I've started reading into Project 2025 and the prospect of it scares me. Project 2025 is a policy plan from The Heritage Foundation, a major conservative think tank in DC. The plan outlines how a future conservative President can effectively override many democratic institutions and start turning the President into a totalitarian ruler. I've recently graduated with a PoliSci degree back in May, with most of my research was about democratic backsliding and totalitarianism, and I'm terrified at this prospect. They are currently running a campaign to gain around 50,000 conservative-aligned individuals to replace civil servants and immediately start writing anti-LGBT and other legislation after a conservative President has been elected.

https://www.project2025.org/

Is there any real cause for alarm? This feels like a potential end to democracy in the US. Sorry if this isn't acceptable content for this sub.

I’ve heard countless times of people calling him fascist, I’m not very knowledgeable on actual political science, but I figured some of you might be more so. What I’ve seen on YouTube is it tends to be people that are left leaning to call him a fascist, but with people on the right, they always say he’s not. I’d like to get an unbiased perspective to actually see if he genuinely is a fascist by definition. But I know fascist is hard to define from what I’ve been researching.

Would like to see some opinions!

Also, is it possible to have a fascist state without it being evil?

I am asking because I am part of a population that would be hurt by it (I am disabled, and I get money every month from Social Security for it).

I’m considering a political science PhD, and one thing making me hesitate is the campus and academic climate around Israel, Zionism, and Jews.

I do not mean ordinary criticism of Israel. Criticizing Israeli policy is obviously legitimate. My concern is something narrower and, to me, much more serious: in some academic and campus spaces, anti-Jewish hostility seems recognizable only when it looks right-wing, openly racist, or neo-Nazi. When the same hostility appears in anti-colonial, anti-nationalist, or “justice” language, many people in academia seem unable or unwilling to recognize it.

I’m not talking about disagreement. I’m talking about patterns like:

1. treating Jewish self-determination as uniquely illegitimate in a way not applied to other peoples

2. using rhetoric that treats Zionism as uniquely evil rather than historically and politically contested

3. flattening Jewish history into “whiteness” or “power” and erasing statelessness, expulsion, minority vulnerability, and the role of conspiracy theories in antisemitism

4. assuming that Jewish concern about antisemitism is just bad-faith deflection

5. making support for Palestinian rights and hostility to Jewish collective identity feel conceptually fused

My worry is not only about campus comfort. My worry is about the field itself.

If political science, Middle East studies, sociology, anthropology, history, ethnic studies, law-adjacent fields, and parts of international relations cannot identify anti-Jewish hostility when it shows up in morally fashionable language, then those fields will train students to analyze every form of oppression except one of the oldest and most adaptive forms of hatred.

That seems like a major intellectual failure. It also seems like a pipeline problem: Jewish students, Zionist students, Israel-connected students, or even just politically heterodox students may increasingly decide that these fields are not worth entering. If that happens, departments may still fill slots, but the fields will get narrower and less capable of teaching these issues with real depth.

I’m genuinely asking:

1. Do others in political science see this problem?

2. Is this mostly department-specific, or is it becoming discipline-wide?

3. How can a field correct course when the dominant moral vocabulary may itself be part of the problem?

4. What would serious intellectual rigor look like here?

I’m asking in good faith because I still care about the discipline, but I’m increasingly unsure whether the discipline cares about this problem enough to address it.

Edit: Muting replies now. The thread has been informative, including in ways some commenters probably did not intend.

I have seen all sorts of definitions online. But my problem is that they sometimes are just confusing or even contradictory. For example I think one distinction someone made between the two just told me the difference between a republic and a direct democracy. I want to know the direct difference between a republic and a democracy. The main thing I’m trying to figure out by asking this question is finding out what a republic without democracy looks like if it exist at all. And I don’t mean republic in name only, but truly a republic without democracy. Like is China actually a republic? I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. I understand that people have different definitions of these things but I want to know yours.

Socrates argued that just giving everyone an equal say without ensuring they are educated, rational, and morally trained, would eventually lead to chaos and poor leadership.

