Thoughts on Hitler, Fascism, Blogging, and This Present Moment
Thinking out loud, as one does.
For the record, despite my tenacity at times, I think the above all the time. The sentiment is not aimed at anyone, but all of us. Part of how I think things through is writing. (Photo by SLT taken in NOLA in 2009).
Overview
The ongoing discussion of the applicability of “fascism” to Trumpism spurs a lot of thoughts in my already full head, so here is a somewhat different approach to a post wherein I have specific thoughts that are somewhat discrete, but also related. This is all inspired by various comments made in various threads. Some I will directly note, but not in all cases.
I have an ongoing intellectual struggle over the appropriate way to categorize Trump. I am actually quite open to the notion that fascism is not the right term and even to the idea that even bringing up fascism and Hitler is a problem from a general discourse/political strategy point of view. I absolutely have been, and continue to be, concerned that using the word makes a person sound hysterical. While I would like to think that my overall, long-term tone is enough to inoculate from such accusations, I know that there is a lot of emotion and social significance to these terms.
I have long thought that “fascism” in the general discourse is just a word people use for things they don’t like. But I also think that whether or not Trump is properly defined as a fascist, his actions and rhetoric make it hard not to see the applicability of the concept. I also would have to agree that the term is contested, both in the sense that most terms are, but also because there really isn’t a set academic definition. Despite what some have argued in the comment section, I do not think that there is a common fascist ideology, at least not in the way that communism or even classical liberalism has a core ideology.
I have long thought that fascism is largely defined more by what it opposes than what it prescribes. While one can certainly find a coherent worldview in Nazism, for example, it is harder to do so for fascism, writ large. Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, to name perhaps the three most prominent examples, had commonalities, but did not share the same kind of fleshed-out theory of politics the way that one could say that, as different as they were, Lenin, Mao, and Castro shared about communism.
My general theory of the case, in broad brushstrokes (I would need a far longer medium to fully flesh out) is the Enlightenment spawned classical liberalism and both communism and fascism emerged as a critique. Marx basically is saying that classical liberalism does not actually fulfill its promises of equality, and is a deeper critique of liberalism for not going far enough. Fascism is a reactive response to both by rejecting notions of equality and the disruptions that such claims create. Fascism promises a return to a more stable past wherein society is properly ordered. Fascists also build their worldviews around a defined “us” and a defined “them.”
It occurs to me as I write this, that that means that fascism is quite likely to evolve over time as the mythic past that a given fascist seeks to return to would have to evolve. Likewise, who plays the role of “us” and “them”?
On to other thoughts.
Consultant or Analyst?
I think there is a difference between what political consultants and campaign advisors do as it pertains to campaign rhetoric and what I do here. I am not attempting to suggest what broad communication and rhetorical strategies that politicians should use. My main goal here has always been to try and provide informed analysis and commentary about daily politics while trying to stay within the boundaries of things that I have legitimate claims to have some level of expertise. This includes things in which I can truly be said to be an expert and many adjacent things where I have substantially more education than the average American.* I try to avoid that which I do not really know what I am talking about.
And, of course, this is an outlet for my ongoing thoughts, even to the point of being, as I like to say, “a rough draft of my thoughts” because blogging is largely reactive and not the result of contemplation. Sure, over the long haul, there is a cumulative effect, but any given post is usually in reaction to something specific. I would say that in many ways, my philosophy of blogging is not that different than what I outlined in the post Blogging 101 from 2011 (and weirdly, also, More on NATOME, which also has a bearing on the general Trump discussion).
Part of why I write so much, and often argue in the comments, about the meaning of terms is because unless we have a shared agreement as to what a word means, we often find ourselves talking about different things, even as we use the same word. Without an agreed shared meaning, conversations are often really operating in parallel instead of intersecting.
On Hitler
I think that Hitler is a near singular character in history, which makes comparison to him to be fraught. He is practically a supervillain in the American mind, in particular, not the least of which is because, in so many movies, he pretty much is portrayed that way. It also suits the American mythos that we defeated the Greatest Villain of the Them All in WWII! That we didn’t do it by ourselves, and that among our little helpers was Josef Stalin, a man who belongs in Hitler’s category of terrible totalitarian tyrants is hand-waved away in our collective minds.
However, given the truly terrible nature of Hitler, I would think it should be noteworthy that the president-elect of the United States frequently uses rhetoric that sounds an awful lot like ol’ Adolf. And that he has said admiring things about him. Pointing this out is not saying that Trump=Hitler. But if Hitler is such a singular example of evil governance (and he is), then it seems reasonable not to like it when anyone, especially powerful people, sounds like him or appears to admire him. It seems to me that people get so worked up about the comparison that this rather obvious dictum gets ignored somehow.
I mean, how far does sounding like Hitler have to go before people pause and wonder if a person using such rhetoric ought to be given power?
I will say this, if the only way for the term “fascism” to be applied is for it to look like, in scale and scope, to Hitler, then yes, the term should be retired.
Differing Definitions of Fascism
In the spirit of both explaining myself and addressing the definitions of others, let me turn to JohnSF and Andy.
So, first, JohnSF offers the following:
I still think “fascism” as per German Nazism is not a useful descriptor of Trump/MAGA politics.
It is not a totalizing state and/or ethnic ideology.
It is not based on a quasi-military mass party organization.
It does not seem to be, at base, “revolutionary”, which both Italian Fascism and German Nazism conceived themselves as being.It seems a lot closer to the quasi-fascist populism of Peronism in Argentina.
Fascism for lazy people?
First, I agree that saying Trump is a Nazi and that he is bringing us Nazi Germany is 1) wrong, 2) never what I have meant, and 3) perhaps why even bringing it up is the problem, because that is what folks tend to focus on.
Second, I agree that Trump’s approach to politics is not totalizing. That may be a dealbreaker for using the term for some, but I also think that if fascism has to mean totalitarian, then the concept has limited usage. I have become convinced fascism does not have to be totalizing,
I do think that Trump’s politics are based on ethnicity. I think that Trump has a clear view of what “American” means and it is predominantly a White nationalist view. That does not mean that there isn’t room for non-whites. I would note that Hitler himself did not represent the Aryan ideal, so some level of inconsistency is not a new idea.
