Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[amw]

Trump's ideological beliefs are certainly comparable to Hitler's—he is, more or less, a fascist. That said, I think the comparison breaks down for a few reasons: first of all, we've already had a Hitler. People are on the lookout for that kind of thing. The Nazis were in their time something totally new; Trump doesn't bring anything new to the table. Second of all, the world has changed massively since 1932, and mostly in ways that prevent authoritarian leaders from rising to power within democratic systems. Third of all, he's kind of... really old, and not in great shape, probably going to die pretty soon tbh. >_> Also I feel like it's a bit harder to just straight up dismiss Congress, ban opposition parties, etc in America 2016 than it was in Germany 1934. Like. Trump does not have a Sturmabteilung. Maybe Breitbart is his modern equivalent but that's a bit of a stretch.

I'm also gonna go with Berlusconi.

[Florestan]

Trump's ideological beliefs are certainly comparable to Hitler's

Except in that Trump hasn´t any. Where is his Mein Kampf?

Hitler´s actions were accurately predictable from day one of his rule, precisely because he was a rigid ideologue; Trump is unpredictable precisely because he lacks any ideology. "Make America Great Again!" is a slogan, not a programme.

[North Star]

Except in that Trump hasn´t any. Where is his Mein Kampf?

[Florestan]

Have you read it?

[North Star]

Have you read it?

No. I haven't read Mein Kampf either. (I should have put a smiley in the post above, I suppose.)

[amw]

Except in that Trump hasn´t any. Where is his Mein Kampf?

Hitler´s actions were accurately predictable from day one of his rule, precisely because he was a rigid ideologue; Trump is unpredictable precisely because he lacks any ideology. "Make America Great Again!" is a slogan, not a programme.

Trump's political views, such as they are, have been pretty consistently expressed: what could be termed "state capitalism" (e.g. protectionism, close ties between government and industry), admiration for authoritarian rule ("strong leaders", law and order), and an ethno-nationalist message, combined with bizarre conspiracy theories. That is not too far off from the NSDAP. That said, yeah, the only things Trump is particularly rigid about are his name, and his love of money and attention. On the rest he'll probably etch-a-sketch. So, another point of difference, lol.

[Florestan]

No. I haven't read Mein Kampf either.

Here´s how Wikipedia describes Trump´s book:

The book tells about Trump's childhood in Jamaica Estates, Queens. It then describes his early work in Brooklyn prior to moving to Manhattan, whereupon he engaged in building The Trump Organization out of his studio apartment. It then describes his actions and thoughts in developing the Grand Hyatt Hotel and Trump Tower, in renovating Wollman Rink, and regarding various other projects.[7]

The book also contains an 11-step formula for business success, inspired by Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking.[8] Trump's steps are:

    Think big
    Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
    Maximize your options
    Know your market
    Use your leverage
    Enhance your location
    Get the word out
    Fight back
    Deliver the goods
    Contain the costs
    Have fun [9]


Nothing even remotely akin to Mein Kampf, which I have read.

The funny thing is that, also according to Wikipedia, "[Tony] Schwartz, expressing regrets about his involvement, asserted that Trump had played no role in the actual writing of the book; Trump has given conflicting accounts on the question of authorship.[1]"

That is an expression we should get used to in respect with Trump: he gives conflicting accounts of his views. For instance, the wall might actually be a fence and 12 millions might actually be 3.

(I should have put a smiley in the post above, I suppose.)

[North Star]

The funny thing is that, also according to Wikipedia, "[Tony] Schwartz, expressing regrets about his involvement, asserted that Trump had played no role in the actual writing of the book; Trump has given conflicting accounts on the question of authorship.[1]"

You'll enjoy reading this.

[Florestan]

You'll enjoy reading this.

The funniest thing was picturing George W. Bush looking at a pile of books and asking himself "What should I read next? Kant´s Critique of Pure Reason or Nietzsche´s the Birth of Tragedy? A plague on Rove´s library, I think I´ll eventually take Karl May´s Winnetou." 

[Todd]

Are they exaggerated?

