Defining and Discussing Fascism (Part I)
And yes, Trump fits the definitions all too well.
One of the challenges of writing in this format for over two decades is that on the one hand, you write a lot of stuff and feel like you have covered topics well enough that you shouldn’t have to constantly be reexplaining yourself. On the other, only some readers are regulars, and even for those folks who are it isn’t reasonable to expect them to have your entire oeuvre memorized. Yet, on the third hand, it is tiresome if you repeat yourself too much.
But, sometimes a thorough recapitulation (and, indeed, amplification) is necessary, as a recent back-and-forth in a comment thread demonstrated. Moreover, the goal of being as clear as possible on the topic of Donald Trump’s fascistic words and promises leads me to this post.
So, let’s talk about fascism because, if anything, I have been using the term rather frequently of late.
Let me start with some background that is likely known to regulars, but perhaps not to everyone (as well as to deal with the details I probably have never had cause to note). I hold a Ph.D. in Government* from the University of Texas at Austin. I taught at the university level in one capacity or another for over thirty years (the bulk of it as a full-time faculty member).** In earning my Ph.D. I had to pass comprehensive exams in three areas. I chose comparative politics, public policy, and political theory.
At my core, intellectually and in my professional work, I am a comparativist focused on democratic institutions and their function. As such, comparative politics was my major field (not that we identified fields that way at UT, as the coursework and comprehensive exams were all equal in scope and significance). The bulk of the public policy coursework and training I did was focused on Latin American political and economic development. My theory coursework focused mainly on a combination of the western canon and contemporary political philosophy.***
I specifically taught the political theory core course annually from 1998 through to the 2015 academic year (i.e., until I became Dean of Arts and Sciences) for political science majors, which included a section on fascism. I also taught a course called “Theory and Ideology in International Relations” for our Master of Science of International Relations multiple times a year (online) and annually face-to-face for 20+ years, including during part of the time I was dean. It also had a section on fascism. I remember having a discussion at a faculty meeting about the contents of the MSIR core and was asked whether the section on fascism was necessary about a decade ago (oh, those carefree days!) and I argued that yes, because most people, out students included, think that “fascism” is just an insult without having any clue what is means. He paused, gave me a look of recognition, and said I had a point. I continued to teach it in both courses.
Indeed, I remember teaching the fascism section to undergraduates in the Spring of 2016, which was the last time I would do so. Trump was headed towards the GOP nomination and that day or two of discussion of Mein Kampf and Mussolinni’s tract (really, Giovanni Gentle’s) essay (see below in the appendix) were more concerning to me than they ever had been. I did not consider Trump a fascist at the time, but I could hear the echoes of a dangerous past even then.
I say all of this not because I am saying that I am An Authority and therefore Must Be Believed. But it is also demonstrably the case that I am not some rando on the internet simply asserting that everyone I don’t like is Hitler. I am a legitimate expert on democratic institutions and government and am graduate-level trained in the subject of political theory and philosophy and am qualified to teach the subject at a university at the undergraduate and graduate levels. I know more about these subjects than most people, by definition, and have spent an awful lot of time thinking about them in a professional capacity.
Again, I note this not because I feel the need to self-aggrandize. My personal disposition, and my training in general, lead me to prefer that the work speak for itself. But life experience has also dictated that sometimes you have to remind people (or point out) that, in fact, you do know what you are talking about. Not, of course, that I am asserting perfection. Of the things I would love to be wrong about is that there is a legitimate need to discuss fascism in contemporary American politics.
A key point here is that I do not use the word “fascism” lightly, if anything because I am aware of the debates that surround the term and the nebulous way it is often applied. Indeed, I am the kind of person who is very unlikely to start using these terms in contemporary political conversations. But two persons have, during the time I have been blogging, caused me to go down this pathway. One was Pat Buchanan (I will come back to him in part II) and the other was Donald Trump.
Let’s just talk about the definition of fascism. I did deal with this in a December 2015 post, Trump and Fascism. I was not ready to call him a fascist at that point. But I did note the following:
In any event, there has been a legitimate question about whether Trump represents a fascism in some capacity. I will confess to finding him unsettling (his broad targeting of groups of people, whether it be Mexicans, the Chinese, or Muslims is disconcerting to say the least). I think it is wholly accurate to state that he is running a blatantly racist campaign. Further, the nationalism that pervades his approach is explicitly wrapped up in racial identity (where the “us” is rather implicitly white, and the “them” are non-white). He also appeals to his special leadership abilities as well as to a vague sense of lost national greatness. At a minimum he is right-wing populist and nationalist who embraces a mixture of 19th Century Know-Nothingism with a significant splash of modern European ultra-nationalism (à la the Le Pens).
I think all of that was true and remains true. Worse, his behavior in office, most especially his waning days (see: January 2021, the sixth day) ramped up the concern. But, it wasn’t just that. It was violent rhetoric at his rallies and during his presidency. It was the Muslim ban. It was child separation at the border. It was the way he used a cleared Lafayette Park for a photo-op.**** (Just to name a few).
But, ok, what is fascism and why would it apply?
As I noted in 2015:
Fascism is not the easiest term to define owing, in large part, to the fact that it was not well defined even by those who practiced it. It also lacks a firm philosophical foundation (it borrows from here and there, but there is nothing like Marxism, for example, upon which fascism is built).
To make cogent application of the term even more problematic, the term (alongside “Nazi”) has long been nothing more than a political epithet, rather than a useful term for discussion (if you want to insult someone in politics, it doesn’t get much better than “fascist” or “Nazi”).
