Fascism is materially driven

[Tankie]

Re: dblack's opinion poll reads, "Poll for Trump Supporters: Will you push back if he goes full fascist." I'm wondering why dblack thinks a fascist dictatorship could arise because Trump would will it.

Respectfully, it should be remembered that fascists have never assumed power merely through elections. Capitalist states in crisis have always given fascists power, i.e., Hindenburg handing power to Adolf Hitler through Germany's Enabling Act. Hitler's ascendancy and the Enabling Act were not isolated incidents. They were direct responses to Germany's dire economic depression and the capitalist class' need to secure its power.

It need also be remembered that in 1933, Germany suffered from a 34% unemployment rate and deflation, and its rate of industrial production had fallen to approximately 58% of its 1928 level.
This historical context is crucial to understanding how fascist dictatorships, like an iron hoop, hold capitalism together during financial crises.
In 2016, the US was far from the economic conditions that foster fascist dictatorships. Although propped up by quantitative easing, etc., the economy was strong. Furthermore, there was no significant socialist current to suppress. Therefore, there was no (material) impetus for the establishment of a fascist dictatorship, and there still isn't.
Accordingly, although Donald Trump traffics in fascistic rhetoric, he couldn't become a fascist dictator if reelected just because he would want to. Thinking otherwise is to succumb to Great Man Theory and the worthless idealism it entails.

History is driven by class conflict, and fascism is derived from capitalism. Moreover, fascism is conceivable because of liberal capitalism, not despite it. Both philosophically and historically, fascism is entrenched in the identical Western institution as liberalism, and it reappears because capitalism's contradictions spawn its nucleus.

Bipartisan neoliberalism is the contradiction of capitalism driving Trumpism. Trump's election was a result of neoliberal "reforms," e.g., lowering trade barriers, eliminating price controls, privatization, the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act and other protections, governmental fiscal austerity, etc.

Neoliberalism freed capitalists from their territorial and governmental confines and decimated the strength, influence, and income of workers. Although all of that manifested from capitalism, many workers were conditioned to believe socialism, immigration, gay liberation, feminism, "wokeism," and other social factors were at fault, thereby pushing them toward Trumpism.

But a vote for Kamala Harris was also a vote for more neoliberalism and more fascism adjacency. Indeed, the time is long past due for workers to reject both factions of the US "Capitalist Party."

 

[Votto]

The Deep State runs the Federal government, and everyone knows it

The Left has the task of trying to convince us that President Trump will somehow take over the entire government after having in his first term with a GOP Congress for 2 years, yet he was unable to do the simplest of tasks like build a border wall and repeal and replace Obamacare, which is what the GOP ran on in 2016. They inexplicably did absolutely nothing for 2 years, and then wondered why the DNC took the House who then predictably impeached him half a dozen times, just for sport as nothing was done his entire 4 years that did not include executive orders that were promptly overturned by Biden.

For me, Trump is just a punching bag of sorts, or piñata if you will that makes it appear that the Deep State actually shares its power, when in reality, they will never allow the border to be sealed. Don't get me wrong, Trump will bring down immigration numbers significantly with executive orders alone, only to have some yahoo get in there to let it run hog wild again.

For me, the only difference between fascism and the Left is, fascism allows for private ownership of industry, however, the government is still indirectly controlled by the state. Fascism is just one more flavor or collectivism, such as socialism or communism. But allowing industry to remain private makes fascism a superior model to communism, because fascism allows the professionals to work at their profession, verses a bunch of idiot bureaucrats that can't even do their own job right. This is what China adopted, which led to them being the second biggest economy in the world. Really, China is a fascist nation now with its own open genocide no one disputes is happening, yet no one ever talks about it because they are greasing the wheels of everyone around the globe to talk nice about their little Nazi regime.

 

[MarathonMike]

Re: dblack's opinion poll reads, "Poll for Trump Supporters: Will you push back if he goes full fascist." I'm wondering why dblack thinks a fascist dictatorship could arise because Trump would will it.

Respectfully, it should be remembered that fascists have never assumed power merely through elections. Capitalist states in crisis have always given fascists power, i.e., Hindenburg handing power to Adolf Hitler through Germany's Enabling Act. Hitler's ascendancy and the Enabling Act were not isolated incidents. They were direct responses to Germany's dire economic depression and the capitalist class' need to secure its power.

