Would you ever vote for a fascist?

[RI]

Depends on the definition of fascist. I could potentially support someone like Michael Walton from dantheroman's timeline, depending on the circumstances. A more moderate communitarian or even a small-n/s "national socialist" could be amenable to my views, but an out-and-out totalitarian and/or racist would certainly not get my vote in all but the most extreme of scenarios.

So for this question, that would probably be a 'no'.

[RI]

Depends on the definition of fascist. I could potentially support someone like Michael Walton from dantheroman's timeline, depending on the circumstances. A more moderate communitarian or even a small-n/s "national socialist" could be amenable to my views, but an out-and-out totalitarian and/or racist would certainly not get my vote in all but the most extreme of scenarios.

So for this question, that would probably be a 'no'.

What was this Michael Walton character like? (I'm not familiar with dantheroman's timeline.)

You should see it for yourself, it's quite the read.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100688.0

Hmm, quite interesting. I skimmed through it, but I'll have to read it more thoroughly in time.

What in particular attracts you to someone like that, realisticidealist?

It is important to remember the context of the story, but I think what draws me in is the idea of someone who is devastatingly effective, seeks massive institutional change, and who makes the radical moves that I sometimes think are necessary. It is such a very rare combination, especially now when I see the actual Democratic Party as hopelessly compromised on economics, as a weak-willed shell without principles. Walton's methods are certainly very unfortunate, as are some of his social views, but I guess I believe that desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures.

I suppose I look at it this way: Freedom is one means to an end, the end being happiness and fulfillment. However, when freedom fails to provide, I am willing to sacrifice it in favor of security and justice if it can truly safeguard me. If all the world is falling apart, I'd rather live under a strong government that can keep society together than die under a limited government that is incapable of caring for its citizens.

[RI]

Regardless, Dan needs to update his timeline. I find it fascinating from a psychological perspective, not to mention a political one.

[RI]

It is important to remember the context of the story, but I think what draws me in is the idea of someone who is devastatingly effective, seeks massive institutional change, and who makes the radical moves that I sometimes think are necessary. It is such a very rare combination, especially now when I see the actual Democratic Party as hopelessly compromised on economics, as a weak-willed shell without principles. Walton's methods are certainly very unfortunate, as are some of his social views, but I guess I believe that desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures.

But isn't that a rather dangerous sentiment to hold?

Surely someone in 1930s Germany might have used the same terms bolded here to describe their support for Hitler. I know you would never endorse someone like him, but therein lies another problem with authoritarianism. People of all ideologies may clamor for a strongman to take over the government, but once he does, only one ideology will prevail while the rest will be completely shut out. That's a fundamental difference with a free system that allows input from everyone.

Yes, there is an inherent danger. I won't support someone simply because the want to and can bring change. It depends on what they want to implement. Michael Walton's economic policies are liberal, perhaps socialistic even, but in the situation presented, they are a refreshing change from the Republican hands-off approach and the Democratic let's-do-a-little-bit-but-only-enough-so-that-it-doesn't-really-do-anything approach. As a economically liberal person, this idea intrigues me in sort of a through-the-looking-glass kind of way.

Now, that said, the disregard for democratic process disturbs me. The complete shutdown of dissent disturbs me. In no way would I support these things. If there was some way to have the bombastic reform of a Walton without the totalitarianism that often comes with such ideologies, I would be all for it. However, this is rarely the case, and most often you can not seperate the two; even still, in a world like the one Dan presented, a world of economic devestation, oil shocks, and continuous war, I might be tempted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aren't there things of greater value than security? Would you want to live as a slave as long as your master provided you with food and protection as his property?

And what happens when the state becomes the enemy? Who will protect you then?

I think the people themselves can protect each other and keep society together far better than the guns of the state.
[/quote]

In a normal world, in the world as it really exists today, I would not sacrifice democracy or endure servitude. Only when there appears to be no other option would I consider fascism. Only in a world where the perpetuation of society depended on the unification behind a strong state would I consider it. Until then, I would never consider outright fascism. And if the state has become totalitarian in a true sense, its moral authority to rule has been forfeited, and it is the responsibility of those who reside in it to rise against it.

That said, fascism and the strong communitarianism that so far has typified Walton's politics (minus the brutal intimidations) in Dan's timeline are quite different things.

[RI]

Yes, there is an inherent danger. I won't support someone simply because the want to and can bring change. It depends on what they want to implement. Michael Walton's economic policies are liberal, perhaps socialistic even, but in the situation presented, they are a refreshing change from the Republican hands-off approach and the Democratic let's-do-a-little-bit-but-only-enough-so-that-it-doesn't-really-do-anything approach. As a economically liberal person, this idea intrigues me in sort of a through-the-looking-glass kind of way.

Socialistic? So would you admit that there is less variance between socialism and fascism than is often admitted?

