The many comments inspired by this piece by RBG on the terms "Fascism" and "Fascist" are extremely interesting. They exhibit an impressive level of concern, knowledge, thought, and insight. At the same time, the viewpoints they express seem bewilderingly heterogeneous (much like the stereotypical debate among any group of Democrats).
RBG begins by explaining why she is addressing this topic: "People are often disappointed that I don't call Trump . . . a Fascist." She then describes her treatment of her topic in respect to its two component parts: the term "Fascist" can "perpetuate outdated ideas about how authoritarianism works." That is, first, the term is intrinsically inappropriate because it does not accurately describe the current form of the phenomenon it is being applied to. Second, the term is rhetorically inappropriate because it is likely to mislead the audience to whom it is addressed.
Insisting on accurate terminology is neither pedantic nor removed from reality. You expect your mechanic to know the names of the parts of your car in order to be able to understand the way they work and the complex ways they interact. You expect your medical doctor to know the complex, arcane terminology required to diagnose and treat what ails you, together with the complex medical realities which that terminology describes. In turn, the terminology in every field depends on a valid taxonomy, or system of classification. The term, or name, for a biological organism means little apart from the complex taxonomy of the plant, animal, and fungal kingdoms. It is impossible for a biologist to work without that taxonomy. Similarly, the work of the astronomer cannot be done without the taxonomy of astral bodies; the work of the chemist cannot be done without the periodic table of the elements. The development of each of these taxonomies, together with their terminologies, has been a major intellectual achievement requiring the cooperation of many brilliant individuals over centuries or millennia.
There is no such single, established taxonomy in the field of history. There is no such taxonomy in the field of "authoritarian," "autocratic," or "Fascist" studies. There is no scientifically settled and rigorous field of knowledge concerning "authoritarian," "autocratic," or "Fascist" rulers based on such a taxonomy. A glance at the scholarship in any field of history shows that a great many schools of historical interpretation exist. Studying any historical phenomenon of any era requires recognizing that there will inevitably be many ways of interpreting it, all of them to a greater or lesser extent mutually contradictory.
Nevertheless, there seems to be an unstated and unrecognized assumption here that there is some "correct" terminology, taxonomy and interpretation, or diagnosis, that will "explain" the contemporary political situation in America, if only we work at it a little longer and a little harder, and also a little longer and a little harder at persuading others that our interpretation is correct. This "correct" diagnosis will lead to a prescription for curing our situation. This is magical thinking. If things were that simple, we would not be in this situation in the first place. This magical thinking is produced by the rising panic caused by the recognition that America is already to a significant extent brutally "authoritarian" or "Fascist," and may soon become almost wholly so. If you're diagnosed with a potentially fatal and not-well-understood disease, you naturally wish for a magical cure. But reality will implacably return the answer to you that there is none.
Mario Cuomo, one of the greatest liberal communicators and orators of the second half of the twentieth century, said that first you have to figure out what policy you want to pursue; then you have to "put it into baby-talk." Unfortunately there is no good term from "baby-talk" for referring to the "authoritarianism" or "Fascism" that is rising in contemporary America. It would be self-indulgent and irresponsible for RBG to use a false but gratifyingly inflammatory terminology employing such baby-talk in order to allay our anxieties. As Orwell taught, abuse of language leads directly to abuse in politics. We turn to RBG for the same reason we see a medical doctor when we are sick with a little-understood disease. We cannot expect her to provide a magical cure, but we understand that she, and others like her, possess knowledge, understanding, and wisdom that we do not, and that we profoundly need.
Instead of anxiously making a fetish of terminology, we need to recognize that our first problem is that our own understanding of what ails us is inadequate. America did not suddenly develop its current political pathology in 2016. Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader and other voices, censored for decades from the mainstream in a "democratic" America with a supposedly progressive party, have long been shouting into the wind, trying to warn us that we needed to wake up and take action. We did not. Now we spend a lot of time blaming others for our current situation; we need to look in the mirror. We do not properly understand the current political pathology in America in part because we never understood democracy in the first place. We just took it for granted. In order to understand our political pathology, we need to understand democracy for the first time, because "Fascism" and its congeners are diseases of democracy. Solving our problems requires not winning online debates, but educating first ourselves, and then Americans en masse, about the nature of our situation. It is up to those who of us are aware of our present danger, like those who read Lucid, to learn to understand our situation better and more realistically than we do. Then we can try to educate those who are asleep--not just try to wake them up by shouting inflammatory words at them.
Americans are only now, too slowly and in numbers that are too small, awakening from their decades-long slumber, during which reactionaries have been brilliantly executing their coup-in-slow-motion. We can only start from where we are. We need to remember the negative example of the Arab Spring. The Egyptians got rid of the "fascist" Mubarak only to get the "fascist Islamist" Morsi; then they got rid of the "fascist Islamist" Morsi only to get the "fascist" Sisi. Similarly, the failed coup attempt against Erdogan served only as a Reichstag moment that enabled him to consolidate his power even further. It will do us no good to get rid of Donald Trump only to get Tucker Carlson because we didn't know what we were doing. We must recognize the real possibility, as Sarah Kendzior puts it, that a few "generations of martyrs" may soon be required to restore democracy in America. We need to educate ourselves properly now about a historical situation in which an even greater nightmare than we are currently facing is a genuine possibility.
