In the first of two consecutive non-news Friday releases, Danny sits down for another rigorous academic exchange, this time with David Austin Walsh, historian at Yale’s program for the study of antisemitism and author of Taking America Back: The Conservative Movement and the Far Right
I agree with Danny's take on fascism, but at this point I feel like episodes where Danny has guests on in order to eviscerate their takes on 21st century fascism need a special tag.
Daniel i would be very interested in having an episode about fascism with someone you do agree with. You mostly changed my mind on calling everything fascism since right wing authoritarianism is a much much older tradition so you can't just rebrand anything right wing and authoritarian as fascism.
But then the question is what is actually fascism and why. I don't think that's clear from these debates because you are arguing from the negative and the guest positive so you don't really need to make the full claim of what the definition is fully. If that makes sense.
I found Stanley Payne’s “A History of Fascism 1914-1945” eye-opening in terms of defining the political, intellectual, and even aesthetic (!) aspects of the ideology. It’s a narrow rendering of what actually amounts to fascism, per se, but a magisterial survey of unpleasant right wing political ideologies.
When government institutions and the political movements that seek to influence them have less and less to offer people, wouldn't we expect that aesthetics would play an increasingly important role in shaping people's politics? Not necessarily in the sense of actually creating policy, but it seems like when it comes to policy there's really no one at wheel anyway. People don't see political action as a solution to anything. Isn't it true then that they will see politics as nothing more than an expression of identity, much like music or sports?
From that perspective, the question about whether MAGA conservatism is fascism or not is less important than the question of what exactly the perception of it as fascism is doing for people who talk about it that way. Liberalism requires an external threat to avoid confronting the internal contradictions of a system that's tearing itself apart, and pointing to the aesthetics of certain conservative movements (irrespective of their actual policies) is an attempt to do so. If modern fascism didn't exist modern liberalism would have had to invent it.
Walsh yelling "fuck you!" when pressed to answer to his own assertions about aesthetics is so childish. Dude is very insecure about his own points. How do goofballs like this work at Yale?
By the end of this ep I actually felt a bit bad for Walsh. The root of his entire existence is holding up a house of cards and he knows it. Danny going for the kill shot by telling him the book reinforced his belief that the modern (neo)Liberal State was shaped by the conservatives he blames for the planting the seeds of Trump had to sting.
I think something Danny misses in academic debate misses is how fun and entertaining it is to make anachronistic historical metaphor. The most political fun I've had in the past few weeks has been reading tweets talking about the DNC losing the Mandate of Heaven or writing Trump and Biden dialog as generals in the three kingdoms era of China. "LOSER LIU BEI walked into my commandery capital, NO ARMY, NO MANDATE, NO IMPERIAL SEAL, crying like a eunuch."
I think most of the fascism hand wringing is scratching a similar itch. Danny trying to ground the analogy in tactical takeaways for today's political moment gives the whole game away. If we can only use analogy to tell us how to feel about a political movement, not how to oppose or support it than what is the point?
Thanks for this, as much as I loved hearing Mr Walsh lose his shit, I appreciated more hearing someone finally give a critique of materialists even if it didn’t carry water.
If I'm remembering correctly, Danny references a few works that have informed his understanding of liberalism in America. Is there a broader reading list on liberalism somewhere?
You know, there isn’t, but I’ve been playing with the idea of episode reading lists when DannyDerek/guests reference other work. Happy to do this if people are interested.
What unsettles me is how Danny’s basic questions about material aspects of history stump even Yale professors. I only got an MA in history and I wouldn’t be caught dead not even thinking about material questions if I ever wrote something historical. Of course, I did become more of a materialist after that degree. Anyway!
It was odd how unprepared Walsh seemed for the arguments Danny has made many times before in this debate. He spent 1/3 of the time basically unable to even respond or formulate a thought.
Also I think part of what I think was frustrating Walsh at the end about the dismissal of aesthetics is that aesthetics are communication without words, and just because the communication of the aesthetics is unspoken doesn't mean its not understood or heard. Aesthetics are the method by which modern and contemporary movements (including the real fascist movements of the 20th century) communicate and spread their values in a way that allows them to appeal to people who might be put off by the direct statement of those values.
Danny I think you sometimes overrate the the importance of intellectual arguments and self aware interest when it comes to political movements. Most people absolutely do not have awareness of their specific class identity and interests in the sense that a historian would see them. They understand the association of their values (and their class values) with symbols, aesthetics and associations. Those symbols aesthetics and associations are often more diagnostic of what side someone would take in a political conflict than what they think intellectually to be their interest because the aesthetics are felt rather than intellectually determined.
