Ana's admission of being wrong about the violent statist/authoritarian (fascist variant) MAGA and Trump movement

General Discussion TYT Shows and Hosts
1

First, the topic at hand:

Here is a discussion of Ana’s video (if I could just link to the actual video I would, but I can’t find it, that is on TYT, please TYT do better at making the originals more discoverable with keyword searches and such, or let me know what method I am missing that would make this easier).

Next, a comment from me. Ana, I’m glad to see you making an effort on this point. I know that it is not easy, and that there were in fact reasons to cringe when soft-thinking critics throw the accusation of “fascism” around in a facile way without thinking. But to many of us, we were quite clear that this sort of defense by the right was calculated, and you fell into the trap.

As I’ve been trying hard to ask for more than a year now: Please could someone from TYT properly interview, perhaps multiple times, (perhaps have them as recurring guests) one or more experts on murderous totaltarianism (whether it is called “fascism” or something else) WHO GOT THIS RIGHT, as opposed to the fascism expert you previously discussed this with (Daniel Bessner) who very much got it wrong. One example (and I am suggesting this for what seems like the 17,000th time) is Timothy Snyder. I may have missed if he, or some other expert, has been properly interviewed on TYT or your substack. If they haven’t been, then could someone from TYT please do this? Or could you do it on your substack? You went to all that trouble to interview Bessner properly on your substack. How about giving one or more experts who got this right some equal attention?

It is not that much for a paying member to ask that Timothy Snyder, or someone like him, be interviewed and that his thinking be made widely available to TYT subscribers. Yes, you did do some damage by downplaying what was more or less obvious to most of us (though I should quickly edit to add that you have also done an enormous amount of good in many lives, including my own, with your thought leadership and excellent research on many different topics).

The direction that Trump and his millions of supporters have been taking is pretty clear to many of us. Some of us may just throw facile accusations of fascism around, but many of us actually did the work to see through the entirety of what Trump and his millions of supporters were up to. Part of how we did the work was to listen to excellent hard-working capable intellectuals like Snyder, and to give fair consideration to his points (and others’) just as we also try to give fair consideration to yours.

I honestly think that it will really help you in your own independent-minded journey to get one or more second opinions from experts who got this right. They may even be able to offer some fresh ideas as to how independent-minded intellectuals in socieities turning toward some version of violent decline may be tricked into getting this sort of thing very wrong.

Thanks.

1 Like
2

I am breaking my rule, although this topic should be addressed.

Being correct about a threat and doing what best serves the community are not the same thing. Sometimes it is more effective to position yourself to attract defectors than to re-adjudicate how serious the danger already is. Giving credit or praise is not inherently wrong though it can become a disservice if it undermines an outcome you care about, in this case resisting fascism. Convincing even a single defector to abandon that ideology is more valuable than winning an argument about who foresaw the danger first. Prolonged vitriol between people who largely share the same values ultimately causes real harm.

At the time, I could see how both perspectives formed, and I still agree with both. Ana was right to pursue dialogue with people who believed Trump might deliver on his promises, especially given an establishment party unwilling to imagine a progressive future. Francesca was also right to insist on the severity of the danger, recognizing Trump’s motivations as largely self-preserving. Both would likely agree the deeper issue was a Democratic Party that cornered the electorate into two bad choices. Accuracy alone was never going to persuade Republicans, but dialogue at least preserved a path for defections. That matters more to me than determining who was “right” in the moment.

Youtubeification has pervaded politics and clickbait culture works to aid those who seek dividing folks that agree by creating a monetary incentive for engagement. Their model is to monetize vitriol by enticing creators to talk past one another thus capturing those who are enraged.

2 Likes
3

I am not sure what rule you have that you are breaking, but ok, thanks for addressing the topic.

I think TYT hosts have a strong point (and it is part of why I have a small (that I can afford) paid membership as opposed to many center-left shows) in that they attempted to preserve a path for many in the population to come to a more rational position. So, they have kept a proper non-phony dialogue going with almost all citizens, including many who voted for Trump. There are times when this may make it difficult for them to navigate how loud to trump their perception of reality, but this should not remove the ability to perceive and say out loud when a violent anti-law, anti-Constitution anti-reason pseudo-freedom-supporting authoritarian clever thug is coming to power. This is what Trump is, and Ana’s issue here is not that she perceived it but wouldn’t say it, …. but that she did not perceive it. She honestly did not understand it. She was gullible. She not only had contempt and for calling Trump a fascist (or any other variant of the sort of thug I’ve described), and some contempt toward others calling Trump a Fascist, but she also did not respect or understand that Project 2025 was and is a Trump Administration playbook. She couldn’t bring herself to believe it. Or, she didn’t want to. Worse, it seems possible that her very sharp reaction to Cenk on this point, perhaps at multiple times?, may have had some chilling effect on the thought leadership of other hosts at TYT.

