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.
But political resentment and nativism have a different effect in USA. In a country founded by immigrants it does not make sense to have nativism. And the main purpose of politics is to administer law and order, whereas Trump is easily the most lawless and disorderly politician in the American history. So, the foundation of any Trump supporter is an absolute blindness to everything to do with facts and reality, a profound wilful ignorance. This is what “an independent voter” means in colewd’s case: being totally uninformed about everything and completely divorced from the basic observation of reality around him.
In (some) European countries, nativism has true relevance in terms of self-preservation and political resentment can grow when this relevance is not recognised. None of this is the case in USA and cannot be. With Trump there is no rhyme or reason or purpose to anything except immediate self-gain and self-adulation.
But of course this is the case in the USA. Yes, we are all immigrants or descended from immigrants, but we do not regard nativism as relating to land of origin of ourselves or our ancestors. We regard nativism in terms of culture, language, religion, and (most of all) color. The Trump voter regards those who are not white, and who did not originally came from white Western European nations, as “not real Americans”. Trump has gladly invited and/or welcomed white people from Norway or South Africa, and has labeled those from “shithole countries” (countries predominately hispanic, black, or muslim) as criminals, murderers and rapists. And it’s become obvious that it doesn’t matter how many generations a minority citizen has lived here – descendants of slaves living in (what eventually became) the US for 400 years are not accepted, white immigrants who came here last week are “real Americans.”
Mitch McConnell:
Thom Tillis:
Andrew Desiderio on X:
Even Senate Republicans think the slush fund is a bridge too far. Bill is fine with it, though.
The ballroom was in the same bill, the ballroom that was originally supposed to cost $200 million and be paid from private donations, but now is said to cost $1b and to be paid from the government budget, so it went into a bill. But colewd has no connection to facts and information, so it is impossible to discuss it with him.
Well, Clinton was gobbled by his secretary, so… shrug. It is odd to see Christians suddenly reticent. about expressing moral outrage. They aren’t normally so shy of telling the rest of us where we’re going wrong.
On a tangential note, the Presidential Pardon is weird. Like, pardon a turkey if you find it quaint, like dressing up at Colonial Williamsburg. But to go through the sainted legal process, jury of your peers, one of the pillars of the Great American Way, all that shit, then the President comes along and says “You know what? Nah…”.
Erik:
The latest scam is that Trump is claiming he doesn’t need congressional approval to build his obscene arch because in 1925 — 100 years ago — Congress approved a different project that was never built.
Bill, what do you think? Should the American people, via Congress, have a say in what happens on that land, which belongs to us? Do you think the American people should have had a say in whether Trump was allowed to demolish the East Wing of the White House, which belongs to us? Or are you happy that Trump is placing his own ego above the people’s will?
That’s a rhetorical question. After being asked over half a dozen times, you still won’t say whether you prefer that America remain a democracy vs becoming a dictatorship under Trump. That says it all.
Allan:
Yeah, it’s way too easy to abuse. I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned anyone as corrupt and brazen as Donald Trump in the presidency. I’d love to see it abolished or sharply limited, but it would require a constitutional amendment and that’s a steep hill to climb.
But don’t blame us — we got the idea from you guys and your “royal prerogatives”. I mean, it wasn’t like we were rebelling against a monarch or anything.
It is not about making sense, but as Flint rightly notes, about national and cultural identity. Fascists, both in Europe and in the US, are always trying to return to a past that embodies some idealized version of their conservative values. The fact that this past never existed is irrelevant of course. Immigrants are perceived as a threat to that identity. I do agree with you that in the US this plays out differently than in European countries due to their history of immigration and segregation.
Careful! Don’t allow yourself to be pulled in, Erik. In Europe nativism is as much bollocks as it is in the US. Migration is no threat to cultural identity (whatever that means). At least, I have never seen anyone flesh out that concern.
I disagree. First, Europe is made of actual different countries where the differences are steep for real reasons, in some cases as steep as between whites and Native Americans in USA, except in USA they do not have separate countries. It would be genuinely better for Native Americans if they had managed to push back the white invadors.
And I guess this is enough said for now, because it’s not on topic. Nativism does not necessarily mean fascism, whereas denial of nativism can easily mean imperialism.
There was so much wrong with colewd’s comment, but this struck me too. You’ve got Donald “grab ’em by the pussy” Trump handy as a rich source of examples of “moral issues” involving sexual assault and abuse, but of course we prefer to mention the Democrat president fondling his secretary.
“Invaders” might not be the frame in which you wanted to paint modern day immigrants.
Very similar things can be said about nationalism and conservatism. But do mind that these are the buttons fascists will push to acquire support from more moderate political actors. They will try to draw you in by appealing to values you might support as well. This is why I keep repeating that the important distinction is no longer “left” versus “right”, but “democratic” versus “undemocratic”, also here in Europe.
Where I live, left versus right never made any sense. It was always democratic versus undemocratic or upper class versus lower classes. And also “us” versus others. Insofar as left versus right are a thing here, it is precisely because we were indoctrinated into adopting those terms because they were somehow supposed to make the political discourse more sensible and realistic. Do you see how different different European countries can be? I doubt it.
keiths,
Heh. We curtailed a lot of that nonsense in 1689!
When a nation is dealing with an actual fifth column that is larger in proportion than your host of immigrants ever was (and is), when a nation is facing a real imminent threat of military invasion (think about the Sudetenland scenario, something that has been perfectly real all along since the collapse of the Warsaw pact in a number of countries between Germany and Russia), you might not want to take the side of the imperial bastard with Lebensraum ambitions and accommodate the aggressor the way Chamberlain did. But, idk, perhaps you very much want to, because, given your specific location, it does not concern you and you do not care about the countries whom it might concern because you want European solidarity to be a one-way street – everybody else must think and talk like you, never bring up their own concerns, no matter how vital and essential.
Allan Miller,
It is a little weird. I guess is a final check in the innocent before proven guilty philosophy. What are your current priorities for policies in England. How do you compare the current political situation in the Uk to the US?
Trump’s Greenland Goon Makes Insane Claim After Nightmare Visit
Trump is so clueless that he thought Landry could “go over there and make a bunch of friends, as many friends as possible.”