03.31.2016 11:36 AM

Fascism, Trump and Mulcair

I’m sorry, but Tom Mulcair is kind of pathetic.  He is.

Mulcair has tweeted that Donald Trump is a “fascist,” quote unquote.  He says he wants that “to be on  the record.”

Gotcha.

To me and not a few other people, fascism is the ideology of murder.  Its characteristics are total state control of the economy, uniformed paramilitary forces, and – as noted – organized murder on a massive scale.  You will know you are dealing with a real fascist when they want to kill you. For an opinion, or your religion, or the way you look or the way you are.

Donald Trump is an asshole, to be sure. He says things that are outrageous and racist and offensive and crazy. Yes.

But he isn’t yet openly advocating the forced sterilization of “sub-normal” people – like this other politician did, back in the Thirties.  He hasn’t started calling disabled people “morons” and “prostitutes” who are a burden to the taxpayer – like this fan of Third Reich medicine did, way back when.

Tom Mulcair knows all that, anyway.  Just as we know that he is revealing himself to be a desperate, pathetic man, frantically trying to depict himself as “left wing” to preserve his job.

Save your money writing reports about why you lost the election so badly, Team Orange.  You lost because of the execrable judgment of Tom Mulcair.

26 Comments

  1. Matt says:

    Playing to the more, um, radical members of the NDP ahead of his leadership review?

  2. Kelly says:

    Not defending Mulcair (his smile is as phony as Trump’s hair) but your definition of fascism is the extreme definition of the ideology. The core characteristic of fascism is actually corporatism (no this is not the same thing as corporations running things, which of course they do in many ways.) Corporatism ignores the individual and organizes society into groups which subsume individual identity. So when a politician says they are going to ban all Muslims, or institute a policy that affects an entire identifiable group – – such as women who where niqabs — that is proto fascist. It’s is a form of group oppression. It is the most undemocratic thing a government can do and it is evil. Just like when the liberal government of the day interred Japanese Canadians for being, we’ll, Japanese.

    Defining fascist by the standards of the Nazis or Mussolini sets the bar way too high and lets an awful lot of politicians off the hook.

    • Warren says:

      No, it devalues the significance of the word. But for those who think words alone suffice, that’s par for the course, I guess.

      • KBab says:

        I think Kelly is correct, corporatism, but I understand where Warren is coming from.

        Throwing the F-bomb around diminishes its power.

        At some point the word does need to used though,
        and it ought to be used before mortal transgressions occur.

    • Maps Onburt says:

      Warren is right. Fascist has deep meaning and yu cheapen it with your loose use of the word,for a politician you despise. Are we going to have to come up with new definitions for real fascists?

  3. Pat C. says:

    The two fascists you are referring to actually hammered out long term plans to seek power…for decades in fact. They honed their oratory and writing skills and were involved in the political processes running in multiple elections within their countries for years before assuming leadership. What’s more, they exhibited a fair amount of patience during the process – sticking to their goals, forging alliances with labour and industrial leaders, managing warring factions within the party and generally building a solid organization ready to govern. Now apart from the grubby stuff – the violence, intimidation and the odd assassinations, that sounds like the typical formula or process by which any successful politician aspires to the governor’s chair. They don’t just fall off a proverbial turnip truck and force their way to the front of the line and wing it from there. And in that one regard, it is an insult to the wretched corpses of the 20th century’s two most notorious fascist despots to compare Donald Trump to them.

    • doconnor says:

      We may well in year one of a ten year rise of American Fascism. Trump has openned the door thay other even worse people will go through.

      • Pat C. says:

        I think you’re missing my point. Trump is no fascist. He’s a boardroom dictator no different than a million other ruthless corporate heads and I have no problem with that as it pertains to business or many other environments. It just doesn’t translate well to politics.

        Democracy is a political concept, not a corporate one. Trump has planned next to nothing in his path to the oval office. Not even the most basic requirement of sounding like a democrat.

        I have zero fear of a rise of fascism in the USA.

