On Fascism

[AUbritt 611]

Found this essay while surfing today and thought it was an interesting characterization of fascism.

Quote

If fascism began in a deliberate attempt to blend a "left"-wing egalitarianism with a "right"-wing authoritarianism, this political movement inevitably ended by giving a new meaning to such concepts as "community" and "authority." Fascism sought a principle of community that could serve as an alternative to the international working class community (a community, it should be noted, that defines itself in its struggle against the bourgeoisie) envisioned by socialism, and as my quotation from Mussolini suggests, fascism found such an alternative principle in the nation, as it defines itself in its struggle against national enemies. Yet the "volk" like the "proletariat" remains an abstract concept: no one can see "Italy" or "Germany." Therefore fascism created a concrete embodiment of the nation in the person of an all-wise leader ("Mussolini is always right," said a sign on the wall of every Italian classroom) and in the organizational structure of an all-powerful party. Fascism, remembering with acute nostalgia the ecstatic self-surrender of life in the trenches, celebrated the power of the leader and the submission of the loyal party member to the leader’s will as ends in themselves. Yet while this pronounced authoritarian strain may seem to mark fascism as a "right"-wing political phenomenon, it seems to me important to distinguish between fascist authoritarianism and genuine conservatism. For neither Mussolini nor Hitler claimed power on the strength either of a divine right to rule (as kings have been wont to do) or an inherent superiority in their "blood" (as hereditary oligarchies generally do). Rather both fascist leaders presented themselves as "men of the people." Thus the person of the leader becomes, in fascism, a concrete resolution of the opposing aspirations within the movement: he is at once the "great commoner," the "divine average" and the "man apart", a lonely, heroic incarnation of pure will. In this respect Mussolini’s description of fascism as "democratic authoritarianism" seems, if apparently paradoxical, nevertheless accurate. For in blending a "socialist" egalitarianism with a "conservative" authoritarianism, fascism became a new a kind of political movement that was neither truly "socialist" nor truly "conservative," neither a "left"- nor a "right"-wing movement, but rather something unique, dazzling—and (in the end) frantically self-destructive.

Fascism’s attempt to reunite the socialist and the conservative strains in Western political thought may seem, on the face of it, a laudable enterprise. Yet fascism, born in such promise, ended by declaring universal war on everything that was not itself: first bolshevism, then socialism, then the Jews, then the "decadent" liberal democracies. And as fascism gradually united all the world against itself, it ensured its own destruction. A celebration of the nation as a transcendental principle of unity, a mythology and a political structure that claims to reconcile a quasi-conservative cult of authority with a quasi-socialist cult of "the people"—is there something inherently self-destructive in this mix of political ideas? Not, I think, until we add another crucial ingredient in the fascist brew: a demonized ENEMY. Yet we should make no mistake on this point: without an enemy to whom it could ascribe both superhuman powers and a mindless determination to destroy everything good and beautiful, fascism itself would have dissolved back into its constituent elements. For fascism could not do what it promised to do: above all, it could not resolve the struggle between capital and labor, managerial elites and wage-slaves. Instead it frosted over this conflict with a thick coat of rhetoric, thus introducing into fascism a split between political symbol and social reality that poisoned intellectual life in Italy and Germany throughout the fascist epoch. Refusing to recognize the inevitability of internal struggles within the nation, fascism sought to redirect the energy that might otherwise have gone into the capital / labor struggle toward real or imagined enemies of the nation. For if there are no fundamental conflicts within the nation, how was fascism to explain such undeniable social ills of the epoch as mass unemployment, bankruptcies of small businesses, inflation, etc.? Having ruled out the possibility that these economic ills might result from the structure of the national economy, fascism had no alternative but to blame these problems on something outside the nation—other nations which have denied "us" our rightful lebensraum—or on enemies who have infiltrated the body politic, to destroy its purity.

Thus fascism finds its logical fulfillment m a militarism directed against the enemy without and an anti-semitism which seeks to destroy the enemy within. As fascism summoned Italians and Germans to arm themselves in order to seize or to defend what was "rightfully" theirs, militarism and a cult of violence became not an accidental but an essential component of this movement. In Mussolini’s words

Fascism believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism—born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it.

