What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Can Trump be considered a fascist? (1 Viewer)

mcintyre1

Footballguy
Obviously the recent child internment camp news resulting in Nazi comparisons isn't the first (nor will it be the last) time someone has pulled out that other N word when talking about Trump. This seems to always inevitably devolve into a back and forth argument of those on the left semi-gleefully calling Trump and the right "Nazis", while those on the right take obvious offense to being called something so terrible.

However, I think a real problem is that Nazis are the defacto stand in for fascists, despite there being many kinds of fascists with many that didn't reach the level of "pure evil" that Nazis have come to represent to a modern person.

Personally, I don't think there is a very valid argument to make against the idea that Trump at the very least has fascist tendencies (personally, I'd skip the mealy mouthed talk and just call him a fascist).

These days, calling someone a fascist is a pejorative, but when fascism came about in the early 20th century in Italy, it was merely a political philosophy. It was only the eventual outcome of those original political ideas that gave the term the connotations that everyone (even people who would agree with fascist policies) wants to avoid being associated with. If you strip out all of the historical baggage of fascism and attempt to evaluate Trump and his ascendency as it compares to some generally accepted aspects of the political philosophy of fascism, I don't see how you can come to a conclusion that Trump and his "core" don't at least fall on the spectrum, but I'd love to see counter arguments.

While there is no settled upon dictionary definition of the term, there are some common themes to fascism that are often present that I'm going to use as a summary:

  • Fascists desire strong central leadership (often eventually ending up as a dictatorship) predicated on a desire for national unity and promotion of nationalist identity. 
  • They believe that this strong central leadership with little (or ideally, no) opposition is necessary to restore national unity and order.
  • They focus on an idea of a need for "rebirth" of the nation due to perceived community decline, humiliation, or victimhood at the hands of other nations.
  • Claim to draw their power (and in many cases, do) from "the people" and function as a populist movement, however it is almost always lead by some segment of traditional elites.
  • Often make use of ethnic stereotypes and fear of foreigners in a desire to strengthen internal unity.
  • Oppose the far left, have a disdain for parliamentary liberalism and the traditional processes of modern Western government, and often eventually turn on traditional conservatism as it proves unwilling to do what the fascists deem necessary. Draws their primary base of support from those on the far right.
  • Believe in an aggressive foreign policy in both the military and economic spheres, favoring military and economic intervention, and isolationism.
Working from that list (which admittedly is incomplete and not an in depth view of the various examples of fascism throughout history), I see far too many recognizable patterns to feel comfortable with where our country might be headed. Obviously we're not currently living in Nazi Germany, but many Germans didn't realize where they were headed until it was far, far too late either. Perhaps if there was more of a historical knowledge of the dangers of this type of belief system at that time, the Germans could have stopped things from going so far. 

I do not believe that Trump himself would consider himself to be a fascist at all. I think he (like his supporters) would bristle at the mere mention. However, I believe that history is telling us to be wary of the path that we're on, and with good reason. 

Given the political climate of the day, I'm doubtful this will generate good discussion, but I wanted to try anyway as this comparison is a belief I've held since ~2015 when I first started seeing videos of his rallies and the rhetoric he was using. 

 
No. Would he be one if he could? Maybe. But we’ll never know. 

Trump is an American populist, nativist, nationalist, America First, mostly but not completely of the right wing variety, with authoritarian and dishonest tendencies. He is also a blue collar, anti-intellectual bigot. He is also an extreme narcissist and desires to be loved even more than he desires power, and this last characteristic is probably more important than all the rest. 

I have tried to be very precise in my terminology here. Every word in the above paragraph is meant to be exact, and any substitution of other words could create an impression far different than the one I am trying to present. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If there's going to be serious discussion on something like this, we have to be VERY careful as this is serious and can be damaging. I didn't read it closely but @mcintyre1 seems to have been thoughtful in what he wrote. But I want us to be VERY careful when making these kinds of hyper-serious accusations. 

If you're going to claim something this serious, it needs to backed up by real stuff making your case. Not just feelings. Please be cool in this. 

 
No. Would he be one if he could? Maybe. But we’ll never know. 