You miss two points. The basis of Fascism is a secret agreement with Oligarchical Capitalism, as Steve Rasmussen shows. Trump is only a proto-Fascist because, as his cousin Mary explains, he is a proto-individual. Secondly, the Leader is either crazy to begin with, or becomes crazy through power and a lack of normal daily interactions. The rest is contemporary window-dressing and pseudo-intellectual explanation.
Author Nancy Maclean has an interesting piece in Salon that speaks to the influence of the Koch brothers- driven, far right agenda that funds radical Republican lawmakers. Their Libertarian agenda is all about social Darwinism and other fascist traits. There is a link between Koch money and the Republicans who did not want to certify the electoral votes on Jan 6th.
For me, Trump is a proto-fascist, not fully formed. Our nation is not fascist, as we still have more than one political party, but we saw on Jan 6th how intolerant of other political ideas the Republicans have become. That intolerance shows a yeaning for single party rule and the political bigotry seen in fascism. The advent of lobbying and the Citizens United decision by SCOTUS form a nexus between business and goverment that was seen in fascism. Trump's belligerent ultra-nationalism is a fascist trait. Trump is an advocate of social Darwinism which is what drove the scapegoating in Italy, Germany and Serbia with Mussolini, Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic. This concept seems to be the cornerstone of fascism. Dissent is not tolerated under fascism and we saw Trump's strident reaction to the BLM marches. But dissent by angry white nationalists at the Capitol was encouraged by Trump, which brings back the subject of social Darwinism again. The fact that many fascist leaders were sociopaths and that Trump is as well, is a harbinger of what Trump could become if left in office. Sociopaths have the rare ability to convince people that they are normal. They are ticking time bombs as they have no conscience, nor empathy. John Gacy was a sociopath. Can you imagine letting him get into a position of power?
Another gem of a column by Ruth. Whatever one wishes to call it, fascism, authoritarianism, etc, it must be stopped. I hope the Democratic controlled congress recognizes that passing the Freedom to Vote and John Lewis Voting Rights Acts may be the only thing that can save us from state election nullifications and the loss of our democracy. If not now, when?
Thanks for the clarification of the term fascism, Ruth. Comparative historical context matters here for our understanding of how authoritarianism has evolved in the modern era of social media.
In Trump's case, I believe he [himself] is not only an authoritarian but a fascist, if ever there was one, given his malignant, sociopath, narcissist personality structure. Is there any doubt that if he could change laws regarding free speech, defamation, right to assembly, civil liberties etc,-- dissenting journalists, protesters and anyone else he doesn't like would be locked up, silenced or made to disappear? Would elections not be totally manipulated and corrupted by new laws making it impossible for the opposition to ever win? Would out groups and minorities not be persecuted and intimidated by far right paramilitary groups loyal to him? Also, would he not align the power of the state and federal government with his big business cronies in corrupt business arrangements, if he could? Would national media outlets not be intimidated into following his dictates to make him look good at all times and never criticize him lest they incur his wrath and be subjected to cruel punishment? It wouldn't be all that much different than it is in North Korea where der leader is extolled and worshiped by state run media propaganda outlets on a daily basis? Well he already has Fox. Would the departments of justice and defense not become his personnel tools he could use to inflict punishment on his political enemies? He's always admired and emulated leaders like Putin and Orban for their iron fisted strength and control. I'll always see Donald Trump as a fascist wannabe.
Could it be that authoritarians, neo-Fascists, et al, are/were attracted to Trump because they understood that he could be used to advance their anti-democratic ideas? Could it be that they understood how poorly-informed he was about law, US society, etc., how he was motivated so strongly by need for respect, and thus, how easily he could be manipulated to achieve their own goals?
Think your comments are spot on. Trump was/is the perfect vessel into which the real fascists could/can pour their energy and resources and anti-democratic aspirations.
Trump is driven by greed, a lust for power and an insatiable hunger for universal approval. If he can't attain that approval through his words or actions, I think he'd be perfectly willing to silence all critics. He wouldn't do the dirty work, of course. Much safer to send out his goons to complete the task. Ask the January 6th insurrectionists. Trump's admiration for the current crop of world authoritarians is an immediate tell. They did what Trump wanted to do: apply the iron fist on all detractors, anyone who crossed him or pushed back.
The political/social ideologues, the real brains and enablers behind the movement get what they want by eroding our democratic institutions with the goal of dismantling the Republic. Their vessel of choice is a con artist, an amoral narcissist who can whip up the crowds and control the narrative. Trump, that chosen man, gets what he wants--the opportunity to grift to his heart's content, do and say whatever he wants with neither criticism nor scorn and be idolized by his glassy-eyed supporters.
Your argument well may be valid, but focusing on a label is ultimately, irrelevant. From Biden to Congressional Democratic leadership to the media, a collective decision to minimize the danger has occurred, with the predictable result that the authoritarian movement has strengthened and grown. Hiding behind a sweater vest was sufficient 'cover' for Youngkin. I have zero faith that we will avoid the worst outcomes. Those who have the bully pulpit refuse to speak truth to the public and describe daily life under dictatorship, the DOJ under Garland is ignoring or slow-walking accountability, and anti-democratic voices are increasingly normalized by short-sighted and arrogant media and corporate entities who believe (as have all others before them in dictatorships throughout history) that they will be spared when the last vestiges of democracy are shattered.