So, to be clear: I understand that fascism is not the most coherent of ideologies. It is not anywhere near as developed as classic liberalism or Marxism. There is not a long list of fascist philosophers. It is mostly a reactionary movement in opposition to both classic liberalism (and note I do not mean liberalism in the American political sense, but a broad philosophical tradition) and to Marxism (which itself was a reaction to classic liberalism). Note: to fully flesh out what I just stated would take either several lectures or a lot more words, so I will move on.
I defined the term as follows in 30 Second Politics (2011):
Fascism is a totalitarian, nationalistic governing philosophy that has its origins in Italy under Benito Mussolini and also emerged in different forms in Adolph Hitler’s Germany and Francisco Franco’s Spain. It is an illiberal regime type, insofar as it denies the significance and rights of the individual and expects citizens to function together in a corporate fashion for the glory of the state. Fascism is defined as much by what it opposes as what it supports: it is anti-modern, anti-rationality, anti-democratic, and vehemently anti-communist. Fascism is also militaristic and espouses an imperialistic, expansionistic foreign policy. The use of military symbolism as a means of underscoring the importance and power of the state is a common staple of fascist governments.
Keep in mind the book was written for a lay audience and as the title suggests, the entries were brief. If I could change some things about the entry, I would likely remove the word “totalitarian” and/or note that fascistic politics can exist without having first taken over a government. When I initially wrote that entry I was of the view that fascism as a country-level phenomenon was a thing of the past and that it only existed on the fringes of contemporary politics. I wrote the draft entry sometime in early 2010, but it would not be long before we saw (and that I became aware) of protofascist parties winning seats in places like Greece and Italy in the aftermath of the Great Recession and then the emergence of people like Victor Orban and his “illiberal” form of government. Additional examples could be added across Europe and elsewhere.
I think, too, I would focus more on the uses of force/violence and the us/them elements of the approach. In criticizing myself, I think I leaned too heavily into the historical manifestations of fascism the three major examples (Germany, Spain, and Italy) and did not think enough in generalized terms.
I will agree, by the way, that Trump does not fit the definition above perfectly. He does not espouse, for example, an expansionist military policy (although he does threaten to bomb Mexico now and again). But, I will note that he frequently discussed using the military domestically, as he did over the weekend. He has also expressed interest in military parades and likes to talk about “my generals.”
I do think that the following is largely on point: “Fascism is defined as much by what it opposes as what it supports: it is anti-modern, anti-rationality, anti-democratic, and vehemently anti-communist.”
Trump is a reactionary who points to the past (“Make America Great Again” is a backward-looking slogan). He is not a person who believes in evidence and science (i.e., is anti-rational). He only likes democracy when he wins. He loves to call his opponents communists and Marxists (even if I doubt he could conjure a C- level definition of either term).
I will also say that since the time I wrote that entry, I have read and thought far more about how to best understand elements of American history, such as Jim Crow and (as is apropos to bring up on Indigenous Peoples Day) things like the Indian Removal Act of 1830. In those cases, we see violence and force, not ideas, as the dominant tools. Moreover, we see the role of a defined “us” and a defined “them” and the willingness to use violence to help us, and deploy violence against them.
In some ways, I think that a simple understanding of the politics of violence in the context of us v. them as definite internally to one’s country is a starting place for fascistic politics. To that end, let me turn to a more fleshed-out treatment of the topic, Jason Stanley’s, How Fascism Works (2020).
In the introduction, Stanley notes that “The most telling symptom of fascist politics is its division. It aims to separate a population an ‘us’ and a ‘them.'” He notes that many political approaches talk about divisions, such as communism and class. But the issue becomes the way in which fascists approach this division. He noted the following
- Mythic Past
- Propaganda
- Anti-Intellectualism
- Unreality
- Victimhood
- Law and order
- Sexual anxiety
Trump and his followers are constantly trying to tell us that the past was better when America was “great,” which usually means an idealized version of the 1950s when American steel was king and General Motors was the pinnacle of American power. Never mind about Jim Crow and the lack of rights for women. Trump is constantly spouting propaganda (three quick examples: around COVID, “they are eating the dogs,” and about hurricane relief). He is clearly anti-intellectual (again, COVID, but also climate science, tariffs, and, well, you name it). He tried to make his own reality (just read his Truth Social posts) and he is constantly going on about his own victimhood and and also about the victimhood of his followers. He claims to represent law and order, and in a very violent way. And he clearly is using the trans issue to stoke sexual anxieties, and as I way to say that modernity has gone too far.
I could write whole posts on each variable and how Trump fits (if not whole book chapters).
Some quotes from the book that are worth noting:
- “The suffering of strangers can solidify the structure of fascism” (xxxiii).
- “Fascist politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed” (3).
- “In the rhetoric of the extreme nationalist, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal cosmopolitanism, and respect for ‘universal values’ such as equality”(4). The attack on globalists and anyone interested in equality is all part of the attack on “woke” and are staples of Trumpian rhetoric.
- “…invented histories also diminish or entirely extinguish the nations’ past sins…Erasing the real past legitimates the vision of an ethnically pure, virtuous past nation” (15). Treating the past an a utopia without addressing racial and sexual discrimination easily fits here.
- “It is often noted, rightly, that fascism elevates the irrational over the rational, fanatical emotion over intellect” (35). See, e.g., windmills causing cancer, electric boats and sharks, and the “late, great Hannibal Lecter” as starters.
