Trump has always been a presence, not an absence: the presence of fascism. What does this mean?
When the Soviets called their enemies “fascists,” they turned the word into a meaningless insult. Putinist Russia has preserved the habit: a “fascist” is anyone who opposes the wishes of a Russian dictator. So Ukrainians defending their country from Russian invaders are “fascists.” This is a trick that Trump has copied. He, like Vladimir Putin, refers to his enemies as “fascists,” with no ideological significance at all. It is simply a term of opprobrium.
Putin and Trump are both, in fact, fascists. And their use of the word, though meant to confuse, reminds us of one of fascism’s essential characteristics. A fascist is unconcerned with the connection between words and meanings. He does not serve the language; the language serves him. When a fascist calls a liberal a “fascist,” the term begins to work in a different way, as the servant of a particular person, rather than as a bearer of meaning.
[…]
Fascism is a phenomenon, not a person. Just as Trump was always a presence, so is the movement he has created. It is not just a matter of the actual fascists in his movement, who are scarcely hiding, nor of his own friendly references to Hitler or his use of Hitlerian language (“vermin,” “enemy within”). He bears responsibility for what comes next, as do his allies and supporters.
Yet some, and probably more, of the blame rests with our actions and analysis. Again and again, our major institutions, from the media to the judiciary, have amplified Trump’s presence; again and again, we have failed to name the consequences. Fascism can be defeated, but not when we are on its side.
Fascism is, at heart, at least as much an economic system as it is a political one, and broadly, more so.
Fascism, alongside its political control of the populace, establishes economic control of the populace, and it does it very simply, by organizing the government to serve businesses and the wealthy few who control them, and by establishing a revolving door by which a relative few are allowed to freely move between control of the two.
This is the underlying point of Project 2025, and specifically the reason for the planned purge of civil servants. They are to be replaced by people who can be counted upon to serve the interests of the wealthy few and to deny the interests of the rest of the populace.
Again and again, our major institutions, from the media to the judiciary, have amplified Trump’s presence; again and again, we have failed to name the consequences. Fascism can be defeated, but not when we are on its side.
Those in power in those institutions, even if they don’t share the political goals of Trump and his coattail-riders, are driven by their own greed to at the very least not stand too much in the way, since they too expect to profit.
Mmm… sort of.
In some very broad sense, yes, it’s corruption.
In a narrower and more precise sense though, it isn’t really, since “corruption” implies a violation of higher standards, which is what we’ve had, to a greater or lesser extent, pretty much throughout our history.
The difference in the coming era is that there will be no higher standards to corrupt. The things that were previously violations of higher standards will become the new standards. Theft and graft and cronyism will no longer be crimes or even (meaningfully recognized) wrongs - they will be the institutional norms.
And I don’t mean this as mere pedantry - the point is that when what used to be corruption becomes the overt norms, things will get much, much worse than they ever were or could be when they were still corruption.
At this point, I’m just resigned - let us go to the brink, allow the forces of Mordor to assail the walls of Gondor - either the white tree blossoms or doesn’t.
When people see that the doors are torn down and the city is burned, 10 million people will decide they shouldn’t have sat out the election.
Why blame the people who didn’t vote? They didn’t vote for a reason surely, just as you and I voted for a reason. Just because their reason isn’t the same as yours doesn’t mean it isn’t just as valid. Maybe it’s ignorance or perhaps it’s misinformation, but at this moment there’s no way to know that, so discounting 10 million peoples conscious choice only serves to widen divides and alienate more people.
Blame Harris and the DNC for running bad campaigns and candidates. It’s on them to win the voters and an election, and it should have been clear that ‘the same campaign as last time and the time before’ wasn’t working.
No matter who we point at, we’re going to have to start reengaging with our communities and supporting each other, and having those 10 million (likely somewhere left of moderate right) people on side going forward is vital.
Why blame the people who didn’t vote?
