Trump is a Republican, but is he a fascist?

It’s hard not to chuckle at the hand-wringing going on within the Republican Party. That terrible Donald Trump: How dare he say openly what we only say in code! And, why, Republican candidates have never stooped to exploiting fears and pandering to racism and nativism.

Uh-huh. Richard Nixon attempted to provide federal money for segregated schools as he ushered in the Republican Party’s “Southern strategy”; Ronald Reagan famously opened his 1980 presidential run close to the site where three Civil Rights Movement workers were murdered in Mississippi with calls for “states’ rights,” well understood code words for supporting racially biased policies; George H.W. Bush exploited racial stereotypes with his Willie Horton campaign ads; George W. Bush’s presidency will be remembered for his callous ignoring of New Orleans and its African-American population in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; and the roster of Republicans hostile to civil rights is too long to list.

So does Donald Trump really represent something new and frightful? Or does his campaign represent the same-old, same-old in more concentrated form? Or, to put the second question in a different way, does he represent a new manifestation of fascism, as many are already proclaiming.

A rally against Donald Trump in New York City on March 19, organized by the Cosmopolitan Antifascists

A rally against Donald Trump in New York City on March 19, organized by the Cosmopolitan Antifascists

Perhaps it might be best to see the Trump campaign as constituting the seeds for a potential fascist movement rather than a fully fledged fascism. That ought to be scary enough, and enough for all of us to make a stand against it.

Fascism is a specific phenomenon, and we should not loosely throw the word around, as if it means anything with a whiff of authoritarianism that we do not like.

At its most basic level, fascism is a dictatorship established through and maintained with terror on behalf of big business. It has a social base, which provides the support and the terror squads, but which is badly misled since the fascist dictatorship operates decisively against the interest of its social base. Militarism, extreme nationalism, the creation of enemies and scapegoats, and, perhaps the most critical component, a rabid propaganda that intentionally raises panic and hate while disguising its true nature and intentions under the cover of a phony populism, are among the necessary elements.

We often think of fascism in the classical 1930s form, of Nazis goose-stepping or the street violence of Benito Mussolini’s followers. But it took somewhat different forms later in the 20th century, being instituted through military dictatorships in Chile and Argentina. Any fascism that might arise in the U.S. would be wrapped in right-wing populism and, given the particular social constructs there, that populism would include demands to “return to the Constitution” and “secure the borders.”

The Trump campaign’s ongoing violence

There is no shortage of peans to the Constitution or demands for border sealing, true enough, and violence has not been missing from the Trump campaign — to the contrary, the Republican front-runner has been reveling in it. Watching videos stringing together some of these incidents is sobering.

It’s been said over and over again that Germans didn’t think Hitler could ever take power (although he was never elected; he was appointed chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg). Let’s set aside that all too easy comparison. Instead, it would be more pertinent to look back to the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign that culminated in a lurch to the right. That was the first one I could vote in. Many people thought Ronald Reagan would never be elected; voters in the end would recoil from his extremism. I was one of those doubters. To this day I remember the chill of horror that ran down my back when I first saw the electoral results, well into the evening, as a television announcer called the latest state to go his way part of a “tidal wave.”

In a year in which even the Democratic primary front-runner, Hillary Clinton, eagerly white-washes President Reagan’s actual history, we should correct the record. To only scratch the surface, he lavishly funded and supported the governments of Guatemala and El Salvador in their terror campaigns against their population through military units and death squads that killed hundreds of thousands; waged war against Nicaragua, mining harbors and funding and directing terrorism through the Contras; opposed civil rights legislation at every opportunity; cut Medicaid, Medicare, school breakfast and lunch programs, and declared ketchup a vegetable for school lunches; refused to lift a finger as AIDS ravaged communities across the country because he believed homosexuals deserved their fate; and invented preposterous stories of pink-Cadillac-driving “welfare queens” raking in $150,000 per year.

There is a straight line from Reagan, whom the Republican establishment still venerates through a rather creepy personality cult, to Donald Trump. And Mr. Trump isn’t necessarily the scariest or most extreme candidate out there — Ted Cruz, determined to become the second Joe McCarthy, holds that distinction. But Senator Cruz, however much he lusts for a Medieval theological dictatorship and despite the frightening ignorance of his supporters, doesn’t command a following the way that Mr. Trump does.

