> tends right rather than left like Devereaux

I just feel the need to clarify that Devereaux is barely left-leaning. He keeps his politics pretty firmly out of his blogs for the most part, but when he does break out politics he's pretty clearly very close to the center relative to what we think today when we hear "left" and "right".

As a historian (and, I believe, a good one), he seems to see the complexity of the current partisan dynamic too clearly to dogmatically pick a side.

That is very much not true.

He wrote a hysterical philippic [1] just before the election calling Trump a fascist, which was written with about the same level of historical rigour as the Paul Krugman's rants exhibit for economics.

You may argue that "Trump is a fascist" and you are entitled to that view, but that is not a centrist view, and is at odds with the majority of the US population, which voted for Trump.

[1] https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...

generally speaking he is decidedly centrist in his historical perspectives. it is uncritical to paint in broad strokes over a post, or two, in which he uses historical analysis to communicate a progressive perspective that warns against the danger(s) of an incoming administration

>>it is uncritical to paint in broad strokes over a post, or two, in which he uses historical analysis to communicate a progressive perspective

There have only been a couple of posts where he discusses current politics, so that is all I have to go on.

However, from reading his material, I think it would be fair to say he is against the "great man of history" theory, which tends to be a more left wing interpretation.

In this poll, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-fascist-concern... , so called centrists overwhelmingly said he is.

The majority of the US population did not vote for him. Only a portion could vote, and only a portion of those voted, and out of those 49.9% voted for him.

Pointless pedantry. I think you know what is meant by a majority in an election. He won the popular vote. I'm obviously not including toddlers etc in my statement.

> I think you know what is meant by a majority in an election.

I thought I did. But now I'm learning that 49-something percent is a majority, so I'm questioning all my beliefs.

Perhaps, but I'm not interested in making a point. I'm interested in discovering why it's not important to you to describe the election result precisely.

What was the participation? 60% or so? I think so. So maybe 30-35% of the people who could have voted for him actually did. In the US population large portions are unable to vote. You correctly pointed out the very young, but also the pre-adolescent young, the disobedient, the non-citizen, the precarious worker, the infirm and so on should also be included.

So the majority you had in mind is rather small compared to what you literally compared it to. I'm guessing the result feels like 'the will of the people' to you anyway? Do you feel like most usians approved of the current regime? Do you also think that 'the will of the people' is inherently democratic? Inherently good, even?

I think the description I gave is consistent with the one used when Democrats get the "majority" of the vote. You can sealion the definition as much as you like, but it won't make you right.

The result feels as much the will of the people as any other US election result.

I think you've dreamed that but feel free to showcase some examples to prove me wrong.

Also ironic to nit pick about Trump not having a majority and then quote a poll that queried only 2800 people.

Are you trying to assert that fascism can't be popular? He pretty clearly stated the criteria and how he considers trump's movement in respect to them. You can refute the point¹ but you haven't, merely stating you disagree with them based on the popular vote.

¹ Not to me, I won't read it. I don't care and I've heard enough fascism apologetics on HN in the last few years.

I'm trying to assert that calling Trump a fascist is a left wing opinion, and not one shared by centrists like Obama, given how friendly they were at Carter's funeral.

But you won't see this, as you have chosen self righteousness over knowledge. And no-one is apologising for fascism because he isn't one.

It's not hysterical, it's very well reasoned and actually persuaded me, someone who's decidedly centrist.

Then you need to check some of his sources better.

You need to provide better arguments than telling your interlocutor to check sources. This is just FUD unless you have concrete facts to share that make him wrong.