First, a disclaimer. I am not seeking to insult or label people. My goal is to start a dialogue about a development that deeply concerns me. This development is not US-specific, but is occurring in Russia, Israel, Europe and undoubtedly other countries as well. However, since the US seems to be drawing a lot of attention lately, it seems logical to focus on the Trump administration.
Let’s start with the question in the title. During a previous discussion with TSZ-residents dazz and Erik, I initially resisted the “fascism” label for the Trump adminstration. In my opinion, that label is often applied too eagerly and I wanted to preserve the term for movements that objectively fit the term. The fascists from beginning of the 20th century were militarist and resorted to violence, for example through paramilitary forces such as the infamous Sturmabteilung in Germany. This is way more radical than their modern far-right counterparts, such as the German Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) or the French Rassemblement National, which mostly seek political influence through democratic and parliamentary means. But what then makes a political party or movement a fascist one? The characteristics of fascism I had to memorize for history class in high school were:
- Ultranationalism
- Admiration for strong charismatic leaders
- Preoccupation with racial purity
- Anti-liberalism
- Populism
- Militarism
The striving for racial purity is currently replaced by nativism, but otherwise the Trump administration is ticking a lot of boxes here. Still, I noted a lack of militarism (The “no new wars” claim). Also the fact that experts were not using that label weighed strongly in my opinion that it was premature to openly call modern far-right movements fascist. That time I said:
Of course, I am not a historian nor a politologist so once the experts start calling the Trump administration a fascist regime I will gladly follow suit.
Fast forward one year. The Trump regime broke its campaign promise and has started two illegal military conflicts, one in Venezuela and one in Iran. It has threatened both Canada and Denmark, two allied NATO members, with military action. The regime has also proved to be hostile towards its own citizens: Two peaceful demonstrants have been executed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the Minneapolis protests. Note that ICE is beginning to look a lot like a paramilitary force. Also, i have since learned that the Department of Defense has been renamed “Department of War”. I cannot decide whether that is more creepy or more childish. So far for “no militarism”.
Importantly, I found that professional politologists started openly calling the Trump regime fascist. Recently, I read the book “Dit is Fascisme” (no translation needed, I trust) by Rosan Smits. Smits is a politologist who for years researched radicalization and violence in war zones. Currently, she is adjunct editor-in-chief at the online news platform De Correspondent. Her ideas are strongly influenced by historian Robert Paxton and philosopher Jason Stanley. Robert Paxton has been specializing in Vichy France and fascism. Like me, he initially resisted the “fascism” label for Trumpism, but changed his mind after the Capitol attack. Jason Stanly wrote the book “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them” in which he outlined ten “pillars of fascism”. These people I definitely regard as experts in relevant fields. In the book, Rosan Smits argues that it is not useful to distinguish between radical right, right-wing extremism and fascism. Rather we should think of these movements as consecutive steps in a progression towards ever more radical fascism. She compares this to a plan-of-action (draaiboek) that all proto-fascist movements go through. She has no problem calling the Trump administration fascist. In fact, this is even the title of chapter 2 in the book: “Het fascistische regime-Trump”. Again, I trust this does not need translation.
So now I am not sure whether it is right to call the Trump administration fascist. There is little doubt that Trumpism sports several hallmarks of classical fascism, such as an appeal to a mythical past (Make America Great Again), anti-intellectualism, a culture of victimhood and violent hostility towards critical counterforces. Therefore, it seems defensible to call Trumpism a form of fascism. On the other hand, the term “fascism” seems to generate more heat than light, often rendering reasoned debate impossible. Therefore, it could be more useful to focus on the actions of the adminstration than trying to affix a label to it.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, I would appreciate if people could do their best to create a “reasoned debate” in the thread. That is, I would like to hear the reasons you have for agreeing or disagreeing with the premise of the post. A discussion that only feeds on fear and anger will only serve as fertile soil for fascism, whatever you take that to be.
Yes, quite scary too.
Corneel,
He is terrible for the people because in California special interest money has been critical to getting elected. Newsom’s goal was to get elected. If the system made it difficult for money to buy elections he would have focused his policies differently. His policies were focused on special interests and not the people of California.
Now the State has a Republican on the final ballot because the voters are fed up with the corruption.
But this is pretty much universally the case. As I recall, someone contributed like $280 million to Trump’s campaign and got rewarded with billions in no-bid government contracts.
So it’s a good thing money can’t buy Presidential elections, otherwise we might be saddled with someone erecting useless tariffs, building ballrooms, starting wars, and crippling every department he finds unremunerative.
No, there’s a Republican on the ballot because votes for Democrats were split among multiple candidates. The total number of votes for Republicans was far smaller than the total number of votes for Democrats. This is one of several reasons why I don’t like the jungle primary approach.
Your assertion about corruption is strange, because it’s so wildly incorrect. Fox News must be spreading that idiocy.
colewd’s corruption complaints are about Newsom, but they apply more aptly, by orders of magnitude and severity, to Trump. Now that’s wild. But it’s also the regular partisan projection: Whatever he accuses someone else of is actually his own daily mode of operation.