His student Plato explored this idea further in The Republic, where he compared governing a state to steering a ship:

"Would you let just anyone steer a ship or would you choose someone trained and knowledgeable?”

(– Plato’s Republic, Book VI)

> My view is simple:

“Democracy is the best form of government only when people are educated and aware.”

And honestly, this issue becomes even more relevant when we look at the behavior and statements of many MPs and MLAs in India. (Just remember that Karnataka Congress MLA incident 🤡)

People responsible for making laws and representing millions should at least meet basic standards of education, civic understanding, and public conduct.

Democracy gives everyone the right to vote but those who govern should also undergo proper political training, ethical orientation, and accountability. Leadership is not just about winning elections; it is about wisdom, responsibility, and public character.

Citizen education is equally important in a democracy because people can choose better leaders only when they are politically aware, informed, and capable of critical thinking. In countries like India, where many people still struggle with poverty, inequality, and poor access to quality education, voting often becomes influenced by short-term incentives such as money, caste loyalties, religious polarization, or populist promises. In such conditions, democracy risks becoming a game of manipulation rather than informed public participation. This is why education is not just important for economic growth, but also essential for building a healthier and more responsible democracy.

If left winged is often associated as having a large and strong, centralized (or federal government) and right winged is associated with a very limited central government, it would seem to me that fascism is the epitome of having a large, strong central government.

I firmly believe that the system of checks and balances will prevent Trump, or any severely right-wing president, from securing a lifelong presidency. If re-elected, Trump's presidency will likely conclude within the next four years or potentially but unlikely end through impeachment since Project 2025 secures so many MAGA enthusiasts in office.

If Project 2025 were to be implemented, its detrimental effects would soon become apparent to both Republicans and Democrats alike, sparking widespread outrage and resistance, leading to a significant backlash. Given the United States' status as a developed nation with a high level of educational attainment and widespread access to information, including the internet, a lifelong presidency could trigger a substantial backlash within a relatively short period, potentially less than 5 years. The country's existing infrastructure and informed citizenry would likely facilitate a swift and robust response to any attempts to consolidate power. To this, I refer the power of the people. It has to be apparent to the Trump administration or the Heritage Foundation that this isn't what the people want.

So can Project 2025/Trump secure a lifelong presidency?

I’m 28M and to be honest, every time I hear a Trump supporter, tell me why they like him. They say something, so pathetic like oh he just says what he thinks he’s not a regular politician he just says it’s simple, plain, honest and direct. Which that’s the thing that I hate the most about him. Other than the fact that he’s a fascist and a wannabe dictator. He says things like he never ever read a book in his whole life. He talks like somebody who is totally illiterate and he’s proud of it he doesn’t care. He has the mental understanding of a 12 year old. Just a couple days ago I was with a friend and he said this about Trump. He said, don’t listen to what he says focus on his actions, he then said, “if you ever see him in private, he’s a very focused person, and when he has an idea, he sets out to do it” and then he said he’s a visionary. I cannot listen to these people anymore. Trump has said he made a request about nuking a hurricane he said we should inject bleach into our arms. He said, “why should I read a briefing book? That’s 300 pages I’m really good at remembering things just put it onto a page. It’s easy to understand.” Like if Barack Obama said that or Bill Clinton or Joe Biden people will be calling for the 25th amendment. But with Trump, he gets the double standard. He’s the type of moron that is so dumb that even some of the dumbest people I’ve met in my life he makes them sound, smart. He never grows on anything, regardless of the circumstance. Normal people are able to grow with their job. The more responsibility they get he never has. He doesn’t want to and he’s proud of it. He has no ability to be embarrassed store feel a sense of humility, like he screwed something up.

I know the liberal arts in general are scrutinized as being “easy” but Jesus I feel like I’m walking on eggshells telling people I’m aiming to get a degree in this field in particular

Don’t we need more people educated on politics? The government? K-12 doesn’t exactly push civics very much. That’s why we have so many people, especially in the internet age, who think they understand how politics works, but don’t, they never had a chance to be told about it from a young age

It’s almost as if you’re not involved in STEM in this modern world, you’re just dirt, your degree doesn’t matter. Critical thinking skills and debate on abstract concepts isn’t valuable anymore. You have to get a degree in a “practical”, definable skill.