- “When propaganda succeeds at twisting ideals against themselves and universities are undermined and condemned as sources of bias, reality itself is cast into doubt. We can’t agree on the truth” (57). Consider, “alternative facts” or recent crazy talk about weather control.
- “In times of extreme economic anxiety, men, already made anxious by a perceived loss of status resulting from increasing gender equality, can easily be thrust into panic by demagoguery directed against sexual minorities” (135).
- “In fascism, the state is an enemy; it is to be replaced by the nation, which consists of self-sufficient individuals who collectively choose to sacrifice for a common goal of ethnic or religious glorification” (152). I would note that this fits the whole “drain the swamp” and “Deep State” rhetoric we get from Trump and his allies.
- “The ‘hard work’ versus ‘laziness’ dichotomy is, like ‘law-abiding’ versus ‘criminal,’ at the heart of the fascist division between ‘us’ and ‘them.'” Consider this as you listen to Trump on immigrants, and in his general rhetoric on people he doesn’t like.
I could go on, but this is already way too long.
All of this is to demonstrate that yes, fascism can be defined and, worse, that Trump fits into those definitions quite well.
Part II will deal with Hitler comparisons specifically.
Appendix: Mussolini’s Definitions.
This is mostly just a repost from my 2015 post. It is worth including but does not fit in the flow above, so I have included it here.
Mussolini (with the help of Giovanni Gentle) described fascism’s views on democracy thusly (emphasis mine):
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage….
…Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of “happiness” and indefinite progress….
…given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority…a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State….
Also: Fascists were certainly never shy about using military power to inflict violence. As Mussolini put it in his 1932 essay “The Doctrine of Fascism,” “Fascism … discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renunciation in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it.”
More reading on this subject at OTB (including some that have already been cited):
- From 2015, which includes definitions: Trump and Fascism.
- From 2020: Trump and the F-word (see also: The Politics of Images).
- From 2022: A Fascistic and Authoritarian Response.
- From Kingdaddy: Let’s Drop The “Proto” Already.
- From Kingdaddy: Fascism Is A Nationalist Aesthetic Movement.
*This is the same thing as Political Science. Schools that have older departments in this arena often use “Government” instead of “Political Science.” IIRC, Harvard has a Department of Government and not PS.
**I taught my first class as the instructor of record in 1993. I had been a grader and teaching assistant prior to that as well. My LinkedIn profile is here. My c.v. can be found here (the page and c.v. need some minor, albeit significant, updates).
***FWIW, I minored in history as an undergraduate and took several courses on 20th-century Germany, including one focused on Hitler. This is just a little spice to the overall recipe, but I suspect I have read more scholarly books on Hitler than a huge percentage of the people who tell me I have no idea what I am talking about.
****Edited for accuracy: while contemporaneous reports suggested otherwise, there is no evidence of a Trump order about the park and that AG Barr did not expedite the process that was already scheduled. I don’t think this changed the goal of the photo-op.
Kevin Kruse said it best:
Historians: He’s a fascist. Political scientists: He’s a fascist. His own aides: He’s a fascist. The NYT: He shows a wistful longing for a bygone era of global politics.
Dang, just bought a paperback. Do you have any idea how long it’s been since I bought a physical book? (Already have more books than shelf, and I’ve got a lot of shelf.) I was unaware of 30 Second Politics, which sounds useful. (Although the definitions of many ideologies, e.g. “conservatism”, are as malleable as any definition of “fascism”.) But Amazon isn’t offering a Kindle version.
As to fascism being ill defined, I’ve been fascinated by the loyalty of Germans, and German troops, to Naziism, when I doubt they had any clear idea what Naziism was. And given the vagueness of fascism, it’s not disqualifying that Trump doesn’t perfectly fit the fuzzy template.
Fascism is largely strongman rule, and I have trouble seeing Trump as in any way a strongman. What we’d get is more like Russia, oligarchic rule (for which see Project 2025), with Trump nominally at the top. But Trump lacks both the skills and the opportunity (a collapsing state economy to be parceled out) to control the oligarchs as Putin does.
That said, Trump’s totalitarianism is the reason to fear his election, but I don’t think it works to campaign against Trump, and the whole party’s, fascism. What we see as threat, MAGA voters see as strength. Low information, low motivation, voters hear Trump is a Nazi, Harris is a commie, and it just rolls off. I think it’s better tactically, to attack Trump as a buffoon. After all, he helps a lot.
Thank you for revisiting this, I’m looking forward to the remaining series.
This was very helpful but, of course, left with many questions, most of which involve how fascism operates in non-western cultures. If it can.
Example:
Is Fascism strictly a Western European/North American phenomenon?
What category does a different authoritarian movement fit in? I’m specifically thinking about Peronism in Argentina ( interested because I lived there as kid).
What about Chinese government which someone described as an techno-authoritarian capitalism?
Or Stalinism to name another.
Jean Kirkpatrick once tried to differentiate between right wing and left wing authoritarians in Central American. I never could get the nuance but it revolved around the notion that right wing authoritarianism left the lower classes alone while left wing authoritarianism was just the opposite.
Anyway, great article. So much to think about.
@gVOR10:
Coincidentally, I received the recently published German edition today. Remarkably, the book has been published in 9 languages total: English, French, Spanish, Turkish, Czech, Slovak, Russian, Portuguese, and now German!
