I think there needs to be precision in categorizing sets of authoritarian political ideas - responses also vary according to the nature of the authoritarian political ideas.

Fascism is ideological in ways Trump isn't - Trump is still a danger in terms of democratic backsliding

An important difference between 20th century fascism and 21st century right-wing authoritarian populism is that fascism was explicitly deadset on exposing democracy as bad - people like Orbàn or Erdogan or Trump are fine with the superficial trappings of democracy.
Mussolini shut down true accusations of voter intimidation through the intimidation of his critics, which led to the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti, who had exposed the fascist intimidation at the polls. Trump spread and encouraged conspiracy theories about voter fraud.
Why does this matter? Because right-wing populist supporters make arguments that THEY are the ones defending not just the abstract "will of the people" (that's common in fascism too) but the procedures of democracy itself. They accuse their rivals of authoritarianism.
People like Mussolini or Hitler made no secret that they thought of democracy as decadent and corrupt, not just morally, but politically, as a system. Trump or Erdogan or Orbàn (or to a lesser extent Putin) claim that it's LIBERALISM which is decadent and corrupt.
This is an important difference because 21st century right-wing populist movements can take over established conservative parties - as it has happened in the US and Hungary - without the needs for their own party. In a two party system that's especially effective.
In a two party system like the US partisan voters will vote for their party no matter what - and they can claim continuity with a previous less populist/less authoritarian incarnation of the party. 21st century right-wing populist movement can very easily become "normalized"
Insisting on calling those movements "fascist" leaves room for equivocation and minimization - since 21st century right-wing populism is less ideological, less explicitly anti-democratic, less explicitly hierarchical, an accusation of fascism will look extreme and overblown.
So there's a continuos motte-and-bailey back-and-forth between "fascist" and "dangerous for the liberal democratic system", which is a waste of time and may alienate some people.
A political movement can lead to democratic backsliding without having organized squads of goons in uniform explicitly sanctioned legally and politically, or without building concentration camps, or without a clear anti-democratic ideology.
In order to reduce the hold of a right-wing authoritarian politics onto a conservative party you need the non-authoritarian parts of the conservative party, and authorities of a conservative leaning to respond to the threat, without equivocations or whataboutism.
Fascism and Nazism in the 1930s created their own parties and attracted support from conservative parties or voters by using the threat of communism and painting themselves as the only serious anti-communists - but they quashed liberal democracy quickly and by force.
It took Hitler less than six months to move from assuming power (30th January 1933) to outlawing any political party other than the Nazi Party (14 July). Mussolini abolished elections little more than two years after he had been put in power WITHOUT winning an election.
By contrast Orbàn still allows elections and opposition parties, after ten years of being in office - even though he has sapped their strength and restrained their room for action by making them largely ineffective.
Trump also didn't abolish the opposition party, and took part in an election. He didn't explicitly denounce democracy as a system, either. He had to resort to alleging voter fraud - to say that his rivals were the secret authoritarian ones.
Even Putin at least formally respects things such a term limits - he's been in a position of power since 1999 but has alternated between the job of president and prime minister to at least FORMALLY acknowledge term limits.
Why is this important? Because while no one had any doubts about what kind of regime fascism was and what were the consequences for dissent, average conservative voters might easily be persuaded that the democratic backsliding isn't happening - that it's overblown partisanship.
Why is this important in the US? Because even right now, after the disaster of the assault on the Capitol, Trump has an extremely high approval rating among Republicans - and he, or someone who behaves like him in terms of rhetoric and methods, might still run even after the loss
So it's important to establish that the democratic backsliding is REAL and DANGEROUS even though there are no concentration camps for dissenters and elections weren't abolished, or parties disbanded - that it doesn't take ideological fascism for a movement to threaten democracy.

More from Politics

1/ Imagine that as soon as the referendum result the EU announced that it was looking forward to the end of free movement of UK citizens in the EU


2/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those retired Brits in the EU27 could go home

3/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those Brits in the EU could stop driving down wages, taking jobs and stop sending benefits back to the UK

4/ Imagine if the EU said it was looking to use UK citizens as “bargaining chips” to get a better trade deal

5/ Imagine if the EU told UK citizens in the EU27 that they could no longer rely on established legal rights and they would have to apply for a new status which they have to pay for for less rights
Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/


First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/

Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/

Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/

Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/

You May Also Like

IMPORTANCE, ADVANTAGES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BHAGWAT PURAN

It was Ved Vyas who edited the eighteen thousand shlokas of Bhagwat. This book destroys all your sins. It has twelve parts which are like kalpvraksh.

In the first skandh, the importance of Vedvyas


and characters of Pandavas are described by the dialogues between Suutji and Shaunakji. Then there is the story of Parikshit.
Next there is a Brahm Narad dialogue describing the avtaar of Bhagwan. Then the characteristics of Puraan are mentioned.

It also discusses the evolution of universe.(
https://t.co/2aK1AZSC79 )

Next is the portrayal of Vidur and his dialogue with Maitreyji. Then there is a mention of Creation of universe by Brahma and the preachings of Sankhya by Kapil Muni.


In the next section we find the portrayal of Sati, Dhruv, Pruthu, and the story of ancient King, Bahirshi.
In the next section we find the character of King Priyavrat and his sons, different types of loks in this universe, and description of Narak. ( https://t.co/gmDTkLktKS )


In the sixth part we find the portrayal of Ajaamil ( https://t.co/LdVSSNspa2 ), Daksh and the birth of Marudgans( https://t.co/tecNidVckj )

In the seventh section we find the story of Prahlad and the description of Varnashram dharma. This section is based on karma vaasna.