Trump is an American populist, nativist, nationalist, isolationist, mostly but not completely of the right wing variety, with authoritarian and dishonest tendencies. He is also a blue collar, anti-intellectual bigot. He is also an extreme narcissist and desires to be loved even more than he desires power, and this last characteristic is probably more important than all the rest. 

I have tried to be very precise in my terminology here. Every word in the above paragraph is meant to be exact, and any substitution of other words could create an impression far different than the one I am trying to present. 
This feels about right. It's more like "Dictator-Wannabe" than fascist. His ideology seems to be to co-opt American nativism and use that as a "winning" approach.

He likes being in charge, hiring people, firing people, tweeting, knowing people have to pay attention to him. Thus the narcissism. He probably doesn't even care about "the wall", for example. But he knows it "elevates" him with the base. NFL, same thing.

 
If there's going to be serious discussion on something like this, we have to be VERY careful as this is serious and can be damaging. I didn't read it closely but @mcintyre1 seems to have been thoughtful in what he wrote. But I want us to be VERY careful when making these kinds of hyper-serious accusations. 

If you're going to claim something this serious, it needs to backed up by real stuff making your case. Not just feelings. Please be cool in this. 
Thanks Joe, I am trying to have a serious discussion on this, and I do think it is a very important one to have.

However, this response also feeds in to my point a bit. There's so much baggage attached to the term that we effectively no longer use it to describe anyone in a real manner. I'd argue that, by avoiding the use of the term so thoroughly, we're also blinding ourselves to the idea that fascism isn't and wasn't a one time thing, but more a result of some common human fears and beliefs about identity and unity. I further fear that in so blinding ourselves, we risk opening up a path for the return of the very things that led to the abhorrence of the term in the first place.

 
  • Believe in an aggressive foreign policy in both the military and economic spheres, favoring military and economic intervention, and isolationism. 
This part is incorrect. 

First it’s contradictory; you can’t be an isolationist and also favor military and economic intervention. 

Second, while terms like “fascism” and “authoritarianism” apply to general politics, isolationism is specific to the United States. It’s rooted in the notion that we are surrounded by two large oceans, keeping us protected from Asia to our left and Europe to our right, and that we don’t have to get involved in their problems as it’s not our business. 

“America First”, which is closely related to isolationism but not exactly the same, says that it’s OK to get involved but only if it’s clearly in our interests. This would probably better describe Trump’s view. 

 
No. Would he be one if he could? Maybe. But we’ll never know. 

Trump is an American populist, nativist, nationalist, isolationist, mostly but not completely of the right wing variety, with authoritarian and dishonest tendencies. He is also a blue collar, anti-intellectual bigot. He is also an extreme narcissist and desires to be loved even more than he desires power, and this last characteristic is probably more important than all the rest. 

I have tried to be very precise in my terminology here. Every word in the above paragraph is meant to be exact, and any substitution of other words could create an impression far different than the one I am trying to present. 
This feels about right. It's more like "Dictator-Wannabe" than fascist. His ideology seems to be to co-opt American nativism and use that as a "winning" approach.

He likes being in charge, hiring people, firing people, tweeting, knowing people have to pay attention to him. Thus the narcissism. He probably doesn't even care about "the wall", for example. But he knows it "elevates" him with the base. NFL, same thing.
I think this is a fair criticism of how I've presented things. Trump as a person is not a "great thinker" with strong personal philosophies, it would seem. Perhaps the more applicable question would be "Are there people close to Trump who are fascists?" and are thus influencing him in his policies.

 
If there's going to be serious discussion on something like this, we have to be VERY careful as this is serious and can be damaging. I didn't read it closely but @mcintyre1 seems to have been thoughtful in what he wrote. But I want us to be VERY careful when making these kinds of hyper-serious accusations. 

If you're going to claim something this serious, it needs to backed up by real stuff making your case. Not just feelings. Please be cool in this. 
This sort of "control" over discussion seems very unwarranted and quite frankly annoying. C'mon Joe.

 
Thanks Joe, I am trying to have a serious discussion on this, and I do think it is a very important one to have.

