Anyone who is vaguely familiar with early American history knows that majoritarianism vs anti-majoritarianism was often one of the leading debates between Anti-Federalists (true Federalists) and Federalists (pseudo-Federalists). The Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson, for example, was for majoritarianism.
Anyway, I'd also point out that anti-majoritarian constitutionalism would be a form of social dominance orientation, particularly the SDO-E (anti-egalitarianism) of the SDO7 scale but probably also involving SDO-D (dominance). SDO is very similar to authoritarianism proper and many authoritarian leaders would be high in SDO.
I've a hunch that a reason why The Facism Debate's polarized is because, as sometimes happens with a bitter definitional debate, it's conflated with a strategic debate: "is Donald Trump fascist?" or "are Republican politicians fascist?" are treated as "how should we respond to Donald Trump?" or "how should we respond to Republican politicians?".
That can be an incentive to AVOID classifying Trump/Republicans as fascist if you prioritize indicting the wider political structure of the US, and an incentive to INSIST ON classifying Trump/Republicans as fascist if you have sympathy with the existing US political structure or the Democratic Party (though the latter can be logically inconsistent: see https://splained.substack.com/p/the-antifascist-partisan-democrats).
Anyone who is vaguely familiar with early American history knows that majoritarianism vs anti-majoritarianism was often one of the leading debates between Anti-Federalists (true Federalists) and Federalists (pseudo-Federalists). The Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson, for example, was for majoritarianism.
Anyway, I'd also point out that anti-majoritarian constitutionalism would be a form of social dominance orientation, particularly the SDO-E (anti-egalitarianism) of the SDO7 scale but probably also involving SDO-D (dominance). SDO is very similar to authoritarianism proper and many authoritarian leaders would be high in SDO.
I've a hunch that a reason why The Facism Debate's polarized is because, as sometimes happens with a bitter definitional debate, it's conflated with a strategic debate: "is Donald Trump fascist?" or "are Republican politicians fascist?" are treated as "how should we respond to Donald Trump?" or "how should we respond to Republican politicians?".
That can be an incentive to AVOID classifying Trump/Republicans as fascist if you prioritize indicting the wider political structure of the US, and an incentive to INSIST ON classifying Trump/Republicans as fascist if you have sympathy with the existing US political structure or the Democratic Party (though the latter can be logically inconsistent: see https://splained.substack.com/p/the-antifascist-partisan-democrats).
1. Um, in case you weren’t aware, Trump lost. Over a year ago.
2. Anti-majoritarian constitutionalism is a feature of our republic, not a defect.