Chuckle away. It means that you were not sincere when you said above something about an apology. An apology alone means little anyway. The right thing to do is to stop being an imperialist. Instead, what you do is chuckle. i.e. happy to have gotten away with it with an insincere apology.
I knew all along where you stood when it comes to imperialism and colonialism. Your being touchy about invasions was a dead giveaway. Now you know it too.
Am I currently being imperialist? How so?
Flint,
My knowledge about the corruption does not come from the news. I live in California and know someone close to the Governor.
You are arguing that there is corruption on both sides and I agree with you. The only option is to compare policies and see who delivers.
No, I’m just pointing out that voters in California tend to vote for Democrats, and usually have, and doing so because they are “fed up with corruption” is just stupid. There is a Republican on the ballot because there were more Democrats than Republicans running, thus splitting the Democrat vote among more candidates. This shouldn’t be so hard to understand that you have to guess about how voters feel about corruption (which was not an issue anyway).
You currently chuckle about it because it is “rather modest lately”.
How lately is lately and how modest is modest? What would you think of Germans who chuckle about the Holocaust because it was a while ago? Besides, Germany has carefully steered clear from repeating any crimes against humanity since then, while Netherlands holds some remaining colonies to this day, which you can name instantly by heart because you are proud of having studied them at school.
The mere fact that you repeatedly call me to belabour the point that should have been instantly clear speaks for itself. This is not some historically obscure matter or morally grey area. By the way, this is probably the very blindspot in you that prevents you from seeing the obvious fascism of the Trump regime.
A tentative deal is reached etc. News outlets irrationally quote Trump’s irrational formulations without correcting – not to speak of market reactions who fall for it every time. First point, an alleged “reached” is not the promised “signed”.
Also, I’m sure that everybody understands (excluding Trump) that something like a memorandum of understanding is not a “deal” worth the name. Specifically, it’s not the kind of deal that the Iran war is being waged over. The war is being waged for the purpose of getting a better deal with Iran than Obama had. So, as long as there is no deal or there is a deal that is worse than Obama’s, Trump is lying.
Moreover, we have been through this sequence of events at least once before, when in early May Trump declared a vague immaterial deal ready and then Iran and Pakistan published 14 points (at least they had something on paper, different from Trump) that Trump entirely denied. Same thing now.
Just about everybody lies sometimes, but Trump lies always.
Flint,
Ok. You are right looking at the history this is consistent over the past several elections. We need to look at the final election vote count to see if there is a change in preference.
Uhm, no. Surinam and Indonesia are independent nations nowadays and the Antilles are now countries and municipalities in the kingdom, which is quite different from being a colony. “Learn the basics, will you”.
So we agree that the Netherlands has been historically imperialist. But you told me to “stop being an imperialist”, which suggests I am endorsing current national policies of aggressive territorial acquisition. By my knowledge, the last time the Netherlands made any serious attempt to expand its territory by military force was in the colonial age, centuries ago. If you insist, you may include the attempts to reclaim Indonesia during the war of independence which ended in 1949 and before that in 1831 when King Willem I tried to reclaim the Belgian territory that had just split off during the Belgian revolution. That is hardly current policy.
I guess that is why I started this OP, because I am so very blind to it. You really need to find a less abrasive tone and you need to check your facts better. I am willing to listen but not when you are yelling.
?? A change from when? From prior elections? I think the jungle primary system is new and there’s not really any historical comparison. From election day to final count? This is not a “change in preference”, it’s an artifact of publishing partial counts during the counting process. So you need to clarify what you’re comparing the final vote count with.
Flint,
Since 2011. Time mag
OK, so you’re looking at past primaries. So over time, what HAS been the “change in preference”? Surely the final election vote counts exist for prior years. What are they, and have they changed, and what do you think would constitute a change in preference for this year as opposed to past years?
Flint,
I think a small sign would be the race being close say within 5%. The real clear signal is if Hilton won.
Ah, I see. You’re talking about the upcoming November election for California governor. I’m also curious about what the final tally will be, but I have seen no indication that public awareness (much less disgust) with corruption has anything to do with that election. I haven’t even seen any mention of corruption at all.
I suspect that when colewd mentions the “the voters” or “the citizens” he refers to a select subset 🙂
Probably true. I was kind of depressed to read (in a recent poll) what a high percentage of Republican voters consider Trump the greatest President in US History. Lincoln was way down, but maybe we should be surprised any Republican voters have ever even heard of Lincoln. Or maybe they know Lincoln as the President who loved low-IQ morons (and you can generally estimate their IQ just by looking at them).
I dunno, I was just mocked in Maastricht for the age-inappropriate shortness of my shorts. In 30°-plus heat. You’re all still bullies at heart. (I jest, ofc).
We are a tolerant and broad-minded nation, but we do have standards, you know.
BTW: My brother lives in Maastricht. Beautiful city. I hope you had some time for sightseeing?