Yeah, there are definitely some parts of this where I disagree with the author, but the very next paragraph makes a good point
A fascist party can only come to power when it attracts multiple constituencies, whose members do not think of themselves as fascists. The fascist leader represents the compromises necessarily involved in democratic politics as unmanly. But fascism needs to appeal to a broader ideology than the mere destruction of democracy. Patriarchy is just such an ideology. By doubling down on traditional gender roles, by the restriction of women’s rights, and by villainizing LGBT, a fascist party attracts religious conservatives. The strutting masculinity of the fascist leader appeals to powerful business elites, who tend to view the world in terms of “winners” and “losers”, and often view their own success as a product of their masculinity (it doesn’t hurt if the leader also vows to promote their interests). Survival in a violent struggle for power is the ultimate badge of honor in the fascist worldview. Violence leans into and supports it.
So long as we’re still in an electoral situation, violence is a bad look. I’m not even saying the Democratic party should or can do anything here, I’m just underscoring that this weekend’s events has made this election tougher to win.
e; grammar are confusing
I would like to clarify that I am not in favor of assassination attempts, but I’m just not convinced that simply playing the game by the rules is the most effective method for defeating fascism. That being said, I don’t claim to know what is, necessarily. However, it seems to me that, in most cases, defeating fascism has required using at least some violence.