However, this response also feeds in to my point a bit. There's so much baggage attached to the term that we effectively no longer use it to describe anyone in a real manner. I'd argue that, by avoiding the use of the term so thoroughly, we're also blinding ourselves to the idea that fascism isn't and wasn't a one time thing, but more a result of some common human fears and beliefs about identity and unity. I further fear that in so blinding ourselves, we risk opening up a path for the return of the very things that led to the abhorrence of the term in the first place.
Understood. I don't see much hesitancy or avoidance of the term though. I still see too much flippancy from people in general. 

Bottom line is I want us to be careful and serious and thoughtful and defensible when we talk about such serious things. And that can be tough on an anonymous message board sometimes. 

 
Fascist connotes some level of "success" in achieving the role of totalitarian.

Trump has not gotten close to that.  

Fascist tendencies? You'd be disingenuous (or clueless) to suggest he doesn't exhibit quite a share. From the narcissism to the want for absolute control, the demands for loyalty, an utter unwillingness to ever be wrong (to the point of changing what is "the right answer" to conform with whatever answer you want to give), comments such as the want for "his people" to treat him as Kim's people do... the list can go on.

You know who'd know Trump better than most of us? The writer of his autobiography. Who sees in Trump sociopathic tendencies, which fall into how a fascist acts. I'm trying to find the link I read over the weekend, not sure if it was new or something older, along the lines that this writer fully believes that IF Trump could get away with murdering those who stood in his way, in the same way Saddam did and Kim does, he absolutely would.

So, not a fascist, but only because of the constraints around him.  Without question the man has authoritarian tendencies, doubly dangerous with his narcissism and apparent complete lack of empathy.  

Those who have sided with such personalities in positions of power in prior regimes, are rarely looked after foundly.  We are talking the inner circle enablers of Saddam, the rise of the Nazi's before there was anything close to the Holocaust... but the human behaviors and parallels are striking. 

And why shouldn't they be? Do we really think that "as Americans" our make up, as human beings, is different from say the German population, or countless others that have been absorbed into the dictatorial promise of a fascist, only to watch their values debased and their society fall prey to becoming inhumane, and lost to the basic tenets of good vs evil?

 
This sort of "control" over discussion seems very unwarranted and quite frankly annoying. C'mon Joe.
Sorry I don't think it's unwarranted if we're going to accuse someone of being a Fascist that we say

If you're going to claim something this serious, it needs to backed up by real stuff making your case. Not just feelings. Please be cool in this. 

 
This part is incorrect. 

First it’s contradictory; you can’t be an isolationist and also favor military and economic intervention. 

Second, while terms like “fascism” and “authoritarianism” apply to general politics, isolationism is specific to the United States. It’s rooted in the notion that we are surrounded by two large oceans, keeping us protected from Asia to our left and Europe to our right, and that we don’t have to get involved in their problems as it’s not our business. 

“America First”, which is closely related to isolationism but not exactly the same, says that it’s OK to get involved but only if it’s clearly in our interests. This would probably better describe Trump’s view. 
The terms might be inaccurate, but I'll try to expand on my thinking when I wrote that one:

"Economic intervention" would be via tariffs, trade embargoes, etc. that are enacted in a desire to be isolationist. 

As for your comments on isolationism, I don't agree with what you've said. While there is definitely a primary historical example in the United States pre-WW1, that's a specific case of a larger political idea. "Isolationism" absolutely exists as a general political term. 

But I do think my terminology is poor, here. Isolationism is probably not the right phrase to use, and "(Nation) First" is more accurate as an idea.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Understood. I don't see much hesitancy or avoidance of the term though. I still see too much flippancy from people in general. 

Bottom line is I want us to be careful and serious and thoughtful and defensible when we talk about such serious things. And that can be tough on an anonymous message board sometimes. 
Sorry, yes, I meant to imply that the term is only used as an insult that no longer carries an appropriate historical context. It is used too flippantly and without accuracy. As a result, I think we've lost some of the usefulness of the history behind the term, and what we should learn from it and apply to the modern day. These ideas do still exist in humanity, unfortunately.