Once in power, both Mussolini and Hitler immediately began a rapid expansion of their nations’ military forces, and both rulers demanded the "right" to use these forces to conquer colonial empires—Mussolini in Africa and Hitler in the Slavic regions east of Germany. And just as fascism sought every possible opening that might serve as a pretext for an attack on the "enemy without," it also sought throughout its history to mobilize "our" forces against the "enemy within" which Fascism everywhere identified as "the Jew." If the "nation"—a community, depending on circumstances, of culture, race, and/or religion—is the supreme reality, then the Jew is almost always sooner or later defined as the alien presence within the nation, the "race" without a home-land in a world where, fascism assumes, only rootedness in a homeland can give substance to our lives. Thus if aggressive war became the logical external culmination of fascism, Auschwitz, became the logical internal culmination of this movement: a systematic use of the organized state apparatus to "purge" the nation—and eventually the world—of Jews, to render the body politic "pure" once again. It was the discovery of a common enemy that, ultimately, drew the German volk together in that experience of brotherhood which they craved; it was the common determination to eradicate "Jewishness," rather than the irresistible will of the Fuhrer, that impelled Germany forward toward the conquest of Europe; it was the trench heaped with naked corpses, the polished boots and the clean gloves of the SS officer staring down with cool contempt at the dead, that became for almost all of us the ultimate symbols of fascism. (And as for Mussolini, his version of fascism has become in the public mind only a more feeble—therefore a less demonic, but therefore also in the end a merely grotesque—imitation of Hitler’s.) From an attempt to recover authentic community and legitimate authority to the cooly mechanized mass murder of Auschwitz and Babi Yar: so moves, in brief, the inexorable, terrible dialectic of fascism

 

[homersapien 11,367]

Essentially correct, but overly complex explanation. (Too many "isms" )

[AUbritt 611]

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Essentially correct, but overly complex explanation. (Too many "isms" )

Enough of your anti-ismism!

I'd be interested to hear a simpler explanation. One thing to try would be to isolate the abstract conditions for the possibility of fascism, separating them from the actual fascist regimes of Mussolini and Hitler.

The difficulty with doing so, I think, is that 'fascism' resists simple definition. I agree with Eco's invocation of Wittgenstein's notion of 'family resemblance' when it comes to fascism. I still think he did a great job of listing characteristics of what he called Ur-fascism. His claim is that not everything on the list is necessary for fascism -- indeed, many contradict each other -- but that any of them alone is enough to allow fascism to develop. His list, shortened and interpreted by me, looks like this:

1. The cult of tradition (or traditionalism, if you prefer). It's an invocation of The Good Old Days as a means of mobilizing -- and enabling -- radical action against the existing state of affairs. In particular, the continued advancement of knowledge (say, science or universities) is demonized.

2. The rejection of modernism. I think this is better seen as a rejection of Enlightenment modernity (which, of course, includes the idea of continually increasing our knowledge). It's also the basis for the Constitution of the United States, beliefs in human rights, and all forms of cosmopolitanism. In their place, fascism suggests that the only sort of identity that makes sense is one rooted in 'blood and soil'. Richard Spencer bases most of his schtick on this.

3. A belief in action for its own sake (actionism?). We don't need to think about things before we act. Indeed, everything should be -- nay is -- easy for the fascist. In terms of foreign policy, this might mean things like relying on the military, rather than diplomacy.

4. Unanimity is enforced from the top. Want to know the truth? Just ask The Leader. Anyone criticizing The Leader is obviously an enemy of The People.

5. Fear of difference (a.k.a. racism and other forms of discrimination, say against the LGBT community).

6. Appealing to individuals in a frustrated middle class. This one, I think, tends to go really well with #3 -- you got frustrations? Fascism has an easy solution.

7. The obsession with a plot. As Eco says, "The followers must feel besieged." Ideally, they will feel besieged from enemies from both outside the Nation and from within. It helps if the enemies are somehow different (see #5) and can be blamed for the frustrations of the individuals in the middle class (#6). Fascism will also provide easy solutions to these threats (see #3).

8. Portraying the enemies (see #7) as both a great threat and a surmountable threat, provided strict allegiance to The Leader (see #4).

9. Life is permanent war (see #s 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8). If things get too quiet, pick a fight. If one fight gets boring, pick another. Gotta fight, all the time.

10. Contempt for the weak, which manifests itself as what Eco calls "mass elitism." Everyone gets to feel superior to someone, except for the lowest of the low, who are eliminated. The ideal would be to develop a final solution that actually resists solution.