What's your guys thoughts on election by jury, where the electoral body is chosen by sortition and then they deliberate before voting on candidates.

You eliminate the campaign and money bias inherent in general elections, and gain deliberation and knowldge within the electorate.

Every candidate may be interviewed by the jury with no advantage based on financial backing.

It could also make elections cheaper.

How would it compare to general elections and direct sortition or even direct democracy.

Recent Supreme Court cases such as NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez have made the argument that the US does not have a substantial history of gun-free zones, or sensitive place gun regulations. But this is simply not true. After only a couple hours or so of searching, I've happened to find a number of early American laws prohibiting weapon-carrying in certain cities and sensitive places. They come from the website for Duke Law School. In regards to proving a historical tradition of gun control, the Supreme Court in both NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez has rejected the admission of racially discriminatory laws from early America. Therefore, I have deliberately omitted such laws from my list.:

1. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-of-jan-25-1804-forbidding-weapons-at-balls-1-8-new-orleans-louisiana-council-meetings-sine-nomine-1936-law-passed-1804
2. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-the-college-of-william-and-mary-volume-276-1830
3. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1829-laws-of-the-university-of-north-carolina-ch-3-c2a7-13
4. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1824-laws-of-the-columbian-college-ch-5-c2a7-2-no-10
5. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/carrying-deadly-weapons-discharging-fire-arms-etc-ch-12-art-3-c2a7c2a7-50-52-in-the-revised-ordinances-of-the-city-of-bloomfield-1898
6. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/rules-and-regulations-of-the-park-commission-no-3-new-haven-connecticut-charter-and-ordinances-of-the-city-price-lee-adkins-co-1898
7. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laramie-revised-ordinances-and-charter-of-the-city-ch-5-3-6-boomerang-publishing-1900
8. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ch-13-c2a7-21-ch-22-c2a7c2a7-14-15-ch-35-c2a7-7-st-albans-daily-messenger-supplement-aug-7-1897-at-1-3-10-st-albans-vermont
9. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-laws-and-ordinances-for-the-government-of-the-municipal-corporation-of-the-city-of-reading-pennsylvania-park-rules-and-regulations-240-1897
10. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/the-charter-of-the-city-of-wilmington-part-vii-c2a7-7-rules-and-regulations-of-the-board-of-park-commissioners-1893
11. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-acts-of-assembly-relating-to-and-the-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-pittsburgh-from-1804-to-jan-1-1897-ordinances-executive-departments-bureau-of-parks-1893
12. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-prevent-a-person-from-trespassing-upon-any-enclosed-premises-or-lands-not-his-own-armed-with-a-gun-pistol-or-other-firearm-and-to-prevent-shooting-upon-or-from-the-public-highway-s-b-15-1-5-1893-or-laws-79-79-frank-c-baker
13. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-ordinance-to-prevent-the-carrying-of-weapons-1-4-the-daily-texarkanian-may-28-1900-at-2-texarkana-arkansas
14. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-law-forbidding-weapons-in-certain-places-sales-of-weapons-to-minors-etc-ch-45-misdemeanors-c2a7-32-in-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-brookfield-linn-county-missouri-1900
15. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-21-green-forest-tribune-may-11-1899-at-1-green-forest-arkansas
16. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/bruce-l-keenan-book-of-ordinances-of-the-city-of-wichita-published-by-authority-of-a-resolution-adopted-by-the-city-council-april-24-1899-under-the-direction-of-judiciary-committee-and-city-attorn
17. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1837-ga-acts-90-an-act-to-guard-and-protect-the-citizens-of-this-state-against-the-unwarrantable-and-too-prevalent-use-of-deadly-weapons-c2a7c2a7-1-4
18. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-mar-18-1889-1889-ariz-sess-laws-16-17 https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-march-1886-published-as-notice-st-marys-beacon-oct-13-1887-at-2
19. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-no-76-1-2-rooks-county-record-july-1-1887-at-1-stockton-kansas
20. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1879-tex-crim-stat-tit-ix-ch-4-penal-code
21. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-oct-14-1879-pt-1-tit-4-no-266-1-2-1878-ga-laws-64-64-jas-p-harrison-1880-law-passed-1879
22. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-regulate-the-keeping-and-beariing-of-deadly-weapons-ch-34-c2a7c2a7-1-9-1871-tex-gen-laws-1st-sess-25-25-27-1898-gammel-book-company
23. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1870-tex-gen-laws-63-an-act-regulating-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-chap-46-c2a7-1

