Public Opinion and Other Principles of Democracy Under Attack by Trump’s Fascist Objectives

In my January, 2024 blog post, I indicated that throughout the year I would be focusing each month ‘s post on a particular Principle of Democracy within a spirit of Hope. They are as follows: Equality, Participation, Freedom, Representation, the Rule of Law, Accountability, Transparency, Inclusiveness, Diversity, Human Rights, Civil Liberties, and lastly this month, Public Opinion.

Last month’s post closed with two special comments and I’m updating them in this post as follows:

• As mentioned in a few of my previous posts, some of the content in this post has been adapted from my online research including “AI”. This technology, despite the possibility of plagiarism and invention, saves me a lot of time in gathering useful information I think important to share. I attempt to reconcile the issues with technology generated data based on reasonability checks, and the feedback I have received demonstrates to me that it is providing value. I just wanted you to know and humbly provide this disclaimer and caveats.
• I’d also like say that in previous posts and my email updates, that I have strived to be as objective as possible regarding the upcoming Presidential election by not definitively stating any personal preference for a particular candidate. However, starting with the Springfield, Ohio travesty (see the September post) this left me no choice but to formally and publicly state who I feel can preserve and uphold our Principles of Democracy; namely, Kamala Harris. And by that choice, also identify who most definitely cannot; even his own words fully disclose and unmask his autocratic and fascist leanings.

Regarding Public Opinion, it is a fundamental principle of democracy, reflecting the collective views, beliefs, and attitudes of the general population on issues, policies, and leaders. In a democratic society, public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping government actions, influencing decision-making, and holding elected officials accountable. It is both a reflection of democratic engagement and a driver of democratic processes.

Here’s how public opinion functions as a principle of democracy:

1. Foundation of Democratic Governance

• Government of the People: Democracy is built on the idea that the power and authority of the government come from the people. Public opinion represents the will of the people, guiding political leaders and government institutions. Policies and decisions are expected to reflect the majority’s views while balancing minority rights.
• Electoral Influence: Public opinion is especially powerful in shaping electoral outcomes. Citizens express their views through voting, and politicians rely on public opinion to understand the needs and desires of the electorate. Regular elections ensure that government actions are aligned with public sentiment.

2. Legitimacy and Accountability

• Legitimacy of Leadership: Public opinion confers legitimacy on elected officials. In a functioning democracy, leaders are chosen by the people, and their authority is based on the trust and confidence of the public. If public opinion turns against a leader due to dissatisfaction with policies or actions, that leader may face electoral defeat or loss of political influence.
• Accountability Mechanism: Public opinion serves as a check on government power. Through polling, protests, petitions, and other forms of expression, citizens can voice their approval or disapproval of government policies. Public opinion holds leaders accountable for their decisions, ensuring that they govern in the public’s best interests.

3. Influence on Policy and Legislation

• Shaping Policy Decisions: Public opinion influences the direction of government policies. In democratic systems, elected officials often craft legislation based on the preferences and priorities of their constituents. For example, if public opinion strongly favors environmental protection or healthcare reform, politicians may be compelled to introduce legislation that addresses these issues.
• Responsive Government: A responsive democratic government adjusts its policies in response to shifts in public opinion. This adaptability ensures that the government remains attuned to changing societal needs and preferences, reflecting the evolving concerns of the people.

4. Diversity of Views

• Pluralism and Debate: Democracies are characterized by a plurality of views and opinions. Public opinion is not monolithic; it is a dynamic expression of diverse perspectives shaped by factors like culture, education, economic status, and political beliefs. This diversity of views fosters debate, discussion, and compromise, which are essential to the democratic process.
• Minority Opinions: While majority public opinion typically guides policy, a healthy democracy also respects and protects minority views. Democracy promotes the free exchange of ideas, allowing minority groups to voice their concerns and advocate for change.

