The parade is held up as a facet of militarism, militarism is held up as a facet of fascism. Some people keep pointing to single events - some substantially and rightly alarming, and some frivolous - and fitting those to their cases for fascism. But most single events - like the parade - can be fitted to other cases; in this case, also populism, or even merely Trump's ego. Those willing to accept thin evidence in one case should not demand thorough evidence for another.
This echoes a point I have tried to make before. If we enumerated all possible characteristics of ideologies and all ideologies of interest and then mapped the former to the latter, there would be overlap: characteristics shared among ideologies. Oddball inconsistent events are not useful indicators, and a correct diagnosis requires all criteria be met. In particular, an authoritarian streak (and thus characteristics of authoritarianism) runs through most top-down ideologies and is to be expected in the people who seek high positions in those places.
Furthermore, people are always seizing on militating evidence and ignoring mitigating evidence. The administration basically ignored the "No Kings" protests. Real kings and tyrants don't tolerate that kind of open dissent. The administration will do as all administrations do and nominate judges and justices fitting particular models when nomination opportunities arise, but there is no serious indication that it is about to remove and replace the multitudes handing the administration setbacks and defeats in the courts. If the administration fires and replaces a senior military official, it will be for plausible cause - opponents will find reasons to disagree, but proponents will find reasons to agree - and not to wholesale replace the leadership with compliant GOFOs. The administration is going after media that the administration believes have presented information deceitfully, but it is not going after everyone who is a critic - even a severe critic; moreover, this is no different than the people in opposition who have their own ideas about what is malinformation and what should be done about it.
Armchair psychoanalysis over the internet is exceptionally rude behaviour. I can't identify with something unless you provide your definition. "MAGA" is one of those "I know it when I see it" things that people throw around, and I can't read minds. I lean libertarian in my ideals and classically liberal in the principles of governance I favour and conservative in my politics and I have no particular like or dislike of Trump. The administration is usefully resetting overreach by prior administrations, and applying pressures that have motivated Canada and other countries and many institutions and agencies and people to shake off over-reliance on the US. I don't suffer the collective whine of the fools who object to things done by this administration that were not equally resisted when done by prior administrations. I am scornful of the multitude of occasions on which people supposedly against the erosion of norms and decency take to eroding norms and decency to alleviate their frustration and policy differences. I have contempt for those trying to paint a picture of eroding democracy in the US when I compare it to our own governing structure and the respective numbers of positions and questions that are routinely put before voters.
Agreed.
Absolutely. Claiming the administration is fascist is a precursor to extreme opposition suitable to opposing fascism, or to encouraging others to so believe and act. What is allowable if you are really fighting Hitler, or even merely Mussolini?
The point I usually make is that what matters is whether it was done before. It is unreasonable to bitch when the other "team" applies in other ways the powers and capabilities that were convenient at one time for one's own "team". A detention camp or facility is a detention camp or facility. Facilitating large amounts of law-breaking creates the reasonable excuse for large amounts of law-enforcing. Exporting prisoners in one context opens the door to doing it in another. Following through on threats to find some ways to prosecute people, even if there is nothing in hand when the threat is made, invites retaliation. Creating invasive new powers for a particular envisioned purpose does not limit them from being applied otherwise. Acting unrestrained of the constitution etc invites more of the same.
As a practical political matter: if one party has repeatedly secured political advantage by bad behaviour and shows no sign of changing in the face of passive dismay, then tit-for-tat is fair until the first party exhibits evidence of genuine reform.
In most cases, yes. Their noses need to be rubbed in it until they really do follow through on their rhetoric - they're better than Trump, they don't go low, they want to preserve democratic norms and institutions, they themselves cut back some of the intrusive illiberal things they did etc, etc.
abcnews.go.com
www.independent.co.uk
www.lemonde.fr
federalnewsnetwork.com
