Harvard Political Science Prof Compares Republican Party to Fascist Political Party
“what you find is that the GOP is surprisingly extremist”
This is the point of view you get presented with if you study political science at Harvard?
The College Fix reports:
Harvard professor says Republican Party threatens democracy
A Harvard University professor recently told Vox that the United States faces an “existential crisis” because of the Republican Party’s political strategy.
Pippa Norris teaches political science at Harvard’s Kennedy School and was recently interviewed by Vox writer Sean Illing.
Illing asked Norris:
Would you say that the biggest weakness in the American system right now is this combination of the intractability of our Constitution and the fact that one of our major parties, the Republican Party, is basically invested in an anti-democratic, countermajoritarian agenda? [Referencing GOP efforts to combat efforts to expand mail-in voting.]
“It’s true that we’re facing an existential crisis in part because the Republican Party has put all of their appeals into a shrinking sector of the electorate — mostly white, mostly older,” Norris said. “And they’re using their power to change the rules of the game to favor their own party.”
Norris also compared the GOP to three European political parties that have been accused of promoting fascist and neo-Nazi ideology.
Illing asked if the Republican Party is “the biggest obstacle to making the sorts of changes we need to make?”
Norris said:
It is. I’ve done a global party survey in December 2019, asking over 2,000 experts where they place mainstream political parties worldwide on a range of issues, from taxes to health care to environmental policy. And the US results are quite remarkable. If we’re just looking at OECD [post-industrial] countries and trying to measure whether parties favor or oppose checks and balances on the executive, if they’re committed to basic pluralistic values, and if they respect or undermine liberal democratic principles, what you find is that the GOP is surprisingly extremist.
The position of the GOP on these issues is close to parties like Golden Dawn in Greece [a neo-fascist party], Fidesz in Hungary, or the Law and Justice party in Poland. These are illiberal parties cutting back on the freedom of press and stamping out democratic freedoms in their countries. And these are the only parties in the developed world that really compare to the Republican Party in terms of their commitment to what we’d call authoritarian values.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What’s amusing is these academic bubble dwellers think their opinions are relevant.
One should consider their world. They know other professors.
They know students who are so young that they know everything. (I was that way when of college age.)
Aside from the faculty lounge, faculty dinners, and other places in their closed loop, they see and hear nothing. They don’t know any mechanics aside from the one that fixes their Prius. They know no truck drivers, grocery clerks, retail salesmen, or others of the peasant classes.
The whole concept of their being a big, bad, nasty, dangerous world outside the campus gates is beyond their comprehension.
That’s funny. He asked a lot of people just like himself what they think and surprise! They all think just like he does. Therefore Republicans are evil.
This is the level of science in all the social sciences, not just Political “science.” And it’s yet more evidence that Harvard is beyond it’s sell-by date.
Harvard has become a Trust Fund college whose students are Trust Fund kids. Their future will play out like the aristocracy in the UK. Pretty soon all of those buildings will be a part of the Park Service and that other BLM.
In other words, Republicans have a different philosophy and values than Leftists – they won’t go along with our agenda. Therefore they are extremists.
Educated fools.
It fits.
My father used the same term. Did they know each other, I wonder?
.
A degree from Harvard is no longer worth the paper it’s printed on.
The interviewer was as bad as the professor. “the sorts of changes we need to make”? If you assume what’s needed, why bother pretending to have a discussion?