Yep.  Very much so.  But the comparison fits in very well in an environment where the political left in the US, represented by the not especially left-wing Democratic Party, relied extensively on hyperbole in its anti-Trump messaging.  Trump is like Mussolini/Hitler/<insert your favorite dictator here>; Trump will be a catastrophe; Trump's administration will be apocalyptic - said Hillary: "I'm the Last Thing Standing Between You and the Apocalypse".  I find it interesting that Hillary relied on religious imagery and ideas on occasion.  She also called Trump's supporters irredeemable.  Perhaps she thought she could reach the Evangelicals that way.  She didn't.

It should be noted that the Democrats were very purposeful in their approach and the language they used.  It was part of their strategy, as was hammering more establishment candidates early in the primaries.  Unfortunately, as a few commentators have admitted since the election, the Democrats had been crying wolf for several cycles.  They trotted out the Hitler trope against Mitt Romney.  Of course, Truman used it against Dewey, too, so it's an old standby at this point.  It doesn't mean anything anymore.

It is true that Trump brought nothing new in one sense: he's the latest example of the American right-wing populism and/or conspiracy theorists.  (There was also William Jennings Bryan, of course, though he is not as good an analog for a variety of reasons.)  There were the 30s rabble rousers like Father Charles Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh.  There was the America First Committee and the John Birch Society.  There were Strom Thurmond and George Wallace.  There was Joe McCarthy.  More recently, there was Pat Robertson.  But Trump did bring something new: he was able to repackage his form of populism for the modern age of communications (eg, social media), and he was able to deploy his skills as a television entertainer - something he has been honing since the 1980s - in a way that attracted a large, disaffected population of voters.  He was aided by the Democrats putting up the very definition of an establishment candidate with widely known shortcomings and a high disapproval rating from day one.  That people continue to use Hitler comparisons simply reflects their lack of understanding of American politics and history, and, apparently, the Nazis.  The Berlusconi comparison is more apt, though now for a country with immense power. 

[Rinaldo]

Yep.  Very much so.  But the comparison fits in very well in an environment where the political left in the US, represented by the not especially left-wing Democratic Party, relied extensively on hyperbole in its anti-Trump messaging.  Trump is like Mussolini/Hitler/<insert your favorite dictator here>; Trump will be a catastrophe; Trump's administration will be apocalyptic - said Hillary: "I'm the Last Thing Standing Between You and the Apocalypse".  I find it interesting that Hillary relied on religious imagery and ideas on occasion.  She also called Trump's supporters irredeemable.  Perhaps she thought she could reach the Evangelicals that way.  She didn't.

It should be noted that the Democrats were very purposeful in their approach and the language they used.  It was part of their strategy, as was hammering more establishment candidates early in the primaries.  Unfortunately, as a few commentators have admitted since the election, the Democrats had been crying wolf for several cycles.  They trotted out the Hitler trope against Mitt Romney.  Of course, Truman used it against Dewey, too, so it's an old standby at this point.  It doesn't mean anything anymore.

It is true that Trump brought nothing new in one sense: he's the latest example of the American right-wing populism and/or conspiracy theorists.  (There was also William Jennings Bryan, of course, though he is not as good an analog for a variety of reasons.)  There were the 30s rabble rousers like Father Charles Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh.  There was the America First Committee and the John Birch Society.  There were Strom Thurmond and George Wallace.  There was Joe McCarthy.  More recently, there was Pat Robertson.  But Trump did bring something new: he was able to repackage his form of populism for the modern age of communications (eg, social media), and he was able to deploy his skills as a television entertainer - something he has been honing since the 1980s - in a way that attracted a large, disaffected population of voters.  He was aided by the Democrats putting up the very definition of an establishment candidate with widely known shortcomings and a high disapproval rating from day one.  That people continue to use Hitler comparisons simply reflects their lack of understanding of American politics and history, and, apparently, the Nazis.  The Berlusconi comparison is more apt, though now for a country with immense power.

Fair enough.

While I'm not the one saying Trump equals Hitler, I firmly believe the lesson of Holocaust is to be extra cautious about things like this:

White nationalists see advocate in Steve Bannon who will hold Trump to his campaign promises
KKK, American Nazi Party praise Trump's hiring of Bannon

..all while swastikas are back in fashion. This is not something you should be sweeping under the Berlusconi rug, guys.