Because voter participation was only 65% and dropped compared to 2020 (in fact, Trump effectively got the same votes) and this was an election about continuing our democracy, or enabling a fascist to avoid accountability. People were worried about who Kamala was and what she would do - that pales in comparison to what Trump will do
The non-voters and the dipshit third party voters will spend the next however many years blaming “Democrats” instead of themselves for whatever horrors come out of Trump and his administration. Was it worth it to keep a normal person like Harris out of office? Not asking now, it’s just a question to ponder if we’re allowed to have Midterm elections.
The 900 page Project 2025 document is still freely available, if you’re curious about what’s coming.
No need to blame third party. At least they voted.
Voters didn’t show up, period. It’s so bad that literally every democratic voter could have instead voted 3rd party and Trump still would have won.
Blame the DNC for not having a primary, and blame voters for not showing up to vote for things like Ranked Choice Voting.
But third party voters actually voted this time. The fault is not on them. (Unless they were saying there’s no point to voting)
“No primary” is the excuse I keep hearing. Well, given the three months notice, wtf did people want? Harris is VP, next in line for the presidency. So she’s the obvious choice. They could have had an open convention. But Harris appeared to have overwhelming support from Democratic voters. So an open convention would have had no challengers. I’m sorry a whole bunch of people couldn’t muster a vote for her in light of the alternative authoritarian POS that will now run the country.
And the Greens are 100% a spoiler party, trotting out their unqualified (Stein couldn’t answer how many people are in Congress, a basic bit of civics) shill candidate every four years while doing absolutely jackshit as a party at any other time. They have never got someone elected to Congress in the entirety of their existence. Because they don’t even try.
Harris did indeed have overwhelming support and the polls even showed her ahead for a decent while. Sometime after the debate, she started courting the Cheney faction and simultaneously diluted her messaging. Coincidentally, this is also soon after she brought some Clinton strategists in. She lost the enthusiasm she had built up in the summer.
I dont exactly excuse people who stayed home (or protest voted), but I do understand that Harris didn’t do herself any favors with that type voter either. I felt the enthusiasm wane, and I’ve never missed a federal or state election.
Oh, believe me I 100% agree with you on both points. Just look through my history, 110% agree in full. The DNC’s choice, while frustrating, made sense. I think acting early would have been the way to actually get a primary, and that wasn’t happening because Biden decided he wasn’t a 1 term President for a little while. Because of this people around here blame the DNC for causing this situation in the first place, which I’m 50/50 on. The situation was from the DNC, but at the same time, if Harris wasn’t your first choice and you have no other alternatives, why the heck didn’t anyone vote for Ranked Choice Voting on their ballot? It failed nation wide. And people point out that abortion won in red states, as if that changes my point? Granted, ranked choice could have been different for each states ballot, I’m not certain on what the specifics are for each state, or why they might have failed if abortion passed.
However in post election, the Greens got what, 1 million votes? At least they voted, at all. I don’t really think it’s the greens and most of those voters that were telling people to not vote. The fact of the matter is that with our numbers in the electoral college, they all could have voted for Harris, all Democrats could have voted for Stein, it wouldn’t have mattered, because people didn’t show up to vote.
I think that it was a combination of a lack of enthusiasm for Harris after staying so strongly pro-Israel instead of more heavily actively campaigning for, at the very least, a two state solution. Though really we all know that we want the genocide to end, and that was all the campaigning that would really be needed.
It would be a different story if it was 75 million to 74 million (Harris) down to a swing state or two in the E.C., but it wasn’t. It was a blowout because people didn’t go vote.
So whatever caused people to choose not to vote was really the issue. What those are though will be different depending on who you ask (and in reality, any answer is probably a correct answer for about a thousand people)
For the record I was hardly blaming you; in fact I was sort of building on your point. People who nonvoted or voted Trump or third party will spend the rest of their lives experiencing fascism and civil strife like they’ve read about in history. We are done hypothesizing. There are two months before America becomes really really whacky. I hope supposed left leaning people remember where they were and how they felt when they chose ABSOLUTELY FUCKING WRONG LMAO
The new Horst Wessel Lied will be performed by Kid Rock.