5. Role of Media and Information

• Mediating Public Opinion: The media plays a crucial role in shaping and reflecting public opinion. In democratic societies, the media acts as an intermediary between the public and the government, informing citizens about issues, policies, and political events. Independent media are essential for providing diverse viewpoints and fostering an informed public.
• Social Media and Digital Platforms: In recent years, social media and online platforms have expanded the reach and speed of public opinion formation. These platforms allow for more direct interaction between citizens and leaders, but they also present challenges such as the spread of misinformation, polarization, and echo chambers.

6. Challenges to Public Opinion in Democracy

• Misinformation and Manipulation: Public opinion can be influenced by misinformation, propaganda, and manipulation, which undermine informed democratic participation. In the digital age, the spread of false information through social media can distort public opinion, leading to poor decision-making or unjust policies.
• Polarization: In highly polarized societies, public opinion may become divided into opposing camps, making it difficult to reach consensus or compromise on key issues. Polarization can weaken democratic processes by reducing trust in institutions and fostering conflict rather than dialogue.

7. Public Opinion and Policy Gaps

• Disconnection from Policy: In some cases, public opinion may diverge from policy decisions due to lobbying, special interests, or bureaucratic inertia. When elected officials or government institutions fail to align with public opinion, it can lead to disillusionment, political disengagement, or protests.

8. Public Participation and Empowerment

• Direct Democracy Mechanisms: In addition to representative systems, some democracies include mechanisms of direct democracy, such as referenda, initiatives, and recalls, allowing public opinion to have a more immediate impact on governance. These tools give citizens direct influence over specific policies or leaders.
• Empowerment of Citizens: Public opinion empowers citizens to have a say in their governance, reinforcing the idea that government is by the people and for the people. By participating in the democratic process through voting, activism, and public discourse, citizens exercise their political rights and contribute to shaping the future of their society.

Conclusion

Public opinion is a cornerstone of democracy, representing the collective will of the people and ensuring that governments remain accountable and responsive to their citizens. It plays a vital role in elections, policymaking, and the overall functioning of democratic governance. While public opinion reflects the diversity and complexity of society, it also faces challenges such as polarization, misinformation, and the potential disconnect between citizens and their leaders. In a healthy democracy, public opinion fosters participation, debate, and the continuous evolution of policies in line with the values and aspirations of the people.

To go a step further, the remaining part of this post describes and contrasts Public Opinion as a principle of Democracy with Fascism and what a Fascist state would do to public opinion. Trump has recently been labeled a fascist by many very public and political figures including his former Chief of Staff, John Kelly; so this discussion is very relevant.  Additionally, Trump’s attempt to disavow his fascist-like ‘Project 2025’ playbook is both disingenuous and indicative of how he would disengage from Democracy and freedom for the people of this country.

Since Democracy and Fascism represent two fundamentally different approaches to governance, authority, and the role of the people in shaping political life, the following explores how Fascism compares in stark contrast with the Public Opinion in Democracy discussion above. It provides light on what a Trump dictatorship would look like.

Fascism and Public Opinion

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that emphasizes strong, centralized power, often led by a single ruler or party. It rejects democracy, promotes nationalism and militarism, and often relies on propaganda, suppression of dissent, and violence to maintain control. Its approach to Public Opinion is as follows:

• Rejection of Democracy: Fascism views public opinion not as a source of legitimacy or decision-making but as something to be manipulated or controlled. Fascists believe that strong, decisive leadership should not be bound by the “weakness” of public debate, elections, or popular will.
• Suppression of Free Speech: In a fascist state, freedom of speech, the press, and assembly are curtailed or eliminated. Dissenting opinions are viewed as threats to the unity and strength of the state, and opposition voices are silenced through censorship, intimidation, or outright violence.
• Propaganda: Fascist regimes use propaganda to shape public opinion and ensure loyalty to the state and its leader. The state often controls or heavily influences the media, promoting a single narrative that glorifies the nation, the leader, and the ruling ideology while demonizing enemies or minority groups.
• Cult of Personality: Fascist leaders often create a “cult of personality” around themselves, presenting themselves as infallible, heroic figures who embody the will of the nation. Public opinion is not seen as a collective voice but as a reflection of the leader’s vision. The people are expected to follow, not question.
• Use of Fear and Coercion: In a fascist regime, fear is used as a tool to suppress alternative viewpoints. Citizens may be reluctant to express their true opinions, knowing they could face persecution, imprisonment, or worse. Political opponents, intellectuals, and activists are often targeted to prevent any form of organized dissent.
• Control Over Institutions: Fascist regimes seek to control educational institutions, religious bodies, and cultural organizations to ensure they promote the regime’s ideology. Public opinion is shaped from the top down, rather than emerging organically from the people.