 
FWIW, I've mentioned before how I worked for a Narcissist, that demonstrated a number of Trump's traits, qualities and behaviors... though this boss was not completely devoid of empathy and sympathy, which we do see from Trump (and that's a doozy of a combo).

I'd say that former boss showed Fascist tendencies, even if not coupled with an "evil" approach of not caring if anyone gets harmed along the way as we see in Trump.

 
The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"   George Orwell

The problem is that people like to make comparisons to historical figures and ideologies and fascist is the go to insult used by many people. Trump is  incompetent and corrupt. He supports a lot of foolish policies. He's not evil on the same scale as Hitler or Stalin. He's more on the scale of Kaiser Wilhelm II as a villian.

 
I don't think you can do this without reference to Umberto Eco's essays, like this one.

**********************

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages -- in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, "the combination of different forms of belief or practice;" such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte ("Long Live Death!"). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

* * *

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Freedom and liberation are an unending task.

**********************

 
FWIW, I've mentioned before how I worked for a Narcissist, that demonstrated a number of Trump's traits, qualities and behaviors... though this boss was not completely devoid of empathy and sympathy, which we do see from Trump (and that's a doozy of a combo).

I'd say that former boss showed Fascist tendencies, even if not coupled with an "evil" approach of not caring if anyone gets harmed along the way as we see in Trump.
While the aspects and personalities of fascist leaders are obviously important to a political philosophy based in strong leadership, I worry you might be a little too focused on the leader themselves. The leader is the head of the political movement and largely perpetuates the actions of the group, but the dangerousness of fascism isn't solely within the leader. I think these things are rooted pretty heavily in some natural human fears about loss of status and personal security, which the leader and allied elites exploit to enact the changes they want. 

 
This feels about right. It's more like "Dictator-Wannabe" than fascist. His ideology seems to be to co-opt American nativism and use that as a "winning" approach.

He likes being in charge, hiring people, firing people, tweeting, knowing people have to pay attention to him. Thus the narcissism. He probably doesn't even care about "the wall", for example. But he knows it "elevates" him with the base. NFL, same thing.
I sort of agree with this.....But..

To me,  Trump has/had the ability to be something unique to the current American Political landscape.  He really had a chance to be a legitimate centrist; yet he continually sides with the worst elements of the Right.   I don't know if a simple narcissist foregoes a higher % of the populations adoration to placate such a small minority....unless he believes in some of the rhetoric coming from the minority.  

 
Fwiw I do not think Trump is a fascist. I do think he's authoritarian and a nationalist. A caudillo.

I mentioned this in the Free Speech thread but at least two times I can specifically recall Trump insisting that WaPo be required to register as a lobbyist. Frankly I think Trump believes the press should be regulated, that judges should be appointed, removable or ignoble, that federal or even local officials should be jailed at his whim, and I think he has likely never ever looked at the US Constitution.

 
Just look at who Trump admires and respects, and who he is trying to alienate and break away from. 

Then look at who Trump has surrounded himself with, and how little interest Trump and his circle have in the rule of law.  

For someone put in charge of a democracy, he sure wants to treat it like a dictatorship.  

And don't underestimate the role his party is playing in all this with how they enable him and/or use him as cover for their own disregard for the rule of law.  

 
Claims he's above the law

Claims the media is America's biggest enemy

Can't stand any kind of dissent

Yeah, I'm pretty sure if given the choice between fascism and democracy, it'd take about 2 seconds for him to pick fascism.

 
Then look at who Trump has surrounded himself with, and how little interest Trump and his circle have in the rule of law.  
Time for some hard honesty here from Trumpites, people he supports:

  • Putin
  • Kim
  • Orban
  • Duterte
  • Xi
  • Far right parties in Europe
Institutions he opposes:

  • Constitution
  • Judges
  • Press
  • NATO
  • EU
  • G7
- Come to the table and deal with this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry I don't think it's unwarranted if we're going to accuse someone of being a Fascist that we say
I think there's a clear difference between personal attacks of posters and using a term like fascist to describe the actions of a public leader. I think that's where the line should be drawn if you really feel the need to police discussion. Just my opinion.