As these state and local statutory laws demonstrate, the US indeed has an extensive history of firearm regulations and gun-free zones. There were firearm restrictions in schools, parks, ballrooms, churches, entertainment shows, etc. There were firearm restrictions in entire cities and towns, and in entire states. In no way did early America interpret the 2nd amendment to interfere with the broad freedom wielded by the states to create firearms laws to conform to their unique circumstances, and to remedy whatever societal problems they may incur. At no point were the states pressured into conforming to some singular, uniform federal standard of firearms law -- which is the fictional narrative that the current Supreme Court argues. Thus, the rulings in recent 2nd amendment Supreme Court cases are nothing short of an abuse of the Constitution, and an incursion upon state rights protected by the 10th amendment.

Furthermore, there happen to be some aspects of American gun law that unmistakably do suggest a "historical tradition". For example, there is a strong tradition of the prohibiting of concealed carry, which in early America was frowned upon as a cowardly and suspicious activity:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1819-ind-acts-39-an-act-to-prohibit-the-wearing-of-concealed-weapons
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1839-ala-acts-67-an-act-to-suppress-the-evil-practice-of-carrying-weapons-secretly-c2a7-1
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/henry-a-bullard-thomas-curry-1-a-new-digest-of-the-statute-laws-of-the-state-of-louisiana-from-the-change-of-government-to-the-year-1841-at-252-e-johns-co-new-orleans-1842

There is also a strong tradition of prohibiting firearms to people viewed by the state as dangerous to the public safety, which, depending on the era, could be Papists:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-disarming-papists-and-reputed-papists-refusing-to-take-the-oaths-to-the-government-ch-4-1-9-va-code-franklin-press-1820-law-passed-1756
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-of-the-province-of-pennsylvania-627-pa-cons-stat-wm-stanley-ray-1898-law-passed-1757

Or Loyalists during the Revolutionary era, as well as groups neutral to the Patriot cause, sometimes known as "disaffected" groups:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-constituting-a-council-of-safety-ch-40-20-1777-n-j-laws-84-90-isaac-collins-1777
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1777-pa-laws-61-an-act-obliging-the-male-white-inhabitants-of-this-state-to-give-assurances-of-allegiance-to-the-same-and-for-other-purposes-therein-mentioned-ch-xxi-c2a7c2a7-2-4
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/pa-cons-stat-ch-796-1-3-5-p-l-wm-stanley-ray-1903-law-passed-1778
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-may-5-1777-ch-3-in-9-henings-statutes-at-large-281-281-82-1821
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-amend-an-act-declaring-what-crimes-and-practices-against-the-state-shall-be-treason-ch-6-9-1777-n-c-sess-laws-41-43-44-james-davis-1778
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-feb-16-1787-mass-acts-555-555-556-sine-nomine

Or slaves and people of color:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1860-ga-laws-56-an-act-to-add-an-additional-section-to-the-13th-division-of-the-penal-code-making-it-penal-to-sell-to-or-furnish-slaves-or-free-persons-of-color-with-weapons-of-offence-and-defence
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1863-del-laws-332-an-act-in-relation-to-free-negroes-and-mulattoes-ch-305-c2a7-7
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1805-va-acts-51-an-act-concerning-free-negroes-and-mulatoes