I guess I would even go as far as to say aesthetics are how class identity is communicated in a mediated society and therefore can fundamentally change how class conflict manifests depending on who is using which aesthetics.
Corey Robin's great piece in N+1 "The Politics that Trump Makes" in January 2017, was very helpful for understanding the likely course of Trump's first four years. It served as a very good antidote too with respect to some of the more hysterical takes on Trump (and the fascist, not fascist debate).
Robin would be an excellent guest to have on at some point for any number of topics (including a book in progress "King Capital", which sounds interesting). However, I would be curious to hear his take on what to expect with respect to a potential Trump second term. The "Trump fascist/not fascist" debate might merit a couple minutes -- I suspect he is probably in agreement with the house editorial line at American Prestige -- but it would be good to hear a discussion with him and the pod at some point.
This was my first introduction to Walsh, and I couldn’t make enough of his argument out between attacks to understand why Danny felt compelled to badger him into a breakdown. I’m sure there are a hundred reasons why I’m wrong, but might fascism be defined not by elements unique to it rather than the specific combination of elements drawn from various other ideologies? Why isn’t there a neofascism, to complement neocons and neolibs, that might take into consideration adjustments to the polis and economy over the last century?
Danny (or someone else more familiar with his writing) - is it a stretch to connect his argument of What To Do if Trump is Fascist at the end of interview with his argument against arming Ukraine? To me, that connection is more than just an analogy, it makes the importance of Danny's stance clear and present.
While German liberals and leftists might have stopped Hitler by organizing the security state, the USSR actually did so, in part, through alliance with the west. Trump isn't the only Hitler-ite in the fascist-screamers - Putin looms large. And if he really is a fascist, it would seem incumbent upon the left (as it is) to boost NATO and the Ukrainian war effort, no matter the cost. If it's all just liberalism, NATO is, by far, the mechanism of the most destruction in the 21st century, and we shouldn't fund it or the war profiteers reaping in money and power.
I agree with Danny's take on fascism, but at this point I feel like episodes where Danny has guests on in order to eviscerate their takes on 21st century fascism need a special tag.
Lmao I think this is the last one, as this is the most serious scholarly work on the subject
Actually almost did that, so thank you for validating me
Daniel i would be very interested in having an episode about fascism with someone you do agree with. You mostly changed my mind on calling everything fascism since right wing authoritarianism is a much much older tradition so you can't just rebrand anything right wing and authoritarian as fascism.
But then the question is what is actually fascism and why. I don't think that's clear from these debates because you are arguing from the negative and the guest positive so you don't really need to make the full claim of what the definition is fully. If that makes sense.
I found Stanley Payne’s “A History of Fascism 1914-1945” eye-opening in terms of defining the political, intellectual, and even aesthetic (!) aspects of the ideology. It’s a narrow rendering of what actually amounts to fascism, per se, but a magisterial survey of unpleasant right wing political ideologies.
When government institutions and the political movements that seek to influence them have less and less to offer people, wouldn't we expect that aesthetics would play an increasingly important role in shaping people's politics? Not necessarily in the sense of actually creating policy, but it seems like when it comes to policy there's really no one at wheel anyway. People don't see political action as a solution to anything. Isn't it true then that they will see politics as nothing more than an expression of identity, much like music or sports?
From that perspective, the question about whether MAGA conservatism is fascism or not is less important than the question of what exactly the perception of it as fascism is doing for people who talk about it that way. Liberalism requires an external threat to avoid confronting the internal contradictions of a system that's tearing itself apart, and pointing to the aesthetics of certain conservative movements (irrespective of their actual policies) is an attempt to do so. If modern fascism didn't exist modern liberalism would have had to invent it.
Walsh yelling "fuck you!" when pressed to answer to his own assertions about aesthetics is so childish. Dude is very insecure about his own points. How do goofballs like this work at Yale?
The cognitive dissonance of agreeing with Danny but also wanting to hear the guest finish their senten--
I'm hearing word that the producer intentionally edited it to make it sound like Danny cut him off because they are a Bessner Truther.
By the end of this ep I actually felt a bit bad for Walsh. The root of his entire existence is holding up a house of cards and he knows it. Danny going for the kill shot by telling him the book reinforced his belief that the modern (neo)Liberal State was shaped by the conservatives he blames for the planting the seeds of Trump had to sting.
Danny is an absolutely merciless interviewer. Sometimes I'm surprised he manages to find guests at all.
I think something Danny misses in academic debate misses is how fun and entertaining it is to make anachronistic historical metaphor. The most political fun I've had in the past few weeks has been reading tweets talking about the DNC losing the Mandate of Heaven or writing Trump and Biden dialog as generals in the three kingdoms era of China. "LOSER LIU BEI walked into my commandery capital, NO ARMY, NO MANDATE, NO IMPERIAL SEAL, crying like a eunuch."
