USA today decides the size of the crisis. Or: About fascists and collaborationists

I won’t go into detail here, but the authors demonstrate how the American system leads to the overrepresentation of territories and groups, allowing the victory of those who did not obtain a majority. For the record: since 1992, the Republicans have won the popular vote only once, with George W. Bush, in 2004. He himself lost the popular vote in 2000 to Al Gore, but took the White House. Two terms of Barack Obama followed. Trump was also defeated at the polls by Hillary Clinton in 2016, but won in high school. And Biden surpassed him in 2020 in both ballots. Madison’s maxim failed: instead of moderation, radicalization came. Dysfunctions of that model that clearly threaten the democratic order.

On Saturday, the New York Times published an editorial stating why you shouldn’t vote for Trump:
“You already know Donald Trump. He is not fit to lead. Watch him. Listen to those who know him best. He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. He helped overturn Roe v. Wade, with dire consequences.
Mr. Trump’s corruption and lawlessness goes beyond the election: it is his entire ethos. He lies without limit. If he is re-elected, the Republican Party will not contain him.
Mr. Trump will use the government to persecute opponents. He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations. It will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class and employers.
Another Trump term will harm the climate, destroy alliances and strengthen autocrats. Americans must demand more. Vote.”

By the way: as journalist and historian Anne Applebaum reminded us, if Trump says he will persecute his opponents, you better believe him.

A FASCIST
American historian Robert Paxton, author of “The Anatomy of Fascism”, wrote in 2017 that it was necessary to be very careful with the adjective fascist to designate Trump. In 2021, five days after the invasion of the Capitol, he himself decided to remove his objection to the use of the word:
“(Trump’s) open encouragement of civic violence to reverse the outcome of an election goes beyond a limit. The (fascist) label now seems not only acceptable but necessary.”

His book on fascism, which is from 2004, gives some important clues to understand the flood of extremism that is hitting democracies today, which, not infrequently, have reacted late to the forces of reactionary disorder. He writes:
“When a constitutional system finds itself hostage to impasse, and democratic institutions cease to function, does the political arena tend to narrow?”

The author recalls that, in European fascism, conservatives joined forces with extremists to defeat the left in the hope that they could control them later:
“Even if, to reach an agreement, it was necessary to admit these rude upstarts to the top echelon of government, the conservatives were convinced that they would maintain control of the State”
(…)
A central ingredient of the conservatives’ calculations was that the Austrian corporal (Hitler) and the novice agitator and former Italian socialist (Mussolini) would have no idea what to do with the top job. They would be unable to govern without the ‘savoir-faire’ of educated and experienced conservative leaders. In short, the fascists offered a new recipe for government, counting on popular support, without implying a division of power with the left and without posing any threat to the social and economic privileges and political dominance of the conservatives. Conservatives, for their part, held the keys to the doors of power in their hands.”