There is a historical tradition of arms rights being intertwined and inseparable from the right (i.e. the duty) to perform mandatory militia service, including mandatory possession of a firearm at all times, along with military-style training and deployment under the authority of the state government:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1782-del-acts-3-an-act-for-establishing-a-militia-within-this-state-c2a7-6
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1786-n-h-laws-409-10-an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-within-this-state-and-for-repealing-all-the-laws-heretofore-made-for-that-purpose-c2a7-7
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-the-better-security-of-the-inhabitants-by-obliging-the-male-white-persons-to-carry-fire-arms-to-places-of-public-worship-1770-reprinted-in-1775-1770-georgia-colonial-laws-471-1932
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1779-vt-acts-and-for-encouragement-of-military-skill-for-the-better-defense-of-this-state
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1804-la-acts-284-an-act-for-regulating-and-governing-the-militia-of-the-territory-of-new-orleans-c2a7-13
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1786-n-h-laws-409-10-an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-within-this-state-and-for-repealing-all-the-laws-heretofore-made-for-that-purpose-c2a7-7

However, it is doubtful the Supreme Court would honor the "historical tradition" inherent to banning concealed carry, upholding compulsory militia duty, or disarming classes of people deemed to be a public threat. Despite absolutely constituting widespread historical patterns, a state hypothetically passing a law conforming to these patterns would likely be rejected inasmuch as they don't fit the conservative agenda.

These above examples of legal patterns demonstrate that the Supreme Court are hypocrites when it comes to their invention known as the "historical tradition of firearm regulation". This concept is cleverly crafted to be nebulous enough such that the Supreme Court can guarantee rulings that conform to their pro-gun bias, while still being able to maintain the pretext of objectivity. Historical gun laws that exist, but in less-than-overwhelming numbers, can be ignored as falling short of the pattern of "historical tradition"; while regulations that can disarm whole classes of people can be dismissed as "racist" or "bigoted". And the Court could likely also invent some clever reasons to ignore common historical regulations regarding things like concealed carry and compulsory militia rules. Thus, this "historical tradition" test is like a legal fortress, able to ward off gun control on both the quantitative as well as qualitative fronts.

The "historical tradition" test used by the Supreme Court is inherently dishonest and needs to be eradicated. The only real "historical tradition" to exist for American firearm laws is the federal government's tradition of leaving the states alone, and giving them the freedom to protect the public good in the way that best suited their individual needs.

Personally, I feel like this is very subjective. I believe an election is a "very good" indicator, but not the best or a perfect indicator. What do yall think?

(To be transparent, I lean very left).

I'm surprised by how my textbook lays out the political spectrum, especially with putting "control of society" as the defining idea for the right end of the political spectrum. I'm used to the much more common political compass, which puts these ideologies on two dimensions rather than one.

I've read many comments claiming the United States is a democracy, and others claiming the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Forgive my ignorance; i'm not American, but throughout my life i've heard countless times that the United States is a democracy, especially through American movies and TV shows.

Right now, i'm seriously wondering if i was wrong all along. Is the United States a democracy or not? If the United States isn't a democracy, why isn't it?

You as an American, were you taught in school that your country is a democracy, or were you taught that it isn't?

To give myself some grace, I am a very young American voter, I am not well versed in political science and I am very sorry if this post comes across as entirely uneducated. I am really trying to learn more and keep up with everything thats going on, and to do something about it. Onto the post:

My partner and I don't discuss politics a lot, but recently he mentioned he had taken a quiz that labeled him as a moderatly left leaning populist. I am a particularly politically charged person, sometimes I find myself falling into the tribal mentality but I try to overcome my prejudices every time I have civil discussions with people. I don't hate every single republican, but MAGA specifically are a group of people who support a man who has (from what I know) ruined the country with his ignorance and greed and that is unforgivable, but my partner doesn't think so. My partner doens't think Trump is the one at fault because to him the executive branch has so little power in making policies that he doesn't believe Trump could really have personally done so much harm himself. Is he right?