Youngkin was a major player in the Carlyle Group in DC, a nexus between government and business for decades. Major political figures were a part of this investment firm. It was kind of a revolving door of government/business collusion. This collusion was dominant in fascist nations. We have some dangerous symptoms that should not be ignored.
I agree, and yet, these symptoms are being downplayed by Democratic strategists, Democratic donors, Democratic leadership, Independents, and the media. Terrifyingly, the only ones paying attention seem to be those conversant in history and never-Trump conservatives.
The groundswell of far right authoritarianism is gaining momentum. We are on a burning platform and had better act quickly or they will win control through the ballot box. It's an urgent messaging war.
Unfortunately, we have Chuck Schumer who describes the insurrectionists as 'houligans', pundits and anchors who describe corruption and fascism as 'shenanigans' and 'craziness', reporters who refuse to illuminate the stark reality ahead and instead cash in via books that fill in the blanks of crimes committed in plain sight, and an administration focused on papering over the dangers in a vain quest for normalcy. Biden's poll numbers are dropping because people feel as though the ship of state is rudderless. What happened to his fight for the soul of this country? Such a fight isn't won by passing infrastructure bills.
It's not a lack of urgency, the Democratic leadership, Democratic strategists, Democratic donors, and the White House know what's at stake. It's a lack of courage to face the dangers head-on and rebut the propaganda from the world's largest bully pulpit. Yes, there would be blowback from the right-wing ecosystem, but the majority of people would feel as though their fears were heard. Instead, the media is publishing endless stories about inflation and the price of milk. Merrick Garland is wholly unsuited to a prosecutorial role...he's behaving as if he's worried about a ruling being overturned on appeal. Ron Klain seems to believe that his endless tweets about vaccination percentages are anything but filler. We should be a nation well-educated as to the realities of life under a dictatorship, instead most believe that little will change in their lives. The rule of law may be fractured in the US, but it's absence will be devastating to almost everyone.
I disagree. I subscribe to a view more akin to that of Dr. Stanley of Yale and Umberto Eco: fascism is a set of characteristics common to a particular strain of right wing populist authoritarianism.
Authoritarian is far to broad a term to describe a specific phenomenon: it's like insisting we use the word "canid" to describe Siberian Huskies. Well, yes, they're canids, but you need a word for a very specific type of canid.
Competitive authoritarianism is a description of how modern fascists come to power, and stay there. It doesn't say anything about the ideology they used (which, to be fair, is frequently fascist, but not always: Poland's descent into this form of government is perhaps less fascist and more simply theocratic, though the two tend to be intertwined)
Speaking as a trans person, I recognize that the GOP movement is fascist both ideologically and in terms of messaging. I know that they would love to see me, and everyone like me, gone from the public sphere, much as the Nazis wanted Jews to flee Germany between 1933-1939. I think simply calling the modern GOP "authoritarian" is not specific enough, and undersells how terrifying their ideology is for those of us on the wrong side of it.
Initially, Germany encouraged Jews to flee to Palestine. Early in the Reich, they actually expedited attempts to get people there, until the UK began sharply limiting immigration there.
According to the US Holocaust Museum: "In the wake of Kristallnacht, the Nazis increased the pressure on Jews to leave. Responsibility for accelerating Jewish emigration from the Reich now fell fully into the hands of the SS."
Germany didn't formally begin restricting immigration out until 1938, when the Reich's interior ministry began stamping Jewish passports with a big, red, "J" (for Juden)
By the outbreak of WWII, two-thirds of Germany's Jewish population (of about 540,000 to start with) had already fled, and the rest were basically trying to get out (but couldn't due to poverty or immigration restrictions). The start of WWII basically halted immigration, though a trickle to Palestine and the UK remained.
It wasn't until the Wannsee conference in January 1942 that the "Final Solution" became official German policy.
This is why I am very leery of policies meant to target a minority into going underground, disappearing, or leaving get put in place: history says this is sometimes the prelude to something far worse. In 1933, Jews were about .7% of the population: just big enough that they could be scapegoated, too small to wield real power, and small enough that having them flee (or be killed) wouldn't cripple the national economy (say, the way killing all the blacks in the south during reconstruction would have).
Trans people constitute about .6% of the US population, per the Williams Institute at UCLA. They're being relentlessly portrayed as rapists, predators, and sexual deviants in the UK. In the US, they're a threat to the perpetuation of the species, and treated by the GOP as the exemplar of everything wrong with our society. Of note, the Proud Boys have been increasingly targeting trans people. Anti-trans legislation has exploded in southern states, and it's going to get worse. As I track the sorts of legislation being proposed, the goals of it are very broadly similar to the run up in 1933-1934. (Get them out of schools, the military, public facilities, cut off access to health care, government ID, ban them from the Olympics, forbid teaching about us at Universities, etc...)
What you say about Nazis agrees with what I've read. One other bit of info that I've read recently is that shortly after the Nazis acquired power in I think April 1933, they began firing (from police, universities, etc) certain demographic groups--political opponents, Jews, etc. I read that Edward Teller and Leo Szilard left Germany when that started happening, and Einstein, who was outside of Germany at that time, chose not to return.