@Scott: Therein lies the problem: this is all complicated.
I am familiar with thre Kirkpatrick essay, but haven’t read it in years.
I will say this: leftwing authoritarians tend to be forward-looking, i.e., promising a better future by application of reason, ideology, philosophy, etc. They tend to be based in class conflict.
Rightwing authoritarians usually focus on establishment order and are backward-looking. They promise to return to a better past when the order of things was “correct.”
Peron was mostly a leftist populist. He pitted the growing urban working class against the established land-owning class. I do think he had some admiration of Franco (but my memory is fuzzy on the details). I know, too, that Getulio Vargas in Brazil was an admirer of Franco and tried to apply some elements of fascist corporatism (a way to organize society, not government by corporations). I would need to refresh my memory to more intelligently comment.
It’s the willingness to believe myths that keeps you from looking at the issue fairly. Trump didn’t have Lafayette Square cleared for a photo op, for one thing.
https://www.doioig.gov/reports/review/review-us-park-police-actions-lafayette-park
@Fortune: So, basically, the issue is simply whether Trump directly ordered the clearing. First, what you have provided is not really dispositive one way or the other. I will allow that evidence of a direct order does not exist. So, we can debate whether my characterization ” It was the way he had Lafayette Park cleared for a photo-op” is the best description.
But it is indisputable that he marched out into the park for that photo op. And that he drug a bunch of officials with him, including General Milley, who characterized Trump as both a “fascist” and “a wannabe dictator.”
The photos are clearly meant to send signals of power. The aesthetic was fascistic.
On the one hand, thank you for engaging specifically in something from the post.
On the other, you are rather ignoring quite a lot. And really, you are nitpicking.
@Fortune: For the sake of argument, if we take LaFayette Park out of the discussion. What about the rest of the post?
@Fortune: One more thought: you told me in our interchange that it wasn’t possible to define fascism and that it is just something people say on the internet about people they don’t like. I have clearly demonstrated otherwise. Perhaps more than nitpicking is in order?
FYI: I have edited (and provided a footnote) to reflect a more accurate report on the photo-op issue.
@Fortune: More time-wasting nonsense. Here’s this mountain of evidence that demonstrates a point. But wait, there’s a pebble that appears to be out of place!
Please, other commenters, don’t let this dissembler derail the conversation again. There’s an important topic here that would benefit from many honest arguments, including principled disagreements. This kind of verbal chum ain’t that.
Isn’t lying pretty basic to all fascism? Make the rubes uncertain what is real?
Long piece on Trump campaign resistance to fact checking:
“Gift WaPo” Excerpts:
@charontwo:
Yup.
@Kingdaddy:
I have even adjusted the pebble for him. So, we shall see.
@Steven L. Taylor:
After a certain point, in the face of nitpicking, it becomes important to ask, “If this example doesn’t fit the concept, what does?”
@Steven L. Taylor:
Publically making an issue of your objection to fact checking seems like remarkable acknowledgment of intention to lie a lot.
I find it remarkable how acceptable this is to his supporters.
@Scott:
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’m not familiar with Peronism. The junta that came later, and Pinochet in Chile, were classic fascist governments.
@Kingdaddy: I am actually a bit stunned (but not surprised) that after asserting that no one could possibly define fascism that he could read this post and nitpick about whether Trump issued a specific order about LaFayette Square.
And, further, acting as if Trump had no agency in that photo-op.
Plus, the post is over 3,000 words, and that’s the issue?
But as we keep discussing, partisanship and rationalization are pretty powerful.
@Kathy: Agreed. I would describe the the Argentine military government, especially in the late 1970s until 1983 and Pinochet in Chile as both using fascist politics, if not simply being classifiable as fascist regimes.
@Steven L. Taylor: If I can page through and aritcle and spot factual errors I’m less likely to engage with it. I can look for more factual errors if you want. Not that there are many links in the article.
@Steven L. Taylor: It’s not very good. Mostly general descriptions you could apply to both sides if you wanted to. At least you admit to my prior comment about fascism lacking a clear definition.
@Fortune: @Fortune: I liteally LOL’d.
When you get to authoritarian and totalitarian governments, the ideology at their core, if any, pales in comparison with their style and method of governance.
Take Germany and the USSR in the 1930s. They were essentially the same as regards political repression, censorship, propaganda, state power, secret police, forced labor, etc. Even the underground political jokes were similar.
Does it matter one favored state ownership of the economy, while the other merely held state control of the economy?
@Kathy: I think it matters in terms of understanding how a given regime ended up where it is, and also who benefits from the given system.
Different kinds of cancer can kill you, and once you are dying from one type you probably don’t care that other versions are out there.
But it matters if you are an oncologist.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I suppose communism stood little chance in Germany, though fascism in Russia was a distinct possibility (so many of its features being in place at the time of the last Czars).
@Steven L. Taylor:
Like everything else, Trump is vague on just when and what he wants to take us back to. Generally people say the 50s, as you do in the OP. Ironically, an era in which Dems dominated national politics and the marginal income tax rate was 90%. I’d kind of like to return to that myself.
@Steven L. Taylor: It took me an hour to figure out why this article felt so thin. It’s not because the American left fits the description you gave as least as well as the American right. It’s you left out the traits which are exclusive to the left. You left out the socialism, the state, the credentialism, the elitism, the national policies. You only described the parts of fascism the late-20th-century Western intellectual wouldn’t like.
OMG Professor Taylor! Did you leave out all the imaginary, fictional, and nonexistent issues?