11. Educating everyone to become a hero. This one really goes well with #s 1 and 2, although also #9.

12. Machismo, including not only sexual conquests, but also playing with toys (like guns or military parades).

13. Selective or qualitative (as opposed to quantitative, perhaps) populism. The idea hear is that certain people, not the majority, get identified as The People; but their voice isn't heard through voting, but rather interpreted and set forth by The Leader. Eco wrote this piece in 1995, but here are some prescient quotes: 

Quote

To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Quote

Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament [I think we could substitute other institutions here] because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. The idea here is taken Orwell. There is a new, very simple, vocabulary in which to express the Voice of the People. 

Quote

On the morning of July 27, 1943, I was told that, according to radio reports, fascism had collapsed and Mussolini was under arrest. When my mother sent me out to buy the newspaper, I saw that the papers at the nearest newsstand had different titles. Moreover, after seeing the headlines, I realized that each newspaper said different things. I bought one of them, blindly, and read a message on the first page signed by five or six political parties—among them the Democrazia Cristiana, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Partito d’Azione, and the Liberal Party.

Until then, I had believed that there was a single party in every country and that in Italy it was the Partito Nazionale Fascista. Now I was discovering that in my country several parties could exist at the same time. Since I was a clever boy, I immediately realized that so many parties could not have been born overnight, and they must have existed for some time as clandestine organizations.

The message on the front celebrated the end of the dictatorship and the return of freedom: freedom of speech, of press, of political association. These words, “freedom,” “dictatorship,” “liberty,”—I now read them for the first time in my life. I was reborn as a free Western man by virtue of these new words.

We must keep alert, so that the sense of these words will not be forgotten again. Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier, for us, if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares.” Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances—every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt’s words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: “I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land.” Freedom and liberation are an unending task.

 

[triangletiger 1,599]

In many ways, it sounds like a cult writ large.  Fascist regimes and cults seem to have some common characteristics:

• A strong, charismatic leader (or small cadre of leaders) whose will must be obeyed
• Submission of the individual wills of the members to the will of the ruler(s)
• Demonization/fear of external entities (us vs. them)
• Elimination of internal dissenters/non-conformists who threaten the authority of the ruler(s) 
• The previous two elements provide a sense of unity to 'regular folks (volk)' and distract them from focusing on the problem in the system they have been incorporated into and the decisions made by the ruler(s).

[AUbritt 611]

The real difference between them is the sheer scale of fascism, which has dominated entire nations -- and, arguably, is doing so again, now.

[akcwde 27]

I am new here, but have lurked for a while.  You guys/gals please go easy on me....

Keeping in mind that I am not a huge Trump fan, I ask what policies of his do you believe are fascist in nature? 

This question is open to anyone who would like to answer.  I look forward to civil discourse with y'all and hope we can all be open instead of ignoring different perspectives.

[AU64 10,122]

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 3:16 PM, akcwde said:

Keeping in mind that I am not a huge Trump fan, I ask what policies of his do you believe are fascist in nature?

Triangle offers what I think is a reasonable summary.... .and you pose a reasonable question.    Having just finished the book "Bonhoefer", I'm here to say that nothing going on in the US even remotely resembles the fascist governments of Europe and there is nothing going on in the way of "absolute" power by one who "must be obeyed".    A few folks can toss the term around and describe the political or economic theories and count on the ignorance of their readers to accept the legitimacy of the charge against present day America.    JMO but DT is probably one of the least powerful presidents in my lifetime.    His actions and plans are routinely  opposed and thwarted by a judiciary that currently acts as an arbiter of whatever matter opponents can get before it whether the Presidents actions are consistent with current law or not.    

National Socialism was not just anti-semetic...it was anti-religion and  leaders of  protestant and Catholics churches were also jail and many were executed.   

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 9/1/2018 at 12:18 PM, AU64 said:

Triangle offers what I think is a reasonable summary.... .and you pose a reasonable question.    Having just finished the book "Bonhoefer", I'm here to say that nothing going on in the US even remotely resembles the fascist governments of Europe and there is nothing going on in the way of "absolute" power by one who "must be obeyed".    A few folks can toss the term around and describe the political or economic theories and count on the ignorance of their readers to accept the legitimacy of the charge against present day America.    JMO but DT is probably one of the least powerful presidents in my lifetime.    His actions and plans are routinely  opposed and thwarted by a judiciary that currently acts as an arbiter of whatever matter opponents can get before it whether the Presidents actions are consistent with current law or not.    