Third, I don’t think fascism as a mode of politics does not require a quasi-military mass party. I think that totalitarianism probably does, but again, I think that those concepts should be delinked.
Fourth, ultimately I think that both Hitler and Mussolini were reactionary, not revolutionary. Hitler wanted to restore a mythic pan-Germanic Reich. Mussolini wanted to recapture the glory of Rome. Trump is inherently backward-looking as well. He wants to Make America Great Again.
The fact that fallback is to “quasi-fascism” suggests that maybe there is room for the concept after all.
Next, Andy provided a longer list that I had managed to overlook until he referenced it again yesterday. The “-” portions are Andy and I answer below each.
– The centrality of the state
I agree that Trump does not talk about the state the way that, say, Mussolini did. But I also think things like his threats in regards to Schedule F and the way he is clearly trying to populate the government with cronies loyal to him. His views on Article II, as now enhanced by SCOTUS, show a man who thinks that the American state belongs to him the same way a company would.
– One party rule with a dictator/autocrat at its head – extreme authoritarianism
I think that “extreme” is doing a lot of work here because I think this approach to fascism assumes that fascism has to equal totalitarianism (which may be the main disagreement between Andy and myself).
– Militarism and the glorification of violence
While Trump has made some gestures in the direction of militarism (such as a desire for military parades), I will grant that they have been anemic. However, I will say that he has repeatedly suggested that the military is there to do what he wants it to do, whether it pertains to dealing with protestors (see my post here), the border, or deportations. That he opined that he wanted generals like Hitler had seems kind of relevant as well.
I think Trump does glorify violence. I have a long list of examples here: Radicalizing Rhetoric. He also frequently states he wants law enforcement to be violent (see, for example, “One Violent Day”).
See also, A Fascistic and Authoritarian Response.
– The use of violence both domestically and internationally (both regimes used chem weapons on their own citizens, as one example)
I would put the child separation policy in the category of using violence domestically. We shall see if there is any violence as it pertains to deportations.
It seems to me that using chemical weapons is quite a high bar (and I don’t know what that has to do with fascism, per se).
But let me note that I do not understand how in these discussions January 6th seems to get memory-holed. He helped create that display of domestic violence, cheered it on, and refused to assert his obvious power to call it off. He has used domestic political violence, aimed at overturning an election.
– Calls to the values and unity of the past
Trump does this all the time. MAGA is about the past, often some idealized version of the 1950s. He has often waxed about the era when GM was king and the US controlled steel, etc.
The whole anti-trans thing is a call for the values of the past. He is also using the rhetoric of putting God and prayer back in schools, also a call to the past.
– Notions of “lebensraum” – not as prevalent in Syria, but core to Baathist Iraq
I would argue that having an irredentist/ethno-territorialist element to politics is not in any way a necessary component for fascism. The question of international boundaries and where certain people groups are located is simply a long-term salient aspect of European and Middle Eastern politics in ways that are simply not relevant for the United States, a continental nation that has no long-term claims on either Canadian or Mexican territory.
I will state, however, that there are (at least in my mind) gross echoes of calls for living space when Trump claims that mass deportations will help ease the housing shortage.
His concerns about borders and “not having a country” seem relevant as well.
– The use of propaganda and control of information as a means of control and influence
Here, again, I think that there is a conflation of totalitarianism with fascism.
But I would also push back and note that Trump clearly pushes untruths and propaganda. As noted in James Joyner’s post, he made the official White House Spokesman go out and blatantly lie about the size of crowds. At roughly the same time, Kelly Conway, in an official capacity, told the press that “alternative facts” is a thing. See, also, Rudy: “Truth isn’t truth”.
“They’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the pets” is propaganda.
I would note, for example, that Trump created his own social media company to specifically appeal to his followers.
I suppose the disagreement is about scale.
– Extreme nationalism, albeit in the larger context of pan-Arab nationalism (Similar to how Putin sees himself and Russia as fighting for slavs).
As noted above, the US does not have long-standing, historical claims on territory that fits that mold. I do not see how that is directly relevant to fascism, per se).
I will note that there is an obsession or immigrants and who can be American. For example, see my post On Birthright Citizenship.
– Racism and ethnic superiority (Fuck the Kurds and the Jews)
My main response would be: Fuck the immigrants. There is both the threat, but also the past: see, separation, family (as part of the zero-tolerance policy).
There is a clear obsession with who is American within Trumpism (that echoes Palin’s “Real America” rhetoric).
In truth, I don’t think Andy and I disagree all that much save in two ways. One (which I think is the main disagreement) is the degree to which fascism has to equal totalitarianism. I would argue that these are discreet concepts that can overlap but do not have to. Second, it is just about the degree of intensity of the issues listed above.
I think the thing that I need to think further about is the degree to which fascism has to be totalizing/the degree to which the term can only be deployed in a totalitarian context.
Likewise, I am now thinking about the differences between fascist movements ad regimes as well as the question of whether fascism can only be applied if a certain threshold is reached.
Also, despite my continued writing on the subject, I am actually open to the idea that even bringing up Hitler and fascism was ill-advised and counter-productive. Of course, at this point the cat is out of the bag, so too late, I guess. There is also the possibility that the concept is either simply an artifact of the past or it is truly reserved for only very extreme and specific cases.
Again, my preferred definitions of fascism can be found in the following post:
And two reminders from people who worked directly with Trump. And remember that members of the US military are trained to be apolitical, so they overcame a lot of professional reticence to make these statements. As, by the way, did I (but different professions and different obstacles).
And with that, we come to the conclusion of this post.
*I could likely go on at length about what all that means, but an examination of what “expert” means and doesn’t mean is a lengthy conversation, as it trying to parse out levels of knowledge and training.