It need also be remembered that in 1933, Germany suffered from a 34% unemployment rate and deflation, and its rate of industrial production had fallen to approximately 58% of its 1928 level.
This historical context is crucial to understanding how fascist dictatorships, like an iron hoop, hold capitalism together during financial crises.
In 2016, the US was far from the economic conditions that foster fascist dictatorships. Although propped up by quantitative easing, etc., the economy was strong. Furthermore, there was no significant socialist current to suppress. Therefore, there was no (material) impetus for the establishment of a fascist dictatorship, and there still isn't.
Accordingly, although Donald Trump traffics in fascistic rhetoric, he couldn't become a fascist dictator if reelected just because he would want to. Thinking otherwise is to succumb to Great Man Theory and the worthless idealism it entails.

History is driven by class conflict, and fascism is derived from capitalism. Moreover, fascism is conceivable because of liberal capitalism, not despite it. Both philosophically and historically, fascism is entrenched in the identical Western institution as liberalism, and it reappears because capitalism's contradictions spawn its nucleus.

Bipartisan neoliberalism is the contradiction of capitalism driving Trumpism. Trump's election was a result of neoliberal "reforms," e.g., lowering trade barriers, eliminating price controls, privatization, the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act and other protections, governmental fiscal austerity, etc.

Neoliberalism freed capitalists from their territorial and governmental confines and decimated the strength, influence, and income of workers. Although all of that manifested from capitalism, many workers were conditioned to believe socialism, immigration, gay liberation, feminism, "wokeism," and other social factors were at fault, thereby pushing them toward Trumpism.

But a vote for Kamala Harris was also a vote for more neoliberalism and more fascism adjacency. Indeed, the time is long past due for workers to reject both factions of the US "Capitalist Party."

Welcome! Very well written. I didn't agree with everything but I appreciate a well thought out post.

 

[para bellum]

For me, the only difference between fascism and the Left is, fascism allows for private ownership of industry, however, the government is still indirectly controlled by the state.

I think you mean the business (or industry) is indirectly controlled by the State.

This describes the democrats today. They are tolerant of private business, so far as they can control it.

They both (fascists and democrats) elevate the State above the individual.

And that is the opposite of republicans, who favor free enterprise, and less intrusion of the Gov't on our businesses and personal lives.

 

[Votto]

I think you mean the business (or industry) is indirectly controlled by the State.

This describes the democrats today. They are tolerant of private business, so far as they can control it.

They both (fascists and democrats) elevate the State above the individual.

And that is the opposite of republicans, who favor free enterprise, and less intrusion of the Gov't on our businesses and personal lives.

With government becoming more and more intrusive in the private sector, the economic model of the US is beginning to model the Nazi model more and more.

 

[para bellum]

With government becoming more and more intrusive in the private sector, the economic model of the US is beginning to model the Nazi model more and more.

Sadly I don't hold out much hope for improvement. I sure wouldn't try to start a new business today, there are just too many hurdles.

 

[Tankie]

The Deep State runs the Federal government, and everyone knows it

The Left has the task of trying to convince us that President Trump will somehow take over the entire government after having in his first term with a GOP Congress for 2 years, yet he was unable to do the simplest of tasks like build a border wall and repeal and replace Obamacare, which is what the GOP ran on in 2016. They inexplicably did absolutely nothing for 2 years, and then wondered why the DNC took the House who then predictably impeached him half a dozen times, just for sport as nothing was done his entire 4 years that did not include executive orders that were promptly overturned by Biden.

For me, Trump is just a punching bag of sorts, or piñata if you will that makes it appear that the Deep State actually shares its power, when in reality, they will never allow the border to be sealed. Don't get me wrong, Trump will bring down immigration numbers significantly with executive orders alone, only to have some yahoo get in there to let it run hog wild again.

For me, the only difference between fascism and the Left is, fascism allows for private ownership of industry, however, the government is still indirectly controlled by the state. Fascism is just one more flavor or collectivism, such as socialism or communism. But allowing industry to remain private makes fascism a superior model to communism, because fascism allows the professionals to work at their profession, verses a bunch of idiot bureaucrats that can't even do their own job right. This is what China adopted, which led to them being the second biggest economy in the world. Really, China is a fascist nation now with its own open genocide no one disputes is happening, yet no one ever talks about it because they are greasing the wheels of everyone around the globe to talk nice about their little Nazi regime.