And I agree with the material in your last para. It is no surprise that it is the hillbilly states that have been the leaders in hatred of trans people (and LGBTQ individuals as well). I believe, for example, that North Carolina was one of the first to pass one of those idiotic bathroom bills--and thankfully, it paid for that, with many companies moving events that they had planned in NC.
Of course, it is no surprise that far-right individuals have those hatreds. I believe (hope) that eventually that hatred will die down to a small amount, though it will never vanish.
Such a succinct essay on contemporary authoritarianism vs. 20th century fascism. Seems important to continue analyses of both (as you do) but with the careful distinctions you make here. Thank you.
My best guess about Trump is that he's not motivated especially by power lust, but by two other things:
1. his behavior suggests to me that he's desperate for respect from others. A good example is the lie he told about being invited to the World Series game; and there are plenty of other examples of his behavior (i.e, lies) that support this idea--for example, all his past claims about donating money to charities, on which he never followed through..
2. perhaps related to that, he seems to have a very strong need to appear to others to be very rich.
Compounding these things, he's very stupid about how to gain respect from others. For example, he could give some amount, say, $1 million, to some charity, and he'd gain enormous respect from his sycophants. But he's too stupid to understand that, and too attached to every cent he has.
I'd respectfully disagree with the power thing, Diogenes. I think Trump had a taste of real power once in the White House. He tasted it and liked it, a lot. This was far different and ever more expansive then he'd enjoyed as a CEO of basically a family business; he, of course, called it an empire.
The man realized how much control he could exert over people, profits, everything including his own legal and financial fate. He had no intentions of giving that up.
Choosing the most accurate words to describe a dangerous political movement, allows us to choose the most effective actions to promote social safety and health
In my post above, I meant to say that to me, Trump does not seem to be motivated especially strongly by lust for power, or ideas, or imposing his will on others, but more by lust for respect, and "having money"--the emphasis being on "HAVING" rather than actually USING money.
The fact that Trump might be described that way, does not mean that his followers and flunkies are similar. Indeed, many events and reports make it clear that many of them are in fact motivated by things like racism, strong nationalism, power lust, and so on.
And if we had had use of the Strongman's Playbook back in 2002 we could have called out the strongman's use of reprehensible humiliation of his opponents when Republicans questioned Max Cleland's patriotism -- Max Cleland who had lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. The strongman tactics of the Republicans have only grown worse and more dangerous.
I understand your sense of frustration. Some academics can minimize threatening political conditions to the point of absurdity. But the answer to that is not to suddenly adopt a purely activist stance. What we need in our political discourse is better analytical tools to talk about what is taking place in front of our eyes, describing it in such a way that we are more easily able to see its threats. I think that Ruth Ben-Ghiat's Strongman Playbook is an excellent tool.
The idea of the "Strongman" conjures up the morally corrupt notion of the thug who will do anything to gain power, will tell any lie, and use any person. To allude to the playbook is to refer to real elements of action we should expect to see in his behavior and to watch out for.
In short, the Strongman Playbook provides a helpful tool for anyone to begin to see how a potential strongman threat to democracy is operating. As Ruth points out: "21st century strongmen come into office mostly through elections and then manipulate the electoral process to stay there. Today's leaders may stay in office almost as long as some old-school dictators, but they take years to advance the process of what we call autocratic capture . . . ."
It is this practical process of capture we must focus on, finding ways to politically interrupt and stop it. If we see clearly how authoritarian capture takes place, we can draw attention to those current actions taking place that present real threat.
The discussion goes beyond mere verbal debate, moving to a productive discussion of just how these thugs are operating on a daily basis, giving us tangible political targets to work on.
Throwing a monkey wrench into the gears of autocratic capture is essential. Trump has made a massive effort to replace the existing truth with HIS truth. Fascists attempt to turn rhetoric into truth. Fact checking in newspapers was done to help prevent Trump's lie machine from moving forward but it was done too late in the process. His followers were already bitten by this destructive charismatic leader and their tribalism prevented them from believing anything outside their camp. Trump used their motivated reasoning and confirmation bias to own their minds. Trump created an atmosphere of post-truth, where emotion trumps truth. That will be incredibly difficult to reverse. People don't want to admit they've been fooled.
Ruth concludes the hardback edition of STRONGMEN: “” History shows the importance of keeping hope and faith in humanity and of supporting those who struggle for freedom in our own time. We can carry with us the stories of those who lived and died over a century of democracy’s destruction and resurrection. They are precious counsel for us today.”” Thank you, Ruth, for carrying those stories to us
The Facist in chief has dementia.
Great read….thanks Ruth!
Thanks!
The many comments inspired by this piece by RBG on the terms "Fascism" and "Fascist" are extremely interesting. They exhibit an impressive level of concern, knowledge, thought, and insight. At the same time, the viewpoints they express seem bewilderingly heterogeneous (much like the stereotypical debate among any group of Democrats).
RBG begins by explaining why she is addressing this topic: "People are often disappointed that I don't call Trump . . . a Fascist." She then describes her treatment of her topic in respect to its two component parts: the term "Fascist" can "perpetuate outdated ideas about how authoritarianism works." That is, first, the term is intrinsically inappropriate because it does not accurately describe the current form of the phenomenon it is being applied to. Second, the term is rhetorically inappropriate because it is likely to mislead the audience to whom it is addressed.