As I pointed out earlier this week, you don’t have to reach for Hitler. While he may be, shall we say, the gold-standard of fascism, we have had other authoritarian figures right here in the good old US of A that we can look at. Huey Long – who genuinely scared a lot of people because he was thought to have national ambitions; Virgil Effinger; Charles Coughlin; and Gerald K. Smith, who picked up Long’s banner after he was assassinated.
You might want to investigate them too. Hitler and Germany had too many historical and cultural differences to really be good comparisons to what’s happening here right now.
Pragmatically it is certainly the case that in the American situation it is poor political branding to use the term fascist for Trump – as whatever academic and intellectual arguments back and forth about how well Trump and MAGA fit fascism definitions – the inescapable reality is that American understandings generally will be Fascism=Nazism=Hitler and if Trump is not = to Hitler you’re all being hysteric exaggerators yet again (as like the overdone rhetoric about Bush).
That is not to say it is fair, but it’s just a political reality – it is certainly not a politically useful thing to do as Trump will inevitably if only from his own laziness and incoherence never rise to the focus even of a Mussolini – and the label will appear hysteric, overdone.
A more useful and effective label – for wider audiences – would be quite wise (what that is dunno Peronism would be too archly historical and over the head of Americans broadly however good a fit it is, authoritarian perhaps too abstract…), as while aware academic reflexion is not particularly branding aware, one of the great successes of the MAGA and Trump has been rather cunning branding and marketing – while the US Left has gone on and on with more demarches that can only remind the outside observer of the “strenously object” scene in the movie A few good men.
@Not the IT Dept.: Although do Americans actually know their own history there? – but the analysis really perhaps is less important than finding a mode of discussion that reaches outsdie of Left intello circles (or Left and Anti-Trumper intello circles – it is not to say you’re wrong, but unless one can sell oneself to the greater public… it is rather sterile like debating angels on heads of pins).
“and the way he is clearly trying to populate the government with cronies loyal to him. His views on Article II, as now enhanced by SCOTUS, show a man who thinks that the American state belongs to him the same way a company would.”
Every President has people loyal to him to carry out his agenda and implement his policies. It’s only considered controversial when a Republican is President. And Article II applies to every President, you just don’t like it because you’re a partisan Democrat.
@Lounsbury:
Huh? Want to try it in English this time?
@joe: There is a very, very important difference between normal loyalty to one’s job/employer and being chosen because of specific personal loyalty that transcends loyalty to truth and to the constitution.
A huge number of these picks have demonstrated obeisance to Trump as a person. That is problematic.
This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how Trump views those powers. The words “His views” are in the sentence you quoted.
@joe: And Article II applies to every President, you just don’t like it because you’re a partisan Democrat.
And you love it because you’re a partisan Trumpist. See how that works?
I don’t think many would classify Mussolini’s Italy as a totalitarian state. So not fascist? That wouldn’t make much sense.
There is some fascist ideology, but in actuality most of it got thrown out of the window the very moment the Fascists/Nazis gained power. Sometimes violently so. The Röhm Purge is a case in point.
And, as you noted, the core of fascist ideology is “make x great again by purging impure minority y from the body politic.” So the notion that Trumpism somehow isn’t ideological is pretty ridiculous.
Obviously, Trump isn’t exactly like the European fascists from the 1920s and 1930s. But only European fascists from the 1920s and 1930s were exactly like themselves. I don’t think that makes the term “fascism” unusable. (And if so, we also shouldn’t be able to use “liberalism” and “socialism” anymore to describe contemporary political movements – and nobody argues that.)
IMO, objections to applying the label “fascist” to Trump are emotional rather than rational.
(And Peronism? Really? Perón was a nationalist, but a racially inclusive one who extended the franchise to women. Perón opposed religion in education and his biggest support was organized labor. Does that sound like Trump?)
“There is a very, very important difference between normal loyalty to one’s job/employer and being chosen because of specific personal loyalty that transcends loyalty to truth and to the constitution.”
That’s just your spin. You don’t like his agenda, and you don’t view him as the legitimate Commander in Chief and head of the Executive Branch. You want government agencies to block his agenda and anyone who says that’s not the way it’s supposed to be is a “fascist” or “authoritarian.”
@joe:
Did you happen to watch TV on 1/6/2021?
I I typed this out and then came back to note that this comment ignores Franco because I don’t know enough about that history to add it. I figured it was better to bypass and then explicitly note it.
I think those definitions are good. I think one missing piece to help bind all those is the elevation of aesthetics over everything else. Who cares in the trains run on time if they feel like they run on time. Likewise, the leader says the economy is bad and he’s the only one to fix it therefore the economy is bad and only he can fix it.
Neither Hitler, nor Mussolini, actually brought order, but they brought the vibes of order. Likewise with the totalizing. The Nazis didn’t come to power on their own, they needed other conservatives to play along. But the aesthetic we remember is a bunch of sharply dressed militarized men sweeping to power.
I’m also realizing as I type this out is that both definitions don’t directly call out that facism relies on an explicit version of masculinity. It’s worth noting that Hitler, Mussolini, and Trump, aim their campaigns and take overs directly at men. An aesthetic of masculinity that posits that men are inherently superior, even if the leader is objectively physically deficient. The vibes can fix that. It’s notable that the three men who provide definitions seem to leave that as an unremarked assumption. I’m willing to be wrong on that last statement, but I feel it’s worth poking at.
Regarding violence, there’s an obvious glorification of violence and murder by the right. Texas pardoned some guy who went out to murder a protester. I don’t even understand the argument here.
Personally, fascism is problematic because much of fascism is normal life. It was possible in Germany in 1936 to not be afraid of anything, unless you were the wrong person. Try doing that in the Soviet Union in 1936. If you know Trump voters, you are supposedly knowing normal people who do things normally just like normal people.
If you know Trump voters, calling Trump a fascist is to say that the normal people who voted for him, and who raised you and seem to have real emotions are capable of being for cruelty and inhumanity. To me, it’s obvious that this is the way of the average person. But many people live in a cult where being average or normal or especially American means you are good. And Trump has shattered this illusion, which makes others push back on describing that it was an illusion.
