Brilliant and thank you for handing me the very piece I needed.
Ever since our elections in November last year people on the progressive left (including the media) keep saying "don't say X or Y because it will play in the hands of Wilders". But what are we supposed to do? Ignore issues a growing number of voters are worried about?
Apart from infantilisation there is also "invalidating" other people's opinions and/or worries by merely suggesting they are "facist opinions" and therefor should be ignored.
This is currently our political debate: Person X is worried about migration but is told "we don't have to listen to fascists...". End.
Andrew, one cannot say that Trump is wrong in calling Kamala Harris a “Marxist, communist, fascist, socialist.” She doesn’t even try to hide from where she gets her campaign strategies.
“We are warmed by Stalin’s Joy” | “Mao’s words bring Joy” | Hitler’s “Strength through Joy”
“A New Way Forward” – protects our fundamental freedoms, strengthens our democracy. Kamala Harris.
“The Great Leap Forward” – an economic and social campaign led by the Chinese Communist Party from 1958 to 1962 which resulted in the largest famine (estimated 30–55 million deaths) in human history.
I read your WaPo article with great interest—including the many Orwell references and links, particularly the one on the use of the term fascism. After scrolling through the comments on the WaPo article (which I can attest that Andrew fairly describes), I wrote a comment of my own. In the event you may have overlooked it, here it is:
“I have been following Andrew Doyle for a while. (I am in the US, and a lifelong, largely progressive, Democrat, so I write from that perspective.) Whether or not I agree with his analyses, I have found them thoughtful, substantive, and a good means for challenging and refining my own thinking. I’m glad the Post has chosen to publish him, and I hope we will see more of him in these pages.”
On the state of play here in the US, I am despondent. My own assessment is that Trump DOES present a unique threat to our democracy and must be stopped, but equally that those who share my view do not always think or act constructively to make the case. A prime example is hauling out the term “fascism.” To my mind, for one, that word is inextricably tied, at this point, to the particular conflagration that was WWII. For that reason, my view is that using “fascism” to describe the contours of the current threat Trump poses qualifies as a thought-terminating cliché. There is plenty else to bring to bear in factual matter, and in Trump’s own statements and actions, to make the case for reason for alarm about what will befall our democracy if Trump once more ascends to the Oval Office.
I agree, also, that authoritarian tendencies are not the singular province of one political party in the US. Among other things, the Democratic stances related to gender identity provide a vivid demonstration of that.
So, in sum, while I may have differences of view from time to time, I agree completely with your overarching message, as lucidly summarized in the closing words of this post. Thank you, Andrew, for challenging us to think as clearly as we can. We need it more than ever in these fraught times.
Thanks, Andrew, I think you summed up what most people who care think about the US Presidential election. All of the infantile name-calling by Trump and Harris speaks volumes about the candidates. Actually, it beggars belief that a country of 330 million people should end up with two such extremely inadequate people running for the highest office in the land. In the midst of that insanity, however, I have an uplifting memory of what politics should be about in every country and that is when John McCain defended his rival for the Presidency, Barack Obama, against accusations that he was un-American and even added that Obama was a "decent family man". John McCain showed that politics should be about debate and not insult and when he died President Obama delivered a touching eulogy about a man who was a real hero.
Andrew, I was shocked and saddened by what you wrote ( not sure what exactly but I will identity something soon). Did you not realise that what you wrote risked offending some people ( not sure whom just yet), could cause them deep hurt and could traumatise some of the most marginalized groups in our community? Shame on you!
I wonder though if we have always been tribal by nature and will divide naturally whether between the Blues and the Greens in the Hippodrome, Celtic and Rangers, the court party and the non-court party and so on. We have had a relatively short period of democracy where we have a forum for our disputes, where the loser shakes hands with the winner who says 'better luck next time' and society goes about its nornal business. That period seems to be disappearing, as government has grown and society has fragmented. At this point we have a new and bigger divide. On one side is a party that wants to merge the interests of the state with big corporations and other international bodies to control all aspects of society, for its own good of course, which is basically fascism without uniforms. On the other side are the vulgar disrupters, meme makers and name callers who quite like the familiar sights and sounds of what they imagine to be their country.
Point being that behind the social media squabbling is a serious divide between two very different visions. I expect if Orwell were with us today, he would see the greater threat (it is a matter of degree) from the progressive left which has the power and the will to do what needs to be done. Unburdened by what has been.
Sadly, the term 𝘍𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵 has been leached of any identifiable meaning by the Left's persistent use of the term for any views they disagree with, beginning with Stalin's "social fascist" for any sort of socialism departing from the Comintern line.
In Trump's case, the best evidence of his admiration for authoritarian figures must be his drama queen performance on the White House balcony after his release from the hospital. The expression on his face looked like he had been practicing his imitation of Mussolini in a mirror.
Brilliant and thank you for handing me the very piece I needed.
Ever since our elections in November last year people on the progressive left (including the media) keep saying "don't say X or Y because it will play in the hands of Wilders". But what are we supposed to do? Ignore issues a growing number of voters are worried about?