National Socialism was not just anti-semetic...it was anti-religion and  leaders of  protestant and Catholics churches were also jail and many were executed.   

Please stop. You are confusing the weak minded here. 

All they know is: Fascists!!!!!!!!!!!!!Nazis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Hitler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They have never, and will never, read a real book about real NS atrocities, crimes, etc. They read twitter and FB and get their marching orders from modern-day hyperbole schlockmeisters that would make Goebbels blush.

Sincerely, I just turn off and tune out people that can callously throw terms like Fascist, Nazis, Hitler, etc around just because they have an incredibly limited vocabulary. If you call everything in the world Fascist, Nazis, Hitler, etc 24/7/365 soon those terms mean nothing. 

DJT sucks. He has sucked for 30+ years. He didnt start sucking when he quit giving $$$ to WJC & HRC. He has sucked since he became known. This putz may be an ass clown. He is an ass clown. He is a danger to the republic. But he is no Fascist, Nazis, Hitler, etc. He may even look like a Fascist, Nazis, Hitler, etc from time to time, on one or more issues. But he is not now, nor has he ever been a true Fascist, Nazis, Hitler, etc. He is simply an incompetent man-child that has one superpower: the ability to realize the political, cultural,  &  populist climate in America AND EXPLOIT IT. 

Trump was elected because he was an outsider. The American people are sick of DC insiders running things. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have one thing in common: THEY ARE OUTSIDERS. THE TWO MOST POPULAR POLITICIANS IN AMERICA ARE OUTSIDERS! If you are politically astute, read about the Walkaway Movement, someone astute enough on the Left could easily do the same thing. 

 

[akcwde 27]

On 9/1/2018 at 12:18 PM, AU64 said:

Triangle offers what I think is a reasonable summary.... .and you pose a reasonable question.    Having just finished the book "Bonhoefer", I'm here to say that nothing going on in the US even remotely resembles the fascist governments of Europe and there is nothing going on in the way of "absolute" power by one who "must be obeyed".    A few folks can toss the term around and describe the political or economic theories and count on the ignorance of their readers to accept the legitimacy of the charge against present day America.    JMO but DT is probably one of the least powerful presidents in my lifetime.    His actions and plans are routinely  opposed and thwarted by a judiciary that currently acts as an arbiter of whatever matter opponents can get before it whether the Presidents actions are consistent with current law or not.    

National Socialism was not just anti-semetic...it was anti-religion and  leaders of  protestant and Catholics churches were also jail and many were executed.   

What an excellent response! Thank you.

This is something I feel is very important to encourage myself and others to take a step back and objectively look at. It is okay to dislike different political views, and it is more than okay to voice your opinion of why you think those views are wrong. What is NOT okay is to  slander some one's name because they hold different beliefs. That in itself is fascist behavior. We as a people need to learn how to respect each other’s differences. I hope we one day find the leadership that takes us there. Looking forward to learning from all of you! 

 

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, akcwde said:

What is NOT okay is to  slander some one's name because they hold different beliefs. That in itself is fascist behavior.

Well maybe but certainly not exclusively.    I take it you know the origin of the term "Borking"     https://politicaldictionary.com/words/borking/  

Over the weekend watched a series of shows on AHC about the Stalin era....Communist or maybe a socialist but certainly a despot of the first order whom many Americans excused back in his days...and even now.    Blood curdling to see and hear some of the stuff that went on just prior to WWII in Russia ( 20 million opponents of Stalin disposed of) and the slaughter of most of the Polish upper classes because he was concerned they might be a problem for him. 

[akcwde 27]

24 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Well maybe but certainly not exclusively.    I take it you know the origin of the term "Borking"     https://politicaldictionary.com/words/borking/  

Over the weekend watched a series of shows on AHC about the Stalin era....Communist or maybe a socialist but certainly a despot of the first order whom many Americans excused back in his days...and even now.    Blood curdling to see and hear some of the stuff that went on just prior to WWII in Russia ( 20 million opponents of Stalin disposed of) and the slaughter of most of the Polish upper classes because he was concerned they might be a problem for him. 

When some one's beliefs cross lines into persecution, that is when I feel the labels are justified.  I am not familiar with that term, but I will read when I get home from work for sure. 