The culmination of Republican pandering

He’s the front-runner precisely because he says it straight out rather than using code like other Republican candidates. He’s the logical product of 36 years of Republican pandering — half a century if we go back to Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy.” Or, really, a continuation, if in new packaging, of the whole history of the United States. If he were just another in a long line of demagogues, we would not be throwing around the word “fascism” so freely. But the Trump campaign comes with violence and particularly open hatreds. Alarm bells ought to be ringing.

Let’s return to the definition of fascism offered above: “A dictatorship established through and maintained with terror on behalf of big business.” Industrialists and financiers are firmly in the saddle in the United States. Opposition to the policies there that have created widespread misery and towering inequality certainly is growing not only in intensity but in numbers, yet it could hardly be said that capitalist rule in the U.S. is in any danger whatsoever today. There is no need for capitalists to create and build a corps of street thugs or brown shirts.

Rather, we have the odd phenomenon of a billionaire “populist” telling his followers that he won’t be beholden to corporate interests because he is too rich to be bought. We have seen this siren song before: Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s morbid combination of George W. Bush, Rupert Murdoch and Ross Perot. He did not work out so well for Italy. Prime Minister Berlusconi’s reason to run for office was to advance his business interests and stay out of jail. Promoting his business interests is Donald Trump’s motivation. All we have here is a billionaire cutting out the middle man and buying the office for himself instead of buying a professional politician.

Nonetheless, it is impossible not to note the violence and the threats against Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims and, implicitly, to all People of Color, and to social activists of the Left. Any Right-wing movement that has gained a substantial following of people that includes more than a few willing to condone violence must target the Left. History is painfully clear on this. We need not think Trump is a fascist or capable of building a fascist type of movement to mobilize against his campaign. Not that we should minimize the ultimate threat of fascism — all capitalist countries contain the potentiality of fascism, a threat that materializes when capitalists dispense with democracy because they can no longer earn profits in the ordinary ways and working people begin to refuse to cooperate with capitalist business as usual in significant numbers.

I would argue that the Trump campaign is not necessarily fascist today, but that it carries with it the seeds of a future, potential fascist movement. That is more than serious enough for everybody who struggles for a better world.

30 comments on “Trump is a Republican, but is he a fascist?

  1. One important aspect of fascism you didn’t mention is reliance upon an authoritarian personality, one who embodies power in place of the rule of law. The superman need not explain his plans. We’re supposed to just trust that he, personally, is the solution to problems. Trump has made many statements suggesting his authority would supersede laws, that the military would do what he orders no matter what. He continually brushes aside the need to explain his policies in any meaningful detail. There’s also an emphasis on extremist nationalism in fascism. If it walks like a duck …

    • Mikey, you certainly are correct about the characteristics you mention. I wrote a longer article on fascism at the beginning of 2015 that delves into the topic of fascism in much more detail. Mussolini also declared he stood above laws, nor did he have a coherent program other than using violence to suppress his opponents. He carefully allowed a variety of propaganda to be put forth and even denied having a program, allowing fascism to appear to be whatever one wished it to be.

      Mussolini, however, was lavishly funded by many of Italy’s biggest capitalists, and his March on Rome could not have happened with that financing. U.S. capitalists currently oppose Trump, preferring one of the Republican establishment candidates. We’ll see if that changes. For now, capitalists are in control and have no need to play with fire.

      Remember, fascism is a movement for big business, not by big business. Capitalists cede some of their power to a fascist leader, so it is no casual thing for them to go that route. At the moment, all signs indicate that U.S. capitalists for the most part would rather not stir up populist, street-level movements that they would not necessarily be able to control.

  2. David Topple says:

    Two quotations for you from ‘The Elephant and the Flea’, a book by British business and management writer Charles Handy, and published 15 years ago:

    ‘The giants of the free market are centrally-controlled totalitarian states…’ (p61)

    ‘A society that works for just a few (‘turbo capitalism’ according to Edward Luttwalk, American specialist in international affairs) will lead to a form of fascism as the impoverished unite behind a Hitler-like populism.’ (p150)

    As far as I’m concerned we’re already moving towards fascism, with or without Donald Trump. One example for you: every day, everybody I know has their body subjected constantly to non-ionising radiation from various sources, whether they like it or not, and this despite the fact that some scientists have grave reservations about the situation because of the risk of disturbance of DNA replication and actual DNA damage. Concerned citizens are totally powerless to stop this. That is what I call fascism, and it’s not far off Mussolini’s definition.

