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.