A great overall analysis, and I think your basic thesis is correct. What I think it leaves underappreciated—you get into it a little, but I think it’s a bigger part of the American story than you say here—is how the unseriousness of the American public in the social media age allowed the fascists to convince people to be utterly repulsed by “the left” without the public truly fearing the left would destroy democracy.
That is, you tell a story of fascists convincing people they’re preferable to watching democracy fall to the depredations of the social democrats, as though social democrats are communists. But Trump didn’t need to convince anyone Kamala Harris was Hugo Chavez—after all, a lot of Trump voters had been Bernie voters, and he’s more a democratic socialist than Harris. Rather, all Trump had to do was convince people Democrats were wimpy weirdos. That’s why the trans issue is so potent. Trans people are seen as weird.
Trump was able to turn American politics into a 7th-grade schoolyard, where only a very few people actually like the schoolyard bully, but people would rather be seen standing next to the bully than next to the spastic nerd with the mismatched socks. Moderate conservatives don’t really like Trump, but they would prefer that he end democracy than the alternative. But the alternative isn’t the end of democracy by a communist. It’s something just as bad: having to vote for a weirdo.
How many of those Bernie-to-Trump voters were right-wingers who were registered Democrat for historical reasons, and who saw Bernie as an opportunity for an extra hit against the Hillary Clinton whom they despised?
My guess is very few but not zero. I think by 2016 the sorting of former conservative Democrats into the Republican Party was mostly complete, but probably there were a few stragglers left. However, most of those would not have been politically sophisticated, and you are describing pretty sophisticated behavior.
But I could be surprised by the data, if it’s out there.
You mention how Vidkun Quisling was (understandably) radicalized against Soviet communism by seeing famines in the USSR during the 1920s: Ukraine is in fact the one European country that views him somewhat positively for this reason.
Ironically though his embrace of fascism both encouraged him to betray his country to an invader that (at the time) was essentially _allied_ to the Soviets under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and (eventually) invaded Ukraine (along with the rest of the USSR) with the intention of perpetrating a genocide dwarfing those perpetrated by the Soviets!
Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
-Harry S. Truman
I drive people for a living. I once had Trump voters from the former Soviet Union in my car. We argues the whole way to the airport. I was told that they understand the dangers of communism and socialism, having come from the Soviet Union and that Trump was going to save the United States from those oppressive systems. Propaganda works on stupid people. We need better education, just like you are saying.
Oh yes, arguing about socialism with people from the former East block can be really annoying. They like to think the version of socialism they grew up under was the only and definite definition of socialism. But most of them have no knowledge or experience of socialism in democratic countries such as Norway. They ignore that experience because we never transitioned to a fully socialist system, but neither did they.
I think there is this flawed thinking where degree of socialism is measured as how little capitalism there is. Norway of course has always been more capitalist than the Eastblock. But ironically I would argue it was also more socialist in the original meaning of socialism: Worker control of the means of production. Through 1/3 of the vote on corporate boards, strong union rules, housing cooperatives, farming cooperatives etc Norwegian workers always had far more power than over the economy than the Eastblock workers had. They had none. They lived in dictatorships.
Trump voters are in one of more of these groups; resentful losers, haters that can now let it all out, sadists, religious fanatics, conspiracy-addled anti-establishment types, delusional, stupid as fuck, or people with lots of money or positioned to grift bigly
Great post! With 21% of Americans illiterate and 29% with a 5th grade education, where do you begin with educating children? The tech bros could care less who dies when they rule the world.
Im not sure this analysis is correct. MAGA support dont come from Fear, they come frpm Resentment.
Older Immigrant who hate newer Immigrant. Young white man who hate successful woman.Rural voters who resent liberal cities. People dont have to be fear, they simply have to be losers.
"Because the way fascism gains power is by convincing moderate right-wingers that radical left-wingers such as socialists will destroy democracy."
That's one thing fascists generally _don't_ do, as they (often fairly obviously) want to destroy democracy themselves: what they'd do is convince the capitalists that the radical left want to expropriate their wealth, or (as in eastern Europe) convince the patriots that the radical left will subjugate them to a foreign power, or (as in Spain) convince the pious that the radical left will destroy their religion.
(Incidentally on that "patriots" point: why are so many far-right parties in central and eastern Europe now pro-Russia? I've often thought that Stepan Bandera must be spinning in his grave like a neutron star!)
Milanovic points out that a, there are no communist states anymore and b, that communism, rather than being a means to move towards full socialism, instead proved to be the fastest way for an agrarian nation to industrialize and become a fully capitalist economy.
And the communists, just like the capitalists, eliminated the commons, as they did recently in Tibet, forcing nomads into concrete villages and fencing off the land.
Landlords are the biggest enemies of progress, and one thing that communist revolutions are good at is getting rid of landlords.
Capitalist East Asian countries also industrialized rapidly because landlord power was destroyed there but for other reasons: in Taiwan and South Korea the landlords were Japanese colonialists who were expelled after those countries were liberated in 1945, while in Japan proper there was a thorough-going process of land reform under the American occupation, seen both as a safeguard against communism and as a way to destroy the old elite which had started the war (pity there wasn't similar land reform in the American South post-1865!)
