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! 🙂