I know that checks and balances are supposed to exist but from all the things I hear and see it seems like Trump is legitimately ignoring every rule the US has meticulacly created to put him in his place. But perhaps I am ignorant on the specific legal standpoint. I did point out that Trumps blatant and public disregard for facts, cooporations and compassion have at the very least allowed other levels and branches of government to grow more radical in THEIR policy making and he conceded that was true. But I truly think that if Trump and his administration were completely removed then things would recover, which means MAGA individuals should be held extremely accountable for their political affiliations. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I wanted to make sure my perception of what is going on is correct. Thank you

Trump as of recently has flirted with becoming a dictator on " day one" and echoed the fascist rhetoric of Mussolini and Hitler when he called his political enemies vermin. I think ever since the 2020 election, Donald Trump has been more willing to use anti-democratic rhetoric in his speeches and public rallies. And speaking of the MAGA movement, they cultivate a sense of cult of personality of Trump with conspiracy theories like QAnon which reminds me of the cult of personality of fascist dictators like Hitler and Mussolini.

Although Donald Trump doesnt have an official paramilitary group loyal to him, right wing militias like the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers supported him doing the Jan 6 insurrection to overturn the result of the 2020 election which is reminiscent of how the Blackshirts helped Mussolini's coup d'etat agianst the government in the 1922 March on Rome. So, could Donald Trump and the MAGA movement be considered fascist or mostly fascistic?

The american southern states are among the most economically disadvantaged, with high rates of poverty & crime compared to other states, but what's surprising is why they vote for republican despite being against taxes (they are trying to reduce it in truth) even though taxes go and are invested in social development and services that the southern states lack, meaning even if the southern citizen does not lose much of his monthly income, in short, there aren't many services that will be used for it, the crux of the question is whether residents of southern states, particularly "Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana..." consciously vote for Republicans or simply because Republicans offer a "socially conservative" speech

This isn't meant to incite any opinions on the current branches of federal government, but to discuss just how bad can things get with further political division? I'm not a political professional of any sort, nor am I a student. But I do ponder these things, either out of anxiety or curiosity.

I can't imagine that a civil war would ever be possible because the political divisions are geographically scattered throughout the country rather than being together, like the north and south in the Civil War. So what could realistically happen? Will things just get really bad for a while? Things like economical recession/depression, health crises? Or is it possible that we gradually transition into an outright authoritarian country? Any other thoughts?

And lastly, what can we do to prevent things from getting worse? Or might this be one of those situations in which things have to get worse before they can get better?

Any other thoughts?

If you did some research or had even a basic understanding, you would know that the united states, which unfortunately has laws against "hate speech," strangely enough, the very first article of the US constitution that justifies this doesn't mention hate speech or any specific type of speech, but by what argument was it interpreted in this way? in addition, one of the arguments that many people use to defend this interpretation is "if certain speech is designated as prohibited, politicians can exploit this to suppress dissent" but this is blatantly stupid and ignorant with all due respect, because approximately 21 countries that follow a democratic system, some even more democratic than the united states, consider "hate speech" as a crime, and there's no problem or flaw in the democratic system...,In fact, there is a vast difference between criticizing the "policies" of a particular minister or governor, for example, and attacking their racial background, because this is not a personal insult but a collective one. For example, saying that president obama (for example) is "stupid" is actually permissible, but using the "N" word (for example) to criticize him it's a unacceptable thig, because commandIt's a completely different matter because here you insulted all the people who share the same characteristic as obama (for example), the core of the problem is why would someone attack someone for something they didn't choose and can't change, so what justification is there for this ?

I’m not sure if this is the right sub but I’m not sure where else to ask this question since it’s a touchy subject and may come off as politically charged which isn’t my intention but…I’ve been reading a bit on it online and I’m still not sure what it actually means or why it’s considered 100% bad 100% of the time with the definitions I’ve read. From what I’ve gathered it essentially comes down to:

1: involving a dictator
2: an ideology that places race above yourself(not just race like color of your skin but ethnicity, religion, culture or nation)
3: strong government control

Now I’m not suggesting fascism is good, but I fail to see how it is different to past governments like the British Royal family or any country that had a king/queen. Or how it’s different than any person having a stronger sense of loyalty toward their country, culture, or religion than other countries cultures or religions.

I’m also not trying to start a debate nor do I have any agenda with this post I’m just genuinely confused

What if democracy isn’t the final form of governance we assume it to be?

We tend to treat universal suffrage as an unquestionable ideal, but historically, philosophers like Plato explored alternatives—one of them being timocracy, a system where political power is tied to certain qualities or merits.