Votto: The Deep State runs the Federal government, and everyone knows it."

I don't know that everyone knows it. But, yes, for generations, elements within the U.S. government have imported massive amounts of heroin from Southeast and Central Asia, as well as cocaine from South America. the "deep state" has also supplied weapons to foreign military forces, murdered foreign heads of state, and surveilled and otherwise violated the civil rights of countless U.S. citizens, all in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
It's interesting to consider that although progressives have been drawing attention to the deep state since at least the 1970s, conservatives began to use the phrase only since the prosecution of Donald Trump. Indeed, when the deep state was busy running heroin and cocaine and assassinating leaders such as Omar Torrijos in support of various right-wing machinations, the Right remained system-loyal. Yet, when the FBI and DOJ began to investigate and prosecute the obviously odious Donald Trump, right-wingers became system-disloyal like 60's anti-war protesters.

Votto: "The Left has the task of trying to convince us that President Trump will somehow take over the entire government after having, in his first term, a GOP Congress for 2 years. Yet, he was unable to do the simplest of tasks, like build a border wall and repeal and replace Obamacare, which is what the GOP ran on in 2016. They inexplicably did absolutely nothing for 2 years. Then they wondered why the DNC took the House and then predictably impeached him half a dozen times, just for sport, as nothing was done his entire 4 years that did not include executive orders that were promptly overturned by Biden."

Though I disagree that liberals are a part of the Left, that's an excellent point. For Trump to take over the entire federal government, thereby making him an actual dictator, he would have to have the support of nearly the whole military, complete with very compliant Joint Chiefs of Staff. However, that is an improbable scenario.
And yes, just as the Democrats failed to codify Roe v Wade into law after forty-nine years and a few super majorities, Trump didn't do much during his first two years other than see to a two-trillion-dollar tax cut for himself and his fellow billionaires. Maybe it's one big con job carried out by those who should be known as Republicrats.

Vatto: "For me, Trump is just a punching bag of sorts, or piñata if you will, that makes it appear that the Deep State actually shares its power when, in reality, they will never allow the border to be sealed. Don't get me wrong; Trump will bring down immigration numbers significantly with executive orders alone, only to have some Yahoo get in there to let it run hog wild again."

Although I would, in this instance, substitute the phrase "deep state" with the words "capitalist class," yes, the border will never be sealed. After all, undocumented immigration provides the capitalist class with cheaper labor, drives down wages for all workers, subsidizes the Social Security program, and helps keep workers divided by pigmentation.
The way to significantly alleviate such immigration and migration would be for the U.S. and other imperialist powers to allow for Indigenous self-development in places like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. But that is a subject for another day and not bloody likely to happen as long as the U.S. remains a capitalist society.

Votto: "For me, the only difference between fascism and the Left is that fascism allows for private ownership of industry. However, the government is still indirectly controlled by the state. Fascism is just one more flavor of collectivism, such as socialism or communism. But allowing industry to remain private makes fascism a superior model to communism because fascism allows the professionals to work at their professions, versus a bunch of idiot bureaucrats that can't even do their job right."

Respectfully, the only thing of a collectivist nature concerning fascism is that fascist states often direct their capitalist firms to produce what their fascist states order them to procure. As I alluded to, that isn't always the case as, for example, Chile under the fascist Augusto Pinochet demonstrates. No one has ever been able to show that Pinochet's government rode roughshod over the Chilean capitalist class. And, indeed, once the libertarian Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys were hired, Chile's capitalists were more than free to do as they liked, as the rampant poverty it produced proved.

Additionally, although several of its internal contradictions, which caused the Soviet Union, for example, to become a deformed worker's state that was given to a certain degree of bureaucratization, socialist societies strive for worker control that looks something like this: http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf
Even within the USSR's bureaucratic state system, the Bolshevik Revolution significantly improved the lives of the Soviet people. In less than sixty years, Soviet society went from one of the world's poorest and backward states to a highly educated superpower that beat the U.S. vis-a-vis the space race. In doing so, it also eliminated homelessness and nearly eliminated poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, and malnutrition, and significantly reduced its rates of infant mortality and neonatal death.

