Appeasement Got Us Where We Are
By: Paul Krugman
They're fascists. Fascists. Fascists. Fascists. Fascists. Fascists.
It is long past time for calling these creatures by their proper name.
They will overthrow the government of the United States, legally or illegally.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
So, is it finally OK to use the F-word?
One shouldn't use the term "fascist" lightly. It isn't a catchall for "people you disagree with." It isn't even a synonym for "bad political actors." Mitch McConnell's brand of politics has, in my view, greatly damaged America; but cynical legislative maneuvers aren't the same thing as threatening and encouraging violence, and I wouldn't call McConnell a fascist.
Donald Trump, however, is indeed a fascist — an authoritarian willing to use violence to achieve his racial nationalist goals. So are many of his supporters. If you had any doubts about that, Wednesday's attack on Congress should have ended them.
And if history teaches us one lesson about dealing with fascists, it is the futility of appeasement. Giving in to fascists doesn't pacify them, it just encourages them to go further.
So why have so many public figures — who should have known what Trump and his movement were — tried, again and again, to placate them by giving in to their demands? Why are they still doing it even now?
Consider a few milestones on the way to the sacking of the Capitol.
One big step happened in February, when every Republican senator other than Mitt Romney voted against convicting the president on impeachment charges despite clear evidence of his guilt. Susan Collins famously justified her vote by hoping that Trump had "learned his lesson." What he actually learned was that he could abuse his power with impunity.
Another big step came in the spring, when armed protesters, with Trump's encouragement, menaced Michigan authorities over Covid-19 restrictions. That dress rehearsal for this week's violence drew some tut-tutting from Republican politicians, but no serious pushback. Indeed, one of the leaders in these events, Meshawn Maddock — who was also involved in Wednesday's rioting — is in line to become co-chair of the Michigan G.O.P.
Again, the lesson was clear: Right-wing activists can get away with threatening elected officials, even when this includes brandishing weapons in public spaces.
Then came Trump's unprecedented refusal to accept electoral defeat. Many Republicans joined him in trying to reject the will of the voters — almost two-thirds of House Republicans voted against accepting Pennsylvania's electors after the Trumpist riot.
But even those who didn't actively join his attempts to stage a coup tried to let Trump and his followers down easy. McConnell waited more than a month before accepting Joe Biden as president-elect. One senior Republican said to The Washington Post, "What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time?" Well, now we know the answer.
Finally, what happened on Wednesday? A Trumpist attack during the confirmation of Biden's victory was completely predictable. So why was security so lax? Why were there hardly any arrests?
What we know suggests that the people who were in charge of protecting Congress failed to do so because they didn't want to be seen treating the MAGA mob as the danger it was. The Wall Street Journal reported that Defense Department officials worried about the optics of having military personnel on the steps of the Capitol — something that didn't concern them during the far less threatening Black Lives Matter protests last year. But The Associated Press reported that Defense Department officials say Capitol Police turned down offers of help.
And once again the attempt to appease fascists will surely end up encouraging them. So far, the lesson for Trumpist extremists is that they can engage in violent attacks on the core institutions of American democracy, and face hardly any consequences. Clearly, they view their exploits as a triumph, and will be eager to do more.
For this isn't over. If you aren't terrified about what Trump might do between now and Inauguration Day, you haven't been paying attention. And I can't be the only person worried about what will happen during the inauguration itself.
After the failure to protect Congress, how can we be sure there will be adequate security during the presidential transition? Not long ago such concerns might have seemed paranoid, but now they seem utterly reasonable.
And even if the inauguration goes off smoothly, the threat will remain. If you imagine that the people who stormed the Capitol will just go away once Biden is installed in the White House, you're delusional.
So what can be done? It's time to stop appeasing the fascists among us. Law enforcement should seek to arrest as many of the participants in Wednesday's attack as possible — some have already been identified, and there's video evidence that should make it easy to identify many more.
And anyone who tries to violently interfere with the transfer of power should also be arrested.
Finally, there needs to be an accounting for whatever crimes took place during the past four years — and does anyone doubt that Trump allies and associates engaged in criminal acts? Don't say that we should look forward, not back; accountability for past actions will be crucial if we want the future to be better.
Appeasement is what got us to where we are. It has to stop, now.
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
The nation’s cartoonists on the week in politics
Sorry, but it seems to me only someone who doesn't know what a fascist actually is could call Trump a fascist, racist or otherwise. Opportunity zone districts, support of historically Black colleges, and prison reform with the First Step Act is not something a racist fascist would be interested in. Wanting to cease America's endless involvement in overseas conflict isn't something a fascist would be interested because fascists love war. Trump did not lobby for the elimination of our constitutional government and replacing it with something like National Socialism. None of his political opponents mysteriously disappeared in the night, never to be heard from again. There's a whole list of things we would need to check off in order to make fascist apply to Trump. I doubt Trump even knows what fascism is or could describe it in anything but the vaguest terms.