Apart from infantilisation there is also "invalidating" other people's opinions and/or worries by merely suggesting they are "facist opinions" and therefor should be ignored.
This is currently our political debate: Person X is worried about migration but is told "we don't have to listen to fascists...". End.
And glad to see you still read the comments. :-)
But it's obvious that Trump is literally Hitler. He was literally Hitler last time he was president. Oh wait ...
Andrew, one cannot say that Trump is wrong in calling Kamala Harris a “Marxist, communist, fascist, socialist.” She doesn’t even try to hide from where she gets her campaign strategies.
“We are warmed by Stalin’s Joy” | “Mao’s words bring Joy” | Hitler’s “Strength through Joy”
“A New Way Forward” – protects our fundamental freedoms, strengthens our democracy. Kamala Harris.
“The Great Leap Forward” – an economic and social campaign led by the Chinese Communist Party from 1958 to 1962 which resulted in the largest famine (estimated 30–55 million deaths) in human history.
I read your WaPo article with great interest—including the many Orwell references and links, particularly the one on the use of the term fascism. After scrolling through the comments on the WaPo article (which I can attest that Andrew fairly describes), I wrote a comment of my own. In the event you may have overlooked it, here it is:
“I have been following Andrew Doyle for a while. (I am in the US, and a lifelong, largely progressive, Democrat, so I write from that perspective.) Whether or not I agree with his analyses, I have found them thoughtful, substantive, and a good means for challenging and refining my own thinking. I’m glad the Post has chosen to publish him, and I hope we will see more of him in these pages.”
On the state of play here in the US, I am despondent. My own assessment is that Trump DOES present a unique threat to our democracy and must be stopped, but equally that those who share my view do not always think or act constructively to make the case. A prime example is hauling out the term “fascism.” To my mind, for one, that word is inextricably tied, at this point, to the particular conflagration that was WWII. For that reason, my view is that using “fascism” to describe the contours of the current threat Trump poses qualifies as a thought-terminating cliché. There is plenty else to bring to bear in factual matter, and in Trump’s own statements and actions, to make the case for reason for alarm about what will befall our democracy if Trump once more ascends to the Oval Office.
I agree, also, that authoritarian tendencies are not the singular province of one political party in the US. Among other things, the Democratic stances related to gender identity provide a vivid demonstration of that.
So, in sum, while I may have differences of view from time to time, I agree completely with your overarching message, as lucidly summarized in the closing words of this post. Thank you, Andrew, for challenging us to think as clearly as we can. We need it more than ever in these fraught times.
I concur with your thoughtful response to this excellent article by Andrew.
"When we think in strictly partisan terms we are not thinking at all." A Doylean aphorism I will keep to hand. Thanks Andrew x
Thanks, Andrew, I think you summed up what most people who care think about the US Presidential election. All of the infantile name-calling by Trump and Harris speaks volumes about the candidates. Actually, it beggars belief that a country of 330 million people should end up with two such extremely inadequate people running for the highest office in the land. In the midst of that insanity, however, I have an uplifting memory of what politics should be about in every country and that is when John McCain defended his rival for the Presidency, Barack Obama, against accusations that he was un-American and even added that Obama was a "decent family man". John McCain showed that politics should be about debate and not insult and when he died President Obama delivered a touching eulogy about a man who was a real hero.
Andrew, I was shocked and saddened by what you wrote ( not sure what exactly but I will identity something soon). Did you not realise that what you wrote risked offending some people ( not sure whom just yet), could cause them deep hurt and could traumatise some of the most marginalized groups in our community? Shame on you!
PS I hope I have got the current lingo right!
I wonder though if we have always been tribal by nature and will divide naturally whether between the Blues and the Greens in the Hippodrome, Celtic and Rangers, the court party and the non-court party and so on. We have had a relatively short period of democracy where we have a forum for our disputes, where the loser shakes hands with the winner who says 'better luck next time' and society goes about its nornal business. That period seems to be disappearing, as government has grown and society has fragmented. At this point we have a new and bigger divide. On one side is a party that wants to merge the interests of the state with big corporations and other international bodies to control all aspects of society, for its own good of course, which is basically fascism without uniforms. On the other side are the vulgar disrupters, meme makers and name callers who quite like the familiar sights and sounds of what they imagine to be their country.
Point being that behind the social media squabbling is a serious divide between two very different visions. I expect if Orwell were with us today, he would see the greater threat (it is a matter of degree) from the progressive left which has the power and the will to do what needs to be done. Unburdened by what has been.
Sadly, the term 𝘍𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵 has been leached of any identifiable meaning by the Left's persistent use of the term for any views they disagree with, beginning with Stalin's "social fascist" for any sort of socialism departing from the Comintern line.
In Trump's case, the best evidence of his admiration for authoritarian figures must be his drama queen performance on the White House balcony after his release from the hospital. The expression on his face looked like he had been practicing his imitation of Mussolini in a mirror.