“And you love it because you’re a partisan Trumpist. See how that works?”
Not even close. I would prefer someone younger and who didn’t just riff of the top of his head so often, LOL. I think of it like a Patton, Sherman, Sheridan scenario. Someone who’s a bit crazy, but is necessary at a particular moment in time. Another establishment Bush type Republican with a “kick me” sign on his back is unacceptable. And a McCain or Romney Republican winning the White House would be Whig situation where you might as well let the party collapse and start over.
@Not the IT Dept.: sorry if joined up Englush is a trouble for the Americans although I do find it ironically amusing how the BoBo Left goes for arch faculty lounge pretences.
In many ways the result manufactured by these college campus habits is deserved. Pity rest of world will also suffer by ricochet
@joe:
Um neither Sherman, nor Sheridan were crazy in any way.
Also, I note the aesthetics of your comment. Neither Bush(es), Romney or McCain are acceptable. Not because they aren’t conservative, but because they have the wrong aesthetic. I don’t think there is any real policy difference between Trump and W Bush. But W wasn’t going to take the mantle of sole leader and he wasn’t going to take the right aesthetics. There might be more of a policy difference with Romney, but the aesthetic difference is much much greater.
@Beth:
You ever read Male Fantasies by Klaus Theweleit? It’s an analysis of literature produced by the Freikorps/SA/SS and how they conceived of women and sex. Answer: they all had a few problems. Definitely worth going through at your leisure.
@Lounsbury:
Actually, we Americans–perhaps especially those of us who received our post-graduate education at British universities–vastly prefer our prose non-turgid.
I just don’t think it’s very helpful to think about American fascism in the context of the collapse of reactionary regimes after WW1 or the collapse of colonialism in the Middle East after WW2.
It’s like that Jonah Goldberg ‘book’ about fascism. If you want to prove Hitler was closer to the left because they both like organic vegetables, you can do it. And guess what? It works inside your head. It is not difficult to win an argument in your head. And it’s not that difficult to write a dumb, bad attempt at a book, as long as you have research attempts. The problem comes when others read the attempt.
The only question with Trump is whether the right and his voters are too disordered to care. If he meant that factories should be coming back to Detroit, he would need to centralize government. And if wanted to deport an entire industry or destroy the woke education machine, you’re going to have centralize government to do it.
And if promises these things, and they don’t happen and nobody cares, then maybe he’s not a fascist, or maybe his fascism is a quasi license for everyone who supports him to be their own dictator over reality.
@Modulo Myself:
Thank you for that. I’m going to poke around in there.
@Not the IT Dept.: BTW, I agree that Huey Long is a good comparative case, as is Father Coughlin. I will confess lack of knowledge of Smith.
I think Wallace is a good comp in some ways as well.
I am not sure, though, that most Americans would know what was being discussed if Long was brought up.
He is relevant to a podcast recommendation I have not yet made.
@drj: I don’t think that Mussolini or Franco led totalitarian regimes. I just didn’t want to go down yet another definitional rabbit hole 🙂
And Perón is his own discussion. He is definitely a populist, but not a fascist (although I have this vague notion that he admired Franco).
@joe: Could you please address the actual content of the post? It is over 1,000 words and the best you can do is “nuh-uh!”
@Lounsbury:
Very good points.
o Trump’s use of branding has been very effective.
o Peron is an interesting example, and I do see a parallel with Trump. He was a fascist who had a populist (Peronistas) following. It is sobering that a military junta took power when he died.
o I agree that somehow, to break the Trump spell in time for the 2026 midterms, those who support liberal views must come up with a more effective message and means to communicate it–and a brand, logo, etc.
Interesting — I have always thought of fascism as defined by how it operates. It’s a toolkit/playbook, not an ideology. The standard “plays” are:
1. Designate a subset of the population as the “real” Nation, with others explicitly illegitimate (regardless of legal status)
2. Designate some of the Other as active enemies of The Nation, whom the law should not protect.
3. Lie about the Other, stoking hatred and inviting violence against them.
4. Use government to actively attack the Other
5. Use government to actively attack political opponents (usually while lying about how those opponents also do this)
6. (Usually) Strongly promote traditional Western gender roles, with men in charge and women subservient.
That playbook applies whether you want to nationalize the oil companies or eliminate environmental regulations; whether you want to invade your neighbors or go isolationist; whether you want a strong central government or mostly local autonomy.
@Skookum:
FWIW, Perón initially came to government as the Minister of Labor in a military regime.
He was ousted by the military the first time (in the 50s). When he came out of exile in the 70s it was right after there had been decades of military rule and when he died his wife took over first (Isabel, not Eva). And then she was ousted and the military came back into power.
@Beth:
There’s Marine LePen and Giorgia Meloni.
@Lounsbury:
Nope, still not English. Keep trying.
@joe:
Some of rapist Trump’s own supporters, JD Vance and RFK Jr. among them, have compared Trump or his supporters to Hitler or Nazis:
“People say he’s a dictator. I believe that. I consider him like Hitler. But I voted for the man.” – Trump-voting Pennsylvanian, Harry Wolfson
Trumpers who deny his obvious fascism don’t know what to do with this.
Whether they label it fascist or not, Democrats should get ready to battle against Project 2025 — which Trump’s cabal of druggies and sex criminals are now implementing after lying about it the whole campaign.
Trump and his unqualified DEI-for-MAGA hires seem determined to destroy the Biden-Harris economic recovery with tax cuts for billionaires, mass deportation of cheap labor, and cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Social Security. Trump might then stage another violent Jan. 6 esque coup to stay in power.
Call it fascism or don’t. It’s dangerous. Dems should prepare to run competent adults to undo the damage — no matter how much MAGA attempts to distract everyone with grievance, anti-trans hate, and podcast bro identity politics.
