Categories Politics

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
I think there needs to be precision in categorizing sets of authoritarian political ideas - responses also vary according to the nature of the authoritarian political ideas.

Fascism is ideological in ways Trump isn't - Trump is still a danger in terms of democratic backsliding


An important difference between 20th century fascism and 21st century right-wing authoritarian populism is that fascism was explicitly deadset on exposing democracy as bad - people like Orbàn or Erdogan or Trump are fine with the superficial trappings of democracy.

Mussolini shut down true accusations of voter intimidation through the intimidation of his critics, which led to the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti, who had exposed the fascist intimidation at the polls. Trump spread and encouraged conspiracy theories about voter fraud.

Why does this matter? Because right-wing populist supporters make arguments that THEY are the ones defending not just the abstract "will of the people" (that's common in fascism too) but the procedures of democracy itself. They accuse their rivals of authoritarianism.

People like Mussolini or Hitler made no secret that they thought of democracy as decadent and corrupt, not just morally, but politically, as a system. Trump or Erdogan or Orbàn (or to a lesser extent Putin) claim that it's LIBERALISM which is decadent and corrupt.
Pundits: The fact that Ossoff and Warnock are unlikely to both win their elections means Joe Biden needs to court Republican votes rather than push a much-needed progressive agenda

*Ossoff and Warnock win handily*

Pundits: Ah. Nevertheless,


The only way political reporting in this country makes sense is if you understand that the almost universal, almost subconscious default assumption: that conservative white people are the protagonists of any story that's being told, no matter the facts of the story.

Just do the obvious and necessary good things and let the horrid evil people who hate good things squeal and cry about it forever.

I really need Democrats who will state the clear and obvious truth, which is that Republicans are our enemies, because they insist on attacking the very idea of a shared society and are more than happy to use violence to do it, which is the very definition of an enemy.

You can't make people who want to kill you not be your enemies even if you wish they'd be your friend.

They can stop trying to kill you, but until that happens they are your enemy, and acknowledging that fact isn't what makes that fact true.
This is why I just don't buy that 'Corbyn changed politics'. He did his best, sure - but the movement didn't move anywhere, even under his watch.

It's strange, looking back, how much potential was wasted. And not just because of PLP sabotage either. All very sad.


On a related note: I've seen many tweets insisting that Corbyn *proved* Labour don't need donors' money.

Sorry, no he didn't. Because we lost: in general elections, European elections and local elections again and again and again. Despite the massive membership.

He certainly enthused and inspired many... but ultimately, not enough. And he was like Marmite to the wider electorate for all sorts of reasons: some legitimate, others a lot less so.

See also: Sanders. Enthused and inspired many, dragged the platform leftwards, not corporate funded in any way... and never close to winning.

How big is the Tory membership? It's a heck of a lot smaller than Labour's even now... yet look at their majority. Money still matters.

To be frank, Labour will always be the underdogs. Our entire history - which is embarrassingly bad electorally - demonstrates that.

So we have to think differently, act differently (Starmer falls down on both at present) and combine activism and Parliamentary politics together.