I think most of the fascism hand wringing is scratching a similar itch. Danny trying to ground the analogy in tactical takeaways for today's political moment gives the whole game away. If we can only use analogy to tell us how to feel about a political movement, not how to oppose or support it than what is the point?
Gotta say, Danny, I'd have appreciated it if you had allowed David to finish his sentences.
Literally
https://forward.com/culture/552380/conversational-overlapping-interrupting-deborah-tannen-bintel-brief/?amp=1
Lol.
Saving this.
You must be joking
Make Sense.
Thanks for this, as much as I loved hearing Mr Walsh lose his shit, I appreciated more hearing someone finally give a critique of materialists even if it didn’t carry water.
If I'm remembering correctly, Danny references a few works that have informed his understanding of liberalism in America. Is there a broader reading list on liberalism somewhere?
You know, there isn’t, but I’ve been playing with the idea of episode reading lists when DannyDerek/guests reference other work. Happy to do this if people are interested.
Please, I'm sure it'd be a lot of work but it would be awesome to reflect on the texts referenced in a given sode. 🙌
[Biden whisper] It's not that much work, happy to do it
What unsettles me is how Danny’s basic questions about material aspects of history stump even Yale professors. I only got an MA in history and I wouldn’t be caught dead not even thinking about material questions if I ever wrote something historical. Of course, I did become more of a materialist after that degree. Anyway!
Damn Danny, you dunked on this man.
It was odd how unprepared Walsh seemed for the arguments Danny has made many times before in this debate. He spent 1/3 of the time basically unable to even respond or formulate a thought.
Also I think part of what I think was frustrating Walsh at the end about the dismissal of aesthetics is that aesthetics are communication without words, and just because the communication of the aesthetics is unspoken doesn't mean its not understood or heard. Aesthetics are the method by which modern and contemporary movements (including the real fascist movements of the 20th century) communicate and spread their values in a way that allows them to appeal to people who might be put off by the direct statement of those values.
Danny I think you sometimes overrate the the importance of intellectual arguments and self aware interest when it comes to political movements. Most people absolutely do not have awareness of their specific class identity and interests in the sense that a historian would see them. They understand the association of their values (and their class values) with symbols, aesthetics and associations. Those symbols aesthetics and associations are often more diagnostic of what side someone would take in a political conflict than what they think intellectually to be their interest because the aesthetics are felt rather than intellectually determined.
I guess I would even go as far as to say aesthetics are how class identity is communicated in a mediated society and therefore can fundamentally change how class conflict manifests depending on who is using which aesthetics.
Corey Robin's great piece in N+1 "The Politics that Trump Makes" in January 2017, was very helpful for understanding the likely course of Trump's first four years. It served as a very good antidote too with respect to some of the more hysterical takes on Trump (and the fascist, not fascist debate).
https://www.nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/the-politics-trump-makes/
Robin would be an excellent guest to have on at some point for any number of topics (including a book in progress "King Capital", which sounds interesting). However, I would be curious to hear his take on what to expect with respect to a potential Trump second term. The "Trump fascist/not fascist" debate might merit a couple minutes -- I suspect he is probably in agreement with the house editorial line at American Prestige -- but it would be good to hear a discussion with him and the pod at some point.
This was my first introduction to Walsh, and I couldn’t make enough of his argument out between attacks to understand why Danny felt compelled to badger him into a breakdown. I’m sure there are a hundred reasons why I’m wrong, but might fascism be defined not by elements unique to it rather than the specific combination of elements drawn from various other ideologies? Why isn’t there a neofascism, to complement neocons and neolibs, that might take into consideration adjustments to the polis and economy over the last century?
Ripped the dudes arms off and beat him TO DEATH with them. I love you Danny. Remember comrade, your depression gives you strength!
Danny (or someone else more familiar with his writing) - is it a stretch to connect his argument of What To Do if Trump is Fascist at the end of interview with his argument against arming Ukraine? To me, that connection is more than just an analogy, it makes the importance of Danny's stance clear and present.
While German liberals and leftists might have stopped Hitler by organizing the security state, the USSR actually did so, in part, through alliance with the west. Trump isn't the only Hitler-ite in the fascist-screamers - Putin looms large. And if he really is a fascist, it would seem incumbent upon the left (as it is) to boost NATO and the Ukrainian war effort, no matter the cost. If it's all just liberalism, NATO is, by far, the mechanism of the most destruction in the 21st century, and we shouldn't fund it or the war profiteers reaping in money and power.