Once his former chief of staff and his running mate, among others, had called him “fascist” and “Hitler”, it would be gross malpractice for the Harris campaign to not use their statements. However: A) To low info voters (most voters) they say commie, we say fascist, it’s just noise. B) WWII ended just shy of 80 years ago, three generations. Memories, and lessons, fade. Nazi is mostly a movie villain, like Indians used to be. C) Trump succeeds by impressing his fans as strong. (Boggles my mind, but I’m not MAGA.)
The error was treating Trump’s fascist tendencies as a scary threat. In reality they are, but it would have been better messaging to treat Trump as a comic book Nazi. A figure of fun more than threat. That dumb fwuk who’s gone bankrupt six times thinks he should be dictator of the country. I’d be afraid of a big bully. I’d also be afraid of a ten year old with a loaded Glock. The latter isn’t strong if we keep him away from Glocks. It’s a fine distinction to make, but all the creatives are supposed to be on our side.
Hitler wasn’t much, but he had been a decorated soldier. Trump had bone spurs.
How’s this?
In non-fascist authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, the social and political tools are generally employed as a means to an end.
In fascist regimes, the use of those tools is democratized–but as an end-in-itself. An expression of faith in a set of non-material beliefs.
There are enough people around here who could point out whether that is consistent with history.
Dr. Taylor, I thank you for helping us examine our views. We are so fortunate to have educators hosting this blog.
I am a systems analyst by training and worked as a information systems requirements analyst, specifically. A technique to resolve conflict over a specification is to “bubble up.” This means to raise the level of abstraction to a point where all parties can agree. This provides a space for everyone to see that that they were, as Lounsbury suggested, either arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin OR have a serious and very basic disagreement at high level about the system being developed, which is itself good because it will save millions in development costs to address these diverging views early on.
In my view the issue isn’t fascism, communism, autocracy, totalitarianism, etc. Rather, we need to raise the discourse to how to mitigate the conditions that have given rise to populism.
Right now, we have the perfect political storm:
– The Federalist Society and other far-right influencers gave up on winning elections, so they have created distrust of the electoral process and made voting difficult. And they are willing to forsake virtue and morality by supporting someone who will give them a voice.
– The Christian far right is willing to forsake morality for political power to create a Christian theocracy.
– The offshoring of American jobs has been disastrous for workers but great for everyone who creates wealth through investments. This, plus the 2008 Great Recession and the COVID pandemic, have created a level of economic instability that people, in response, are willing to give up their morality for economic survival.
– Trump and his cabal are taking advantage the perceived conflict between populism and liberal governance to turn the electorate into an animal farm for their personal wealth, ego, and thrill.
I can already hear people poo-pooing the above as, “Of course, you dummy–that’s obvious!”
Well, if it was so obvious, why didn’t Harris explain the context of our American experience and specifically address how her programs would help people who have become populists?
The context must be communicated to Americans so they will not lose faith in government institutions and can see the road map for improving their lives in ways that make sense to them.
@Skookum:
I agree that in his own turgid, condescending style, @Lounsbury is on to something bringing up branding – with branding being key to messaging for those with liberal views when up against Trump. And I agree with what Steven and Andy see as the pitfalls of using “fascist” to describe Trump. Currently, the term is too loaded to not be counterproductive. So, as much as I like the idea of pointing out the GOP parallels with fascism in the Us-vs-Them division and the Republicans’ uncanny fit with the list of symptoms from Jason Stanley that Steven has shared (Mythic Past, Anti-Intellectualism, Unreality, Victimhood et al), I’m keen to move past deciding and defending whether or not Trump is a fascist (or if Trumpism is fascism) and get to branding Trump and the Trumpist GOP in a way that will weaken the Republicans and mitigate the damage they can do while they hold all three branches of the government.
To my mind, the key to Trump’s effective use of branding is its simplicity, shamelessness, and relentless. He NEVER stops talking about his opposition in maximal derogatory terms. Democrats don’t differ on policy; they are evil and want to destroy America. Members of his own party who stand in his way are RINOs and sick and weak. The press that dares to accurately describe his absurdity and perniciousness are fake news and Enemies of the People.
Accuracy and subtlety matter not a whit – it is always and ever “Us is Good” and “Them is Bad.” In fact, when anyone dares to challenge the validity of his derogation, he says his challengers are being mean and unfair to him, so he can continue his shameful aspersions as though he’s being somehow suppressed.
So, if the project of defense and resistance in the coming years is to brand Trumpism as Bad, then those with liberal views need to get over the parsing of political science terms and dispense with the niceties. We need to adopt our own maximal derogatory terms: cruel, divisive, unfit, Un-American, amoral, evil, even fascist when the mood strikes us. We need to demagogue the hell out of every instance when Trump’s empty promises of lower costs and world peace aren’t delivered by tariffs and coddling international autocrats. Trump voters need to see how FAFO works. We have to hang Trumpism around the neck of every, single, Republican elected official; no more grace for the Murkowski-types who aren’t as bad as MTG or Gaetz.
Let the pundits call left partisans unhinged. We give away the game when we worry about what arbiters of political correctness say about us Uni-Left boho-intellectuals. Trumpists are going to call the Us evil no matter we Us’s say.
Comment deleted. No random gibberish, please.
I recently started reading Democracy’s Resilience to Populism’s Threat by Kurt Weyland. It has a subtitle, “Countering Global Alarmism”. Dr. Taylor has frequently objected to the argument about whether Trump is the subject of a cult, not because he might disagree with anyone, but because he doesn’t find the classification useful. Weyland offers a definition he feels has heuristic value in identifying a number of cases sharing common characteristics.
Weyland defines populism “as revolving around personalistic, usually charismatic leadership that is sustained by direct, unmediated, uninstitutionalized connections to a heterogeneous, amorphous, and largely unorganized mass of followers” He refers to it as ““personalistic plebiscitarian leadership”. Certainly seems to include Trump, and per Weyland a large enough number of Latin American and European leaders, successful and failed, to allow drawing some lessons.
