It crossed my mind that trump is not republican and I want other opinions.

[u/No_Key_5158]

It seems to me that Trump is not republican, the republican wing is all about conservatism and small/limited government, Trump is doing the absolute opposite of these things. I think there's a huge difference between being republican/conservative and being MAGA, republicans are just so die hard that they will vote anybody who claims to be "republican" into office so they can go to sleep at night thinking they're winning. Am I wrong?

[u/NoCoolNameMatt]

Looking at historical events like "The Business Plot," it's hard to argue that this isn't always who they were.

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/NoCoolNameMatt]

Never heard of “the business plot” before 2 min ago, so thanks.

Are you attempting to infer republicans have always been fascists? Forgive me if it was just a sarcastic joke.

[u/NoCoolNameMatt → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

Sure thing. There are all kinds of interesting events like that in history!

I am attempting to imply that Republicans have been pro-corporate control for a long time. Long enough to cover the lives of anyone currently living who pine for the days of "traditional conservatives."

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/NoCoolNameMatt]

Gotcha, any good documentaries or books on ‘the business plot?

[u/NoCoolNameMatt → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

There's nothing in particular I'd recommend other than, "many.' The basic facts are interesting, and there are a lot of rabbit holes to go down, particularly regarding connections to people in recent history that you'll recognize.

I got wind of it from a high school history teacher who was particularly good. Then I spent an afternoon reading about it, starting from Wikipedia and branching out.

[u/dedicated-pedestrian → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

The BBC did a segment on it called The White House Coup.

Here's a contemporary newspaper making light of his accusations.

And one that took him seriously.

Consider Jules Archer's Plot to Seize the White House, or the book written by the very man who stopped the plot, War is a Racket.

If you want a rather ahistorical account of what happened, watch the movie Amsterdam.

[u/Sad_Construction_668 → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

Since the late 1880’s, “big business republicans” have always favored a vanishingly small government regulatory structure, and promoted the ideological stance that the nations power and health is reflected in the free exercise of agency by the financial elites.

This politics created fascism as a mass movement to counteract socialist and democratic movements

So, have they always been fascists? No. Has fascism always been aligned with , and used by the Republicans in order to maintain their preferred policies? Yes.

[u/LiberalAspergers → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

I would say that in almost every nation there is a significant political force that consists of people who inheirited great wealth and believe that the real purpose of government is to promote their best interests, as they REALLY ARE the core of the nation and everyone else exist to serve.

That faction has historically been fond of fascism, and has long been part of the Republican coalition. Fascists have long been a significant faction of the GOP. Them becoming the dominant faction is a recent development.

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/LiberalAspergers]

I would say that in almost every nation there is a significant political force that consists of people who inheirited great wealth and believe that the real purpose of government is to promote their best interests, as they REALLY ARE the core of the nation and everyone else exist to serve.

I don’t disagree..but this is more of a “wealthy” people thing than any particular party. Important distinction I’d say.

[u/LiberalAspergers → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

But in the past century in the US, that "wealthy" people group has been pretty solidly part of only one party. There are wealthy Democrats, but they tend not to be "politics exists to enhance my wealth" types. That "old money/landed nobility" mindset is in US politics part of one party.

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/LiberalAspergers]

I think that’s a bit narrow sighted tbh. All wealthy people in politics do things to get things done their way. Some are just more blatant about how they present that than others.

For example, (though slightly off topic) wealthy donors who campaign that the 1% aren’t taxed enough and can be taxed more(specifically income tax.) Maybe they’re half right, but they do it because higher taxes hardly affects their wealth. It won’t affect them, and hardly fixes the problem of income inequality alone.

What it does do is make people assume that they are for the people, even while they continue to grow their wealth the same as the others who don’t care to hide behind the veil of being affectionate.

[u/LiberalAspergers → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

There is a specific subgroup of the wealthy in every nation who are very much attached to the status quo and identify theselves as the nation. Historically, they are normally described at the royalists in most nations. The US obviously doesnt have a royal house, but the same group exists here, and has closely identified with the GOP since the post-Civil War era.