Edit to add I appreciate the encouragement for people to back up their thoughts with facts, but jumping into a topic before it has even really gotten started with warnings of tread lightly is a little "fascist" in it's own right ironically. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How did the fascists of 90 years ago handle the succession issues? If fascism is something along the lines of "great man theory" where the policies of the state and the individual are identical, how does a system like that choose a new leader when Il ##### croaks?

 
Joe Bryant said:
Perfect example. Yes, you need a lot more.

From the Atlantic

It'll take a LOT more than that exchange to prove someone is a fascist. 
Again, I'd suggest it's "fascist tendencies" rather than "being a fascist" at this point, but:

  • Hyper Nationalism
  • Scapegoating segments of the population
  • Using language to dehumanize people - then putting into practice policies that do so even more, justified by said language
  • Militarism and idolization of military might, power and strenght
  • Demand for loyalty, and purging those who do not show it
  • Unwillingness to admit fault and/or come to a compromise (because a totalitarian is always right, by definion.  His definition, but that's the only one that counts)
  • Attacking and undermining the free press and denying access to those that don't portray the story as you demand
  • Creating complete media channels that are essentially propaganda machines - and utilizing them in a concerted manner
  • Continually telling lies, obviously blatant ones even, and having a regime that lies as a basic M.O. (as Goebbels said, tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth)
  • The above two and other efforts to essentially undercut what is "objective truth" - so the fascist regime can insert "its" truth in an envioronment that no longer has an objective measure by which to clearly call out their lies
  • Seek to deny voice to certain populations
  • Looks to inflict pain and suffering upon those who do not see things his way, and in general, to populations that may be weak/without political standing and/or clout
  • Lack of empathy and self awareness / awareness of others
  • Undercut the ability for people to vote and other efforts to undercut democratic institutions (which the Republicans have done the former for some time, Trump doubled down with the lies about election and voting fraud with "millions" of "illegal votes" and Trump has continued to work to erode our underlying faith in democracy itself)
  • Aligning with and speaking in support of / looking to curry the favor of and align with other known fascists/dictators/totalitarians (Kim, Putin, Duerte) while doing the exact opposite for democracies around the globe
  • Repeated use of false equivalencies
  • Demands that political opponents be "locked up"
  • Seeking to further consolidate executive power, and acting as if one is (and working to create a system where one actually is) above the law
  • Looking to bully and debase others, especially political opponents, as a means by which to prop oneself up
  • Coordinated efforts to influence and taint the judicial process, while simultaneously seeking to undercut any public confidence in gov't watchdogs, especially those tasked with oversight of the executive branch
  • Instituting over the top, draconian and cruel measures to achieve policy goals (like separating children from their families in a manner that we have never done before)
  • Instituting policies that make the leader and "our nation" look strong, even if they result in the exact opposite (i.e. trade, the threats and bombastic rhetoric trump uses)
  • Demanding others show patriotism, but moreso that they show it according to the way the fascist leadership demands, while castigating those who may even peacefully, protest
  • Demanding that showing patriotism is a personal issue, and must show allegiance to country, to symbol (flag) and to person (the authoritarian)
  • Quotes like “(Kim is) the head of a country, and I mean he’s the strong head. Don’t let anyone think anything different. He speaks, and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”
  • Don't listen to me, listen to BUSH'S top advisors, like: Eliot A. Cohen, a Trump critic and senior State Department official under President George W. Bush, said Trump “has classic traits of the authoritarian leader. The one that’s always struck me most is this visceral instinct of people’s weaknesses and a corresponding desire to be seen as strong and respected and admired.


And that took but a few minutes to compile. Hope that's enough "meat" and "examples" to start with to demonstrate that this not only is a thread which should continue, but a discussion that must be had. Hard as it may be.

@Joe Bryant

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fwiw I do not think Trump is a fascist. I do think he's authoritarian and a nationalist. A caudillo.
Agreed - Fascism, but it's definition, refers to dictatorial power (nope, he doesn't have that), forcible suppression of opposition (nope, not there, either), and control of the means of production (not even close).  So, while people argue about what he may want, he doesn't, nor will ever have these things.