Votto: "That is what China adopted, which led to them being the second biggest economy in the world. Really, China is a fascist nation now with its open genocide no one disputes is happening. Yet, no one ever talks about it because they are greasing the wheels of everyone around the globe to talk nice about their little Nazi regime."

As a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and someone who worked in China for four years and who has traveled there many times, I will say that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) adopted no such thing, for doing so would be anathema. No fascist government has ever embarked on an anti-poverty campaign - in fact, they immutably create poverty. The CCP, on the other hand, has pulled more than 800 million Chinese out of deep poverty, constituting the largest and most successful poverty alleviation campaign in human history. To put that in perspective, 800 million is nearly twice the population of South America.
So, no, China has not instituted fascism in any way whatsoever.

Socialism denotes service to human beings, while fascism denotes service to corporations and their owners and (only) service to corporations and their owners. What China is greasing its wheels toward is the realization of communist society via capitalist development, just as scientific socialism has forever prescribed.
Moreover, if the CCP had been given to fascism, then the vast number of governmental, civic, and cultural ties to Marxist thought and action would not exist. Anecdotally, I, an avowed Marxist, would not be so very welcome in China, as I clearly am, if China were fascist.

Per Votto's comment about China's "open genocide [of Uyghurs] no one disputes is happening," no Western government or media outlet has come close to proving that Uyghurs are being genocided, openly or otherwise.

Of course, with the Israel-Palestine impasse and, before that, the Ukraine and Russia war going on, I have begun to think that all of the Western obsession with Ughyur Muslims is nothing more than a way to rile up the Arabs/Muslims against China. To distrust trade with China and vilify it so Muslims in the diaspora will stay loyal to the West.

In any event, it all seems to be crumbling down for those in the West who promulgate this "Ughyur genocide" fiction. From all the sources I've seen online, read, and seen in China, there is not a scintilla of proof of any genocide happening. In fact, there is no ethnic targeted killing by the Chinese government of any group of people at all. You could say, "It's because the CCP hides it," but there is not a single trace or account of it happening at all.

www.pslweb.org

 

[scruffy]

Re: dblack's opinion poll reads, "Poll for Trump Supporters: Will you push back if he goes full fascist." I'm wondering why dblack thinks a fascist dictatorship could arise because Trump would will it.

Respectfully, it should be remembered that fascists have never assumed power merely through elections. Capitalist states in crisis have always given fascists power, i.e., Hindenburg handing power to Adolf Hitler through Germany's Enabling Act. Hitler's ascendancy and the Enabling Act were not isolated incidents. They were direct responses to Germany's dire economic depression and the capitalist class' need to secure its power.

It need also be remembered that in 1933, Germany suffered from a 34% unemployment rate and deflation, and its rate of industrial production had fallen to approximately 58% of its 1928 level.
This historical context is crucial to understanding how fascist dictatorships, like an iron hoop, hold capitalism together during financial crises.
In 2016, the US was far from the economic conditions that foster fascist dictatorships. Although propped up by quantitative easing, etc., the economy was strong. Furthermore, there was no significant socialist current to suppress. Therefore, there was no (material) impetus for the establishment of a fascist dictatorship, and there still isn't.
Accordingly, although Donald Trump traffics in fascistic rhetoric, he couldn't become a fascist dictator if reelected just because he would want to. Thinking otherwise is to succumb to Great Man Theory and the worthless idealism it entails.

History is driven by class conflict, and fascism is derived from capitalism. Moreover, fascism is conceivable because of liberal capitalism, not despite it. Both philosophically and historically, fascism is entrenched in the identical Western institution as liberalism, and it reappears because capitalism's contradictions spawn its nucleus.

Bipartisan neoliberalism is the contradiction of capitalism driving Trumpism. Trump's election was a result of neoliberal "reforms," e.g., lowering trade barriers, eliminating price controls, privatization, the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act and other protections, governmental fiscal austerity, etc.

Neoliberalism freed capitalists from their territorial and governmental confines and decimated the strength, influence, and income of workers. Although all of that manifested from capitalism, many workers were conditioned to believe socialism, immigration, gay liberation, feminism, "wokeism," and other social factors were at fault, thereby pushing them toward Trumpism.