Insisting on accurate terminology is neither pedantic nor removed from reality. You expect your mechanic to know the names of the parts of your car in order to be able to understand the way they work and the complex ways they interact. You expect your medical doctor to know the complex, arcane terminology required to diagnose and treat what ails you, together with the complex medical realities which that terminology describes. In turn, the terminology in every field depends on a valid taxonomy, or system of classification. The term, or name, for a biological organism means little apart from the complex taxonomy of the plant, animal, and fungal kingdoms. It is impossible for a biologist to work without that taxonomy. Similarly, the work of the astronomer cannot be done without the taxonomy of astral bodies; the work of the chemist cannot be done without the periodic table of the elements. The development of each of these taxonomies, together with their terminologies, has been a major intellectual achievement requiring the cooperation of many brilliant individuals over centuries or millennia.
There is no such single, established taxonomy in the field of history. There is no such taxonomy in the field of "authoritarian," "autocratic," or "Fascist" studies. There is no scientifically settled and rigorous field of knowledge concerning "authoritarian," "autocratic," or "Fascist" rulers based on such a taxonomy. A glance at the scholarship in any field of history shows that a great many schools of historical interpretation exist. Studying any historical phenomenon of any era requires recognizing that there will inevitably be many ways of interpreting it, all of them to a greater or lesser extent mutually contradictory.
Nevertheless, there seems to be an unstated and unrecognized assumption here that there is some "correct" terminology, taxonomy and interpretation, or diagnosis, that will "explain" the contemporary political situation in America, if only we work at it a little longer and a little harder, and also a little longer and a little harder at persuading others that our interpretation is correct. This "correct" diagnosis will lead to a prescription for curing our situation. This is magical thinking. If things were that simple, we would not be in this situation in the first place. This magical thinking is produced by the rising panic caused by the recognition that America is already to a significant extent brutally "authoritarian" or "Fascist," and may soon become almost wholly so. If you're diagnosed with a potentially fatal and not-well-understood disease, you naturally wish for a magical cure. But reality will implacably return the answer to you that there is none.
Mario Cuomo, one of the greatest liberal communicators and orators of the second half of the twentieth century, said that first you have to figure out what policy you want to pursue; then you have to "put it into baby-talk." Unfortunately there is no good term from "baby-talk" for referring to the "authoritarianism" or "Fascism" that is rising in contemporary America. It would be self-indulgent and irresponsible for RBG to use a false but gratifyingly inflammatory terminology employing such baby-talk in order to allay our anxieties. As Orwell taught, abuse of language leads directly to abuse in politics. We turn to RBG for the same reason we see a medical doctor when we are sick with a little-understood disease. We cannot expect her to provide a magical cure, but we understand that she, and others like her, possess knowledge, understanding, and wisdom that we do not, and that we profoundly need.
Instead of anxiously making a fetish of terminology, we need to recognize that our first problem is that our own understanding of what ails us is inadequate. America did not suddenly develop its current political pathology in 2016. Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader and other voices, censored for decades from the mainstream in a "democratic" America with a supposedly progressive party, have long been shouting into the wind, trying to warn us that we needed to wake up and take action. We did not. Now we spend a lot of time blaming others for our current situation; we need to look in the mirror. We do not properly understand the current political pathology in America in part because we never understood democracy in the first place. We just took it for granted. In order to understand our political pathology, we need to understand democracy for the first time, because "Fascism" and its congeners are diseases of democracy. Solving our problems requires not winning online debates, but educating first ourselves, and then Americans en masse, about the nature of our situation. It is up to those who of us are aware of our present danger, like those who read Lucid, to learn to understand our situation better and more realistically than we do. Then we can try to educate those who are asleep--not just try to wake them up by shouting inflammatory words at them.
Americans are only now, too slowly and in numbers that are too small, awakening from their decades-long slumber, during which reactionaries have been brilliantly executing their coup-in-slow-motion. We can only start from where we are. We need to remember the negative example of the Arab Spring. The Egyptians got rid of the "fascist" Mubarak only to get the "fascist Islamist" Morsi; then they got rid of the "fascist Islamist" Morsi only to get the "fascist" Sisi. Similarly, the failed coup attempt against Erdogan served only as a Reichstag moment that enabled him to consolidate his power even further. It will do us no good to get rid of Donald Trump only to get Tucker Carlson because we didn't know what we were doing. We must recognize the real possibility, as Sarah Kendzior puts it, that a few "generations of martyrs" may soon be required to restore democracy in America. We need to educate ourselves properly now about a historical situation in which an even greater nightmare than we are currently facing is a genuine possibility.
You miss two points. The basis of Fascism is a secret agreement with Oligarchical Capitalism, as Steve Rasmussen shows. Trump is only a proto-Fascist because, as his cousin Mary explains, he is a proto-individual. Secondly, the Leader is either crazy to begin with, or becomes crazy through power and a lack of normal daily interactions. The rest is contemporary window-dressing and pseudo-intellectual explanation.
