How many fascist Presidents have we had?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:52:34 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  How many fascist Presidents have we had?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: How many fascist Presidents have we had?
#1
0
 
#2
1
 
#3
2
 
#4
3
 
#5
4
 
#6
5
 
#7
6
 
#8
7
 
#9
8
 
#10
9
 
#11
10
 
#12
>10
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 61

Author Topic: How many fascist Presidents have we had?  (Read 14141 times)
RosettaStoned
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,154
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.45, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 30, 2008, 01:41:02 PM »

4
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 31, 2008, 08:34:56 PM »

The United States has at times had corporatist policy, certainly.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2009, 06:15:44 PM »

None. There is a difference between taking measures to strengthen your office or the nation and serving as an authoritarian leader.

Fascism tends to not allow free and democratic elections in which one loses while holding an iron-clad grip on the running of the nation. I didn't realize the US ever had a dictatorial regime. And before anyone says FDR, he wasn't the sole force. Congress originates laws. That by itself removes the chances of fascism.

You'd have a tough time finding any type of authoritarian regime out there that doesn't have some sort of "legislature" that rubber-stamps the dictator's decrees.

You'd also have a tough time finding a type of authoritarian regime out there that does have some sort of "free and equal elections" that results in the loss of the "fascist" incumbent.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2009, 02:19:45 AM »

There's a difference between fascism and authoritarianism. Read Bill Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism: fascism can be pretty accurately described as a revolutionary form of conservatism that relies on a mass-movement with broad appeal in both the lower and upper social strata to form a vanguardist coalition capable of seizing state power - and promptly bending it towards corporatist, exclusivist economic ends. Its rhetoric appeals to glamorized, idealized symbols of unity and purity. It tends to radicalize before total collapse (Werwulf being the best example, wherein Hitler wanted to employ an extreme form of scorched-earth tactic combined with total-sum mobilization of the German populace to effectively end all human life in the nation before it could be captured).

Not all fascisms are alike, either, and this can be most easily gleaned in their aesthetics (the aesthetic plays a central role in the ideology). Mussolini had envisioned a distinctly modernist ideal for Italy in the 1920's, a sort of art deco scientopia with a high degree of stratification and very little in the way of public support of outdated notions like Catholicism. He was not personally anti-Semitic, and only half-heartedly supported Hitler's demand that he expel Jews from the nation until pressed. Hitler, to the contrary, had a decidedly baroque view of Germany, and he drew on both severe Lutheranism and neo-pagan imagery to create what might be viewed as an organic merger between high German gothicisms and modern technology (an attempt at volkgemeinschaft). Moreover, Hitler hated modernist ideology; Mussolini basked in it.

Don't throw the word around lightly, but don't use it too specifically to refer to Nazi Germany alone. Mussolini and Hitler were fully-realized fascists; Perón's movement included elements of both fascism and socialism; Franco came to power on the back of the falangista movement and crushed it on assuming power; Salazar adopted a few fascist trappings, but generally disliked it, inclining as he did more towards paternalistic theocracy; Mugabe was a penny-ante authoritarian.

As a rule, authoritarian states are usually juntas or otherwise governed non-democratically, with a ruling class interested only in stuffing its own pockets. We have had a few Presidents of this persuasion. Fascism is much more; it is a mass ideological movement. I do fear, however, that today's G.O.P. are inadvertently releasing a highly-theologized form of populism on an unprepared citizenry that could very easily turn into real, authentic, fascism with a religious tinge should the proper conditions arise.   
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2009, 04:52:53 PM »

I agree with Adams and I add the two men who worked harder to expand their own power and that of the federal government while at the same time dumping on the constitution any chance they got:

Lincoln/FDR

I thought they were Communists?  Oh wait -- Hitler was a Communist, too...I forgot.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2009, 12:14:22 PM »

I say four:

John Adams
William McKinley
Woodrow Wilson
George W. Bush

Reagan is borderline but I'll err on the conservative side.

You'd have to include FDR and Truman on that list.  McKinley wasn't a fascist.
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2009, 10:55:38 PM »

I say four:

John Adams
William McKinley
Woodrow Wilson
George W. Bush

Reagan is borderline but I'll err on the conservative side.

You'd have to include FDR and Truman on that list.  McKinley wasn't a fascist.

Neither was Adams, but the actual meaning of the term and its applicability seems irrelevant to some posters.
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2009, 12:20:05 AM »
« Edited: January 23, 2009, 12:23:20 AM by Einzige »

I say four:

John Adams
William McKinley
Woodrow Wilson
George W. Bush

Reagan is borderline but I'll err on the conservative side.

You'd have to include FDR and Truman on that list.  McKinley wasn't a fascist.

McKinley was probably the closest to an authentic fascist that we've ever had, and by this I do not mean a free-marketeer - he actively supported business while President. He was a corporatist through and through. He simply lacked the social authoritarianism that most - though not all - fascists consider a part of their ideology.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2009, 01:05:20 AM »


strictly speaking, there have been no fascist presidents, though Wilson was probably the closest.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 14, 2009, 01:58:31 AM »

George W. Bush.

To attribute fascism to William McKinley is anachronistic. McKinley was a warmonger and a corporatist, to be sure.

It's arguable that the real power between 2001 and 2006 was Karl Rove, who wielded power as the head of the Republican Party, Dubya was a weak President who did what he was told even if it was an abomination to anyone who honors truth, Constitutional precedent, and transparency. Rove operated much like a General Secretary of a Communist Party and might have wielded power indefinitely, as even the President has a two-term limit. The Party Boss is unregulated. The GOP-dominated Congress was in effect a rubberstamp outfit.

Fascism: bolshevik methods in the service of a reactionary cause.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2009, 12:43:17 AM »

FDR would be the closest, if not really a doctrinaire fascist.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2009, 01:16:09 AM »

None.
Logged
big bad fab
filliatre
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,344
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2009, 05:29:06 PM »

It's a pity we don't have a time machine to show BRTD what is really a fascist regime... by letting him live there just one year...
Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Antonescu's Romania, Tiso's Slovakia, Pavelic's Croatia, etc, without speaking of red fascisms...

And, then, maybe he'll stop creating so stupid and insulting (for victims) polls and topics.
Logged
Magic 8-Ball
mrk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,674
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2009, 07:31:07 PM »

None, no matter how badly some want to argue otherwise.
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2009, 07:51:00 PM »

Wilson was somewhat fascist, FDR was borderline, Bush 43 was fine except for the Patriot Act (which wasn't used much). We will never have a full blown fascist President simply because the Congress, Supreme Court, the Military, nor the voters would accept that.
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2009, 08:07:13 PM »

How about the one in the WH now?
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2009, 09:34:43 PM »


lol @ people using Fascism as a pejorative for "people/policies/ideologies I disagree with"
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,030
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 29, 2009, 12:49:24 AM »

None.
Logged
Coburn In 2012
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,201


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 05, 2009, 04:38:28 PM »

well fascist to me is about the same as communist.  they may differ about how much religious freedom they allow or they may not see private industry and business th same way but both are nanny state forms of goverment under which the productive class of citizens are robbed to help prop up lazy poors and goverment programs.

So with that definition I would say FDR Johnson (dom. policy only) and Obama.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 15 queries.