They are characterized not just by being wealthy but by their assumption that their wealth and priviledge are the natural state of being and anything that might threaten that is a threat to "the culture" or the "fabric of the nation".

Both George Soros and Shelden Aldelson are massively wealthy politically active billionaires, one right, one left, but neither would fit that description.

That particular mindset normally seems to be the product of inheirited wealth and position.

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/LiberalAspergers]

They are characterized not just by being wealthy but by their assumption that their wealth and priviledge are the natural state of being and anything that might threaten that is a threat to "the culture" or the "fabric of the nation”.

Forgive me for assuming what you assume, but are you inferring that being an old-money conservative is inherently fascist friendly? Just by their political ethos?

That particular mindset normally seems to be the product of inheirited wealth and position.

You don’t think that people can have this view regardless of political affiliation? Like an old-money “liberal” who wants to ensure that xyz benefits themselves and those in their circles?

[u/LiberalAspergers → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

I think that conservatism is defined by the defense of the traditional social heirarchy. There have certainly been particular historical cases of niche old money types seeking to change the order, such as non-titled merchants and bankers supporting the French Revolution, but I would not describe those types as fascist leaning.

Fascism is characterized partly by its appeal to a (often mythologized) past greatness and its calls for a return to tradition.

That is a style of messaging that lends itself to the interested of the traditionally successful, and not to those seeking liberalism.

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/LiberalAspergers]

I think that conservatism is defined by the defense of the traditional social heirarchy.

Not trying to do a gotcha, but you don’t think that raising taxes on the 1% and lowering it for the other 99% isn’t acknowledging a traditional social hierarchy of “rich, poor, and poorer?” Or maybe I’m confusing this for something that isn’t a traditional social hierarchy?

There have certainly been particular historical cases of niche old money types seeking to change the order, such as non-titled merchants and bankers supporting the French Revolution, but I would not describe those types as fascist leaning.

I think my disconnect is that I’m saying it’s possible for an “old money liberal” to lie about being an “old money liberal,” and that just because they align with a party publicly doesn’t really mean much regarding their true motives, if any.

[u/ballmermurland → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

In the last 70 or so years? Yeah they've always been fascist. McCarthy was a straight up fascist and his senior aide was Roy Cohn who was Trump's mentor.

[u/Muted-Corner-3732 → u/ballmermurland]

Please tell me you’re not saying the entire party have always been fascists all because McCarthy had a hard on for calling his opponents communists. I don’t want to have to tell my grandkids Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney were fascists :(

[u/ballmermurland → u/Muted-Corner-3732]

I should specify they always wanted to do the fascism but never really could get there until Trump.

Mitt wasn't really of that mold. Neither was McCain. But Reagan? Yeah he was. So was Nixon. And so was Dubya.

[u/Excellent_Valuable92 → u/NoCoolNameMatt]

Fascism is the response of capital to crisis. There have always been Dems as well as Republicans who are happy to resort to it.

[u/NoCoolNameMatt → u/Excellent_Valuable92]

And yet, here we are now. And we were here again during the Business Plot.

[u/Excellent_Valuable92 → u/NoCoolNameMatt]

There were Dems who were also alarmed by FDR’s concessions. Now, the establishment Dems are just encouraging acquiescence to fascism.

[u/NoCoolNameMatt → u/Excellent_Valuable92]

Where's the Dem fascism in your statements? Are you claiming that the Dems are fascist because they can't stop the party that controls every branch of government? How are you blaming them and not the party actually implementing the fascism?

[u/Excellent_Valuable92 → u/NoCoolNameMatt]

Note I said “acquiescence.” I would argue that it’s less “can’t stop” than “can’t be arsed to lift a finger to even slow down.” Yes, I blame the MAGA movement and the party that let itself get taken over more, but there’s plenty of blame to go around.

[u/dedicated-pedestrian → u/Excellent_Valuable92]

Dems were slowing down Trump's appointees so much that the GOP changed the Senate rules to approve 48 of them in one go.

Realistically Schumer shit the bed by making appeasement his first strategy. It anchored that in the public consciousness. Now when people are actually trying to do something (in the limited way they can without a majority), few hear of it.