But a vote for Kamala Harris was also a vote for more neoliberalism and more fascism adjacency. Indeed, the time is long past due for workers to reject both factions of the US "Capitalist Party."

Fascism is still fundamentally collectivist.

Mussolini was a socialist.

The only reason Hitler moved against the socialists is because they represented the competition.

A choice between fascism and communism is no choice at all

 

[Tankie]

Fascism is still fundamentally collectivist.

Mussolini was a socialist.

The only reason Hitler moved against the socialists is because they represented the competition.

A choice between fascism and communism is no choice at all

scruffy: "Fascism is still fundamentally collectivist."

Outwardly, fascism may be a collectivist ideology, which its followers also insist on; it's supposed to liberate the "right" people from the "wrong" people so that the "right" people can have all the power. So, in that sense, fascism could be construed as a collectivist mindset. However, fascists also want to kill and otherwise severely discriminate against a whole host of people and generally propagate a picture of the perfect man, who is supposed to have all the power available.
Therefore, fascism is individualist only in the most extreme sense by enabling the fascist to discriminate against others and indulge in fantasies of extreme power over others. That is hardly a collectivist inclination, at least not in the way that most people understand the term collectivist. Indeed, it is 180 degrees removed from any humanistic interpretation of the word.

scruffy: "Mussolini was a socialist."

Yes, at one time, Benito Mussolini was a socialist - in fact, in 1912, he became a member of the Italian Socialist Party. However, he was soon expelled from the party for his support of military intervention in WWI and, informally, for his being self-centered and bent on self-promotion. In brief, when socialism inevitably proved not to facilitate his desires, he moved on to fascism, which is ideally suited to egotism.

As for any connection between Benito Mussolini and collectivism that Scruffy may claim, in his "Doctrine of Fascism" (1932), Mussolini wrote: "The theory of Fascist authority has nothing to do with the police State. A party that governs a nation in a totalitarian way is a new fact in history. References and comparisons are not possible. Fascism takes over from the ruins of Liberal Socialistic democratic doctrines, which are elements that still have a living value. It preserves those that can be called the established facts of history; it rejects all the rest, that is to say, the idea of a doctrine that holds good for all times and all peoples. Suppose it is admitted that the nineteenth century has been the century of Socialism, Liberalism, and Democracy. In that case, it does not follow that the twentieth must also be the century of Liberalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; people remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right," a Fascist century. If the nineteenth was the century of the individual, it may be expected that this one may be the century of 'collectivism' and, therefore, the century of the State. . . . The doctrine itself, therefore, must be not words but an act of life. Hence, the pragmatic veins in Fascism, its will to power, its will to be, its attitude in the face of the fact of 'violence' and of its courage." (Emphasis in original.)

Ergo, Mussolini referred to collectivism in terms of its relation and obeisance to the state, not Marxist collectivism. He also twists modern definitions of individualism by saying that free-thinking, non-authoritarians were a thing of the 19th century. Now was the time for people to march in line. Hardly any type of humanistically-centered collectivism.

scruffy: "The only reason Hitler moved against the socialists was because they represented the competition."

Just as "fascist collectivism" is completely removed from Marxist collectivism, so, too, has fascism nothing to do with socialism. The Nazi Party's "National Socialist German Workers' Party" was merely a usurpation of the then-widespread demand for socialism within Germany's working class ( Election Results in Germany ). Like the U.S.'s modern-day pro-capitalist Democratic Party, which co-opts social movements like BLM and then destroys them, the pro-capitalist Nazi Party expropriated the socialist banner. It created several bogus socialist organizations to infiltrate and disrupt legitimate socialist organizations, such as the "Black Front" and the "Kampfbund gegen den Reaktionaren Sozialismus" (Combat League Against Reactionary 'Socialism'), which were invented to create discord among socialist groups by mimicking their tactics while simultaneously promoting Nazism. They were nominal socialist political organizations that sported style without substance. Like an automobile without wheels or a goblet without liquid, they were devoid of content.