[Parsifal]

This, I find rather disturbing.

A list of things Trump promises to put into immediate effect. (See the link to the times article for more details).

Executive Actions

1 Clean Power Plan Regulations to curb pollution from coal-fired power plants.

2 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Protects undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.

3 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents Intended to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation, but an appeals court ruling blocking the plan remains in place after a 4-to-4 tie in the Supreme Court.

4 Waters of the United States Rule intended to protect waterways and wetlands.

Legislation

5 Affordable Care Act In an interview Friday, Mr. Trump indicated he might keep parts of President Obama's signature legislative achievement.

6 Dodd-Frank Overhauled regulation of the financial industry in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

7 Defense sequester Automatic, across-the-board spending restrictions.

8 Alternative minimum tax Aimed at making it harder for the affluent to take advantage of various tax breaks.

9 Estate tax Currently applies to only about 5,300 of the richest families.

10 Gun-free zones At military bases and at schools.

International Obligations

11 Paris Climate Change Agreement Commits more than 190 countries to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

12 North American Free Trade Agreement Trade deal signed by United States, Canada and Mexico more than 20 years ago.

13 Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade deal among the United States and several Asian countries.

14 Payments to United Nations' climate fund

Federal Agencies

15 Education Department It is "massive, and it can largely be eliminated."

16 Environmental Protection Agency "We are going to get rid of it in almost every form."

Other

17 Undocumented immigrants with criminal records

18 Federal funding of so-called sanctuary cities Places where local authorities have stopped cooperating with federal immigration agents.

19 Common Core Learning standards for math and English.

20 Syrian refugees Temporary ban.

Regarding No 20, I thought continues to advocate a more sweeping ban on Muslim immigrants.
No 17 I find confusing, since undocumented immigrants with criminal records are already subject to deportation.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/11/us/politics/what-trump-wants-to-change.html

[Todd]

This is not something you should be sweeping under the Berlusconi rug, guys.

Nor is it something that should be blown out of proportion.  The Klan is a boogeyman from another era.  Yes, there are still some Klan chapters around, but there are some chapters with only a handful of members.  White nationalists/neo-Nazis/skinheads still exist, but they are rare as well.  They lack much in the way of money or organizational power.  I live in Oregon, a state that had the exclusion of African Americans written into the state constitution, and it was nearly run by the Klan in the 1920s.  Even in the deepest red parts of the state - the east and the south - the remnants of these organizations are gone.  In their place are evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for whom abortion, gun rights, and a weak federal government are the big issues.  There are certainly portions of the country where white supremacists are more widespread, but their numbers are limited.  The SPLC lists 892 hate groups and 998 anti-government patriot groups in the US today.  That's a lot, to be sure, but these groups are not teeming with thousands or tens of thousands of members.  The risk must be put into proper context.

[Todd]

Regarding No 20, I thought continues to advocate a more sweeping ban on Muslim immigrants.

That was dropped within a day or two of the election.

As to the legislation, well, it won't be immediate, and it will involve the standard sausage making.

I suspect the Education Department is here to stay.  (Obama wanted to get rid of Commerce; instead he appointed a Pritzker to head it.)

And just where is appointing a SCOTUS justice in his list of priorities?

[drogulus]

     When Hillary used the "deplorables" epithet she committed the "Kinsley gaffe", telling a truth that rebounds back on you. Her goal should have been to win over as many borderline deplorables as possible, particularly in the Rust belt areas of the "Blue Wall" that crumbled and elected Trump, but also throughout the Red zone.

     She should have understood that there are people who are not White Panthers, who don't hate immigrants, who see that they and their communities are last in line for help from the elites of both parties. Her message should have been pitched to them. She should have told the neglected working class in both the Red and Blue zones the same thing, that we will now have a recovery for you, that the Repubs betrayed you for their donors, that Repubs only want free trade and supply side tax policy because it benefits their donors in ways that damage your prospects. If these measures didn't move income away from workers they'd be useless for their advocates. The advantage of this approach is that it would be received by an audience that already knows how true it is, and desperately want to hear a politician say it to them in a way that points toward solutions.

