle class.

 

The lesson for the democrats and liberals is: ignore an entire class of people and you will pay the price.

 Can you now see the irony of your post?

 

Moderation note: 25 posts beginning with a reply to this one were moved to "Discussion Of "the Concept Of Jobs And Money" because they are about a different topic.

[OceanBreeze]

Trump has admitted he will increase the deficit by over $100 billion a year and grow the government massively.  The more ignorant Trump supporters never noticed.

 

 

Oh really? I followed Trump's campaign fairly close, and I don't recall ever seeing or hearing him "admit" to any such thing.

I think I would have noticed it because that would be a bad thing to admit to, while running for President.

 

But, if you have a link to back your claim, I will admit I am wrong.

[OceanBreeze]

Utter BS! The fastest way to a dictatorship is to privatise what should be social institutions like health and education to create monopolies.

 

All Trump represents is fear, hatred and ignorance. A huge backwards step!

Your post is A huge backwards step!

[exchemist]

Utter BS! The fastest way to a dictatorship is to privatise what should be social institutions like health and education to create monopolies.

 

All Trump represents is fear, hatred and ignorance. A huge backwards step!

Well hang on a bit. I'm not familiar with the US scene, but normally, when a government privatises a formerly public service, they are well aware of the need to avoid monopolies developing. This has certainly been the case with utilities in the UK for example, which were privatised by Margaret Thatcher. (And the service now is a lot better, even though people still moan and there are occasional scandals). 

 

Also, I think you need to make your case as to why you think business monopolies lead to political dictatorship. I don't really see the connection. In fact, I think in most dictatorships the state runs a great deal more of the economy than it typically does in democracies. Can you explain your thinking on this point?  

[billvon]

Oh really? I followed Trump's campaign fairly close, and I don't recall ever seeing or hearing him "admit" to any such thing.

I think I would have noticed it because that would be a bad thing to admit to, while running for President.

 

But, if you have a link to back your claim, I will admit I am wrong.

From the WSJ:

=============================

Donald Trump Would Boost Debt More Than Hillary Clinton, Report Says The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget quantifies the effects of candidates' revenue and spending proposals on U.S. deficits.

 

The report finds that Donald Trump would cut spending by around $1.2 trillion over the next decade while reducing revenues by $5.8 trillion through his plans to cut taxes and repeal other taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act.

Nick Timiraos

Sep 26, 2016 7:43 am ET

 

A new analysis estimates Hillary Clinton’s tax and spending proposals would have a relatively modest effect on the national debt, while Donald Trump’s fiscal plans would sharply boost deficits and the debt over the next decade.

The report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates debt reduction, examines the fiscal proposals of both candidates as of Sept. 21.

It finds Mrs. Clinton’s proposed tax increases, primarily on businesses and the wealthiest American households, would cover most of the cost of $1.65 trillion in new proposed spending over the next decade, including $500 billion on college education and $300 billion each on infrastructure and paid family leave.

The plan would boost spending by $200 billion over the next decade relative to current policy, leaving the national debt at around 86% of gross domestic product in a decade. That is up from around 75% today and in line with the level that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the debt will hit if no changes are made to spending and revenue over the coming decade.

The report finds that Mr. Trump, on the other hand, would cut spending by around $1.2 trillion over the next decade while reducing revenues by $5.8 trillion through his plans to cut taxes and repeal other taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act. The spending estimate takes into account large cuts from repealing the health-care law and from slashing nondefense discretionary spending. Partially offsetting those cuts are big increases in spending on defense, veterans’ programs and child care.

The estimate of Mr. Trump’s tax cuts is based on part from an analysis conducted by the Tax Foundation, a separate think-tank, and it could rise or fall by another $750 billion depending on unspecified details in Mr. Trump’s proposals to reduce taxes for certain pass-through businesses.

Including the costs of additional federal borrowing from Mr. Trump’s plans, the national debt would rise by $5.3 trillion over a decade relative to current policy, pushing the debt-to-GDP ratio to 105%.

=====================================

Edited November 19, 2016 by billvon