I’ve been puzzled by lumping the bottom up prairie populists in with the top down Trump, Orban, etc. as “populist”. I think Weyland would call them a “social movement”, not populism under his definition. Of more general interest, Weyland doesn’t mention Hitler, Mussolini, or fascism. Hitler would seem to be ruled out of his definition by “largely unorganized mass of followers”. Trump has the Republican Party which, so far, isn’t integrated into society or government anything like the way The Nazi Party was.
Without getting into details (so far I’ve only read his long, detailed first chapter) he holds out reasons to feel Trump will fail. (Noting that he wrote it before Trump was reelected.) He observes that a lot of the literature and popular press deal with the successful populist leaders. He also looks at the more numerous failed populist leaders.
@joe: Project much?
On joe’s point, Steven recently called McMahon, Gabbard, and Noem “unqualified”. McMahon is a multi-millionaire fundraiser, which is usually enough qualification to get at least Commerce Department, and also ran the SBA for two years. Gabbard served 8 years in the House, serving on the Homeland Security, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Financial Services committees and she’s nominated for DNI. Noem also served 8 years in the House, and 6 as a governor. A lot of Cabinet officials have had less DC and executive experience than that. Call them “disqualified” if you think they should be, but they’ve got qualifications. Putting them in the same category as Hegseth and RFK?
This is the problem:
A liberal will consider these things, and struggle to understand and build bridges.
A fascist will be happy to put a heel in your face, and will move on, and blame his heel on the liberals.
We are already there. And have been for some time.
@Fortune: I would note that this post is not about nominations. I have written numerous posts on those subjects. Please comment there. I wrote a long, detailed post on a different topic and I do not want the discussion to be about something else.
BTW, she was nominated to run the Department of Education.
@Lounsbury:
Many thanks for reminding the 74 million of us to the left of Trump that we deserved the family-oriented faith-based tourism-gone-wild event at The Capitol on January 6, 2021.
I think the basic point on which we diverge is that you see fascism as primarily reactionary.
I do not.
It undoubtedly co-opted conservatives and reactionaries (two verydifferent things in the European political context) into a coalition of support.
But my point of view is very similar to J. S. McClelland’s heading:
Both Hitler and Mussolini evoked pasts; but pasts so remote from their contemporary situations, and so vague as to details, as to be capable of almost any application desired.
Nostalgia may have political potency; but nostalgia, in the case of Italy, for a polity two millennia prior?
I have doubts.
Is Trump’s personal politics and (at least a large part of) his MAGA appeal based on White Nationalist foundations?
Pretty certainly.
But, unlike the Nazi version its not a coherent ideology of ethnic supremacy, and worked-out conclusions therefrom. “Purification”, lebensraum, and all that.
And Italian fascism was never really so ethno-focused at all; it was about a “dynamic state”, which the people should serve.
While Nazism was about the state as servitor of the needs and drives of the volk.
I don’t think original fascsim/nazism can be understood outside the concept of totalitarian and extra-legal domination of the state/volk channeled via an embodying “supreme leader”.
Thus my preference for comparison to the “fascism-lite” of Peronism, and similar, which were just fine about using violence, and breaching political norms and legal constraints.
All that said, even “fascism lite” is a massively problematic issue for the continuity of pluralistic democracy, and an effective administrative state.
Besides the welfare and liberties of the people affected, or afflicted, by such.
Trumpism/MAGA seems, at present, to be a mash-up of old paleo-Con tropes, White Nationalism, radical political Evangelicalism, and the lunatic tech-bro libertarian/oligarchic concept of Yarvin etc. All in swimming in a soup of the decaying corpus of the traditional Republican Party.
It may evolve towards a coherent fascistic program.
But it’s not there yet.
Thus the question for the US: are the institutional and political limitations, not least among GoP traditionalists, sufficient to prevent it developing to that outcome?
@Scott F.:
You are right, but it will fall on deaf ears amongst much of Trump’s namby-pamby anti-Trump music. We are too scared to say Biden is a good president presiding over a good economy for fear of offending people. We don’t want to call Trump nicknames because it cheapens the discourse or something. We don’t want to admit a thug compared to Hitler by his own supporters and colleagues is fascist because it’s counterproductive.
Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans will take this exact same economy, start tweeting “Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!” daily, and convince everyone it’s suddenly the greatest economy ever. They will nickname the next Democratic nominee Crooked Hillary or Sleepy Joe or Crazy Nancy and force the media to repeat it. They will not hesitate even a second to ponder the productivity of calling Democrats communist (or baby-killing groomer snowflakes).
And through it all, the hesitating, tongue-swallowing, overthinking, effete center-left will be at a loss to figure out why low info voters find rightwing messaging more compelling than our endlessly-parsed whitepaperspeak.
We aren’t losing by that much. We need to be just a little tougher.
@Steven L. Taylor: My comment was expanding on joe’s point, and I didn’t say she was nominated to Commerce.
@Fortune: joe is a thread derailed.
I am happy to talk about the nominees, but in those threads.
Thanks.
@Steven L. Taylor: Your article discussed the value of clarity in political terminology and accused Trump of populating government with his cronies. My comment pertains to both.
I really think the “Is Trump a fascist?” discussion is not only pointless, it distracts from the urgent need to discuss the crisis in American democratic governance and whether it’s possible to preserve it. It’s even less useful than the interminable “Why did Democrats/Harris lose the [insert favorite demographic group] vote?” discussions.
I would note that I have never once seen an earnest analysis on a right-wing website of the question “Are Biden and Harris radical Marxists?”, despite the label being applied routinely by everyone in the MAGA movement from Trump down.
@Fortune: Any chance you want to actually comment on the post?
@Ken_L:
That might have more than something to do with that fact the accusations are absurd and wouldn’t stand any scrutiny.
@DK:
Of course they will.
But, the price of eggs & gas isn’t going to come down via tariffs, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine won’t end without Trump selling out Zelenskyy, and the homeless crisis won’t be solved through mass deportation. We have to have our “Trump did that” stickers ready for every mediocre to bad outcome. Liberals won’t need to gaslight to have myriad opportunities to help even low info voters see what they voted for and start to feel regret.