  4. Jackal says:

    That rant about Tommy Douglas kind of came out of left field. I’m not really clear on what it has to do with anything you’re talking about?

  5. The Doctor says:

    Most stuff on facebook is crap, but your post reminds me of a great little fb post I saw: it was a faux children’s book cover with the title “Everybody I Don’t Like Is Hitler: A Child’s Guide to Online Political Discourse.”

  6. Vancouverois says:

    …and yet Mulcair is utterly shameless in his support for Quebec’s ethnic nationalism. In particular, hee enthusiastically supports the language laws, which discriminate against children based on their family origins.

    But then, hypocrisy is part of the NDP brand. Just look at how Mulcair’s opponents are saying he needs at least 70% to stay on as leader, when their treacherous “Sherbrooke Declaration” says that democracy is 50%+1 when it comes to Quebec separation.

    • davie says:

      What % would you like to have in favour of Quebec’s continued membership in Confederation?

      • Vancouverois says:

        You have it the wrong way round. It’s Quebec separatists who need to get a supermajority in favour of separation if they want a mandate to change the status quo, not loyal Canadians who need a mandate to keep the country together.

        As I’m sure you know, the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s for the federal Parliament to decide the exact level of support required before they’ll negotiate a separation proposal. However, it has to be a CLEAR majority – not the mere 50%+1 that the separatists tried to obtain through electoral fraud in 1995. I expect that it would be something like 60% at a bare minimum. For a fundamental change like this, two thirds (67%) or even three quarters (75%) would be more appropriate – those are more usual levels of support for constitutional changes.

        Of course, that’s only for a mandate to negotiate. Any negotiated settlement would still have to be ratified unanimously by all the provinces before it took effect.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Vancouverois,

      Geez Louise, here we go again. It’s called a broad societal consensus. It’s like in Ontario where successive governments discriminate against non-Catholics by subsidizing the constitutionally mandated separate school system. And you don’t see the provincial government doing anything about that.

      It is beyond ironic that those who seemingly most oppose our societal consensus are either ex-Quebecers long gone or people born in Montreal. (Hi Kevin.)

      Can you name any political leader, of any stripe, who won a leadership review with 50% + 1? Me neither.

      • Vancouverois says:

        So what’s your point?

        Mine is that the NDP is despicable and treacherous for pretending that 50%+1 is a mandate for Quebec to separate, and that their hypocrisy is obvious when their policy is that “broad societal consensus” isn’t required for Quebec to make an illegal unilateral declaration of independence, but IS required for Mulcair to stay on as leader of their party.

        If you agree with that, then we’re on the same side on this issue.

        If you don’t, then it looks like you must be one of those treacherous hypocrites.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Vancouverois,

          I take your point about the hypocrisy and don’t necessarily disagree. What I am arguing is that 50% + 1 has no legal precedent when it comes to a leadership review.

          At least we’ve had two referendums in the past with 50% + 1. I, along with the National Assembly agree with that but as far as negotiations are concerned, it is basically a non-starter given the SCC’s undefined legal parameters.

          • Vancouverois says:

            The 1980 and 1995 referenda did not set a legal precedent of any kind. In fact, Pierre Trudeau stated EXPLICITLY that Canada was not bound to negotiate separation or “sovereignty-association” on a Yes.

            It’s absurd and dishonest for the NDP to claim that 50%+1 is sufficient for Quebec separation, period. The fact that they require a higher standard for their own internal party affairs only underlines their own treachery and hypocrisy. I see no reason to let them off the hook for that by pretending that there is any case whatsoever to be made for 50%+1 in Quebec separation, when there clearly is not.

    • Mark says:

      Hypocrisy is peddled from quite a high horse in the NDP.

      Apparently never being able to win government entitles them to dizzying inconsistencies. This became pretty damn obvious during last year’s election when Mulcair had a different personality per time zone in Canada.

  7. davie says:

    I looked at the links. I notice Mulcair has not mentioned any names; perhaps he did earlier in his talk. For me, there are a couple of candidates other than Trump who, to me, close to your definition of fascism.