    • There is already a word for when a numerically small but powerful class of people dominate a society for their material benefit: Capitalism.

      Capitalist states come in different flavors. There are the formal democracies, there are authoritarian states and there are outright fascist states. We are having this conversation freely; no government censor is going to take down our comments nor are security agents going to drag us off simply for talking. We of course have no real control over how our country is governed or any meaningful choice in who governs it, but at least we can argue. This is the formal-democratic version.

      In a fascist country, opposing the government leads to prison, concentration camps or execution. Your pay gets cut significantly and if you say a word about it, you are taken away. Nor can you change jobs without your employers’ permission, and the state exercises control over every aspect of your life. So we can see there is a difference.

      That doesn’t mean I disagree that there is a drift toward authoritarianism, which could morph into fascism. The risk of fascism always exists in every capitalist state. I keep in mind the antics of the Communist Party of German in the years leading up to Hitler’s takeover. The Communists screamed that the Weimar Republic was already fascist, that the Social Democrats were the “twins” of fascism and therefore Germany already was “objectively” a fascist state. When actual fascism came, they very rapidly found out the difference, as first the communists and then the social democrats and the union leaders were rounded up and thrown into concentration camps. We know the rest of that story.

  3. “George W. Bush’s presidency will be remembered for his callous ignoring of New Orleans and its African-American population in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina”

    I don’t remember that at all. I lived in New Orleans post Katrina. My recollection is that W was seemingly visiting every other freaking week, which was annoying in that his security closed roads and exacerbated an already trying time. I also vividly recall La. Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco refusing to call for federal aid for days.

    Obviously, FEMA screwed the pooch on the whole deal, and I can see why considering that every one of them that I dealt with was pretty much an arrogant jerk. Having personally experienced the situation, though, I think that local accountability was much more at fault than W, and he certainly didn’t callously ignore the city.

    I get that you’re pretty anti-Republican, but I wish you’d take another look at that situation before throwing out sentences like the one I quoted above.

    • The world well remembers the untold thousands of people stranded in flooding, some having to take shelter on their roofs. Afterward, Bush did come by as a public relations gesture due to the heavy criticism he sustained due to his (non)response to the flooding. Bush did some photo ops elsewhere in the country, then returned to his vacation after Katrina had hit. Condoleeza Rice famously went shopping.

      At this link is an excellent timeline of the response to Katrina that week. I draw your attention to this item for Friday, September 2 (that’s four days after Katrina struck):

      “The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.”

      Bush did come to the Gulf Coast that Friday, to tell the press that Trent Lott was going to get a better house — this while thousands of people were still trapped in their houses by flooding and tens of thousands were facing desperate conditions in the Superdome.

      • In order to have callous disregard for someone, group, or situation, one would to have an understanding of what is happening and then choose to ignore it.

        You’re stating that W did not fully understand the situation until days later, at which point he acted. So even your version of events does support your thesis of callous disregard.

        Of course, when we want a truly unbiased accounting of events, I think ThinkProgress is an excellent source. For my completely unbiased account, why don’t I turn to W’s Decision Points?

        • It’s debatable, at best, whether Bush acted in a positive matter at that point. It is rather difficult, however, to suggest that he could not have not known what was happening as it completely dominated the news the entire week and the president surely has ample sources of information readily at hand. Sometimes we have to draw conclusions, even if they are ideologically inconvenient for some.

          • I am no fan of W, believe me. My main ties to the right are in regards to being fiscally conservative. IMO, it’s hard to find a less fiscally conservative conservative than W.

            That being said, not everything the left says about his is correct.

            I’m from Louisiana. I was in Baton Rouge interfacing with GSA and FEMA right after Katrina. I moved to New Orleans less than two months after Katrina.

            My experience does not jive with the left’s view of what happened. Not my ideology. My experience.

            I hope you don’t find this offensive, but you seem like you’re buying one version of a narrative hook, line, and sinker. I think that anyone who totally believes one version of anything is almost positively somewhat wrong and probably close to half wrong.

