Ana thinks Trump is not a facist. Zeteo- Meheti Hassan did an excellent job laying out this case. Who do you guys agree with?
2 Likes
Most scholars agree that fascism is characterized by a blend of authoritarian, ultranationalist, and anti-democratic values, with a focus on the supremacy of the state over individual rights. Key features of fascism include a reverence for militarism and a readiness to use violence to enforce conformity and suppress opposition, often justified by the belief in the need for a strong, centralized authority to restore societal order (Paxton, 2004; Griffin, 1991). Nationalistic fervor in fascist regimes usually goes hand-in-hand with xenophobia or ethnocentrism, as fascist ideology promotes the notion of cultural or racial superiority, leading to the persecution of minority groups who are seen as threats to the “purity” of the nation (Eatwell, 1996; Payne, 1995).
Fascist movements often rally around a charismatic leader who embodies national strength, unity, and renewal, placing the leader as the sole source of moral and political authority, effectively creating a cult of personality (Griffin, 1991; Eco, 1995). Such leaders promote anti-intellectualism, suppress dissenting voices, and label democratic institutions as corrupt, fostering a distrust of pluralistic or egalitarian ideals that threaten the “integrity” of the nation. Another aspect of fascist ideology is its glorification of traditional values, family structures, and a sense of nostalgia for an idealized past, often portrayed as a time of greater strength or unity (Eco, 1995; Linz, 2000).
Scholars also identify economic corporatism as a hallmark of fascism, where the state intervenes in and regulates industries to benefit its nationalist agenda while discouraging both socialist and capitalist ideologies that advocate for class struggle or unrestricted free markets (Paxton, 2004; Eatwell, 1996). Additionally, fascist regimes use propaganda extensively to control the media and manipulate public opinion, ensuring that narratives serve the interests of the ruling party and reinforce ideologies of loyalty, sacrifice, and the devaluation of individual liberties (Payne, 1995).
References
- Eco, U. (1995). Ur-Fascism. New York Review of Books.
- Eatwell, R. (1996). Fascism: A History. Chatto & Windus.
- Griffin, R. (1991). The Nature of Fascism. St. Martin’s Press.
- Linz, J. J. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
- Paxton, R. O. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism. Vintage Books.
- Payne, S. G. (1995). A History of Fascism, 1914–1945. University of Wisconsin Press.
3 Likes
Several scholars and political analysts suggest that Donald J. Trump exhibits characteristics that align with elements traditionally ascribed to fascism, as identified in studies of fascist ideology and leaders (Paxton, 2004; Stanley, 2018). One of the most prominent features is his emphasis on authoritarianism. Trump has consistently demonstrated a preference for unilateral decision-making and has frequently challenged the legitimacy of institutions that provide checks and balances, including the media, the judiciary, and electoral processes. Such actions align with fascist tendencies to undermine democratic norms and promote a central authority that discourages opposition (Stanley, 2018; Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018).
Nationalism is another element of Trump’s platform that mirrors fascist ideology. His “America First” slogan and policies emphasize nativism and have included restrictive immigration measures that reinforce an exclusionary view of American identity (Giroux, 2017). This focus on “us vs. them” rhetoric, which casts immigrants, political opponents, and journalists as threats, resonates with the ultranationalist and xenophobic sentiments observed in fascist regimes. Trump has also employed militaristic language, valorizing physical strength and advocating for law-and-order responses, which further consolidates his appeal among those seeking a “strongman” figure capable of maintaining societal control—a feature noted in studies of fascist movements that stress obedience and order over individual freedoms (Eco, 1995; Paxton, 2004).
Furthermore, Trump’s communication style often relies on populist, anti-elitist narratives, positioning himself as the sole representative of “real” Americans, while depicting democratic norms as corrupt or ineffective. This form of rhetoric has been observed in fascist leaders who portray themselves as saviors of the nation, dismissing diverse voices as untrustworthy or “unpatriotic” (Griffin, 1991; Paxton, 2004). Finally, Trump’s frequent use of disinformation and attacks on objective truth resemble the propaganda strategies used by fascist regimes to consolidate power by shaping public perception and vilifying dissent. His denial of election results in 2020, despite lack of evidence for his claims, and his continued assertions of fraud, serve to undermine trust in democratic processes, echoing authoritarian tactics to control narratives and maintain influence (Stanley, 2018; Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018).
References
- Eco, U. (1995). Ur-Fascism. New York Review of Books.
- Giroux, H. A. (2017). The Public in Peril: Trump and the Menace of American Authoritarianism. Routledge.
- Griffin, R. (1991). The Nature of Fascism. St. Martin’s Press.
- Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
- Paxton, R. O. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism. Vintage Books.
- Stanley, J. (2018). How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Random House.
3 Likes
Donald J. Trump’s characteristics that align with elements of fascism often resonate with undecided voters by addressing their desire for strong, decisive leadership amid perceived societal and political instability. Many undecided voters express a preference for leaders who appear capable of restoring order and addressing complex issues with straightforward solutions. Trump’s populist, anti-establishment messaging and his portrayal of himself as an outsider “savior” figure resonate with voters who are disillusioned by traditional politics and who often distrust democratic institutions as ineffective or corrupt (Stanley, 2018; Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). This appeal taps into what scholars identify as a latent attraction to authoritarianism among some undecided voters, who may seek stability through a singular figure rather than pluralistic governance (Altemeyer, 2006; Jost, 2017).
Trump’s emphasis on nationalism and his “us vs. them” rhetoric also attract undecided voters, particularly those who feel alienated by the pace of social change or the impact of globalization on local communities. The simplified, emotionally charged solutions he presents offer a sense of security and identity, allowing these voters to connect with his message without engaging deeply with policy complexity (Giroux, 2017; Stanley, 2018). Moreover, his law-and-order stance aligns with the tendency of undecided voters to be swayed by emotional appeals, especially those framed around safety, stability, and unity (Hare & Kutsuris, 2023; Hetherington & Weiler, 2009). By casting democratic discourse as chaotic and aligning himself with a sense of tradition and stability, Trump reinforces the attraction of authoritarianism to undecided voters who may otherwise avoid engaging in democratic processes that they perceive as divisive or overly complex.
References
- Altemeyer, B. (2006). The Authoritarians. CreateSpace.
- Giroux, H. A. (2017). The Public in Peril: Trump and the Menace of American Authoritarianism. Routledge.
- Hare, C., & Kutsuris, M. (2023). Measuring Swing Voters with a Supervised Machine Learning Ensemble. Political Analysis, 31(4), 537-553. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2022.24
- Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. Cambridge University Press.
- Jost, J. T. (2017). Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407
- Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
- Stanley, J. (2018). How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Random House.
3 Likes
By every conceivable metric Trump is a fascist. A demagogue against the marginalized, someone obsessed with violent intimidation of dissent, someone who pardons people who declare that they personally like him, regardless of crime, and punishes people who personally don’t. Someone who tears apart any institution that doesn’t say what he wants to hear, true or not. Someone who wanted to have the Insurrection Act declared so that the military could shoot protesters when they complained about the election he knowingly tried to steal. Heck, just the virtual certainty that he’ll pardon himself for his own convicted crimes and appoint Aileen Cannon to a Cabinet position makes him a fascist. And we haven’t even gotten to his admiration of dictators or the scope and breadth of fascists openly supporting him.
Ana’s justifiable hatred of the Democrats and referral of 80% of all issues to the way they treat Palestinians (the other 20% is about how they aren’t Rightwing enough on crime) has turned her commentary about Trump into “it doesn’t matter who wins,” and on some issues that’s valid, though on others it’s appallingly wrong.
But even that is a giant step away from “it’s ok, Trump can’t be a fascist president because this country won’t allow him to do fascist things.” Her position is basically “It can’t happen here,” when it has been fairly quickly happening for years now. “The system will work as it should and therefore we’ll be protected” is even more laughable–especially coming from TYT. Trump’s Muslim ban was stopped by the courts 7 years ago. Since then, the courts have gotten far more radical, Trump will have more of a mandate than ever, with fewer insiders resisting him, he is now basically immune from any “official” action in a way that he wasn’t in 2017, and Democrats have gotten more Rightwing since then and many of them would support a Muslim ban.
Would he round up 20 million immigrants and deport them? No. Would he seriously attempt this until the 800,000 or 1.4 million mark and then see that “whoops, we can’t really do this, let’s abandon it,” while meanwhile tons of people have died and had their lives ruined and are just kept in camps for 3 years because ICE will neither release them nor give them trials? Would it be a gigantic mess where thousands of people are left to die in the Mexican desert where our buses just throw them out because the deportations are starting to run behind schedule? All of these things could happen. Trump isn’t going to have every journalist jailed for opposing him, but it’ll happen with a few of them and most of the rest will just stop criticizing him.
Even Piers Morgan doesn’t think that the US would stop Trump from being a fascist, he at least just thinks that Trump and his enemies are both using hyperbole and the threat isn’t serious. I don’t know of anyone else who thinks that Trump will be reined in by our wonderful system of functionality and accountability if he does try these things.