Contrasting Public Opinion in Democracy vs. Fascism

• The Role of Public Opinion: Democracy — Central to governance, shaping policy, and holding leaders accountable

Fascism —Manipulated and controlled to serve the regime’s interests

• Freedom of Expression: Democracy — Protected and encouraged, with free speech and open debate

Fascism — Suppressed, with dissenting views censored or violently crushed

• Media: Democracy —   Independent, diverse, and free to criticize the government.

Fascism — State-controlled, used for propaganda to promote the regime’s ideology

• Accountability: Democracy — Leaders are accountable to the people, through elections and public debate.               

Fascism: Leaders are unaccountable and demand loyalty; dissent is punished

• Pluralism:  — Democracy: Encourages diverse viewpoints and political competition           

Fascism: Rejects pluralism, enforces a single, dominant ideology

• Elections: Democracy: Free, fair, and competitive             

Fascism: Often rigged, symbolic, or completely absent

• View of the People — Democracy: Seen as capable of self-governance and shaping society            

Fascism: Viewed as needing guidance and control by an authoritarian leader

Impact of Fascism on Public Opinion

In a fascist state, public opinion is not an independent force but a tool to be molded. By controlling information, education, and culture, fascist regimes attempt to create a uniform, obedient populace that supports the authoritarian leader without question. Fear, coercion, and violence ensure that any alternative views are silenced. In contrast, democracy thrives on the free exchange of ideas, where public opinion is shaped through open discourse and diverse perspectives.

Fascism ultimately seeks to eliminate true public opinion, replacing it with a manufactured consensus that serves the interests of the regime, while democracy depends on public opinion as a reflection of the people’s will and the foundation of legitimate governance.

To further describe the impact of Fascism on Public Opinion, the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times are not endorsing either 2024 Presidential candidate. Their respective endorsement decisions could be influenced by a number of factors, including concerns about maintaining journalistic integrity, neutrality, the polarized political climate, and most sinister and foreboding, intimidation.

 If we consider Donald Trump’s rhetoric, which has often been labeled as fascist or authoritarian, it might be contributing to these newspapers’ decisions in several key ways as follows:

1. Concerns Over Threats to Democracy and Free Press

Donald Trump’s rhetoric throughout his political career has included frequent attacks on the media, often labeling mainstream outlets as the “enemy of the people” and accusing them of producing “fake news.” This type of rhetoric is characteristic of authoritarian and fascist regimes, where the press is often targeted, delegitimized, or controlled. In a democracy, the free press plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and holding leaders accountable.

Given Trump’s historical relationship with the press and his use of language that undermines trust in journalism, these newspapers may feel particularly cautious about taking a side. Endorsing a candidate could expose them to further attacks or accusations of bias, which could erode their credibility with certain audiences. Trump’s anti-media rhetoric may have pushed these outlets to stay neutral to avoid fueling further polarization or becoming targets of direct hostility.

2. Preservation of Objectivity and Credibility

A core principle of responsible journalism is objectivity. With Trump’s confrontational style, populist appeals, and repeated challenges to the norms of democratic governance, many media outlets have faced accusations of bias when they report critically on him. If they were to endorse a candidate, especially in an election involving Trump, it might be seen as abandoning their objectivity.

By refraining from endorsing either candidate, these newspapers may aim to preserve their perceived neutrality and avoid being dragged into a political battle, especially in a context where Trump’s rhetoric may provoke more severe backlash than usual. The charged atmosphere created by Trump’s populist and often inflammatory style may make these institutions more cautious about signaling explicit political preferences.