            • I found the narrative linked to earlier to be quite dispassionate. There was little in the way of commentary and what commentary there is was quoted from corporate media sources such as Time magazine, about as far from hostility to the establishment as you can get.

              Can you disprove the documentation in the ThinkProgress narrative? I am forced to note that you have not cited a single inaccuracy. I am not questioning your personal experience, which I have no basis to do. But the experience of the people of New Orleans is much different than yours, and that experience was amply documented at the time.

              • “Can you disprove the documentation in the ThinkProgress narrative?”

                I’m just looking at the source. If you want objective information about criticism of the right, maybe a very left leaning organization isn’t the best place.

              • It’s perfectly possible to present objective information (facts) simultaneously with possession of a point of view. That is certainly the standard on this blog. Some achieve this; some don’t.

                If something isn’t factual, I don’t cite it. There are Left publications that are not reliable; I don’t cite them or use them as sources. Many, however, are reliable, and facts can be verified.

                Once again, either you can demonstrate, through citations and facts, what is inaccurate in the linked ThinkProgress timeline or you can’t. That you don’t like their point of view proves nothing. We can certainly disagree on our interpretation of facts, that is reasonable, but we shouldn’t disregard facts because we find them inconvenient or because we don’t share the point of view of a publication.

                Also, you haven’t challenged in any way the fact that the corporate media overwhelmingly reported the story consistent with ThinkProgress’ narrative, and that the entire country saw it with their own eyes.

                If you had spent several days on the roof of your home surrounded by several feet of water or in the Superdome with little to eat, you’d have a different perspective. I don’t have to live in New Orleans to grasp that.

              • Asteroid Miner says:

                Name calling from Wikipedia: “Name calling is abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group, a verbal abuse. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse and school systems, in an attempt to negatively impact their opponent.”

                Name calling is what lawyers do in court. It is wrong and results in injustice. Name calling is part of why everybody hates lawyers.

                Fascist, racist, socialist, communist and so on are divisive and prevent rational compromise and problem solving.

                Quit name calling. Learn science and math. As I said before, we have existential problems, problems that threaten our existence. Name calling is not going to solve those existential problems.

                “Mexican” is a nationality, not a race. It would be less bad if you called Trump a nationalityist. But that is wrong too. Donald Trump doesn’t think before he speaks, or, if he does, he knows how to get votes from many Republicans. The Democrats are more wrong on the immigration issue because the US is dangerously overpopulated already.

                So quit name calling and attempt to solve the existential problems.

  4. Asteroid Miner says:

    No, , Trump is not a fascist. People from all over the world are nice people and Trump is wrong on that. Trump doesn’t know how to express the fact that the Earth and the US are overpopulated to the extent that there is going to be a population crash. There is going to be a global famine and there is nothing you can do to prevent it. The US is going to look like Syria or South Sudan or the Sahel and for the same reasons: drought due to Global Warming and overpopulation.

    We are headed for a human population crash from 7.5 Billion to 70 thousand or zero people some time between 2022 and 2040. We don’t have time for research or fooling around with renewables. Causes of a population crash:

    1. Global Warming [GW] will cause civilization to collapse within 13 years give or take 6 years because GW will cause the rain to move and the rain move will force agriculture to collapse. Famine has been the cause of many dozens of previous population crashes.

    2. Reference “Overshoot” by William Catton, 1980 and “Bottleneck: Humanity’s Impending Impasse” by William Catton, 2009. Catton says that we humans are about to experience a population crash. Population biologist William Catton says that the US is the most overcrowded country. Collapse from overpopulation could happen any time now.
    The Earth has 4.5 Billion too many people. An overshoot in population requires an equal undershoot. We overshot by 4.5 billion, and the consequence is an undershoot by 4.5 billion. The carrying capacity is 3 billion. 3 billion minus 4.5 billion is zero because there can’t be minus 1.5 billion people. This can happen even if there is enough food.

    Catton tells the story of an island with deer but no wolves. The deer population increased to ~3500. There was still plenty of food, but the population crashed to 35. The reason was overcrowding.
    Sharing kills everybody because you can’t survive on half of the required calories. 7 billion people is 4 billion too many no matter how you slice it. “We” didn’t make “Them” have too many children.

