Carl Bernstein: Trump Represents "A New Kind Of American Fascism"

Good lord. What's more remarkable is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist doesn't understand what fascism is.

The real fascism in this country comes from the big money corporations and special interests controlling our politicians and media. That's why for a few years now I've classified us not as a democracy but rather as a corporate-fascist state.

And the idea here is the one guy who can break that vice grip on our political structure is the fascist? I mean, did I stumble into an alternate universe? Someone poor some cold water on me and bring me back to reality.

Trump's comment about libel laws against the media have nothing to do with him representing fascism. It's actually a reaction to corporate fascism where truth no longer is a requirement in our media. We've covered this on ATS many a time. The media concocts a narrative, truth need not apply. The courts have rules the MSM do not have to be truthful. Then when you consider a small handful of the extremely wealthy own the media, and they're the same guys who own our politicians, they're attempting to control the masses by controlling the narrative, all to protect the cartel.

THERE"S the fascism! Point blank it's a wealthy few outside the political structure controlling the political structure. It's big business and big money controlling our politicians.

Not the guy campaigning for honesty in journalism and the one candidate calling out the entire media complex on their spin.

a reply to: theantediluvian

There isn't immigrant bigotry. There is illegal invasion bigotry.

He really has missed the mark. People understand exactly what they are angry about and his attempts to paint it as hateful is his mistake. People are angry. It isn't complicated.

a reply to: Sbondo

See, this is the sort of things that rational people are up against. Someone who, in the same paragraph, extolling the idiocy of american voters then going on to talk about how a little fascism is OK, as long as it's "his kind of guy" in charge.

You remember back in school when the loud, arrogant, loudmouth bully that terrorized all the "different" kids had a band of cronies that while not rich, big, or powerful themselves, considered it more beneficial to keep in the bully's good graces and reap the rewards of associating with him. They counted themselves lucky because they not only got to reap the rewards of associating with the "winner," but got to experience the schadenfreude of seeing people treated badly while they occupied positions of safety. On some level I wonder if that effect is what's going on in Trump's campaign. Some people NEED people to look down upon to consider themselves worthwhile, with fewer people to look down on you might start to wonder "How many people are looking down at me?"

originally posted by: Sbondo
a reply to: theantediluvian

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. I've got no problem with a little fascism so long as it's my kind of guy and trump is my kind for guy. BLM and Bernie bros aren't my kind of "guys."

Ah, Nbondo, you're back!

What is 'your kind of guy', and why?

Historian Michael Ledeen, an expert on Fascism says:

No, Donald Trump isn’t a fascist. And the efforts of a considerable number of columnists, reporters, and even university professors to make him out to be a second Hitler or Mussolini testifies, I think, to their ignorance about fascism.

I’m not a Trump fan at all, but calling him a “fascist” distorts the history of the last century. If you’re looking for real fascists in the modern world, you’ll do better looking at the jihadis, who believe they’ve been tricked into previous defeats, unleash slaughter on those who oppose them, seek to dominate the world, and destroy free societies. Trump’s not one of those.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: spirit_horse

That is BS, Libel Laws are already on the books and been used against the press and others for ever. Damn, ever heard of slander suits.

Calm down, you're frothing all over yourself.

Of course libel laws are already on the books. What else would he be claiming to want to "open up?" Slander is like libel but verbal. They're both forms of defamation. For the record, not only does an American President not have the authority to make new laws, most ever US law pertaining to defamation exists at the state level.

You said it in another thread and people told you the same thing I am.

Yes, I have expressed similar opinions/made similar statements prior to this. I'll continue to do so. I don't remember anyone else saying anything quite as irrelevant as what you're saying but I'll take you at you word.

The media should be sued for lying and ruining lives or running propaganda. They are not free to use their power to ruin people or companies, or anything else by writing lies. Maybe they have been getting away with it more, but if the MSM which almost everyone know is more full of crap than a Christmas Turkey had been called to account we wouldn't have the mess we have now.

Since you have such a strong opinion, perhaps you could point out the deficiencies in current libel laws? Lying, particularly lying knowingly and with malicious intent, is already covered. Clearly you're very angry at the thought of people lying, so you may want to check out my thread about how Donald J. Trump Jr. and James Woods defamed an innocent woman recently.

I am not defending Trump, but it is repeated attempts at hit pieces like this that make me one that will be voting for him. Tired of people trying to destroy people because they don't agree with their views.

Could you point out something that I stated as fact that is untrue?

And people like you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you think Americans, average Americans are fascist?

The reason why I ask, is because if we imagine that Trump is the worst of what the pundits say, then he'd still have to have American people follow him to fascism.

Any president who suddenly declares himself/herself ruler-emperor-king-tsar would still have to have the Americans listen to him.

If a politician bloviates in a forest with no one around, does his bloviation matter?

We still have things like congress (ha) Justice department (ha) and the 2nd Amendment (haha) to stop out of control politicians.

Do you trust any of them?

Or do you honestly fear a fascist state if Trump gets elected?

a reply to: MysticPearl

I see you ignored most of what I said so that you could go off on a rant about the MSM. Donald Trump isn't trying to clean up the media, he's trying to control it for his own purposes and he's doing a really good job of it. If the media really was trying to do Trump in, they'd just ignore him.

You choose to believe the Trump narrative, that's up to you.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MysticPearl

I see you ignored most of what I said so that you could go off on a rant about the MSM. Donald Trump isn't trying to clean up the media, he's trying to control it for his own purposes and he's doing a really good job of it. If the media really was trying to do Trump in, they'd just ignore him.

You choose to believe the Trump narrative, that's up to you.

The media is used to totally destroying people they don't like, at will. They keep thinking "This will do him in" oops " Now THIS will do him in" nope. They can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that they are helping him. It's like watching a child thinking pouring liquid on a fire will extinguish it and grabbing the closest liquid which happens to be gasoline.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MysticPearl

I see you ignored most of what I said so that you could go off on a rant about the MSM. Donald Trump isn't trying to clean up the media, he's trying to control it for his own purposes and he's doing a really good job of it. If the media really was trying to do Trump in, they'd just ignore him.

You choose to believe the Trump narrative, that's up to you.

"Donald Trump isn't trying to clean up the media, he's trying to control it for his own purposes and he's doing a really good job of it."


And how is that, exactly? I see everyone at Fox News aside from Hannity as largely anti-Trump. The political panels on CNN, largely stacked 5 vs 1 or 6 vs 1 against Trump, with the hosts repeatedly asking "what needs to happen to stop Trump?". MSNBC, they've been anti-Trump since the second he entered the race. Across the media, television and print alike, right and left alike, the premise was "Trump is a joke, not a serious candidate" for months until they realized their errors, and it's now "how do we stop Trump" while fashioning one hit piece after another, from Trump U to advocating violence to him being a racist to the KKK crap and digging into him as they fail to do with any other candidate. Just yesterday they went out of their way to interview in such a calm and accepting manner, the idiot who charged a Presidential candidate on stage! Imagine if a Trump supporter, with ISIS ties no less, did that to Bernie. Outcome would have been far different.

The MSM doesn't even acknowledge Shillary's emails anymore, never mind all the dead bodies around the Clinton's they've not once raised or her accepting campaign donations from terrorist states.

And Trump is orchestrating all this?

If the Trump narrative is common sense and reality, yes sir, I'm on board.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: spirit_horse

Of course libel laws are already on the books. What else would he be claiming to want to "open up?" Slander is like libel but verbal. They're both forms of defamation. For the record, not only does an American President not have the authority to make new laws, most ever US law pertaining to defamation exists at the state level.

Yes, I am aware the President doesn't have the ability to make new laws. But, from your OP it seemed to imply he would be making new laws by using them. Why state that while talking about his statement of using or opening up the libel laws to go after the media for malicious stories clearly based on lies?

Yes, I have expressed similar opinions/made similar statements prior to this. I'll continue to do so. I don't remember anyone else saying anything quite as irrelevant as what you're saying but I'll take you at you word.

Well, there is a reason in the past I stayed out of political threads. It does set me off and that is not good for logical debate being angry about something. I think going back to my old policy on that matter will be best after I am done with what I already got involved in tonight for some reason. And I wasn't aware most libel laws were based at a state level.