     Warren is already there, and now she's set free. My view is that liberal elitists need to operate on the FDR model and respond directly to economic dislocations or their elitism goes bad. Their own social solidarity plays as exclusiveness in fly over country, and it doesn't help that it's also condescending. A positive economic policy detoxifies that condescension. People want elites to help. They hate the condescension for how it combines with indifference to their problems. Both parties are seen as collaborating in this indifference, fighting over the allocation of blame.

     A positive economic plan has the virtue of reducing ethnic rivalry instead of exacerbating it. More jobs, lower worker taxes and new/repaired infrastructure spreads benefits widely. It's been a terrible blunder to allow the old economy to wither with no path to a new one. Trump voters have sent a message to the zero sum combatants. Soon, they will send it to Trump. 

[Todd]

Warren is already there, and now she's set free.

No she's not.  She's in the minority party.  She is hobbled for at least two years, and probably four. 

Baby boomers need to look at this last election, and realize that their generation put up the worst overall slate of presidential candidates since probably 1876.  Democrats need to start looking forward, not cling to the aged past.  Clinton, Sanders, Warren, they are the gerontocracy.  Time to rely on Kamala Harris, Julian Castro, Cory Booker (though he needs to stop partly blaming voters like he did on Meet the Press), Kirsten Gillibrand, and others.  Dems need to cultivate new leaders along with a new message. 

[Mister Sharpe]

No she's not.  She's in the minority party.  She is hobbled for at least two years, and probably four. 

Baby boomers need to look at this last election, and realize that their generation put up the worst overall slate of presidential candidates since probably 1876.  Democrats need to start looking forward, not cling to the aged past.  Clinton, Sanders, Warren, they are the gerontocracy.  Time to rely on Kamala Harris, Julian Castro, Cory Booker (though he needs to stop partly blaming voters like he did on Meet the Press), Kirsten Gillibrand, and others.  Dems need to cultivate new leaders along with a new message.

Agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle...

[Todd]

Agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle...

How is Warren "set free"?  I mean, she can give potboiler speeches as is her wont, but she's hobbled legislatively.

[Mister Sharpe]

How is Warren "set free"?  I mean, she can give potboiler speeches as is her wont, but she's hobbled legislatively.

No, I agree with ya', she is hobbled as you say.  I think drogulus meant by "set free" that she no longer has the weight, or 'succession',  of more powerful Democrats in front of her.  Personally, I am not convinced that Warren in her heart of hearts seeks higher office.

[Florestan]

     When Hillary used the "deplorables" epithet she committed the "Kinsley gaffe", telling a truth that rebounds back on you. Her goal should have been to win over as many borderline deplorables as possible, particularly in the Rust belt areas of the "Blue Wall" that crumbled and elected Trump, but also throughout the Red zone.

     She should have understood that there are people who are not White Panthers, who don't hate immigrants, who see that they and their communities are last in line for help from the elites of both parties. Her message should have been pitched to them. She should have told the neglected working class in both the Red and Blue zones the same thing, that we will now have a recovery for you, that the Repubs betrayed you for their donors, that Repubs only want free trade and supply side tax policy because it benefits their donors in ways that damage your prospects. If these measures didn't move income away from workers they'd be useless for their advocates. The advantage of this approach is that it would be received by an audience that already knows how true it is, and desperately want to hear a politician say it to them in a way that points toward solutions.

     Warren is already there, and now she's set free. My view is that liberal elitists need to operate on the FDR model and respond directly to economic dislocations or their elitism goes bad. Their own social solidarity plays as exclusiveness in fly over country, and it doesn't help that it's also condescending. A positive economic policy detoxifies that condescension. People want elites to help. They hate the condescension for how it combines with indifference to their problems. Both parties are seen as collaborating in this indifference, fighting over the allocation of blame.

     A positive economic plan has the virtue of reducing ethnic rivalry instead of exacerbating it. More jobs, lower worker taxes and new/repaired infrastructure spreads benefits widely. It's been a terrible blunder to allow the old economy to wither with no path to a new one. Trump voters have sent a message to the zero sum combatants. Soon, they will send it to Trump.

That´s all very nice but why didn´t you post it before November 8? AFAIR, you were only too happy that the GOP will explode and did not express the slightest concern about Hillary and the Dems not winning or employing wrong tactics...