    3. Aquifers running dry No irrigation, no wheat. No wheat, no bread. The “Green Revolution” was a bad idea. It caused India to double her population rather than get out of poverty. Now Indian farmers have “discovered” that water is a limiting resource. Water is a limiting resource in the US as well. When, not if, the aquifer under the high plains runs dry, there will be no bread and no pasta in the US.
    We didn’t “cause” third world poverty. They were never “unpoor” in the first place. They were stone age, not poor. We invented science. They didn’t. Their failure to invent science is not our fault. But we have taught them enough science that they have increased their populations way too much. The Green Revolution cannot be repeated forever on a finite planet.

    4. Resource depletion
    4A oil
    4B minerals

    War will kill a lot of people. Famine will kill 8 billion out of 7.5 billion. 7.5-8=-0.5, but with population, the crash ends at zero.

    Will there be survivors? Nobody knows. Nor does anybody have any idea who or where the survivors might be, if any.

    NATURE has lots of other ways to kill humans. Don’t provoke her.

    People from all over the world are nice people, but that is irrelevant. 99% of all species that ever lived on this planet are extinct and Homo Sap is not going to be the exception. The Democrats are wrong on this one.

    Fascism is not involved. Failure to study science is the problem and almost everybody failed to study enough science.

    Systemic Disorder: Do the MATH.

  5. Alcuin says:

    What I find interesting about Trump is that, like a typical politician or marketer (is there a difference?), he tells people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. His misogynistic, racist and bigoted comments obviously appeal to a whole lot of people, who often say that Trump is saying what needs to be said. How has this country come to this point? I think the answer is fairly obvious, though there are not many who dare to say it: capitalism. The people who most adore Trump are capitalists at heart and very frustrated capitalists. They lust after everything that Trump has, not even beginning to understand that they are forever doomed to being workers who are exploited by their bosses. They are capitalists who can’t be capitalists because the Capitalists have pulled the rug out from under their feet by gutting the economy in this country, exporting jobs and importing cheap labor to further their accumulation of profit. The followers of Trump very obviously don’t understand or they wouldn’t support a billionaire who has become a billionaire by viciously exploiting the very people who support him. Trump supporters lash out at the Others because it is obviously the Others who are the cause of their problems, not people like Trump. If only the Others would go back to where they belong and, in particular, Other Women would go back to being mothers, then everything would magically be O.K. and the United States would once again be a Shining City on a Hill, in Reagan’s infamous words.

    I’ve written before that the United States is a profoundly ill country and now I’d go so far as to say that it is a failed country. When political dialog descends to the depths that it now has, there is something profoundly wrong. The progressives in this country rally around Sanders and Sanders won’t call out anyone because he is no progressive – he is a tool of the Democratic Party and will soon enough fold his camp and urge his supporters to vote for the neoliberal Clinton because she is the lesser evil.

    Shoulda, woulda, coulda … it’s too late.

    The base and the superstructure …. hey people, try reading Marx some time. You might learn something.

    • There is no going back to the 19th century, or whatever century constitutes the “good old days” for those lulled into believing Trump is their savior. I do understand that Trump followers, who I suspect have a significant overlap with tea partiers, have plenty of reasons to be upset at their decaying economic situation. But they are, just as with the tea party, going after the wrong targets.

      The Trump phenomenon is, at bottom, a manifestation of the breakdown of the capitalist system, a breakdown that is still in its earlier stages. Much more unrest is in the future. Thanks as always, Alcuin, for injecting some common sense into the debate.

  6. “An American id, Trump affirms the obscene impulses it’s just too much effort to continue to repress.” Here Jodi Dean describes the politics of enjoyment (jouissance); the haters get to stop hiding behind civility, liberals can get-off on their outrage and superiority, Trump is obviously enjoying the whole production, everyone is finally having a good time! It’s the same reason people go to NASCAR races.

    • It is much easier and simpler to generate acquiescence, active or passive, than to continually suppress opposition. That is always the preferred route for a bourgeois elite; actually funding and enabling a fascist movement is a last, desperate option fraught with risk. Thus the U.S. corporate elite, far from endorsing Trump’s campaign, is pouring money into stopping him. That doesn’t mean Trump doesn’t have his immediate uses, as Jodi Dean points out; certainly he adds to the spectacle (in the Situationist sense) that maintaining capitalist rule always requires.