I am fully onboard with Cenk’s attempt to remember that Trump voters are American citizens and human beings, and who have some very valid things to say at times, but this isn’t what happened with Ana. She wasn’t hostile toward using the F word because she wanted to strike the right balance toward Trump voters. She was hostile because she completely whiffed on having understanding why some of us were using it loudly and clearly.

On balance, Ana is a host that I like more than most others on youtube. I have been through several stand-up-and-cheer moments with her analyses of other issues. To her strong credit, she did not run away from this issue of Fascism, but has kept it in mind, and went to the considerable trouble of interviewing an expert and publishing her thoughts on substack. I respect all of these things. I will admit I am concerned by the extent of her swing to the right. Personally, for example, I am not about to go being quite so enthusiastic toward Tucker Carlson, after the absolutely massive amount of damage he has done.

[cont.]

4

[cont.]

More progress can be made by Ana on this issue by having a fascism expert on the show, and perhaps to be interviewed through substack, who properly understands the Trump administration and its millions of supporters (Bessner did not). (Again, I can’t remember, it is possible Snyder was mentioned or interviewed on TYT, but I am getting older and never did keep good receipts). A reason I keep harping on the importance of having an expert on the air is that this is exactly the sort of thing that can help address the fundamental problem that was bothering me for decades, and which was bothering Ana and helped make her vulnerable to undermining her thinking - the habitual abuse of the word and accusation of “fascism” and “authoritarianism” by facile soft-minded thinkers on the left. They are the intellectuals who cried “wolf” for decades, and now the wolf is actually at the door, and they are crying wolf, but very few people are listening, we are so sick of their facile thinking. But, Ana, even conceding this point fully - that for decades poor thinkers cried “fascist” at the drop of a hat - I hope you will give some consideration now to the very real possibility that Donald Trump and his followers are locked in a tragic spiral that is every bit as dangerous as 1930s Germany.

I’d be curious what they will say as to how those previous variants of authoritarianism may have strategized their use of rhetoric and concepts to trap intellectuals such as yourself into positions that do more harm than good. If Bessner is genuinely good-willed (and I am not familiar enough with his work to know), maybe he also should be looking hard at that question.

I had a conversation with a fellow citizen (also loosely part of the Tribe of Israel, as am I… which is relevant here due to the amount we heard in our childhood educations about being on the lookout against the rise of fascism) who works in law enforcement and who opposed me on this. He immediately shot me down when I tried to discuss that Trump and his followers were, to my eye, going in the direction of fascism. It was this sort of shoot-down that really left an impression on me, as to how deep the traps and thinking go, which can suck in any of us. It did not make me hate those who vote for Trump. I do think it’s a very tough problem to try to figure out how to be fair and inviting to all listeners and not descend into facile hate-baiting otherization of those who have gone in the wrong direction. But this sort of strategization must never come in the way of seeing clearly what anti-rule-of-law thugs are up to.

5

I don’t follow TYT close enough to understand how much Ana was under Trumps spell. I would be surprised if Ana derided those who took project 2025 seriously. Although perhaps she did. I can’t blame those for taking that stance. Many wish to see the good in others, and will often confuse their own ideals in projecting them on to others. Trump explains the woman and the snake story many times during his campaign. For me that was him telling everyone exactly who he was.

Personally trapping intellectuals like myself is an absurd framing. Proponents of authoritarianism use power of industry and propaganda to trap everyone. I appreciate you think I am an intellectual although everyone that I would describe as that come across as pathetic, that isn’t a complement in my book. As far as being trapped by them, all that comes to mind is: welcome to my parlor. Their traps like their strategy is feeble. Many of them also consider themselves to be intellectuals.

I’m not sure how anyone should care about the minutia of a fascism, or lawlessness while the whole sale liquidation of children is occurring at hands of a military power. For me when you bomb children your put in one of three camps; purveyor of evil, entranced by evil, or so self centered you’re blind.

Arguing about a terms meaning such as fascisms, holocaust, Semite while not fighting the obvious evil being perpetuated is cowardice. I am not accusing you of being a coward. I am merely explaining why I don’t engage in that sort of discussion.

For me actions speak louder than words. If contrition is genuine, and you start to resist evil with actions. For me, that is praiseworthy.