P.S.- You'll never see me defend a monster.  I am just expressing my opinion that while Trump leaves a lot to be desired, he is pretty far off from these historical atrocities.  Thank you for sharing!  Will post later when I get a chance to read your article.

[AU64 10,122]

8 minutes ago, akcwde said:

When some one's beliefs cross lines into persecution, that is when I feel the labels are justified.  I am not familiar with that term, but I will read when I get home from work for sure. 

P.S.- You'll never see me defend a monster.  I am just expressing my opinion that while Trump leaves a lot to be desired, he is pretty far off from these historical atrocities.  Thank you for sharing!  Will post later when I get a chance to read your article.

Thanks.....I am old and have seen a lot of stuff including some really tough political types who make DT look impotent.   

Grew up in the days of Jim Folsom and George Wallace and Huey Long......folks like that who you definitely did not cross.   DT is just an a** but Lyndon Johnson was one also and just did not have twitter to vent his feelings.....which was probably lucky for him..

[DKW 86 7,419]

4 hours ago, AU64 said:

Well maybe but certainly not exclusively.    I take it you know the origin of the term "Borking"     https://politicaldictionary.com/words/borking/  

Over the weekend watched a series of shows on AHC about the Stalin era....Communist or maybe a socialist but certainly a despot of the first order whom many Americans excused back in his days...and even now.    Blood curdling to see and hear some of the stuff that went on just prior to WWII in Russia ( 20 million opponents of Stalin disposed of) and the slaughter of most of the Polish upper classes because he was concerned they might be a problem for him. 

Uncle Joe slaughtered just for the sport of slaughtering. If Joe was alive today, he might say "Go Big or Go Home!"
"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." That was one of his more famous quotes.  He considered starving the Ukrainians as an object lesson. He killed off anyone that posed any semblance of competition with him. Hell, Zukov was such a popular war hero that while Joe didnt kill him he essentially put him in internal exile for the rest of Stalin's life. Being more popular than Stalin was not allowed. 

One of the reasons the Germans considered the Russians easy to beat was that Stalin had killed off almost all the senior army leaders in the 20s and 30s Purges. He had very little in the way of experience when WWII started. He suffered a very humiliating early defeat to Finland right before Barbarosa kicked off. It was almost like teasing the Germans to over run his country after that. When the War started, his Army was a leaderless mess that gave up 1300 miles? before the Germans slowed down?

Where was Zukov at the outbreak? He was sacked because he had dared to question Stalin's decisions. Stalin had to bring him back into the War before they started to win again.

[AUbritt 611]

On 8/30/2018 at 3:16 PM, akcwde said:

I am new here, but have lurked for a while.  You guys/gals please go easy on me....

Keeping in mind that I am not a huge Trump fan, I ask what policies of his do you believe are fascist in nature? 

This question is open to anyone who would like to answer.  I look forward to civil discourse with y'all and hope we can all be open instead of ignoring different perspectives.

Depends what you mean by 'policies'. Do you mean official policies, like the one about separating children from their parents at the border in order to deter asylum seekers? Or would you also count his continual campaign against the press? If we can speak of behaviors or positions, I can go down Eco's list and point to some.

Again, to be clear, exhibiting any of these characteristics doesn't mean one is fascist. Eco's point was that fascism can coalesce around any of these.

1. Cult of tradition -- I don't think Trump appeals to this much. Bannon certainly does and is pushing it hard in Europe. 

2. Rejection of modernism -- Trump's attacks on the UN, Nato, the EU, the notion of free trade to name a few. 

3. Action for its own sake -- launching Tomahawk cruise missiles against Syria (and now Woodward reports that Trump wanted to assassinate Bashar Al-Assad), agreeing to meet with North Korea with no real plan (giving up military exercises in concession for nothing, thinking it might be a good idea to pull out of North Korea), meeting with Putin, and the list goes on. It's really as if he doesn't think he needs to think these things through and just goes with his gut.

4. Unanimity enforced from the top -- this is the whole point of telling people that what they hear from the MSM isn't what's happening, and people just need to check with Trump for the truth.

5. Fear of difference -- this is where Trump earns the charge of racism, whether it's all the rapists and murderers coming in from Mexico and Latin America, the trans folks who need to get out of the military, folks from ****hole countries, the fact that he loves folks from Norway.

