“How Democracies Die” goes into quite a bit of detail about this – basically, it is impossible to run a system purely by making the right laws, because the system is made of people. The laws can say whatever you want. If the people start to betray them, the system will fold.
In practice (so says the book) every single democratic government depends on a structure of norms, and violation of norms and laws goes hand in hand to form the eventual collapse into fascism when it happens.
They also say that resistance from the establishment conservatives (that the fascists are trying to invade and co-opt from within) is generally the key factor that can prevent a fascist takeover. Which is pretty fuckin worrying when you look at the modern Republicans.
resistance from the establishment conservatives (that the fascists are trying to invade and co-opt from within) is generally the key factor that can prevent a fascist takeover.
That’s a very idealist understanding of fascism, I’m not sure your book is worth anything if the author thinks fascism just a thing that happens and can be stopped by individuals instead of examining the system that creates the conditions for fascism.
Learning from people even if they don’t agree with all of your existing conclusions, or want to present well researched facts and conclusions that are outside the scope of your favorite model and your favorite facts to present, is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Case in point: I am genuinely curious, what would you say is the way to structure a society so that it won’t have within it the natural ingredients for collapsing into fascism over time? If you’re going to say (I assume) that capitalism will inevitably turn into fascism as time goes by?
(The book is obviously more complete and well researched than my one sentence summary alone, since it draws from 10-20 countries and the exact details of how fascism arose or didn’t in each one, and what might be the factors that were instrumental in why it happened the way it did in each. That factual analysis and examination of history to see how reality tends to play out I think is pretty invaluable to being able to understand. That said, your broader point, that maybe we shouldn’t get too deep into the nuts and bolts of how things play out once they reach the crisis point without looking firmly at the factors that brought the countries to the crisis point in the first place, I actually think is a really good point.)
Makes me kinda sad that there is a democrat mentality that there CAN’T be a good Republican. It politically disincentivises any republican to be that voice.
Which is probably why the Russian interference playbook is to reinforce the notion that there can not be a good Republican (or democrat).
Tell me one republican policy that is good. No more weapons for Ukraine doesn’t count because they only think they need those weapons to use on Mexico, Iran, and China.
If the end result of every policy a politician supports is bad, how can they be a good politician?
“How Democracies Die” goes into quite a bit of detail about this – basically, it is impossible to run a system purely by making the right laws, because the system is made of people. The laws can say whatever you want. If the people start to betray them, the system will fold.
In practice (so says the book) every single democratic government depends on a structure of norms, and violation of norms and laws goes hand in hand to form the eventual collapse into fascism when it happens.
They also say that resistance from the establishment conservatives (that the fascists are trying to invade and co-opt from within) is generally the key factor that can prevent a fascist takeover. Which is pretty fuckin worrying when you look at the modern Republicans.
That’s a very idealist understanding of fascism, I’m not sure your book is worth anything if the author thinks fascism just a thing that happens and can be stopped by individuals instead of examining the system that creates the conditions for fascism.
Learning from people even if they don’t agree with all of your existing conclusions, or want to present well researched facts and conclusions that are outside the scope of your favorite model and your favorite facts to present, is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Case in point: I am genuinely curious, what would you say is the way to structure a society so that it won’t have within it the natural ingredients for collapsing into fascism over time? If you’re going to say (I assume) that capitalism will inevitably turn into fascism as time goes by?
(The book is obviously more complete and well researched than my one sentence summary alone, since it draws from 10-20 countries and the exact details of how fascism arose or didn’t in each one, and what might be the factors that were instrumental in why it happened the way it did in each. That factual analysis and examination of history to see how reality tends to play out I think is pretty invaluable to being able to understand. That said, your broader point, that maybe we shouldn’t get too deep into the nuts and bolts of how things play out once they reach the crisis point without looking firmly at the factors that brought the countries to the crisis point in the first place, I actually think is a really good point.)
Interesting.
Makes me kinda sad that there is a democrat mentality that there CAN’T be a good Republican. It politically disincentivises any republican to be that voice.
Which is probably why the Russian interference playbook is to reinforce the notion that there can not be a good Republican (or democrat).
Tell me one republican policy that is good. No more weapons for Ukraine doesn’t count because they only think they need those weapons to use on Mexico, Iran, and China.
If the end result of every policy a politician supports is bad, how can they be a good politician?