How could you?
@Fortune: Wait, “national policies” are inherently fascistic? ANY national policies? Like economic policies, based on capitalism and supply and demand? Trade?
You are the one lumping random things that YOU don’t like into the definition of fascism. You’re literally attempting to correct a *professor of political science* on the definition of political ideology. That’s next-level hubris.
Fascism opposes class conflict and absolutely detests egalitarianism, socialism depends on both. Square peg/round hole, but go ahead, keep hammering away if it makes you feel better.
@Kathy: Never mind my comment, Kathy nails it!
@Kathy: It does boggle the mind.
@Steven L. Taylor: I don’t know, Dr. T. It’s pretty hard to come back from as devastating a counter-argument as “it’s not very good.” I mean, after he’s torn apart you entire argument this way, how do you even go on living?
@wr: It’s pretty rough, to be sure.
@Jen:
Not just inherently fascistic, but also exclusive to the left. You know how non-fascist, non-leftist states lack a state and national policies.
And it’s really hard for states to lack a state, too. Try it if you don’t believe me.
@Kathy: Indeed!
Even given that, this was my favorite part:
Surely everything I described in the post would be things that both conservatives and liberals wouldn’t like.
Who likes propaganda? Anti-intellectualism? Unreality? Victimhood?
Well, clearly Trump does, as do fascists according to Stanley. So, yes, I listed things the “parts of late-20th-century Western intellectual wouldn’t like”–but that Trumps and MAGA does.
@Steven L. Taylor:
What I’d like to know is how they define socialism.
By the way they use it, they mean anything they think is bad or they disagree with. Or just about anything that’s not the police, military, or prisons, that receives any government (meaning tax) money.
This would make every single country in the world socialist. Not to mention almost every government in history. I wondered why no one else noticed this.
@Kathy: It is why I almost always ignore complaints about “socialism” because they tend to be meaningless.
Dr.Taylor, the EAIAC part of Fortune’s posts is also fun.
“the socialism, the state, the credentialism, the elitism, the national policies” are…. 110% part of conservative right-wing politics, especially as those politics trend towards fascism definitions.
Fortune just doesn’t want to admit conservative governments simply do all of those things to favor conservative causes. One could conclude that makes his entire troll effort on this forum an intentionally bad-faith discussion.
These ridiculous discussions are what happens when conservatives who live on 4chan&reddit venture outside their safe space.
I’m surprised that an appeal to racial purity isn’t in the mix, unless I read to quickly/lightly. It might fit under sexual insecurity — beautiful Latino men who know how to dance are going to steal your women — but I think there’s so much more to it.
@Jen:
Au contraire! They are inherently socialist, and therefore ee-vil. Forcing people to do things they don’t want to do, for the greater good, is always wrong! Seat belt laws, environmental regulations, taxes, banning slavery… pure socialism. Bad for bidness. Anti-American. Well, unless you are forcing women to bear their rapists’ children — that’s not national policy, that’s just local custom! And natural!
Thanks for the long and informative post – I think you laid out the argument that Trump is a fascist well.
However, it’s not the complete picture, and I do not think fascist is the correct term to describe Trump from a definitional perspective.
As noted, you’ve laid out all the ways that Trump is like a fascist, but a full analysis requires looking at all the ways Trump is not like a fascist and then balance the two sides of the ledger. Few seem interested in that other side of the ledger, so I’ll – hopefully briefly – give some perspective on that here.
First, as an example, I’d like to talk about the Baathists. Saddam Hussein and the Assads, next door in Syria, have almost all of the hallmarks of fascism:
– The centrality of the state
– One party rule with a dictator/autocrat at its head – extreme authoritarianism
– Militarism and the glorification of violence
– The use of violence both domestically and internationally (both regimes used chem weapons on their own citizens, as one example)
– Calls to the values and unity of the past
– Notions of “lebensraum” – not as prevalent in Syria, but core to Baathist Iraq
– The use of propaganda and control of information as a means of control and influence
– Extreme nationalism, albeit in the larger context of pan-Arab nationalism (Similar to how Putin sees himself and Russia as fighting for slavs).
– Racism and ethnic superiority (Fuck the Kurds and the Jews)
But there are a couple of differences: Baathism has socialist elements, and Pan-Arabism is a different kind of nationalism and racism than is seen in what most consider classical definitions of fascism. Saddam and the Assads have far more in common with Mussolini and Hitler (and other fascists) than Trump does, yet the ideology of Baathism is sufficiently different from the ideology of fascism to merit its own label.
The gap between Trump and fascism is much larger. Here I’ll try to focus on the core differences:
First, it’s important to note that fascism is an ideology and is heavily ideological in its aims – it’s not merely a set of individual behavioral characteristics. While you note that fascism is anti-intellectual, many fascists at the elite level are intellectuals (Mussolini is the poster boy here). The masses are tools of ideology, but it is the elites who understand the intricacies of fascism as an ideology in a particular context, and it’s the elites who mold, motivate, and control the masses. As I’ll note late if I remember, in many cases it’s the masses (his base) that control Trump.
Trump, by contrast, is about as far from an intellectual as one can get, knows nothing of intellectual history, and knows very little about governance, even after four years in the White House. Does Trump subscribe to and actually believe in an ideology that can be called fascism? I don’t think so, because that would require Trump to subscribe to something greater than himself. I would challenge anyone to describe any ideology that can apply to Trump other than his own narcissism and ego (more on that later).
