45 Comments

The Facist in chief has dementia.

Expand full comment
Nov 14, 2021Liked by Ruth Ben-Ghiat

Great read….thanks Ruth!

Expand full comment
Nov 10, 2021Liked by Ruth Ben-Ghiat

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She then describes her treatment of her topic in respect to its two component parts: the term "Fascist" can "perpetuate outdated ideas about how authoritarianism works."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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

Good stuff.

Expand full comment
Nov 9, 2021Liked by Ruth Ben-Ghiat

Excellent!

Expand full comment
Nov 9, 2021Liked by Ruth Ben-Ghiat

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Nov 9, 2021Liked by Ruth Ben-Ghiat

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment
deletedNov 9, 2021Liked by Ruth Ben-Ghiat
Comment deleted
Expand full comment