Jack - the term "fascist" has sufficiently defined characteristics to be applied and Trump checks all the boxes. There is a growing body of literature about this, and the characteristics are far broader than mere corporatism and economic policy, check out the curriculum or syllabus. Visit the academically curated website: New Fascism Syllabus’ “Interrogating The Present”:
Your statements on federal preemption of State environmental law are false and exactly backwards. Almost all federal environmental laws set the floor, with States allowed to set more stringent state regulatory standards. I've worked for 40 years in one of those states. Very few federal environmental law explicitly preempt State law and implied preemption emerges in limited situations, mostly involving the Commerce clause. You mention mercury: this state has stricter standards for mercury than US EPA (I was forced out of State government as a whistleblower on mercury science and regulation back in 1994, so know a little about all that).
Amazing that you falsely assert federal preemption of environmental laws and invoke the Supremacy clause, yet in the same breath claim that the State of Texas is not rebelling agains the Constitution! Pretzelk logic, my friend.
First, regarding federal preemption of state environmental law, I am happy to hear that you or your state never experienced it during your tenure. I assume your own experience with mercury was completely based on state law and had nothing to do with the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act, in which the acts themselves describe preemption limiting state action because the federal government thought that too much variation in state environmental laws would harm polluting industries. Perhaps your state did not have politically powerful polluting private industries like oil, gas, coal, corporate agriculture, or manufacturing, and in which industry-owned legislators prevented setting standards more stringent than EPA. Obviously, every state is different with regard to environmental concerns and complexity. As I’m sure you know, this pattern of describing EPA authorities over states is the norm in most modern federal environmental law, which, on the positive side, is a better process than leaving supremacy rights of the federal government undisclosed or implied (as is often the case with immigration and border security), but it still does not completely prevent assertions by states of federal overreach or states’ rights.
With regard to your claim that “fascism” is a sufficiently settled term, I followed the link you provided, and here is how that website describes fascism:
“Fascism is not just a gross combination of horrific reactionary policies. It is a qualitative change in how society is governed. Fascism foments and relies on xenophobic nationalism, racism, misogyny, and the aggressive re-institution of oppressive “traditional values.” Fascist mobs and threats of violence are unleashed to build the movement and consolidate power. What is crucial to understand is that once in power fascism essentially eliminates traditional democratic rights. Fascism has direction and momentum. Dissent is piece by piece criminalized. The truth is bludgeoned. Group after group is demonized and targeted along a trajectory that leads to real horrors. All of this [took] dramatic leaps under the Trump Regime. History has shown that fascism must be stopped before it becomes too late.”
It seems to me that this statement is a mere mini-manifesto for the status quo that is tainted by TDS. (I am not a Trump supporter.) With regard to this quote, I personally fail to see any substantive differences between the Trump Administration and Biden's. This quote tells me almost nothing objectively useful about the economic or political principles of fascism. In fact, you could change the word “fascism” to “communism” in the quote and, except for the dig at Trump, it could be used on any anti-communist site.
Jack - Perhaps the lame state officials you are relying on use this as an excuse for inaction at the State level, but you are simply wrong on the preemption issue. Both Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act explicitly provide for States to adopt more stringent standards and permit requirements, and not necessarily solely on State law but on delegated federal law. The Supreme Court Clean Water Act case you are probably referring to involved inter-state and common law issues - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/479/481/
Here is a Congressional Research Service primer on preemption for you to read:
In terms of you seeing no difference between Trump versus Biden, again, you just lack facts - I don't want to wast time on the ideological and cultural issues, but in limited terms of governing, here's two examples: check out Biden's Executive Order on reversing Trump Executive Orders on the environment: (yes, I know that most of it is rhetoric)
Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad
In terms of Fascism, you missed the content I was referring to - the Group "Refuse Fascism" has numerous podcasts with experts and activists involved in opposing fascsim that can explain things for you. Or you could refer to any of the writings (at CounterPunch) or books of historian Paul Street. Do more reading!