@Steven L. Taylor:
That’s not stopping anyone in the MAGA movement from Trump down from making those accusations relentlessly anyway.
@Scott F.: This is true. But that wasn’t my point. That others are intellectually dishonest doesn’t mean I have to be, yes?
To those who like to dump on Lounsbury:
He doesn’t need my defense. But I think he is earnestly trying to communicate meaningful ideas in a second (or third) tongue while handicapped by experience with an archaic and formal educational system. And it’s possible he learned to sometimes adopt a condescending turn of phrase by example. Be better, all of you.
I don’t know if those who criticizing his comments today have traveled in a foreign country where they laugh at your attempt to speak their language. Or if you know how it feels to speak like a two-year-old when your thoughts are complex. Or maybe you haven’t even had the courage to try.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Yes, of course. You don’t have to be intellectually dishonest, because others are.
But, it isn’t intellectual dishonesty to point out the double standards that are being applied in this left/right debate as Ken_L does above. I know you must recognize this as you continually try to get the local Trumpists to engage in the debates here with good faith arguments.
BTW, I hope any contrarian comments from me don’t suggest anything but the deepest admiration for the blogging that you’ve been doing here over the last several weeks. I look forward to your posts and I learn something from nearly every one of them. I’ve repeatedly referenced several of the posts you link to in the OP recently as I’ve tried to make sense of what happened this election cycle. My faith in democracy has been severely tested of late. You’ve offered an umbrella of reason in this deluge of misinformation and bad faith.
@Steven L. Taylor:
“I’m glad to see you’re starting to reconsider the use of the term like I suggested a month ago” sounds obnoxious, so I’d rather not.
@Fortune: so, as usual, no, you don’t want to engage with the substance of the post.
@Scott F.: No worries. I appreciate your comments and participation on the site.
@Skookum:
You’re screaming into the void, I think. There is some irony in that–there is a little parochial hypocrisy by some on this.
@Skookum:
I think you are being most gracious wrt Lounsbury’s commentary.
Speaking just for myself however, I find it exceedingly difficult to interpret his words/thoughts. Unfortunately I reminds me of the rhetoric of Trump, where Trumps handlers had to try to explain what the candidate really means, or try to untangle Trump’s jumble of words to arrive at some coherency. (aka sanewashing)
I found Trumps ramblings exhausting to try to understand.
Likewise, I find Lounsbury’s commentaries just to difficult to decode. Graciously, that may be my fault – not his. Regardless that’s the reason I never get beyond the first couple of sentences in his posts before I move on.
@Bobert:
I had a similar view until recently. I do not always agree with him, and I admit I thought he was a Russian troll initially. But he has made an attempt to communicate more clearly recently. And he’s been right about the Democrats not getting to the root of the matter: the danger of populism. My understanding of his post today is that calling Trump a fascist hasn’t worked and to win over those who have lost faith in liberal governance, we need to find a different message. I agree.
@Steven L. Taylor: It has everything to do with the target audience: Simple Town. Where Academic concepts are free from scrutiny and the votes count the same as everyone else’s. Also, I DO understand that this Blog does target participation from the Intellectual/Academic-minded. In that lens, this is a useful discussion for communication with other like-minded individuals.
For non-liked minded people–this blog might as well be written in Korean
@Skookum:
Translation is appreciated.
BTW, has L endorsed your translating for him?
@Jim Brown 32:
Trust me, I understand this conversation is not for everyone.
I only mention it because the commenters here occasionally try to make a moving target, like the goal here is to directly advise Democratic candidates or to influence everyday voters. Neither of those things has ever been true.
Let me note for the record that I appreciate Lounsbury for being a consistent participant who engages with the material in a given post.
I will confess, however, to finding it a tad difficult to be told via dense prose that the problem is the uni-educated and their vocabulary.
Also, to the point I made in the text and in the previous comment, I see my goal as primarily one of analysis and understanding, not political wordsmithing for candidates and parties.
@Jim Brown 32:
This blog is actually an excellent place to discuss how the elite can communicate with the masses. Yes, this is an elitist/academic forum – though with quite a few exceptions, myself included. I would like to see that kind of discussion begin here.
@Steven L. Taylor: I used to write in a way that was intended to impress the reader with my ability to summon up a thesaurus-load of nonstandard words and archaic idioms designed to demonstrate depth.
Then I learned that writing is for the reader, not for me.
And if the work can’t be easily interpreted, then what’s the point? In fact, to have your awesome point missed, or misunderstood, merely because you were overly loquacious in your vocabulary is an error in judgment akin to that of the American voters just over a fortnight past.
So, I write for clarity. I insert too many hard breaks. I write many one-sentence paragraphs.
I adopt my favorite poet’s (Emily Dickinson) philosophy that something said in ten words can be better said in five.
Lounsbury is free to do as he/she pleases, but like many others, I generally get only a sentence in before I scroll onward. Time being valuable and all.
One thing to keep in mind is that tyranny, dictatorship and oppression existed as the default state of affairs for all of human history.
Liberal democracy is a brief recent blip on the timeline of humanity.
And like I have said before, Hitler, Stalin and Mao are freakishly abnormal and don’t really serve as good examples, not the least of which is that they set the bar insanely high. (e.g. Are there extermination camps slaughtering millions of people? No? Oh well, nothing to worry about amirite?)
Third, the goals of Trumpism are familiar, because they have existed through most of American history and in fact, the Trumpists are very explicit about making America the way it was before same sex marriage, feminism, civil rights and the New Deal.
We can correctly point to the corruption of Tammany Hall as their goal, to the insane wealth and poverty of the Gilded Age as their goal, to the injustice and oppression of Jim Crow as their goal.
@gVOR10:
Thank you for the reading suggestion!
@Bobert:
Ha ha! No, but I’m sure he will let me know if my attempts to repeat his message back to him to make sure I understood (a communication technique) is not valued nor desired.
@Beth:
Either vibes or ridiculous trading cards and artwork presenting Trump as a bare chested man with an amazing physique, surrounded by guns and eagles.