6. Appealing to a frustrated middle class -- Trump and Bernie both do this really well. Pretty much every Trump rally is based around this (along with various hatreds directed at Hillary, immigrants, Dems, NFL players, and Republicans who don't toe the line). To me, the appeal to the middle class is the least worrisome characteristic on Eco's list. I mean, honestly, the middle class in this country has many reasons to be frustrated. Any politician who didn't appeal to that was missing the boat, big time.

7. The obsession with a plot -- uhhhhhhhh, does anyone do this more than Mr. "Witch Hunt" "Deep State" Trump? Hillary did it, too, with her "vast right-wing conspiracy." All that pizza-gate, Alex Jones stuff plays on this tendency.

8. Portraying enemies as a great threat, but a surmountable threat -- the Wall, Space Force, etc.

9. Life is permanent war -- see the daily fights picked on Twitter.

10. Contempt for the weak -- see Twitter again, especially tweets directed at Jeff Sessions. That's really interesting, because the reason Sessions is so weak is that Trump continually undermines him, then goes after him for his weakness. His attacks on John McCain follow a similar pattern, attacking him as not a hero because he was captured, for instance.

11. Educating everyone to become a hero -- I don't think Trump does this.

12. Machismo -- Grab them by the p*ssy, Stormy Daniels, Playboy Bunny, military parades, whatever that thing he was doing with Macron was. These are Trump's versions of machismo.

13. Selective populism -- this evidences itself in the idea that most of the American people support Trump.

14. Newspeak -- Trump is a bit juvenile, so this manifests itself quite often in name-calling, but also code words like "wall" and "lock her up" and "fake news." It's a not-very-articulate Newspeak.

So, do I think Trump is fascist? By natural tendency, yep. I think Bannon is fascist by choice. But I don't think Trump has thought things through the way Bannon has. I think Trump is content to play with -- what, 12? -- of these fascistic tendencies if it will earn him (or his family and a few friends) some money.

What's really dangerous, I think, are the folks who see what he's doing but act as if it's not dangerous at all. Trump isn't just a "Washington Outsider" who's shaking up the system. He's more of a Kremlin Insider who's doing all he can to destroy the system. And he's giving the Republicans just enough of what they want -- especially in terms of things like the courts and tax cuts for the rich, with the promise of taking out Obamacare -- that they will let him get away with it.

[augolf1716 21,109]

6 hours ago, AU64 said:

Thanks.....I am old and have seen a lot of stuff including some really tough political types who make DT look impotent.   

Grew up in the days of Jim Folsom and George Wallace and Huey Long......folks like that who you definitely did not cross.   DT is just an a** but Lyndon Johnson was one also and just did not have twitter to vent his feelings.....which was probably lucky for him..

You left out John Patterson

[AU64 10,122]

1 minute ago, augolf1716 said:

You left out John Patterson

Didn't he get shot before he took office....or was that the son?  

[AUbritt 611]

George Wallace would have easily been president in today's political climate. So much slicker and more with it than Trump. 

[augolf1716 21,109]

20 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Didn't he get shot before he took office....or was that the son?  

His Dad was shot and killed in Phenix City before taking office for attorney general and John took his place on the ballot.  Phenix City was worst then Vegas mob days back then

[augolf1716 21,109]

5 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

George Wallace would have easily been president in today's political climate. So much slicker and more with it than Trump. 

Doubt it britt maybe close but wouldn't win got to remember he was a Southern Democrat. 

[AUbritt 611]

1 minute ago, augolf1716 said:

Doubt it britt maybe close but wouldn't win got to remember he was a Southern Democrat. 

Today he would be a Trump Republican, though. 

I know you remember, but for those who don't, watch some footage of Wallace running for president and compare to Trump. Wallace would have kicked Trump's butt. 

[augolf1716 21,109]

11 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

Today he would be a Trump Republican, though. 

I know you remember, but for those who don't, watch some footage of Wallace running for president and compare to Trump. Wallace would have kicked Trump's butt. 

I'm no Trump fan just going to have to disagree on the Wallace/Trump reference. Trump is a prick but Wallace

By the way are you still in Jersey?

[AUbritt 611]

7 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

I'm no Trump fan just going to have to disagree on the Wallace/Trump reference. Trump is a prick but Wallace

By the way are you still in Jersey?

Yep. 

[augolf1716 21,109]

5 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

Yep. 

Golf?

[AUbritt 611]

1 minute ago, augolf1716 said:

Golf?

Hi

[augolf1716 21,109]

Just now, AUbritt said:

Hi

Not playing any I assume.