Author Nancy Maclean has an interesting piece in Salon that speaks to the influence of the Koch brothers- driven, far right agenda that funds radical Republican lawmakers. Their Libertarian agenda is all about social Darwinism and other fascist traits. There is a link between Koch money and the Republicans who did not want to certify the electoral votes on Jan 6th.
For me, Trump is a proto-fascist, not fully formed. Our nation is not fascist, as we still have more than one political party, but we saw on Jan 6th how intolerant of other political ideas the Republicans have become. That intolerance shows a yeaning for single party rule and the political bigotry seen in fascism. The advent of lobbying and the Citizens United decision by SCOTUS form a nexus between business and goverment that was seen in fascism. Trump's belligerent ultra-nationalism is a fascist trait. Trump is an advocate of social Darwinism which is what drove the scapegoating in Italy, Germany and Serbia with Mussolini, Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic. This concept seems to be the cornerstone of fascism. Dissent is not tolerated under fascism and we saw Trump's strident reaction to the BLM marches. But dissent by angry white nationalists at the Capitol was encouraged by Trump, which brings back the subject of social Darwinism again. The fact that many fascist leaders were sociopaths and that Trump is as well, is a harbinger of what Trump could become if left in office. Sociopaths have the rare ability to convince people that they are normal. They are ticking time bombs as they have no conscience, nor empathy. John Gacy was a sociopath. Can you imagine letting him get into a position of power?
Good stuff.
Thanks Jeff!
Excellent!
Another gem of a column by Ruth. Whatever one wishes to call it, fascism, authoritarianism, etc, it must be stopped. I hope the Democratic controlled congress recognizes that passing the Freedom to Vote and John Lewis Voting Rights Acts may be the only thing that can save us from state election nullifications and the loss of our democracy. If not now, when?
Thanks for the clarification of the term fascism, Ruth. Comparative historical context matters here for our understanding of how authoritarianism has evolved in the modern era of social media.
In Trump's case, I believe he [himself] is not only an authoritarian but a fascist, if ever there was one, given his malignant, sociopath, narcissist personality structure. Is there any doubt that if he could change laws regarding free speech, defamation, right to assembly, civil liberties etc,-- dissenting journalists, protesters and anyone else he doesn't like would be locked up, silenced or made to disappear? Would elections not be totally manipulated and corrupted by new laws making it impossible for the opposition to ever win? Would out groups and minorities not be persecuted and intimidated by far right paramilitary groups loyal to him? Also, would he not align the power of the state and federal government with his big business cronies in corrupt business arrangements, if he could? Would national media outlets not be intimidated into following his dictates to make him look good at all times and never criticize him lest they incur his wrath and be subjected to cruel punishment? It wouldn't be all that much different than it is in North Korea where der leader is extolled and worshiped by state run media propaganda outlets on a daily basis? Well he already has Fox. Would the departments of justice and defense not become his personnel tools he could use to inflict punishment on his political enemies? He's always admired and emulated leaders like Putin and Orban for their iron fisted strength and control. I'll always see Donald Trump as a fascist wannabe.
A further thought to my posts above:
Could it be that authoritarians, neo-Fascists, et al, are/were attracted to Trump because they understood that he could be used to advance their anti-democratic ideas? Could it be that they understood how poorly-informed he was about law, US society, etc., how he was motivated so strongly by need for respect, and thus, how easily he could be manipulated to achieve their own goals?
Yes good point
Think your comments are spot on. Trump was/is the perfect vessel into which the real fascists could/can pour their energy and resources and anti-democratic aspirations.
Trump is driven by greed, a lust for power and an insatiable hunger for universal approval. If he can't attain that approval through his words or actions, I think he'd be perfectly willing to silence all critics. He wouldn't do the dirty work, of course. Much safer to send out his goons to complete the task. Ask the January 6th insurrectionists. Trump's admiration for the current crop of world authoritarians is an immediate tell. They did what Trump wanted to do: apply the iron fist on all detractors, anyone who crossed him or pushed back.
The political/social ideologues, the real brains and enablers behind the movement get what they want by eroding our democratic institutions with the goal of dismantling the Republic. Their vessel of choice is a con artist, an amoral narcissist who can whip up the crowds and control the narrative. Trump, that chosen man, gets what he wants--the opportunity to grift to his heart's content, do and say whatever he wants with neither criticism nor scorn and be idolized by his glassy-eyed supporters.
A diabolical convergence. Hand meet glove.
Your argument well may be valid, but focusing on a label is ultimately, irrelevant. From Biden to Congressional Democratic leadership to the media, a collective decision to minimize the danger has occurred, with the predictable result that the authoritarian movement has strengthened and grown. Hiding behind a sweater vest was sufficient 'cover' for Youngkin. I have zero faith that we will avoid the worst outcomes. Those who have the bully pulpit refuse to speak truth to the public and describe daily life under dictatorship, the DOJ under Garland is ignoring or slow-walking accountability, and anti-democratic voices are increasingly normalized by short-sighted and arrogant media and corporate entities who believe (as have all others before them in dictatorships throughout history) that they will be spared when the last vestiges of democracy are shattered.
I have zero faith that the powers that be will release any of their power unless enough folks say, “mine, too” … e.g women suffrage
Youngkin was a major player in the Carlyle Group in DC, a nexus between government and business for decades. Major political figures were a part of this investment firm. It was kind of a revolving door of government/business collusion. This collusion was dominant in fascist nations. We have some dangerous symptoms that should not be ignored.