3 Likes
Here’s what they discussed:
- The Rise of Authoritarianism: Both Mehdi and Steve argue that Trump’s rhetoric and actions suggest an authoritarian approach that could weaken democratic institutions. They bring up comments from former Trump officials like John Kelly, who recently called Trump a “fascist,” underscoring the seriousness of this threat.
- Media’s Reluctance to Engage: They criticize major media outlets for not addressing these risks more directly, suggesting that corporate media may avoid it out of fear for their bottom line. The result? We’re all left without a clear picture of the stakes.
- Rights of Vulnerable Groups at Risk: Mehdi explains how marginalized communities, such as people of color and Muslims, could face significant discrimination under Trump. Even if people are frustrated with current Democratic leaders, they emphasize that there’s more freedom to advocate for change under them.
- Political Denial and Underestimating Trump: Mehdi and Steve are stunned at how people downplay Trump’s statements. His open admiration for leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán hints at a clear authoritarian intention. Historically, leaders who make bold threats of “retribution” often act on them.
- A Call to Unite for Democracy: They end by urging Americans across political lines to come together to defend democracy, setting aside other disagreements to safeguard basic freedoms.
Here are some thought-provoking questions one could ask to spark conversation or reflect on the themes Mehdi and Steve discussed:
-
About Authoritarianism: Given the warning signs about Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, what specific actions would we consider true “red flags” for democracy? Are there actions beyond rhetoric that would make you feel democracy is genuinely at risk?
-
On Media’s Role: Do we think mainstream media does enough to highlight potential threats to democracy? If not, what should it look like for media to hold powerful figures accountable without appearing biased?
-
Vulnerable Communities and Rights: Mehdi mentions the unique risks for marginalized groups. In what ways could government policies or changes to the law impact everyday freedoms for these groups, and how can people show support for those affected?
-
Political Denial and Complacency: Why do you think people continue to downplay Trump’s rhetoric, and what is it that makes the “it can’t happen here” mindset so pervasive in America?
-
Unity for Democracy: If people with very different views need to come together to defend democracy, what steps can we realistically take to foster this unity? How can people with opposing beliefs find common ground on such a crucial issue?
These questions could help open up meaningful discussions on democracy, media, political polarization, and ways to advocate for a stronger society.
2 Likes
-
Personal Definitions of “Authoritarian”: What if each of us has a unique line that defines what “authoritarianism” looks like? Where is that line for you personally, and what would it take for you to feel that it’s been crossed?
-
Media’s Business Model: If media companies are motivated to maintain their business interests, can a news organization ever be fully transparent about political threats? What would a truly independent media organization look like in today’s society, and is it even realistic?
-
The “Lesser of Two Evils” Factor: How much freedom are people willing to sacrifice when they choose to vote for a “lesser evil”? What’s a constructive way to address the genuine discomfort some voters feel with their choices, and could there be a model of voting that better reflects people’s complex views?
-
Global Influence: How might America’s growing polarization impact international relationships and alliances? For instance, if the U.S. became less democratic, how would that influence other democracies and global governance as a whole?
-
Mental Impact of Denial and Complacency: Given the psychological tendency to avoid uncomfortable truths, what mental or emotional tools could help individuals recognize political threats without becoming overwhelmed or hopeless? Can we learn from other countries that have navigated democratic backsliding?
2 Likes
I’m going with Trump is technically not a Fascist because that ship sailed with Mussolini’s last bated breath (too soon?), and referring to him as such has proven to be quite ineffective with most voters. That said, I think the Media debating the semantics is a waste of time from what really matters, which is that, at the very least, Trump’s rhetoric and the rhetoric of those he surrounds himself with are not only laced but overflowing with hate and vitriol for everyone except for rich, White (especially male and religious) billionaires, useful-for-a-time sycophants, and uneducated White men age 18 and up. He’s a rapist who tried to overthrow the US Government and for whom much of the Media purposefully lies numerous times each hour.
1 Like
@drea_m_r_76 Going by the Dictionary definitions (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford, Collins, Dictionary.com, and Vocabulary.com) or going by the characteristics as defined by the majority of scholars writing about fascism, Trump is unambiguously a fascist. Arguing anything else in the context of the actual meaning of a word, or what academics that research, define, and categorize what a particular philosophy, ideology, and/or political movement is, is to substitute your meaning for the social construct for that particular philosophy, ideology, and/or political movement.
To do so violates the social convention that words and specific ideologies, philosophies, or political movements have a generally accepted meaning under the particular social construct of each of those types groupthink.
It is important to note that fascist definitely does not mean “do what Hitler did” or “being Benito Mussolini”, and when people keep pushing such alternative meanings, those people are helping such language to become ineffectual to the purpose of such language, to correctly identify to the general public those who espouse such ideologies and/or philosophies. If the meaning is understood, and it generally understood that such ideologies or philosophies are harmful to the general public, then those who espouse such ideologies or philosophies intend harm to the general public.
Debating such semantics is not a waste of time, because if we can hold the meaning of words, expressions, and labelling to what they are meant to communicate, then we can hold bad actors to be accountable to their misuse of language. Whe. we do so, we can point out exactly how they are misusing language to promote their ideas and philosophies.
3 Likes
As an example, bad actors may claim their harmful language is protected as “free speech,” reframing any critique of their rhetoric as an attack on fundamental rights. Since free speech amounts to the right to share ideas and opinions without fear of censorship, retaliation, or legal action, and not criticism, they are abusing language by twisting the meaning of the idea of “free speech” to include criticism. When one allows such a bad actor to force one to withold criticism, then they are able to advocate hatred or incite violence, infringing upon the rights of others.
In the former example, “bad actor” is a label used in place of “an individual or entity involved in malicious or unethical activities within a particular context, typically seeking personal gain at the expense of others.” Generally, while words, expressions, and labelling have reliable meanings, it may be of particular utility to write out the definition instead of the word, expression, and label. With words with vast underlying ideologies or philosophies, such as fascism, it should be acceptable (in a rational and reasonable world) to explain the underlying ideologies and philosophies to the unitiated, so it is easily understood what calling someone a fascist means.
Discarding the device of language because it sometimes seems ineffective is like throwing out the current generation of babies with the bathwater. Language is also polymorphic, so if one’s linguistic tactics seem ineffective, one can use creativity to expand upon and augment one’s rhetoric to ce more effective. As an example “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” is an idiomatic expression for an avoidable error in which something good or of value is eliminated when trying to get rid of something unwanted. Substituting “the current generation of babies” for the “baby” expands the expression from “something good or of value” to “something good or of value of an exponentially higher value.”
3 Likes
I agree with you, and I was honestly confused because other “experts” (I use quotes because I have only been told they were experts and haven’t researched it myself) say the exact opposite. My belief, based on reading and research, always had been that fascism was defined in the way you posted, and I am a huge believer that words matter. Seriously, I love words and think they are one of the most powerful tools we have. I’m going to admit that I was wrong in my previous post and that my views were swayed by people who, in my opinion, were purporting an idea for their benefit, so I erred on the side of caution rather than sticking to what I believed.
2 Likes
Are you kidding me with this? He’s a wannabe dictator who wants to use intimidation and force to exact his will. What more do you need to know?
1 Like
<joke>But DID HE become a dictator last time??</joke>
Ana needs to retract that position; especially now, in light of what she can see is going on before her eyes…
1 Like
There is an interesting thing, (beyond Ana’s point about diluting labels’ meanings’ linguistically), behaviorally labels are like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
… youth being arrested and labeled as criminals shapes their self-perception to fit that label.
Interpersonally labeling someone as a fascist not only incentivizes them into disassociating their fascist behaviors from the meanings of the term fascist… The person would also have non-fascist values informing those behaviors; simply labeling the person could feel to them like their wider values are neglected and unaddressed (and potentially violated, into victimhood complex). Their reaction could be to reiterate their unaddressed values by doubling down on their behaviors associated with the label.
Maybe an actual sociologist or psychologist could chime in on how to better communicate, other than labeling. While I can understand that empathically focusing on the behaviors of issue (rather than focusing on the person) is often better in an interpersonal context, I wonder how to translate this into social and political communication.
I would imagine labeling Trump as a fascist would significantly increase fascist behaviors from those feeling like defending Trump, (as an extension of defending themselves). Perhaps, should we focus more on how Trump’s policies have fascist affects, rather than focus on how Trump is a fascist leader himself? This subtle difference would also illuminate reality, similarly relative to simply labeling Trump, and it may also be less likely to systemically produce greater fascist social consequences.
1 Like
Fascist/ Authoritarian wannabe Dictator…
His fascist policies are designed to lead to a dictatorship…
1 Like
He’ll be a dictator if you let him be a dictator; and I see little to make me believe the current slew of Repubs will stand up to him. I cited this as the fundamental problem with him: not him being an incompetent business guy (VERY competent when it comes to his sociopathic skills…), but the fact that Repubs have done little to convince us he will be managed the way Biden was when his brain fell out at the debate…
2 Likes
Not yet, so no. Dont let it happen!
1 Like