Secondly, a core aspect of fascism is centralizing state power and authority over most or all aspects of society. In fascism, the state is the supreme entity. Once reaching power, fascists typically work toward the centralization of authority as a first and necessary step. Things like federalism—a very relevant issue here in the US—need to be quashed, among other things, several of which you mentioned.
I don’t see this in Trump or his methods.
Fascists will use a crisis (or, more often, create a crisis) to expand their authority and control or seize power. When Trump was President, Covid was a perfect crisis that a real fascist would have used. Trump, by contrast, dithered. If Trump is a fascist, why did he pass up such a golden opportunity to centralize authority with him as leader and savior? Ironically, it’s primarily the liberals and progressives who complained that Trump wasn’t sufficiently serious about the pandemic and failed to use federal power to its fullest to combat it. What kind of fascist fails to expand and centralize power and authority when given the chance?
Probably the best thing the Trump administration did was Operation Warp Speed. That was the Covid equivalent of “making the trains run on time.” Do you hear Trump ever talk about that? No, because his base hates it, and when he’s mentioned it before, he got booed. What kind of fascist movement would act like that? Fascists believe, first and foremost, in the power of the state and elites to command society.
Another element of this state control is corporatism or, rather, the fascist flavor of that political system. This is another aspect where Trump doesn’t fit the mold.
Fascism is also about militarism. Instead of liquidating or firing “insubordinate” leaders like Gen. Miley and others, he would merely insult them on Twitter. The first thing a real fascist would do is ensure all the critical military positions are filled with loyalists. Somehow Trump forgot that very important step. Look at the saga of Trump and Fauci. A fascist would have gotten rid of Fauci early – one way or another. Trump did nothing but whine about him for nine months.
There are other areas where Trump doesn’t fit the mold, but those are the ones that are major and material enough – ideology and state control – that make Trump different from both fascists and even Baathists.
So, my view is that Trump is not a fascist. He speaks and acts in some ways that are similar or congruent with fascism, but some of the essential elements are not there. The differences are great enough to differentiate Trump from fascism in terms of definitional accuracy. Furthermore, the aspects of fascism that Trump shares are not exclusive to fascism. Authoritarianism, nationalism, propaganda, etc. span many different ideologies and modes of rule.
To conclude, my view is that Trump isn’t and never has been driven by ideology. And without ideology, you can’t be a fascist. Without centralizing state control, you can’t be a fascist. At most, he might cosplay or be a proto-fascist or merely a wannabe autocrat.
But IMO, the reality is that he’s a rich bully who was born with a silver spoon and who grew up believing his shit doesn’t stink, and became accustomed to getting his way and getting sunshine blown up his ass. His motivation is not any ideology; it’s narcissism and ego. The reason he did nothing to seize control of the government during Covid and yet instigated January 6th is demonstrative. For him, being a loser is the biggest insult, and he can’t admit he lost the election, both on a cognitive and subconscious level. A real fascist would not have spent four years assuming he would win the next election – a real fascist would have had the presence of mind and foresight to ensure the result. Trump is not capable of that.
Meanwhile, the evidence that Trump’s motivation is narcissism and ego is overwhelming. And we see this evidence almost every day – when people say nice things about Trump, he likes that and says nice things back – even if they are Black, Hispanic, or whatever ethnic group Trump supposedly hates. When people say critical things to Trump, he attacks them, regardless of who they are. That is not the modus operandi of a fascist – that is the mode of petty, spoiled narcissist.
@Fortune:
I don’t get it. Why are you hung up on the terminology?
You like everything that Trump is doing, right? You hate US immigration policy. You think Consent of the Governed is for wimps and long for a strong man. You think the police are too constrained. You think the press is the enemy of the people.
Why does it matter what Trump is called if you are getting the kind of ruler you want? Are you uncomfortable going to the grocery store wearing your Fascist Party pin? Are you afraid you won’t be invited to the best parties?
@Andy:
No disagreement. Trump’s motivation is not any ideology; it’s narcissism and ego.
Does it really matter? Trump is just the catalyst for a fascist movement in the US. His cosplay as a fascist serves their purpose. Trump’s narcissism simply makes him a uniquely useful tool for the minority rule faction that needs authoritarian government to reduce taxes, deregulate and otherwise enact their agenda without moderation. Knowing that Trump is motivated by his psychological needs instead of any ideology doesn’t change the trajectory or mitigate the consequences of the government Trump and his party want to install in the US.
I suppose 30 years ago, when Trump was still hobnobbing in Democratic circles, some forward thinking liberal might have come up with a way to leverage Trump’s unique combination of epic shamelessness, unparalleled mendacity, and gargantuan egotism to establish a totalitarian leftist state. (That’s snark BTW.) But at this point in time, there is no means to use the knowledge the Trump is motivated solely by his narcissism to save democracy. There is no possible way to stroke Trump’s ego by saying nice things about him at a scale that would get him to see himself accountable to the law rather than as a king.
One minor point:
Traditional fascisms were structured around ethnic nationalities – German herrenvolk, Italians, Spaniards. So for Hitler Volga Germans, Alsatians, Sudetan Germans were part of the herrenvolk. That isn’t possible in the U.S. because of white ethnic diversity. So Trumpism and Project 2025 substitute by building around traditionalist versions of Christianity.
@Andy: I appreciate the response. I take the point on corporatism, in particular, as a way in which Trump doe not fit the mold, especially as compared to Franco. The militarism stuff, as I alluded to above, is weak with Trump.