I agree, and yet, these symptoms are being downplayed by Democratic strategists, Democratic donors, Democratic leadership, Independents, and the media. Terrifyingly, the only ones paying attention seem to be those conversant in history and never-Trump conservatives.
The groundswell of far right authoritarianism is gaining momentum. We are on a burning platform and had better act quickly or they will win control through the ballot box. It's an urgent messaging war.
Unfortunately, we have Chuck Schumer who describes the insurrectionists as 'houligans', pundits and anchors who describe corruption and fascism as 'shenanigans' and 'craziness', reporters who refuse to illuminate the stark reality ahead and instead cash in via books that fill in the blanks of crimes committed in plain sight, and an administration focused on papering over the dangers in a vain quest for normalcy. Biden's poll numbers are dropping because people feel as though the ship of state is rudderless. What happened to his fight for the soul of this country? Such a fight isn't won by passing infrastructure bills.
There is an aggravating lack of a sense of urgency in this matter. The specter of fascism looms large.
As I just said to a friend “ the damn country is on fire- a 10 alarm fire- and there isn’t a damn firefighter to be seen!!!
It's not a lack of urgency, the Democratic leadership, Democratic strategists, Democratic donors, and the White House know what's at stake. It's a lack of courage to face the dangers head-on and rebut the propaganda from the world's largest bully pulpit. Yes, there would be blowback from the right-wing ecosystem, but the majority of people would feel as though their fears were heard. Instead, the media is publishing endless stories about inflation and the price of milk. Merrick Garland is wholly unsuited to a prosecutorial role...he's behaving as if he's worried about a ruling being overturned on appeal. Ron Klain seems to believe that his endless tweets about vaccination percentages are anything but filler. We should be a nation well-educated as to the realities of life under a dictatorship, instead most believe that little will change in their lives. The rule of law may be fractured in the US, but it's absence will be devastating to almost everyone.
You are 💯 correct …
I disagree. I subscribe to a view more akin to that of Dr. Stanley of Yale and Umberto Eco: fascism is a set of characteristics common to a particular strain of right wing populist authoritarianism.
Authoritarian is far to broad a term to describe a specific phenomenon: it's like insisting we use the word "canid" to describe Siberian Huskies. Well, yes, they're canids, but you need a word for a very specific type of canid.
Competitive authoritarianism is a description of how modern fascists come to power, and stay there. It doesn't say anything about the ideology they used (which, to be fair, is frequently fascist, but not always: Poland's descent into this form of government is perhaps less fascist and more simply theocratic, though the two tend to be intertwined)
Speaking as a trans person, I recognize that the GOP movement is fascist both ideologically and in terms of messaging. I know that they would love to see me, and everyone like me, gone from the public sphere, much as the Nazis wanted Jews to flee Germany between 1933-1939. I think simply calling the modern GOP "authoritarian" is not specific enough, and undersells how terrifying their ideology is for those of us on the wrong side of it.
Good points, Brynn
I agree with all that you say, except for 1 point. Everything I know about Nazis is that they wanted to kill Jews, rather than see them flee.
Ok, bit of history here.
Initially, Germany encouraged Jews to flee to Palestine. Early in the Reich, they actually expedited attempts to get people there, until the UK began sharply limiting immigration there.
According to the US Holocaust Museum: "In the wake of Kristallnacht, the Nazis increased the pressure on Jews to leave. Responsibility for accelerating Jewish emigration from the Reich now fell fully into the hands of the SS."
Germany didn't formally begin restricting immigration out until 1938, when the Reich's interior ministry began stamping Jewish passports with a big, red, "J" (for Juden)
By the outbreak of WWII, two-thirds of Germany's Jewish population (of about 540,000 to start with) had already fled, and the rest were basically trying to get out (but couldn't due to poverty or immigration restrictions). The start of WWII basically halted immigration, though a trickle to Palestine and the UK remained.
It wasn't until the Wannsee conference in January 1942 that the "Final Solution" became official German policy.
This is why I am very leery of policies meant to target a minority into going underground, disappearing, or leaving get put in place: history says this is sometimes the prelude to something far worse. In 1933, Jews were about .7% of the population: just big enough that they could be scapegoated, too small to wield real power, and small enough that having them flee (or be killed) wouldn't cripple the national economy (say, the way killing all the blacks in the south during reconstruction would have).
Trans people constitute about .6% of the US population, per the Williams Institute at UCLA. They're being relentlessly portrayed as rapists, predators, and sexual deviants in the UK. In the US, they're a threat to the perpetuation of the species, and treated by the GOP as the exemplar of everything wrong with our society. Of note, the Proud Boys have been increasingly targeting trans people. Anti-trans legislation has exploded in southern states, and it's going to get worse. As I track the sorts of legislation being proposed, the goals of it are very broadly similar to the run up in 1933-1934. (Get them out of schools, the military, public facilities, cut off access to health care, government ID, ban them from the Olympics, forbid teaching about us at Universities, etc...)
https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/special-focus/kristallnacht/jewish-emigration-from-germany
What you say about Nazis agrees with what I've read. One other bit of info that I've read recently is that shortly after the Nazis acquired power in I think April 1933, they began firing (from police, universities, etc) certain demographic groups--political opponents, Jews, etc. I read that Edward Teller and Leo Szilard left Germany when that started happening, and Einstein, who was outside of Germany at that time, chose not to return.
And I agree with the material in your last para. It is no surprise that it is the hillbilly states that have been the leaders in hatred of trans people (and LGBTQ individuals as well). I believe, for example, that North Carolina was one of the first to pass one of those idiotic bathroom bills--and thankfully, it paid for that, with many companies moving events that they had planned in NC.
Of course, it is no surprise that far-right individuals have those hatreds. I believe (hope) that eventually that hatred will die down to a small amount, though it will never vanish.
Such a succinct essay on contemporary authoritarianism vs. 20th century fascism. Seems important to continue analyses of both (as you do) but with the careful distinctions you make here. Thank you.
My best guess about Trump is that he's not motivated especially by power lust, but by two other things:
1. his behavior suggests to me that he's desperate for respect from others. A good example is the lie he told about being invited to the World Series game; and there are plenty of other examples of his behavior (i.e, lies) that support this idea--for example, all his past claims about donating money to charities, on which he never followed through..
2. perhaps related to that, he seems to have a very strong need to appear to others to be very rich.
Compounding these things, he's very stupid about how to gain respect from others. For example, he could give some amount, say, $1 million, to some charity, and he'd gain enormous respect from his sycophants. But he's too stupid to understand that, and too attached to every cent he has.
I'd respectfully disagree with the power thing, Diogenes. I think Trump had a taste of real power once in the White House. He tasted it and liked it, a lot. This was far different and ever more expansive then he'd enjoyed as a CEO of basically a family business; he, of course, called it an empire.
The man realized how much control he could exert over people, profits, everything including his own legal and financial fate. He had no intentions of giving that up.
Choosing the most accurate words to describe a dangerous political movement, allows us to choose the most effective actions to promote social safety and health
I agree, Randolph, and that was one of the points of my post. Though to nitpick a bit, I'd say "helps us to choose...".
OOPS.
In my post above, I meant to say that to me, Trump does not seem to be motivated especially strongly by lust for power, or ideas, or imposing his will on others, but more by lust for respect, and "having money"--the emphasis being on "HAVING" rather than actually USING money.
The fact that Trump might be described that way, does not mean that his followers and flunkies are similar. Indeed, many events and reports make it clear that many of them are in fact motivated by things like racism, strong nationalism, power lust, and so on.
And if we had had use of the Strongman's Playbook back in 2002 we could have called out the strongman's use of reprehensible humiliation of his opponents when Republicans questioned Max Cleland's patriotism -- Max Cleland who had lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. The strongman tactics of the Republicans have only grown worse and more dangerous.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/us/politics/max-cleland-dead.html
Jamie,
I understand your sense of frustration. Some academics can minimize threatening political conditions to the point of absurdity. But the answer to that is not to suddenly adopt a purely activist stance. What we need in our political discourse is better analytical tools to talk about what is taking place in front of our eyes, describing it in such a way that we are more easily able to see its threats. I think that Ruth Ben-Ghiat's Strongman Playbook is an excellent tool.
The idea of the "Strongman" conjures up the morally corrupt notion of the thug who will do anything to gain power, will tell any lie, and use any person. To allude to the playbook is to refer to real elements of action we should expect to see in his behavior and to watch out for.
In short, the Strongman Playbook provides a helpful tool for anyone to begin to see how a potential strongman threat to democracy is operating. As Ruth points out: "21st century strongmen come into office mostly through elections and then manipulate the electoral process to stay there. Today's leaders may stay in office almost as long as some old-school dictators, but they take years to advance the process of what we call autocratic capture . . . ."
It is this practical process of capture we must focus on, finding ways to politically interrupt and stop it. If we see clearly how authoritarian capture takes place, we can draw attention to those current actions taking place that present real threat.
The discussion goes beyond mere verbal debate, moving to a productive discussion of just how these thugs are operating on a daily basis, giving us tangible political targets to work on.
I think Ruth is doing exactly what you hope for.
Best,
John
What you say, John!!
Throwing a monkey wrench into the gears of autocratic capture is essential. Trump has made a massive effort to replace the existing truth with HIS truth. Fascists attempt to turn rhetoric into truth. Fact checking in newspapers was done to help prevent Trump's lie machine from moving forward but it was done too late in the process. His followers were already bitten by this destructive charismatic leader and their tribalism prevented them from believing anything outside their camp. Trump used their motivated reasoning and confirmation bias to own their minds. Trump created an atmosphere of post-truth, where emotion trumps truth. That will be incredibly difficult to reverse. People don't want to admit they've been fooled.
We have no choice but to keep trying.
Absolutely!!
I guess you and I and a lot of other hopeful souls are in this for the long haul. Keep the faith!
Ruth concludes the hardback edition of STRONGMEN: “” History shows the importance of keeping hope and faith in humanity and of supporting those who struggle for freedom in our own time. We can carry with us the stories of those who lived and died over a century of democracy’s destruction and resurrection. They are precious counsel for us today.”” Thank you, Ruth, for carrying those stories to us