|FROM ||Rick Moen
|SUBJECT ||Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] Michael Kingsley and the Fascist in Office
|Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com):
> This is hysterically funny. This man accuses Trump of being a fascist
> while his latest columns complain that majority rule fails Britain...
column reminds people what 'fascist' means other than just as a vague
slur -- corporate statism.
Kingsley's point is that Trump's professed actions so far are exactly
corporate statism, which is radically different from actual
conservatism, which would never approve of buying off United
Technologies / Carrier with $7 million in government tax incentives to
_allegedly_ keep jobs in Indiana. As it turns out, it's not at all
clear how many jobs got 'saved', for how long, or even at what expense:
In any point, Kingley's point is merely that the entire approach,
especially if done on an economically large scale, is exactly the sort
of corporate statism that we called 'fascism' back when it was a leading
theory of government and before it got consigned to sad little banana
republics after WWII.
> Want to know why Trump got elected?
Because, out of the 218,959,000 US citizens eligible to vote, and the
200,081,377 registered voters nationwide, 61,898,584 voters voted for
the Trump/Pence ticket (30.9% of registered voters, 28.2% of eligible
voters) versus 63,551,979 voters voting for Clinton/Caine (31.8% of
registered voters, 29.0% of eligible voters) -- and the former happened
to have a thin majority inside certain swing states.
So, basically because about a quarter of the people eligible to vote in
the election wanted him and lived in the right places.
> Because people like Michael Kingsley says it shouldn't happen.
Kingsley did _not_ say in that article that it shouldn't happen. He
merely said that massive government management of the economy on behalf
of corporations is the classic defining trait of fascism. He went on to
say that this _does_ appear to constitute a governing philosophy (in
answer to the many who've said he doesn't have one; that Trump is merely
erratic), and that in his view it's an alarming governing philosophy
rather than a reassuring one.
But maybe you didn't bother to actually read what he actually said.
piece merely pointed out that the Brexit vote put on display the
downside of pure democracy, the one that conservative philosopher Edmund
Burke noted -- the one where politicians don't even try to bring their
talents and best judgement to the job, but instead implement whatever
constituent view has a plurality share of public opinion at the moment.
PM David Cameron and (most particularly) Brexit proponent Boris Johnson
steadfastly refused to lead in any aspect of this matter. Both merely
punted the matter to the voters and then turned and ran.
Kingsley didn't say that _that_ vote 'shouldn't happen', either. He
merely pointed out that the politicians in question exercised no
leadership, and that the plurality that voted Leave along with the
entire rest of the UK now gets to experience the dismal
already-unfolding consequences of that vote, good and hard.
Johnston helped whip up 'Leave' support for months before the referendum
with prominent claims that voting 'Leave' would immedately result in an
ongoing savings of 350 million pounds Sterling per _week_ to the
National Health Service. This was even emblazoned in huge letters onto
the side of the 'Vote Leave battlebus' (one of those red double-decker
buses) driven all around the UK. Shortly after 'Leave' unexpectedly
prevailed, this claim among others was quietly taken off the 'Vote
Leave' Web site and never spoken of -- because (shocker!) it was a
The Vote Leave people felt free to invent massive amounts of total
bullshit because they didn't expect to win, hence had no plan to govern.
Remind you of any orange-skinned con-artists on _this_ side of the Pond?
I'm betting you didn't bother to actually read that article, either.
So, to reuse the phrase one of my favourite judges once used in court,
what part of the facts do you object to, Mr. Safir?
hangout mailing list