Would you ever vote for a fascist?

[The Mikado]

This thread will put the final stake through poor Al's heart.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Since I'd likely vote for the Mikado, Inks and Lunar, sure

[k-onmmunist]

This thread will put the final stake through poor Al's heart.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Would you ever vote for a fascist?

Define "Fascist"

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

If you mean a racist? Then never.

If you mean someone who makes the trains run on time, someone who puts a policeman on every corner, and ensures they are not corrupt by a campaign of fear; someone who rules society and forces them to be in order, where everyone knows their place; someone who can build a city where people walk down the street with purpose, tall grey buildings, wearing grey suits, as grey cars pass by. No horns honk, no one smiles, or frowns, no one laughs, or cries. No offensive colour, all is in order, proper, in it's place.

Then no; I'd make them vote for me to be the leader of this great new world.

[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'.

[Mechaman]

If they promised free beer and some fine teenage booty, maybe

I'm dicking with you guys, of course I wouldn't unless they promised to include me in on their closet New World Order conspiracy that would bank me hundreds of billions of dollars and the enslavement of civilization, for teh lulz

[Derek]

There have been fascist presidents already. No I wouldn't have voted for any of them.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

There have been fascist presidents already. No I wouldn't have voted for any of them.

How many? Names?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.)

[President Mitt]

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

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

[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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

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.

[Franzl]

Libertas makes a good point there, actually.

I would never trust the state so much that I would be willing to sacrifice parts of the democratic process in order to gain security.

The danger is simply too large that the supposedly "strong" government we vote in will never leave again.

[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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas makes a good point there, actually.

I would never trust the state so much that I would be willing to sacrifice parts of the democratic process in order to gain security.

The danger is simply too large that the supposedly "strong" government we vote in will never leave again.

Whoa, Franzl admitting I made a 'good point'? Color me shocked.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure we all might be tempted if we ever find ourselves in a situation with no food to eat and relentless violence all around us. But it's that desperation that a demagogue who may not truly have the best of intentions preys on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I suppose I agree with you then. The only problem is it's quite difficult to rise up against a well-entrenched authoritarian state that's gone sour.

Of course, in my view, the long-term goal of every society should be the elimination of the need for the state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Admittedly I've only read the parts of that TL where Walton's name popped up, so I will take your word. I definitely will try to read the whole thing through so we can have this discussion some time though.

[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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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'.

[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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This thread will put the final stake through poor Al's heart.

Oddly enough my heart is fine, one of the few things that seems to work properly (at least for now). But... um... certain replies do get quite close to driving the final stake through my liver.