3. Fear of Escalating Political Polarization

Trump’s rhetoric has intensified political divisions in the U.S., pushing the boundaries of what is traditionally considered acceptable political discourse. His use of fascist-leaning language—such as casting political opponents as enemies, encouraging nationalism, and celebrating strongman tactics—has deepened the cultural and political divide.

In this climate, endorsing a candidate, particularly Trump or his opponent, might escalate the polarization even further. The questionable decision not to endorse either candidate could be a reflection of these newspapers trying to navigate a highly volatile and divided political landscape. They may fear that taking a public stance would alienate parts of their readership and further inflame the divisions already amplified by Trump’s rhetoric.

4. Avoiding Association with Authoritarianism

Trump’s rhetoric has, at times, been linked to authoritarianism or fascism, especially in his attacks on democratic institutions, calls for loyalty to him personally, and efforts to delegitimize election results. Media outlets that take the role of protecting democratic norms may not wish to associate themselves with a candidate whose language threatens those very norms. However, by not explicitly endorsing his opponent, they might also seek to avoid being drawn into what some perceive as an increasingly authoritarian election dynamic.

Their faux neutrality may signal an attempt to distance themselves from both candidates while subtly rejecting the authoritarian overtones present in Trump’s rhetoric without making a direct endorsement.

5. Rhetorical Climate of Fear and Intimidation

Fascist rhetoric often involves the intimidation of institutions that could check or balance power, including the media. Trump’s confrontational approach toward critics, especially in the press, could have created an atmosphere where media outlets feel the need to be cautious in how they position themselves publicly. Even though Trump is not in power currently, the threat of retaliatory actions—such as legal challenges, restrictions on press access, or public attacks—could play a role in their decision-making process.

In fascist regimes, the press often feels pressured to conform to the leader’s narrative, but in democratic systems under stress, the press may choose to limit engagement to avoid direct conflict with a figure who has a history of using inflammatory rhetoric against them.

Summary of Impacts on Their Decisions

• Preserving neutrality and avoiding accusations of bias, given Trump’s ongoing attacks on the press.
• Maintaining credibility as independent media in a highly polarized environment, without fueling further division.
• Distancing themselves from authoritarian rhetoric, without explicitly endorsing an opponent.
• Avoiding escalating political polarization that could arise from taking a strong public stance in a contentious election.
• Caution about potential backlash or retaliation, should Trump return to power or should his movement gain more influence.

In conclusion, while these newspapers may not be explicitly referencing Trump’s fascist rhetoric as the sole reason for not endorsing a candidate, his authoritarian language, hostility toward the press, and polarizing influence are most likely significant factors contributing to their decisions…. and should not inhibit your right and responsibility to vote!

The contrast between our system of Democracy enjoyed for almost 250 years and that of Fascism which Trump is endorsing and promises to invoke is startling and real. So please make the right choice with your vote.

In closing, I thought it be good to offer the following link regarding the possibilities of radical hope: https://www.pachapeopleroc.org/post/radical-hope-facing-the-election-without-fear. The closing excerpt is as follows:

Radical Hope

When we align ourselves with the highest good for us and for all, we become agents of radical hope.

Radical hope isn’t a wishful-thinking kind of hope, or a blind optimism that somehow things will turn out okay.

Radical hope isn’t about the state of the world. It’s about the state of our souls.

Radical hope isn’t focused on what has happened or what will happen. It courageously steps into the present and devotes its energy to creating what Life is calling forth so it can flow and flourish.

Radical hope isn’t something we have. It is something we do.

Instead of waiting for the news to get better so we can feel hope, radical hope rolls up its sleeves to make the news as good as we can, simply because that’s who we are and that’s what we do as manifestations of the creative force of Life.

Radical hope is contagious, and inspires radical hope in others.

When we embody radical hope together, we move from victimization into vision, from isolation into connection, from powerlessness into a force for change.

Share post: