Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Democrats have utterly failed The People........that I thought would be interesting to discuss. Boiled down to its essence it is that Trump is not the essential element animating Trumpery. Trumpery being defined (by me) as the rise of nativism, the advent of power concentrated in the hands of the nation's leader, challenging the prior constitutional order, an isolationist bent, targeting minorities as being responsible for a variety of societal ills, and sloganeering as a substitute for nuanced policy.
She recently did a town hall style meeting with Chris Hayes during which he asked her why it is, in her opinion, that some authoritarian figures in history fail to gain support while others succeed. IOW, can success or failure of these figures be predicted. Her answer was the country, any country, has to be previously receptive to the message being projected. That no one can start from ground zero and orchestrate an authoritarian movement unless citizens in the country, some of them at least, are ready for it.
Probably the best example of this being Germany before Hitler (I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler). The seeds for being receptive to fascism were planted by the onerous terms Germany was forced to submit to after WW I.
So what was happening here that allowed for the sublimated acceptance of, if not desire for, autocracy to bubble to the surface? Technological advances bringing about economic instability? The "browning" of the country causing anxiety among certain factions?
Or is Rachel's theory just wrong?
70 yearsYeah. Americans have been concerned about the "browning of America" for 20 years.
Did these conditions exist for obama?
Hayes pointed out in the introduction to the discussion that Teddy Roosevelt wanted to establish an American empire based on his belief in the inherent superiority of whites. You learn something every day.Maddow is spot on in her assessment – and what is today called ‘Trumpism’ is nothing new, the perception among conservatives that democracy is more of a burden and hinderance, hence conservatives’ wrongheaded rhetoric about America not being a democracy.
Or more precisely, the belief among conservatives that democracy was never intended for universal inclusion and participation; Republicans seek to reinforce and enhance the fundamentally un-democratic, anti-majoritarian elements of the American political system, where the will of the people is aggressively filtered and repressed through byzantine representation.
Conservatives fear a more expansive and inclusive democracy – referenda in particular; the right’s response to demands for more expansive and inclusive democracy is to pursue an authoritarian, illiberal, anti-democratic agenda.
1964 and 1966?Trump harnessed a sentiment that’s been brewing since the 60s. It doesn’t end when he goes away, but without a focus slip under the radar again, until another opportunist comes along.
Or more precisely, the belief among conservatives that democracy was never intended for universal inclusion and participation; Republicans seek to reinforce and enhance the fundamentally un-democratic, anti-majoritarian elements of the American political system, where the will of the people is aggressively filtered and repressed through byzantine representation.
Putting aside the source of the frustration, Trump certainly has exploited it. But not for the sake of making people's lives better, for the sake of assuming more power for himself.Democrats have utterly failed The People.
This has been going on for quite awhile now, though "fail" may not be the most accurate word, as there is great deliberateness at work.
Odious as Trump is, he understands this deep disappointment and frustration.
why do we even care what she says. I hardly think her area of expertise gives her any credibility on the topic. She's a political hack. period.The town hall discussion was based on her book, Prequel. She is still on MSNBC on Monday's.
The elimination of liberals from the GOP began in the late 60s with the Southern Strategy, the GOP’s embrace of racists and bigots, and the rise of the Christo-fascist right – all in response to, and fear of, the civil rights movement, the CRA of 1964, the VRA of 1965, and all Americans seeking to protect their rights and liberties.It goes beyond conservatism
Up until the 1980s Republicans had both Conservative and Liberal wings
Liberals like Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits.
Republicans also were more intellectual
With Reagan, Conservatives seized the party and drove the liberals out and appealed to the uneducated masses
Yep a CONspiracy.......that I thought would be interesting to discuss. Boiled down to its essence it is that Trump is not the essential element animating Trumpery. Trumpery being defined (by me) as the rise of nativism, the advent of power concentrated in the hands of the nation's leader, challenging the prior constitutional order, an isolationist bent, targeting minorities as being responsible for a variety of societal ills, and sloganeering as a substitute for nuanced policy.
She recently did a town hall style meeting with Chris Hayes during which he asked her why it is, in her opinion, that some authoritarian figures in history fail to gain support while others succeed. IOW, can success or failure of these figures be predicted. Her answer was the country, any country, has to be previously receptive to the message being projected. That no one can start from ground zero and orchestrate an authoritarian movement unless citizens in the country, some of them at least, are ready for it.
Probably the best example of this being Germany before Hitler (I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler). The seeds for being receptive to fascism were planted by the onerous terms Germany was forced to submit to after WW I.
So what was happening here that allowed for the sublimated acceptance of, if not desire for, autocracy to bubble to the surface? Technological advances bringing about economic instability? The "browning" of the country causing anxiety among certain factions?
Or is Rachel's theory just wrong?
Look in the mirror, moonbat.There's no doubt the rise of RWM softened the ground for Trump by stoking the anger he tapped in to. But what is the source of the anger?
Let me guess. You come from a slave state? It was mainly Crackers voting against it, from either party.It was the DEMOCRATS that fought tooth and nail AGAINST Civil Rights legislation throughout the 1960's!!!!!
There’s that expected TDS…Putting aside the source of the frustration, Trump certainly has exploited it. But not for the sake of making people's lives better, for the sake of assuming more power for himself.
For 30 years Limbaugh pounded away at the "lamesteream media". Meaning the mainstream media. Look how people on right automatically sweep aside anything they don't like from any of the major news outlets except FOX.So you think RWM was essential as a predicate to Trumpery. But why are so many people receptive to overt lies?
The rise of Trump is predicated on the crappiness of Obama. What you folks call lies is merely an excuse to ignore the disaster that Obama created.So you think RWM was essential as a predicate to Trumpery. But why are so many people receptive to overt lies?
yes..in democrat administrations.The conditions, to one extent or another, have been present for a long time. That is the theory Rachel has, one I agree with.
For example, she has written in her book Prequel about a surprisingly large amount of Nazi sympathizers here in America around the time of WW II.
When Trump is re-elected I'm guessing that you and Rachel will be a little bit upset........that I thought would be interesting to discuss. Boiled down to its essence it is that Trump is not the essential element animating Trumpery. Trumpery being defined (by me) as the rise of nativism, the advent of power concentrated in the hands of the nation's leader, challenging the prior constitutional order, an isolationist bent, targeting minorities as being responsible for a variety of societal ills, and sloganeering as a substitute for nuanced policy.
She recently did a town hall style meeting with Chris Hayes during which he asked her why it is, in her opinion, that some authoritarian figures in history fail to gain support while others succeed. IOW, can success or failure of these figures be predicted. Her answer was the country, any country, has to be previously receptive to the message being projected. That no one can start from ground zero and orchestrate an authoritarian movement unless citizens in the country, some of them at least, are ready for it.
Probably the best example of this being Germany before Hitler (I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler). The seeds for being receptive to fascism were planted by the onerous terms Germany was forced to submit to after WW I.
So what was happening here that allowed for the sublimated acceptance of, if not desire for, autocracy to bubble to the surface? Technological advances bringing about economic instability? The "browning" of the country causing anxiety among certain factions?
Or is Rachel's theory just wrong?
The rise of Trump is predicated on the crappiness of Obama. What you folks call lies is merely an excuse to ignore the disaster that Obama created.