@Skookum:
Lounsbury, of the Constantinople Lounsburys, perhaps?
No, he does it because it amuses him. There is no ESL program that teaches “lefty uni-educated bobo” as a phrase. There just isn’t.
And he doesn’t use archaic and formal English, he uses a parody of archaic and formal English.
There’s a great polish author, Witold Gombrowicz, who wrote Polish in a parody of formal traditional styles, while writing of characters caught in formalities, traditions and expectations. This has presented endless challenges to translators. One of his books, Trans-Atlantyk was translated into faux Early 1700s English by a translator who thought this was the best way to capture the feeling and the style of the original Polish. Another translator thought this was the stupidest thing ever, and wrote about how terrible the translation was in the “Translater’s Notes” portion of her translation. And then translated the book into Faux late-1800s English.
I think of that second translator a lot when I read anything by Lounsbury.
@Chip Daniels:
As with many of Trump’s goals, he isn’t inaugurated yet and we’re already there. I happened, in Peter Turchin’s End Times, to run across that in 1790 one Elias Derby was the richest man in America with a wealth of one million dollars. The average wage was $40/year, so Mr. Derby’s wealth was equal to the annual wage of 25 thousand workers. By 1912 the richest American, John D. Rockefeller with one billion dollars, had wealth equal to 2.6 million average workers wages. The Great Depression reduced wealth considerably. By 1982 one Daniel Ludwig was the wealthiest American with two billion much smaller dollars, equal to 92 thousand workers.
Elon Musk is worth north of 300 billion, the average wage is about $50,000. Six million workers’ wages.
Turchin talks about “elite overproduction”, more elite individuals than there are slots for them. For Turchin immiseration of workers is the flip side of elite overproduction. (Fixed pot of GDP with more going to elites.) This creates a disaffected potential mob ready to be recruited by surplus elites. (As feared by Madison.) Turchin sees a correction in our future. The question is how destructive it will be. ETTD.
@Tony W: I try to write in an accessible way, although I am aware that I can be a bit florid at times.
I assume that most readers here are educated (whether formally or informally) and engaged in the news and politics. I do think of it as a general audience and not an academic one. I write a bit more broadly when I have written for newspapers (which has been a while now).
And if you are talking about Lounsbury, I wold agree that his denseness gets in te way of communication.
@Gustopher:
Ha! Indeed.
There’s the Simpson’s episode with Lisa loudly asserting “It’s apt! Apt!” Reverend Lovejoy was not amused. Lisa was correct. “Like the whore of Babylon?”
And what point does “don’t say Fascist” become Lovejoyism?
@Steven L. Taylor:
Bobo used to be a common slur used by alt-right folks against crunchy type lefties like 10 or 15 years ago. Bohemian bourgeois, that isn’t it, but it’s in the rough ballpark.
Bobo is a slur that has lost currency. Trendy lefties who have no working class cred claiming cred. Kinda like SJW. Pretty close to that.
It was a thing briefly.
@Gustopher:
@Steven L. Taylor:
You are incorrect. Per Collins Dictionary, a bobo is a burnt-out but opulent professional; a wealthy person who has taken early retirement from a highly paid profession.
I learned something today. 🙂
Hi Steven,
Sorry, I’ve been super busy this weekend and am only getting to this now and haven’t had the chance to read the comments yet.
I think you’re probably right that at least some of our disagreement is over scale or intensity. And to me, this is my main critique of how you characterize it – the definition, it seems to me, has been watered down considerably.
But I think one big difference between us is that I think a core aspect of fascism is state control and national unity – the “fasces” that Mussolini chose as a name and a callback to a Roman concept. This is an ideological idea, and I think it’s far different from what I see as the petty egotism of Trump. You write (emphasis added):
In my view, a person who thinks the American state is like a company he owns is a very different idea from one who adheres to an ideology of national unity that is traditionally a part of fascism. These speak to different motivations where the fascist views the state as a tool to achieve unity for national greatness for the state, while Trump sees control of the state as more a tool for patronage, graft, and personal benefit. The fascist desires to organize society and achieve unity through a coherent ideology and specific means towards identifiable ends. Trump, IMO, has no ideology; he’s transactional. These are two fundamentally different worldviews and modes of operation.
However, when it comes to our disagreement on scale/intensity, I think it might be useful to leave Trump aside completely and see how the various definitions, including yours, would apply to others. Especially if one focuses on key aspects that you identify like the division of “us” vs “them” and a desire to restore a mythic past.
In my view, that covers a lot of movements and leaders especially those that focus on these three aspects:
– Authoritarianism
– “us” vs “them worldview
– Desire for national greatness or for a return to a mythic past
I think many countries fit those characteristics, although there are differences in degree.
– Putin’s Russia
– Belarus under Lukashenko
– Assad’s Syria
– Turkey under Edrogan
– Brazil under Bolsonaro
– India under Modi
– China under Xi Jinping
– Hungary under Orban
– The anti-Israel axis – Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah
There are probably more I’m missing. Would you consider any/none/all of these to be fascist in the same/similar way Trump is?
For me, they all share elements of classical fascism (and to greater or lesser degrees), but none cleanly or entirely fit.
@Andy: I will give your list some thought.
Any reaction to my point-by-point addressing of your list? I don’t mean a point-by-point rebuttal (unless you like), but at least a general reaction beyond the one point you noted?
@Steven L. Taylor:
I don’t have time to go into detail, but I agree that a lot of it comes down to scale but also motivation. The latter speaks to the one point I focused on—the difference between an ideology with ideological goals vs egotism and narcissism.
@Andy: No worries about the time–I certainly understand.
But I think that this comes down to whether one thinks Stanley is right or not, i.e., that fascism is a way of doing politics.
And if Trump is “fascist lite,” so to speak, then the more important part of the formulation is still the “fascist,” not the “lite.”
@Andy: And while I agree that motivation is an important part of the analysis, the more important part is the results.
And if we are just arguing scale, which is fair, then that doesn’t exactly leave us in a good place as a country, regardless of the label.