I am less convinced that fascism has a deep intellectual core–but I suspect there is a conversation that could be had. I see fascistic politics are mostly about opposition to ideas rather than the propagator thereof.
I think you are applying the same kind of model that I was thinking of in my definition quoted above from 30 Second Politics. It is one that is heavily based on modeling from Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini.
It is a model that see totalitarianism and fascsism as utterly linked. It is why I used to think that a fascist regime was unlikely to emerge again. However, I am becoming of the opinion that there is a less totalizing version of fascistic politics. I find, therefore, Stanley’s list of use.
I think, however, as I watch a new brand of reactionary politics emerge globally, that the term fascism does apply. As Stanley states, “The most telling symptom of fascist politics is its division. It aims to separate a population an ‘us’ and a ‘them.’” I think that in the context of reactionary politics and elements like unreality and threats of violence all sum to fascism.
FWIW, I initially rejected the application of the term to Trump for reasons along the lines of what you are citing, so I appreciate where you are coming from.
I am to the point of either saying the a more generalized approach to fascism, along the lines of what Stanley suggests, is correct or that we need a new category. “Populism” for example, is utterly inadequate and only addresses part of the Trump phenomenon.
@charontwo: I think that Trump’s movement is cleaving enough to white nationalism to fit the bill. Moreover, he is using the notion of real Americans versus immigrants. It is more than close enough. There is an Us and and Them.
@Gustopher: He talks about immigrants having “bad genes” and “poisoning our blood.”
BTW: to whomever it is who might need to read this, the interaction between Andy and myself above it what real engagement looks like.
@Andy:
Sorry–I forgot to address this. I have two thoughts on this.
First, and perhaps most importantly, does that really matter? I used to semi-comfort myself with this idea, as I agree with you if he was a truly dedicated ideologist, he would be more dangerous. But I also think that we all have a tendency to assume that the truly bad rulers over time had well thought out ideas. As I think about a lot of dictators in Latin America over the years, I think they were mostly motivated by power. That didn’t stop a lot of bad things from happening.
Second, while I agree he is not a sophisticated thinker (ha!), I think he does have more a coarse ideology than I used to want to admit, given his buffoonery. He has a long (multi-decade) isolationist bent. He clearly has racist beliefs. He believes enough that would motivate some very bad decisions.
But worse, and this is what really matters, he will empower people like Stephen Miller and his ilk, who do have deeper ideological goals.
Trump may only be a proto-fascist, or only fascist adjacent, but I think he will empower real fascists if he returns to power.
@Steven L. Taylor: Thank you for writing so much about this, and both of you for engaging in the comments over the last few days. It has helped my thinking on the topic a great deal.
My take away is that fascism, like everything, evolves. It may be that those claiming the fascist mantel in 1940 would reject those claiming it now, and vice versa, for not hewing closely enough to their own expression, but the real value in recognizing the similar pattern emerging is that it serves as a warning that, if empowered, the government will be used to intentionally hurt people in furtherance of increased power and money for those in power. Call it fascist, neo-fascist, authoritarian, trumpian, or something new, it will not be a government of, by, and for the people.
The academic process of analysis and categorization is interesting, and important. It helps us recognize the historical rhyme of the pattern as it emerges again in the future. When we will no doubt have people in the comments say it isn’t another Trump, because “he doesn’t wear face paint,” or “he puts out policy papers.” But we can recognize that the pattern is, once again, a prelude to injustice and oppression, and call it out and reject it just the same.
Coming late, but a few thoughts:
American racism as a force is very hard to pin down without bad faith. It’s like defending laws against interracial marriage because both black and white people are equally affected. Unless you are an absolute moron, you know this is bullshit. Same goes with ‘separate but equal’. It was bullshit.
White people obviously swallowed this bullshit because they were racist, but it’s an admission of some deeper duplicity which allowed for state-sponsored segregation to be somehow aligned with freedom and the law. After all, they didn’t rewrite the Constitution to make the freed black people second-class citizens. And Trump and his authoritarianism are clearly connected to this kind of urge. And it seems to center everything he does in a deniability. Where’s he bad in the way of a small-time crook scamming the system.
@Modulo Myself:
I am currently reading a book by Vanderbilt historian Jefferson Cowie, Freedom’s Dominion wherein he makes a very powerful argument that one of the freedoms that many people have meant over the years that they are defending is the freedom to dominate others (e.g, slaves, native peoples, freed Blacks).
It is causing me to better understand the disjuncture that occurs when a classical liberal talks about “freedom” and when a reactionary does.
I am sure I will have more to say about the book once I have finished it.
Eh, I’m with Andy here. Trump isn’t a fascist, he’s a Trumpist, which could be just as bad but is guaranteed to lack the foresight and depth of fascism. That means the violence will be more capricious and the possible danger to the country less certain.
His ideology (such as it is) embraces some actions of a variety of terrifying populist dictators, but it doesn’t fall inside even something with the fuzzy boundaries of fascism:
– Driven by personal success/fame – effects on others can be ignored — this is not a fascism thing, so just how extreme the outcome might be is entirely unknown
– Fundamentally racist – believes in the ubermensch, and that there’s some sort of “dirtiness” to social class mixing, which translates in his mind to race mixing — this matches fascism
– Believes himself to be flawless – whatever he says or does is intentional and when something goes wrong it’s someone else’s fault — this is just standard shitty CEO (and shitty dictator) stuff, so fascist in a way
– Personally cowardly but encourages violence – would never stand at the head of the column, but would tell millions of people they should take up arms in his name — the personal cowardice might be a new wrinkle that fascism hasn’t explored; otoh, this can act as a buffer against extreme violence that might boomerang back at you (which Trump is already incurring from gun nuts looking for fame)
– Views social advancement and equality as an affront – assumes a zero-sum social and financial setup — some overlap with fascism?
– Views cooperation and diplomacy as games to win – assumes every interaction is tit-for-tat, and that winning concessions = personal success — does not fall into the fascist framework, since it defines international policy based on maximum extraction instead of state security/success
– Corrupt, often openly so – does not care about the appearance or reality of corruption, as this is visible personal success — this also seems new – naked corruption is usually frowned upon, but Trump had no problem using taxpayer money to pimp his properties and leveraging his presidency to get better terms for his kids in business deals.
I’m sure there are some I’m missing here, but fascism? Trump wants to do some things that align with fascism (arresting political rivals, deporting “others”), but I think Andy is right – being “fascist” requires thinking of the State as relevant. To Trump, only Donald Trump is relevant. Trump would have no objective for national advancement, since the ultimate goal is personal gains.
@Gustopher: Fascism isn’t necessarily associated with racism. Also, the article is wrong about Trump pushing any kind of sexual insecurities. He’s barely even remaining pro-life.
Sexual anxiety. (Also).
Also unreality.
@Scott F.: I’ve only made maybe 20 comments on the site. I never said any of that.
@Steven L. Taylor: He talks about it less than his base.
@Steven L. Taylor: But socialism existed and people wrote papers about it so every internet discussion must be correct!
Even more sexual anxiety.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I read Cowlie’s book on the 70s and the working class, and liked it. I’m putting that one on my list.
Incidentally, I think people take way too seriously the idea that fascism must come with a legitimate ideology or a practical concept of a centralized state. For many, many reasons, I think this is the case. One being: you can’t look at Nazi Germany, which launched an insane two-front war it was almost certainly destined to lose, and think of a concrete ideology or a centralized state which had pragmatic concerns.
@Modulo Myself: I am only about 25% of the way through, but I would recommend it. It is of special interest to me because it focused heavily on Alabama, and specifically on portions not very far from where I currently sit.
And in regards to fascism, I think that we are so focused on archetypes that are larger than life that we miss some of the more mundane aspects. I think this was true for my own past perspective.
@Fortune:
That isn’t the defense you seem to think it is.
You are in fact, acknowledging that Trump does talk about it.
Again, in the past you seem to agree that he is a bad candidate. So why are you spending so much time attempting to defend him?
Or if you think Trump is in fact a good candidate (or at the least the candidate you are supporting), at least be transparent about it.
@Steven L. Taylor:
This. It’s the kind of “religious freedom” the Pilgrims were seeking. It’s how evangelical Xtians can genuinely feel that prohibitions against discrimination are an infringement of their religious freedom. And it always starts with a deeply-felt belief that some pigs are more equal than others; people like me are real Americans and people unlike me are not, cannot be, must not be.
Sarah Palin said the quiet parts out loud with her famous contrast of “Northern Virginia” vs. “real Virginia”.
@Andy: You’re right about Trump not being ideological, and about fascism’s link to the state.
I’m glad someone can make those two points and be listened to.
@Fortune:
The key is, he made a point. He gave a substantive comment laying out his thoughts, responding to the original post, and providing reason and thought. Contra:
Like, what are we supposed to do with this? Are you expecting a substantive response? Praise and respect as a deep thinker?
@Neil Hudelson: That was just mocking Steven. He wrote the article as a rebuttal to the idea of fascism being a mostly meaningless accusation, but said the same thing about socialism. I thought it was funny.
I’m sorry for your reading comprehension issues (and sorry if that sounds petty but I can’t think of another way to describe it.)
Steven wrote an incredibly substantive post about how heisn’t throwing around the term ‘fascism’ lightly. He took pains–roughly 1000 words just in the relevant section–establishing his bona fides, explaining his positions, and furthermore explaining fundamental concepts of fascism lest there be confusion as to what he was saying.
Would you like me to provide the copious examples from the articles few inches above this comment?
If this article was about why random accusations of fascism from anonymous commentors was hunky dory, then Fortune you’d have an excellent point. But that fundamentally is not what this post is about and, frankly, I think you know that.
So let me ask you again :
What are we supposed to do with this? Are you expecting a substantive response? Praise and respect as a deep thinker?
@Neil Hudelson: Oh, reading comprehension!
He (Taylor) wrote the article as a rebuttal to the idea (Fortune’s) of fascism being a mostly meaningless accusation.
I expressed the idea, then Taylor wrote the article that didn’t agree with the idea. That’s why I called it a rebuttal. Then you didn’t understand a simple sentence. I don’t expect praise for my comment but I expect when someone reads it they’ll understand the words and not say I wrote the opposite.
@Fortune:
It wasn’t a rebuttal insofar as there was no argument to rebut.
Further, as the copious links to past posts (and to my own published work and extensive quotes from a scholarly book on the subject), I was attempting to underscore that our recent conversation was not just some ad hoc back and forth.
It was an attempt at education and a way to bring some ideas to the fore for future reference.
@Steven L. Taylor: I would say more academics than education, but you’re right it was more of a response than a rebuttal. I was trying to show Neil how he misread my comment completely.