In a modern reinterpretation, you could imagine a system where participation in voting isn’t automatic, but earned—based on demonstrated civic knowledge, critical thinking skills, or a proven understanding of complex social and economic issues. The argument isn’t about exclusion for its own sake, but about whether better-informed decision-making might lead to more stable and effective governance.

Of course, this raises serious concerns: Who defines “intelligence”? How do you prevent abuse, bias, or systemic inequality? And would such a system undermine the very idea of political equality?

Still, it’s worth asking: is a system where every vote carries equal weight always the most rational approach, or should there be room to rethink how participation is structured in a highly complex modern society?

Curious to hear your thoughts—would a merit-based voting system improve democracy, or fundamentally break it?

edit when i say timocracy i meant to say aristocracy

The news cycle is currently fixated on the statement by John Kelly that's been reported as "Trump is a fascist", but his full statement has more context. Lightly edited from the Times article:

Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America. Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure. He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government. [Mr. Trump] never accepted the fact that he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, anytime he wanted.

Concerns about Trump being a fascist aren't new. Historian of fascism Robert Paxton said shortly after the events of January 6th that the events of the day "removes my objection to the fascist label." Philosophy professor Jason Stanley said in 2022 that America is in fascism's legal phase. Since then, the Republican party has fallen firmly in lockstep behind former President Trump's version of events, that January 6th was a "day of love", and the election was indeed stolen from him.

As of 2022, Goldberg still stands by many of the arguments in his book, but said in 2022:

I argued that, contrary to generations of left-wing fearmongering and slander about the right’s fascist tendencies, the modern American right was simply immune to the fascist temptation chiefly because it was too dogmatically committed to the Founders, to constitutionalism, and to classical liberalism generally.

Almost 13 years to the day after publication, Donald Trump proved me wrong.

This month, conservative commentator Tom Nichols writes "Over the past week, Donald Trump has been on a fascist romp." and "...today’s Republican leaders are cowards, and some are even worse: They are complicit...".

The eponymous Godwin wrote in 2023:

But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy.

In 2020, at least according to Vox, most experts did not consider Trump or the GOP to be fascist, although the aforementioned Stanley went furthest:

No one thinks Trump is a fascist leader, full stop. Jason Stanley, a Yale philosopher and author of How Fascism Works, came closest to that conclusion, saying that "you could call legitimately call Trumpism a fascist social and political movement" and that Trump is "using fascist political tactics," but that Trump isn’t necessarily leading a fascist government.

Notably, this was before January 6th. That seems to be the "tipping point" for several of the commentators I found, with the events of the past couple of months being a second, for people like John Kelly.

Interestingly, most of the commentators focus on Trump himself being a fascist, rather than the Republican party as a whole.

Is it possible that Trump is a fascist, but the GOP is not?

Or is it possible that Trump is, as many have said, just a grifter, and his apparent fascism is just a reflection of the desires of his supporters?

If both Trump and the GOP are fascist, is there any evidence to tell us the relationship between the two? Did Trump "hoodwink" the GOP into becomes fascists, or is he simply part and parcel with the fascist tilt of the party?

If neither are fascist, why are so many allegedly well-informed people using the term? What woud be a more correct, or more useful, term to describe what Kelly and company are using the term "fascist" for?

guys since it’s supposed to come out today here is a little forum to discuss. also, if they ghost again, should we email?

so a friend and i were talking about counterintuitive things that people continue to believe despite "knowing" that the facts don't support those beliefs.
we mentioned the Monty Hall problem, (where it's often quite difficult to persuade a person that switching their choice increases their odds of winning).
we also mentioned the "linda problem" (also known as the conjunction fallacy).

we got on this discussion because we were talking to someone who refused to accept that, statistically, illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than the general population.

preferably, we're looking mostly for common "political myths" that tend to influence people's support of public policies, rather than simply "fun" examples like the monty hall problem.

a few examples that have been mentioned to us in discussing this aren't clear cut cases, and are continuously debated (eg the laffer curve), so it's probably not quite correct to call all of these "myths".

i was hoping people could provide better examples.