Timothy, I was going to give a much longer response (and this one isn't short), but I'll spare everyone my philosophical ramblings as an early Christmas gift to you all and trim it down to "medium size".
You are correct in some respects. You take issue with the rise of Trump, but his ascension is due primarily to - I believe - one primary issue: the failure of Republican leadership to lead in any substantive way toward reducing the scope and size of government and to be lead around by the nose by Obama even after having control of both the House and the Senate. I imagine there's a large number of folks out there who are tired of Republicans being nothing but "Big Government Lite" at best and who always come up with excuses for caving to the current president.
I have pretty much lessened my involvement in policy discussions on BL.com this year because after 6 or 7 years of being around here, I haven't found that those with a little more leftward lean on policy issues seem to be all that concerned about solving problems. You seem more interested that policy reflect well-meaning or ear-tickling rhetoric than with whether or not a particular policy works. As Rush Limbaugh would say, you prefer symbolism over substance.
For example, let's take your statement of "tax breaks for the ultra wealthy". The purpose of the tax code is to raise revenue. It is not to make one feel good about oneself. The inherent problem with tax policy discussion on this board for all the years I have been here is that folks are more concerned with how the tax code
looks than with it
does - whether or not it actually raises revenue or is the best way to do so.
Hop over to the "60 Minutes" web site and listen to Apple CEO Tim Cook's interview from last night. Whatever-his-name asked Cook about all the money that Apple has parked overseas. The green-eyed monster of American progressivism, liberalism and socialism are lusting after American corporate money sitting overseas. They decry it as "unAmerican" to keep them from pillaging such largess.
Why would a progressive, liberal-minded company like Apple do such a thing? Cook's response to the question, or my summary of his response? The American tax code is stupid and it's time for an overhaul. Cook at least realizes that he's running a business and Apple wasn't created as a charitable foundation to fund the the schemes of more-is-never-enough politicians. Since American liberalism regularly looks to Europe or other OECD countries to justify their proposed policies, why does the American left not support territorial taxation like almost all OECD countries? Money taxed in foreign countries would not be subject to income tax when brought back to America. Under the current system, Apple's money would be double taxed - taxed in the country of earnings and then taxed again in America on the difference between the two countries tax rate.
From all the evidence, you'd much rather collect $0 in additional tax revenue and have a tax rate of 40, 50 or 90% that suits the rhetoric than to have a lower tax rate that actually increases tax revenue or increases investments or job opportunities at home but doesn't fit your rhetoric. Symbolism over substance. So in order to not appear to be giving a "huge tax break to greedy CEOs" or "Big Business", you're willing to forgo the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars - maybe billions - in the American economy just because you might not get your hands of 9% or more of that money.
Meanwhile, you complain about jobs being "shipped overseas". Why shouldn't they be? Why shouldn't an American corporation invert and become based in Ireland or the U.K. and potentially gain 9% or more in monetary resources for expansion or R&D? Why would they want to set up shop in America and give themselves such a potential tax disadvantage?
But back to the primary point of my engagement in this thread: the fact still remains that fascism is more logically associated with the American political left than the right due to its inherent need for government power. You can't have both sides. You can't argue that (conservative) Republicans are FOR less government control on the economy one day and then claim they are part of a political philosophy that requires MORE government control of the economy the next.
And, yes, this is about as short as I can keep it. Merry Christmas!
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.