Since you have such a strong opinion, perhaps you could point out the deficiencies in current libel laws? Lying, particularly lying knowingly and with malicious intent, is already covered. Clearly you're very angry at the thought of people lying, so you may want to check out my thread about how Donald J. Trump Jr. and James Woods defamed an innocent woman recently.

I am clearly angry at the media lying. People lie all the time, but the media has an extreme amount of power to seriously damage or ruin peoples lives by lying. And unfortunately, so many people seem to base everything they know off media sound bytes it is a huge problem in my eyes.

Could you point out something that I stated as fact that is untrue?
He's anti Freedom of the Press.

That is one. He is anti press libeling people like him that he was talking about in the first place. I didn't see you writing about Obama taping reporters phones and trying to prosecute them for printing stories leaked out by his own administration. Where is the Obama is Anti Freedom of The Press Thread you made? That is why I said it is a hit piece. It is because you don't like what Trump has to say that you are all over him about Anti Freedom of the Press, not because he truly is.

And people like you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

Well, take it any way you want it. I apologize because that was a BS statement on my part brought out by my anger. I am not personally angry at you or anything.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Obama's immigration plan was ruled unconstitutional, for example.

It doesn't matter if Trump cares for the constitution or not; he must uphold it.

His policies are available on his website for your reading pleasure.

Like domestic spying? Ordering companies to spy on customers and turn the data over? Remember when Bush did that? Blatantly unconstitutional, and he kept it held up in the courts for 7 years before he was sort of forced to stop (followed by pardoning everyone involved). Lots of things can be implemented for 1 or 2 terms.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Do you think Americans, average Americans are fascist?

I think much lower of the average American than that. I think people frequently try to do the right thing, but that they rarely know how. They're also usually convinced that the wrong thing they believe in happens to be right. In the case of politics, people love a strong man who echoes their opinions. It reinforces a belief system rather than challenges or authenticates it.

The greatest civilizations in history have also been the most blood thirsty and cruel, they achieve amazing things but tend to not be very great places to live. Most people aspire to that greatness and see totalitarianism as the price of getting things done. Others would rather be happy with a say in their rule but as a result live under much more inefficient systems.
Personally I would rather not spend nearly a decade under fascist rule and excuse it because it might change when he gets out of office.

a reply to: DBCowboy

First and foremost, I don't think Donald Trump will win the general election. I have little concern that Trump has the popular support necessary to create a fascist state and install himself as dictator even if he manages to win the presidency and assuming he actually wants to become a fascist dictator.

What concerns me the most is how many of my fellow Americans are willing to support him not only in spite of his illiberal positions but often, because of them. While an actual fascist state is a worst case scenario, there's a lot of loss to liberty to be had under much more plausible outcomes. I'm not interested in any more creeping fascism either.

We still have things like congress (ha) Justice department (ha) and the 2nd Amendment (haha) to stop out of control politicians.

Do you trust any of them?

There's seems to be a popular misconception about how some of the worst leaders/regimes in recent history have come to power. Most of them won elections by popular vote or took power through popular revolutions/coup d'etats. Despots can be popular. While you and I almost certainly consider Mao Zedong to have been a murderous dictator who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people, comparable to Stalin or perhaps Hitler, that's not the opinion of the majority of Chinese. Speaking of Stalin — he's seen a huge rebound in popularity over the last decade and a half.

a reply to: theantediluvian

a reply to: Aazadan


Thank you both for providing some thoughtful answers.

Witch hunt: Trump demands list of civil servants who worked on climate policy

The 27th question in the document states, “Can you provide a list of all Department of Energy employees or contractors who have attended any Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon meetings? Can you provide a list of when those meetings were and any materials distributed at those meetings, EPSA emails associated with those meetings, or materials created by Department employees or contractors in anticipation of or as a result of those meetings?”

And so the American authoritarianism begins.

But, it's ok, because I wasn't one of those employees or contractors. .....

Perhaps they were right 50 years ago. Only they were wrong. The enemy is us. The Children's Story