Of course, you seem completely unaware of Trump's actual policy agenda, which defined in detail by the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025" radical Report, read it here:
Jack - the term "fascist" has sufficiently defined characteristics to be applied and Trump checks all the boxes. There is a growing body of literature about this, and the characteristics are far broader than mere corporatism and economic policy, check out the curriculum or syllabus. Visit the academically curated website: New Fascism Syllabus’ “Interrogating The Present”:
The Year Ahead and the New Fascism Syllabus
https://refusefascism.org/2024/01/21/the-year-ahead-and-the-new-fascism-syllabus/
Your statements on federal preemption of State environmental law are false and exactly backwards. Almost all federal environmental laws set the floor, with States allowed to set more stringent state regulatory standards. I've worked for 40 years in one of those states. Very few federal environmental law explicitly preempt State law and implied preemption emerges in limited situations, mostly involving the Commerce clause. You mention mercury: this state has stricter standards for mercury than US EPA (I was forced out of State government as a whistleblower on mercury science and regulation back in 1994, so know a little about all that).
Amazing that you falsely assert federal preemption of environmental laws and invoke the Supremacy clause, yet in the same breath claim that the State of Texas is not rebelling agains the Constitution! Pretzelk logic, my friend.
First, regarding federal preemption of state environmental law, I am happy to hear that you or your state never experienced it during your tenure. I assume your own experience with mercury was completely based on state law and had nothing to do with the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act, in which the acts themselves describe preemption limiting state action because the federal government thought that too much variation in state environmental laws would harm polluting industries. Perhaps your state did not have politically powerful polluting private industries like oil, gas, coal, corporate agriculture, or manufacturing, and in which industry-owned legislators prevented setting standards more stringent than EPA. Obviously, every state is different with regard to environmental concerns and complexity. As I’m sure you know, this pattern of describing EPA authorities over states is the norm in most modern federal environmental law, which, on the positive side, is a better process than leaving supremacy rights of the federal government undisclosed or implied (as is often the case with immigration and border security), but it still does not completely prevent assertions by states of federal overreach or states’ rights.
With regard to your claim that “fascism” is a sufficiently settled term, I followed the link you provided, and here is how that website describes fascism:
“Fascism is not just a gross combination of horrific reactionary policies. It is a qualitative change in how society is governed. Fascism foments and relies on xenophobic nationalism, racism, misogyny, and the aggressive re-institution of oppressive “traditional values.” Fascist mobs and threats of violence are unleashed to build the movement and consolidate power. What is crucial to understand is that once in power fascism essentially eliminates traditional democratic rights. Fascism has direction and momentum. Dissent is piece by piece criminalized. The truth is bludgeoned. Group after group is demonized and targeted along a trajectory that leads to real horrors. All of this [took] dramatic leaps under the Trump Regime. History has shown that fascism must be stopped before it becomes too late.”
It seems to me that this statement is a mere mini-manifesto for the status quo that is tainted by TDS. (I am not a Trump supporter.) With regard to this quote, I personally fail to see any substantive differences between the Trump Administration and Biden's. This quote tells me almost nothing objectively useful about the economic or political principles of fascism. In fact, you could change the word “fascism” to “communism” in the quote and, except for the dig at Trump, it could be used on any anti-communist site.
I will stand by my previous statements.
Jack - Perhaps the lame state officials you are relying on use this as an excuse for inaction at the State level, but you are simply wrong on the preemption issue. Both Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act explicitly provide for States to adopt more stringent standards and permit requirements, and not necessarily solely on State law but on delegated federal law. The Supreme Court Clean Water Act case you are probably referring to involved inter-state and common law issues - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/479/481/
Here is a Congressional Research Service primer on preemption for you to read:
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19990823_RS20280_12cc4002c20e5b77969ebad0af0e430cbb9ea372.pdf
In terms of you seeing no difference between Trump versus Biden, again, you just lack facts - I don't want to wast time on the ideological and cultural issues, but in limited terms of governing, here's two examples: check out Biden's Executive Order on reversing Trump Executive Orders on the environment: (yes, I know that most of it is rhetoric)
Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/
Here's another (ignore the LNG export issue and look at the rest:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/01/26/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-temporary-pause-on-pending-approvals-of-liquefied-natural-gas-exports/#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20Biden%2DHarris%20Administration,the%20underlying%20analyses%20for%20authorizations.
In terms of Fascism, you missed the content I was referring to - the Group "Refuse Fascism" has numerous podcasts with experts and activists involved in opposing fascsim that can explain things for you. Or you could refer to any of the writings (at CounterPunch) or books of historian Paul Street. Do more reading!
Of course, you seem completely unaware of Trump's actual policy agenda, which defined in detail by the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025" radical Report, read it here:
https://bwolfe.substack.com/p/were-shifting-focus-here-to-try-to