    If Mulcair is just now saying this, then he is a little behind quite a few lefties in Canada (and in the states) as to what state and federal institutions and politicians in USA look fascistic. For example,belligerent nationalism and racism (and religious bigotry) are a part of my definition, and a few American politicians have successfully used those appeals.

    I agree, though, that Mulcair will be trying to shore up his social democrat credentials in the next couple of weeks. He’s doing something a lot like what Clinton is doing in USA versus Sanders…trying to convince the rank and file of her social justice and economic democracy credentials. It will be interesting watching to see how successful each of them is in selling their ‘representative of the people’ product

    • The Doctor says:

      I don’t like Trump, but I do find this whole anti-Trump bandwagon in the media and social media to be awfully tiring. It’s already gotten old. I guess it’s just the massive overkill you get in social media these days when people jump on a political bandwagon. My facebook feed is chock full of anti-Trump diatribes from my fb friends, and I’m a Canadian for Crissakes. I think there’s a phenomenon on social media in which people trip over themselves to demonstrate their progressive cred.

      And this is transparently what Mulcair is doing: picking an easy target in order to show off his proggie cred. Yawn.

  8. gprd gemmell says:

    The only American politician to be more feared than Trump
    is Cruz.His barbaric actions in the mid east would make the dreadful
    Bushes seem almost human.
    And the father of fascism was Plato.3a

  9. Derek Pearce says:

    Well, apart from asshole and crazy, what would you call Trump? He certainly seems closer to fascism than any recent politician I can think of. He said that he thinks woman should be “punished” for having an abortion. He wants to ban all Muslims and most Mexicans. I have to agree with Kelly above that he seems “proto-fascist.” I guess you could just say “authoritarian” actually– like Putin.

  10. Mark says:

    YES! Warren, yes! Mulcair is pathetic and I’m so glad to hear someone finally say it.

    This stunt, trying to sling mud at Trudeau for being cautious and thoughtful about his comments and not being a loud mouth, drops Mulcair down to a whole new level of pitiful.

    I’ve never liked Mulcair because of his faux-friendly facade and his self-righteous attitude, and watching him gasp for some sort of relevancy after his humiliation on Oct 19 is utterly pathetic. Unlike any other reasonable leader whose suffered an election defeat, he refuses to gracefully away. He’s insisting himself upon Canadians and it makes me sort of sick.

    First he waded into the Ghomeshi trial by stupidly tweeting #ibelievesurvivors (subsequently being torn apart by Marie Henein for doing so), now he’s flapping his arms around on Trump while trying to take cheap shots at Trudeau. All this just to desperately keep his position as leader.

    Ugh.

  11. Tim Sullivan says:

    Respectfully, I disagree.

    Fascism is best defined as the ideology Mussolini followed when he stopped being a socialist. National Socialism is more of the Fascism of which you speak – more violent, more murderous, and in fact more racist.

    Hitler, the National Socialist, used to press his ally Mussolini for more concentration on the Jews. Mussolini never got around to it to the degree Hitler preferred. Fascism was more about state use of property when private use did not meet state objectives.

    The right will exhibit more of a race-based policy on matters, including murder and genocide, to be sure, but it is National Socialism which is the furthest to the right on the visible political spectrum and it has more of the violence and racial purity aspects.

    All too often ideologies are too fluid and ill-defined. What’s the difference between a Conservative and a Neo-Liberal? The Americans use the word “liberal” in a manner more akin to the way Canadians use “Socialist” and the Americans use that word to mean “Communist”.

    It is pretty mixed up. Adorno is more of the authority on Fascism (derived from “bundle of sticks”) than others.

    I take this all from memory, so E&OE.

    I agree Mulcair has lost it. From saying he believes victims before the evidence is in while maintaining the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof (he has not really said anything about burden of proof), to vocally interfering with the US primaries, he may be grasping at straws. With that last one, he’s grasping at sticks.

    But I don’t agree Fascism requires murder, but violence is a component to be sure. This is not inconsistent with the violence supported and encouraged by Trump.

    All respectfully submitted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*