  7. Paul Gilman says:

    “Promoting his business interests is Donald Trump’s motivation. All we have here is a billionaire cutting out the middle man and buying the office for himself instead of buying a professional politician.” Romney was the same thing. Presidents, like cops and paramilitaries (a semi-redundancy) operate with impunity. OK, there are some lines they can’t cross (The Soviets baring down on Hitlers bunker comes to mind), but for the most part, giving Romney and Trump the power of the presidency gives them the competitive edge in their struggles against their competitors. Most upper crust blue blood Republicans didn’t really want Romney to win. These same ruling class are afraid that Trump will win!

    In European fascism, the dictatorships divided up the economy so that all of the large bourgeois could profit without really competing with each other. Markets and labor were divided up “to serve the war effort”, profits were insured. Of course the plan backfired. Mussolini wanted a war effort without really having to go to war, Ethiopia being as far as he wanted to go. Hitler was a true maniac and it took the post-war US ruling-class to save the European ruling-classes butts.

    Latin-American fascism was about crony-capitalism in partnership with US Imperialism, with the locals playing the subordinate role, and the semi-feudal agricultural sector, that wrapped up their interests in nationalism, reactionary Catholicism, and death squads.

    Trump is not nearly as systematic as the European fascists, nor is he tied into other sectors like the Latin American fascists. Trump is just an opportunist taking advantage of what is essentially a chaotic system in which all sorts of nuts can raise to the top.

    • It does seem that billionaires are more likely to grab office for themselves rather than be content with buying politicians an office as was ordinarily done in the past. Trump enjoys the attention he’s getting, but it would seem that the old-fashioned way, as exemplified by the Koch Brothers’ behind-the-scenes operations, remain much more effective. The Kochs’ ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) lobby gets more done in advancing the interests of the 1% over working people than being in the open does.

  8. Alcuin says:

    Here is an interesting commentary on Donald Trump, by Jim Burns at the Hampton Institute.

    • An excellent article on “turn-around culture” of the corporate world and its infusion into education, although seemed to discuss Milt Romney more than Donald Trump. On a side note, it is a true sign of the degeneration of U.S. society that someone who was considered a joke in 2008 (Romney) is now an “elder statesman” for the Republican Party. From the article:

      “Just as Mitt Romney and Bain Capital convinced already struggling companies to assume crushing debts and pay exorbitant management fees to shepherd them through the financial crises created by the corporate turn-around itself, we are now following the same destructive model as a matter of education policy by turning over our public K-12 and higher education institutions to, in many cases, the same turn-around guys who tanked the economy in 2008 and were rewarded for it.”

      Readers might also be interested in this article on the corporate agenda to take over schools through charters:

  9. Sky Wanderer says:

    Reblogged this on Global Political Analysis and commented:
    “Promoting his business interests is Donald Trump’s motivation. All we have here is a billionaire cutting out the middle man and buying the office for himself instead of buying a professional politician.”

  10. DemolishingBS says:

    You could vote in 1980? I’m only in my 20s, so I often feel like a baby when I go to socialist hangouts or try to network with fellow leftists, who tend to be decades older than I

    • You sound like you know more than I did when I was in my 20s, so you are off to a good start. (I was 19 in 1980.) You find yourself at a relatively advanced age quicker than you think. Reminds me of a line from a Specials song from that era: “Enjoy yourself, it’s later than you think.”

      Where I live, there are many socialists of your age (and of course many my age and considerably older), so perhaps your experience is particular to your locale. But age differences are healthy; different age cohorts learn from one another . Education is always a two-way street.

      • DemolishingBS says:

        Well, I live in Orange County California which is basically a void when it comes to political activity to the left of the Republican Party, and while a nice place to live, outside Santa Ana and Anaheim it just doesn’t engender the kind of demographs polled toward socialism in my experience, it’s kind of a generic middle class county for the most part. The most socialism we get is the Republican kids who are voting for Sanders in this election. I live in one of the poorest and grimeist parts of the county and its still Republican.

      • DemolishingBS says:

        As for getting old, I’m in my mid 20s so I already feel old. I’ve been voting since I was 18, something most 18 year olds wouldn’t be caught dead doing so I already feel 50 maturity wise 😛

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s