I don't know, honestly. It's a really murky area, and not one I am particularly knowledgeable about. Is nationalization socialism, communism, fascism, or something else? My only real point with saying that was that Walton's actions were beyond what the typical liberal would normally seek.

[RI]

Yes, there is an inherent danger. I won't support someone simply because the want to and can bring change. It depends on what they want to implement. Michael Walton's economic policies are liberal, perhaps socialistic even, but in the situation presented, they are a refreshing change from the Republican hands-off approach and the Democratic let's-do-a-little-bit-but-only-enough-so-that-it-doesn't-really-do-anything approach. As a economically liberal person, this idea intrigues me in sort of a through-the-looking-glass kind of way.

Socialistic? So would you admit that there is less variance between socialism and fascism than is often admitted?

I don't know, honestly. It's a really murky area, and not one I am particularly knowledgeable about. Is nationalization socialism, communism, fascism, or something else? My only real point with saying that was that Walton's actions were beyond what the typical liberal would normally seek.

Hmm, I suppose that would depend on what you specifically mean by 'nationalization'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RI]

Yes, there is an inherent danger. I won't support someone simply because the want to and can bring change. It depends on what they want to implement. Michael Walton's economic policies are liberal, perhaps socialistic even, but in the situation presented, they are a refreshing change from the Republican hands-off approach and the Democratic let's-do-a-little-bit-but-only-enough-so-that-it-doesn't-really-do-anything approach. As a economically liberal person, this idea intrigues me in sort of a through-the-looking-glass kind of way.

Socialistic? So would you admit that there is less variance between socialism and fascism than is often admitted?

I don't know, honestly. It's a really murky area, and not one I am particularly knowledgeable about. Is nationalization socialism, communism, fascism, or something else? My only real point with saying that was that Walton's actions were beyond what the typical liberal would normally seek.

Hmm, I suppose that would depend on what you specifically mean by 'nationalization'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A state monopoly on an industry is not necessarily a feature of any sort of radical modern ideology. Rather it can be found in the mercantilism of Western Europe going back centuries prior to the rise of liberalism.

Now I of course must respectfully disagree with you on the notion that government bureaucrats could effectively run industries. May I ask why you see that as the best course of action?

I don't think effectively running the industry is the point, but rather that the profits of an American-held resource should primarily benefit Americans. It's a nationalist sentiment, I know, but in a depression, you have to first and foremost look after your own needs, and in a time when gas prices are approaching $15 a gallon, it would be awfully appealing.

Now, that wouldn't be my first course of action. I would likely try to implement a massive social program to once and for all rid the country of fossil fuel usage and institute sustainable energies as the new standard. Such a move would create a massive aggregate supply and demand increase (by dropping costs across the board and increasing the expendable income of every family), boosting the economy perhaps even out of such a depression.

[RI]

I don't think effectively running the industry is the point, but rather that the profits of an American-held resource should primarily benefit Americans. It's a nationalist sentiment, I know, but in a depression, you have to first and foremost look after your own needs, and in a time when gas prices are approaching $15 a gallon, it would be awfully appealing.

But if the company is not run effectively, it will start to run losses, and then taxpayer money will have to be used to keep it operational. Then you have the people paying twice to get that nationalized oil.

There is a difference between running something less than perfectly and running it into the ground. I suppose I have faith in the government to not be that bad. I'm sure that is something that we'll have to disagree on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but that's far easier said than done.

Also remember there may be unintended consequences to any policy. The costs of alternative energy sources available now are so prohibitive compared to the cost of oil that to force their use could dramatically raise the cost of living and impoverish millions. Think of how many different facets of American life are currently dependent on the availability of relatively cheap fossil fuels.
[/quote]

Today, it’s true, but massive investment and subsidization in this would dramatically help. Also this is taking place in the future. Regardless, the premise of this is that fossil fuels are now extremely expensive and therefore there is very little incentive to continue the current course. I think that these considerations make the outlook a lot more upbeat than you present.

[RI]

I don't think effectively running the industry is the point, but rather that the profits of an American-held resource should primarily benefit Americans. It's a nationalist sentiment, I know, but in a depression, you have to first and foremost look after your own needs, and in a time when gas prices are approaching $15 a gallon, it would be awfully appealing.

But if the company is not run effectively, it will start to run losses, and then taxpayer money will have to be used to keep it operational. Then you have the people paying twice to get that nationalized oil.

There is a difference between running something less than perfectly and running it into the ground. I suppose I have faith in the government to not be that bad. I'm sure that is something that we'll have to disagree on.

Perhaps, but do consider the fact that our nationalized railroad Amtrak has never recorded a profit in it's 39 years of existence, instead being dependent entirely on taxpayer subsidies.

I think the people who work in the industry would be it's best owners and managers.

Well, Amtrak was never in an industry that was turning in billions in profits, though. Not quite the same. Plus there is no reason the best owners and managers couldn’t be folded into the new management. Either way, it’s not my choice, but it wouldn’t be a bad thing. Just my opinion.