An alternative formulation is that the neoliberal US has long been a fascist state.

For example, how often do we choose to use the force of the state and how often do we choose to do nothing?

In this formulation, the big difference with Trump would be that he isn't very good at it. He's ham-handed about it, too obvious.

I think a lot of his "not being good at it" may be supplanted by actually skilled folks of the neoliberal/neoconservative establishment.

It would be amazing if he could actually bring jobs back into the US. I really really doubt this is possible, without making the corporations hurt in the short/mid term, so I doubt it's really possible, as they have essentially captured government.

This is my preferred reading as well, but neoliberalism likes to keep its oppression and overt violence overseas, while Trump's rhetoric brings it out into the open at home. This is not denying that America was always a racist, sexist state, but now the elected power is no longer shy about hiding it.

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. This seems like a legitimate opinion to me.

My guess is that this is due to a matter of fact stating of a rather controversial opinion held by a minority of the population.

My tone may have been blunt but I will stand firmly behind that America's race and gender relations, despite great progress in the last few decades, leaves much to be desired and in most parts of the country it is dangerous to be a part of a marginalized group.

You missed my point. I don't care what you happen to believe.

I'm pointing out that people probably objected to inserting a debatable & unpopular held view as a subclause in another argument. That forces people to either go along with accepting your point or getting into a pointless & unsettleable argument that's not even being discussed.

"My point isn't that all of those administrations were fascist, it's that each item in this list allows too much range for critical analysis."

Well, maybe any one of them taken alone. Combined together it seems to give a pretty helpful lens through which to view a society.

A related book is _Friendly Fascism, the New Face of Power in America_, by Bertram Gross. It highlights how modern "corporation/government" fascism differs from the earlier "strongman" fascism. It was written back in 1980 but is (even more) applicable today: https://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Fascism-America-Forbidden-Bo...

Given TFA's date, it was probably written about Bush the younger.

Actually I was thinking that I was surprised at how many points DIDN'T line up.

But then... its early days.

This is equivocation which will allow you to dismiss anything.

Funnily enough, this list of characteristics doesn't even map completely to Hitler's Germany. They were very gender progressive for the time.

Regarding "Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.", surely the author hasn't seen any other societies from the times of notable fascist regimes, they might realize that anti-abortion and anti-homosexual legislation were prettymuch everywhere. Until fewer than 50 years ago, both were completely illegal in Canada.

As for it aligning "well" with the president elect; I don't think that's accurate. "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause" is off the table, since the unifying cause is "making america great again" and the stated avenues are "enforce immigration law", "reduce taxes for commoners, and simplify the tax code", and "maintain government infrastructure". As for "Corporate Power is Protected" he's got the fewest corporate sponsors of any candidate we've seen in quite a while, so it's hard to imagine who he owes. The rest of the points are largely questionable, and the descriptions largely sound like the ravings of a tween marxist.

Seems like it's just mostly bollocks, and some salty HNer just wanted to insinuate something.