A great overall analysis, and I think your basic thesis is correct. What I think it leaves underappreciated—you get into it a little, but I think it’s a bigger part of the American story than you say here—is how the unseriousness of the American public in the social media age allowed the fascists to convince people to be utterly repulsed by “the left” without the public truly fearing the left would destroy democracy.
That is, you tell a story of fascists convincing people they’re preferable to watching democracy fall to the depredations of the social democrats, as though social democrats are communists. But Trump didn’t need to convince anyone Kamala Harris was Hugo Chavez—after all, a lot of Trump voters had been Bernie voters, and he’s more a democratic socialist than Harris. Rather, all Trump had to do was convince people Democrats were wimpy weirdos. That’s why the trans issue is so potent. Trans people are seen as weird.
Trump was able to turn American politics into a 7th-grade schoolyard, where only a very few people actually like the schoolyard bully, but people would rather be seen standing next to the bully than next to the spastic nerd with the mismatched socks. Moderate conservatives don’t really like Trump, but they would prefer that he end democracy than the alternative. But the alternative isn’t the end of democracy by a communist. It’s something just as bad: having to vote for a weirdo.
How many of those Bernie-to-Trump voters were right-wingers who were registered Democrat for historical reasons, and who saw Bernie as an opportunity for an extra hit against the Hillary Clinton whom they despised?
My guess is very few but not zero. I think by 2016 the sorting of former conservative Democrats into the Republican Party was mostly complete, but probably there were a few stragglers left. However, most of those would not have been politically sophisticated, and you are describing pretty sophisticated behavior.
But I could be surprised by the data, if it’s out there.
It's amazing what they did making "the trans," and "women's sports" existential issues. Fringe issue turned into panic.
You mention how Vidkun Quisling was (understandably) radicalized against Soviet communism by seeing famines in the USSR during the 1920s: Ukraine is in fact the one European country that views him somewhat positively for this reason.
Ironically though his embrace of fascism both encouraged him to betray his country to an invader that (at the time) was essentially _allied_ to the Soviets under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and (eventually) invaded Ukraine (along with the rest of the USSR) with the intention of perpetrating a genocide dwarfing those perpetrated by the Soviets!
Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
-Harry S. Truman
I drive people for a living. I once had Trump voters from the former Soviet Union in my car. We argues the whole way to the airport. I was told that they understand the dangers of communism and socialism, having come from the Soviet Union and that Trump was going to save the United States from those oppressive systems. Propaganda works on stupid people. We need better education, just like you are saying.
Oh yes, arguing about socialism with people from the former East block can be really annoying. They like to think the version of socialism they grew up under was the only and definite definition of socialism. But most of them have no knowledge or experience of socialism in democratic countries such as Norway. They ignore that experience because we never transitioned to a fully socialist system, but neither did they.
I think there is this flawed thinking where degree of socialism is measured as how little capitalism there is. Norway of course has always been more capitalist than the Eastblock. But ironically I would argue it was also more socialist in the original meaning of socialism: Worker control of the means of production. Through 1/3 of the vote on corporate boards, strong union rules, housing cooperatives, farming cooperatives etc Norwegian workers always had far more power than over the economy than the Eastblock workers had. They had none. They lived in dictatorships.
Trump voters are in one of more of these groups; resentful losers, haters that can now let it all out, sadists, religious fanatics, conspiracy-addled anti-establishment types, delusional, stupid as fuck, or people with lots of money or positioned to grift bigly
Great post! With 21% of Americans illiterate and 29% with a 5th grade education, where do you begin with educating children? The tech bros could care less who dies when they rule the world.
Im not sure this analysis is correct. MAGA support dont come from Fear, they come frpm Resentment.
Older Immigrant who hate newer Immigrant. Young white man who hate successful woman.Rural voters who resent liberal cities. People dont have to be fear, they simply have to be losers.
"Because the way fascism gains power is by convincing moderate right-wingers that radical left-wingers such as socialists will destroy democracy."
That's one thing fascists generally _don't_ do, as they (often fairly obviously) want to destroy democracy themselves: what they'd do is convince the capitalists that the radical left want to expropriate their wealth, or (as in eastern Europe) convince the patriots that the radical left will subjugate them to a foreign power, or (as in Spain) convince the pious that the radical left will destroy their religion.
(Incidentally on that "patriots" point: why are so many far-right parties in central and eastern Europe now pro-Russia? I've often thought that Stepan Bandera must be spinning in his grave like a neutron star!)
Milanovic points out that a, there are no communist states anymore and b, that communism, rather than being a means to move towards full socialism, instead proved to be the fastest way for an agrarian nation to industrialize and become a fully capitalist economy.
And the communists, just like the capitalists, eliminated the commons, as they did recently in Tibet, forcing nomads into concrete villages and fencing off the land.
Landlords are the biggest enemies of progress, and one thing that communist revolutions are good at is getting rid of landlords.
Capitalist East Asian countries also industrialized rapidly because landlord power was destroyed there but for other reasons: in Taiwan and South Korea the landlords were Japanese colonialists who were expelled after those countries were liberated in 1945, while in Japan proper there was a thorough-going process of land reform under the American occupation, seen both as a safeguard against communism and as a way to destroy the old elite which had started the war (pity there wasn't similar land reform in the American South post-1865!)