Trump was an opportunist who didn't have much of a clue about the law or of government and narcissism, not fascism, explains him much better. Throwing around fascism this way belittles those who suffered and died under real fascism. It's the equivalent of claiming the sniffles are a form of cancer. Trying to use the word this way devalues the word concerning its meaning and just comes across as political manipulation. Just label him as one and all those who also don't know what fascism is, except in the vaguest terms, can feel justified in more hate. Who doesn't hate fascists, right? Don't even have to think about it, which seems to be the point.
My definition of a fascist is "authoritarian and xenophobe/racist". Trump is a fascist.
I guess that works. Redefine words and meanings to fit what you want them to so you can distort truth to fit what you want to be true. Nice.
What's your definition?
I gave mine so you can understand what I'm saying. It's sometimes helpful...
Fascism: Wiki
That's not a definition... and it's not yours.
So I ask again... What is your definition of fascism?
I said "authoritarian and xenophobe/racist". You seemed to disagree. In order to discuss... anything... we must agree on a succinct definition.
You do have one, right? You wouldn't use an important word without having decided on a definition.......??
Wrong on both counts. It is a definition and it's the one I hold. Speaking of "one's own definition" is rather stupid because communication becomes impossible as no one is actually talking about the same thing. If "fascism" means "whatever I define it to be" then there's no point to the word. Literally anything could be defined as fascism.
This is a defining trend of the left. Take a word that has always had a specific definition and reassign it a meaning meant to support one's argument rather than describe an actual thing. Take the word "hate" for instance. It used to mean "intense or passionate dislike". Now it means any position that disagrees with one's own position. At least for the left, anyway.
Decide? I don't decide the definition of the word. That was defined by the person who came up with the word and the concept to which it refers.
I see two possibilities here...
First, you really do have an entire Wikipedia article in mind every time you use a word. Since I can't imagine that you have different treatments for each word you use, I must assume that you have thousands of Wikipedia articles memorized. That seems very unlikely...
Second possibility... You do not have a clear idea of what fascism is, but you are embarrassed to say so. So you invoke Wikipedia.
This would be childish. An adult realizes that s/he doesn't know everything. We all have zones of ignorance. Discussion is one way of reducing our ignorance.
Lots of adults would be unable to say what "fascism" is. They might know that Hitler was a fascist, and that that probably means "fascism" is a bad thing... without knowing exactly why...
So your solution to this is, rather than educate yourself what the actual meaning of a word is, come up with your own definition and expect everyone else to follow along?
Your two possibilities are ridiculous. If you don't know what the second law of thermodynamics is, are you just going to make up your own definition or are you going to educate yourself as to what the rest of the world understands it to mean? Only a complete idiot would not research a subject they don't understand but wants to engage in conversation about. Of course I utilize sources to educate myself on a topic.
Some moron could say building a border wall is fascist simply because the wall is being built. That the only reason for building such a wall could only be fascist. That is as far as their explanation goes. Building a border wall could have many reasons, only one of which may be fascist. One has to examine what the purpose of the wall is intended to achieve in order to determine whether a charge of fascism is justified. And in order to determine that, one has to know what fascism is.
But that isn't what happens on the left. It's simply declared fascist because they don't like it, and anything they don't like is fascist by default.
Totally true. What about that gives you the right to therefore define it any way you want to? Would you not be taking advantage of their ignorance to define fascism to suit your political objectives if you presented an "alternate" version of what the word really means? Answer, yes.
I don't have "my" interpretation of fascism because that would be idiotic. The word has a definite defined meaning. To do otherwise allows me to claim my neighbor is a fascist because his dog craps on my lawn all the time and he doesn't do anything about it.
That's a lot of words to say that you don't know what fascism is.
Smokescreens are noticeable.
There's no point in speaking to you. I wonder if you know what the word "facile" means.
In English or in French?
Fascism through the eyes of one who saw it happen ...
'At the moment that the “normal” police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium—the turn of the fascist regime arrives.'
Source .
For the full document, see Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It .
Read it. Doesn't actually define fascism. Just describes what classes it comes from according to Marxism.
I definitely think Donald Trump is indeed a fascist. At first I was a bit hesitant to that far, but this last year especially has solidified my belief.
He has nothing but disdain for democracy, views violence as an acceptable (maybe even preferred) method of getting what you want, views compromise as weakness, views himself and the state as one, sees the role of government and society as a whole as serving his best interests, embraces ultra nationalism and demonizes the "other", demonizes the press, and has no regard for fact or truth. These are some of the more basic traits of a fascist, and Trump checks all the boxes with ease.
Don't forget that other characteristic of all fascists: racism/xenophobia.
Check ✓