While using that "socialist" banner, The Nazis sought to discredit genuine socialist organizations by hatching seemingly similar groups that carried out violent or otherwise disruptive activities, thereby alienating potential leftist supporters from actual socialist parties. Those bogus organizations were controlled by undercover Nazi operatives who manipulated the groups from within to serve the Nazi agenda, not a socialist one.
It was a charade that culminated in the Night of the Long Knives, which saw the political executions of actual socialists and other enemies of the Nazis.

scruffy: "A choice between fascism and communism is no choice at all."

In reality, the difference between fascism and communism is like the difference between night and day. To understand that, one needs to look no further than the fact that, throughout WWII, Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, ITT, IBM, and other capitalist citadels operated in Nazi Germany and at the behest of the Nazis. Indeed, IBM computerized the Nazi holocaust by tracking its victims from arrival to death. And Ford, Chrysler, General Motors were "awarded" compensation by the U.S. Congress for damage inflicted on their manufacturing plants in Nazi Germany. Just as in the Soviet Union, had Germany's government been socialist during the 1930s and '40s, there wouldn't have been any capitalist firms in Germany.

Good day
Be well
Tankie
www.pslweb.org

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Sadly I don't hold out much hope for improvement. I sure wouldn't try to start a new business today, there are just too many hurdles.

 

[Ringo]

The only thing soviet propaganda was wrong about, was that fascism was defeated in 1945.
As long as capitalism exists, fascism, as its consequence, will sprout up all over the world.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Capitalism, communism, fascisim are all the legs of a tripod stool.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Re: dblack's opinion poll reads, "Poll for Trump Supporters: Will you push back if he goes full fascist." I'm wondering why dblack thinks a fascist dictatorship could arise because Trump would will it.

Respectfully, it should be remembered that fascists have never assumed power merely through elections. Capitalist states in crisis have always given fascists power, i.e., Hindenburg handing power to Adolf Hitler through Germany's Enabling Act. Hitler's ascendancy and the Enabling Act were not isolated incidents. They were direct responses to Germany's dire economic depression and the capitalist class' need to secure its power.

It need also be remembered that in 1933, Germany suffered from a 34% unemployment rate and deflation, and its rate of industrial production had fallen to approximately 58% of its 1928 level.
This historical context is crucial to understanding how fascist dictatorships, like an iron hoop, hold capitalism together during financial crises.
In 2016, the US was far from the economic conditions that foster fascist dictatorships. Although propped up by quantitative easing, etc., the economy was strong. Furthermore, there was no significant socialist current to suppress. Therefore, there was no (material) impetus for the establishment of a fascist dictatorship, and there still isn't.
Accordingly, although Donald Trump traffics in fascistic rhetoric, he couldn't become a fascist dictator if reelected just because he would want to. Thinking otherwise is to succumb to Great Man Theory and the worthless idealism it entails.

History is driven by class conflict, and fascism is derived from capitalism. Moreover, fascism is conceivable because of liberal capitalism, not despite it. Both philosophically and historically, fascism is entrenched in the identical Western institution as liberalism, and it reappears because capitalism's contradictions spawn its nucleus.

Bipartisan neoliberalism is the contradiction of capitalism driving Trumpism. Trump's election was a result of neoliberal "reforms," e.g., lowering trade barriers, eliminating price controls, privatization, the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act and other protections, governmental fiscal austerity, etc.

Neoliberalism freed capitalists from their territorial and governmental confines and decimated the strength, influence, and income of workers. Although all of that manifested from capitalism, many workers were conditioned to believe socialism, immigration, gay liberation, feminism, "wokeism," and other social factors were at fault, thereby pushing them toward Trumpism.

But a vote for Kamala Harris was also a vote for more neoliberalism and more fascism adjacency. Indeed, the time is long past due for workers to reject both factions of the US "Capitalist Party."

People say the worst system to live in is fascism and under fascism you have one choice. The best system they scream is Democracy. The Democrats always scream, "Protect Democracy". So you had two choices, Trump or Harris under the best system.

You only have one more choice above the worst system. Not much of a gap between them is there.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Democracy is the best of bad systems.

I am not worried about too much MAGA fascism this time. A one-seat House majority makes Trumpist policy very, very hard to legislate.

Roberts' 'respect the Courts" was aimed at Trump as much as anybody else, probably more so.,