If we shift this conversation to a guy like Maduro, then all of those can be checked 'yes'.

I mentioned this in the Free Speech thread but at least two times I can specifically recall Trump insisting that WaPo be required to register as a lobbyist. 
Eh, on this point I get what he's saying here.  This isn't a condemnation of all free press in and of itself, just the ones that he sees as so biased that they're no longer news sources but political actors.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
While the aspects and personalities of fascist leaders are obviously important to a political philosophy based in strong leadership, I worry you might be a little too focused on the leader themselves. The leader is the head of the political movement and largely perpetuates the actions of the group, but the dangerousness of fascism isn't solely within the leader. I think these things are rooted pretty heavily in some natural human fears about loss of status and personal security, which the leader and allied elites exploit to enact the changes they want. 
Very fair point.  Which is why I am focusing on Trump and his tendencies. 

Unfortunately, human history has shown many are far too willing to enable those with said tendencies, and from there, "fascism" itself, can take root. 

 
Agreed - Fascism, but it's definition, refers to dictatorial power (nope, he doesn't have that), forcible suppression of opposition (nope, not there, either), and control of the means of production (not even close).  So, while people argue about what he may want, he doesn't, nor will ever have these things.

If we shift this conversation to a guy like Maduro, then all of those can be checked 'yes'.

Eh, on this point I get what he's saying here.  This isn't a condemnation of all free press in and of itself, just the ones that he sees as so biased that they're no longer news sources but political actors.
To have a free press, you have to let a lot of unpleasantness slide. The Post and NYT are enemies of Trump because they don't publish the party (state) line, not because they fail to be independent  bastions of journalism. A real fascist considers the media to be the tool of the state.

 
Eh, on this point I get what he's saying here.  This isn't a condemnation of all free press in and of itself, just the ones that he sees as so biased that they're no longer news sources but political actors.
Thanks for the response but I hate to tell you that’s exactly how authoritarians view it.

 
Very fair point.  Which is why I am focusing on Trump and his tendencies. 

Unfortunately, human history has shown many are far too willing to enable those with said tendencies, and from there, "fascism" itself, can take root. 
Yet it is a massive leap to say or conclude that any president under our system could hold fascist powers.  They can't.  Nor can I see, unless we dissolve the legislature, that anyone ever could.

Based on that this whole line of discussion is simply grouse bait for those who despise Trump.  I see no reason, without changing the title, that this thread has any reason to exist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To have a free press, you have to let a lot of unpleasantness slide. The Post and NYT are enemies of Trump because they don't publish the party (state) line, not because they fail to be independent  bastions of journalism. A real fascist considers the media to be the tool of the state.
When the news is 95% negative toward the current administration we have a long, long way to go to get to a "tool of the state" condition.  Under this argument we could easily argue that Obama was much closer to fascist on this one subject. (I don't think he was either, but just to make the point).

 
Yet it is a massive leap to say or conclude that any president under our system could hold fascist powers.  They don't.  Nor can I see, unless we dissolve the legislature, that anyone ever could.

Based on that this whole line of discussion is simply grouse bait for those who despise Trump.  I see no reason, without changing the title, that this thread has any reason to exist.
I'd suggest that's a terribly short sighted approach. As it stands today, a President can not.  But free nation's have fallen into the hands of internal dictatorships throughout history.  And if you'd asked us even two years ago if we'd see a President that has actively sought to do all the things I bulleted in my post, above, I'd think the response would be "stop making crap up, that will never happen"

But it's happened.

So, to my point - no Trump is not fascist.  But has strong tendencies that would more than allow for him to assume that mantle with willing participants and enablers who would do his bidding, advancing, well... the types of items I listed in my bullets.  And scarily, that's what most Republican's seem all too willing to do.

As such, it's not only a viable question, its an ESSENTIAL and EXISTENTIAL question that we have a responsibility to ask.

To your point, we shouldn't have to ask this, because a Republican party that actually cared about our nation, its people and democratic principles, would have stood up against Trump on any number of occasions.  They not only have failed to do so, but most have embraced him. As such, it's gone beyond one man with a desire and wish to be an authoritarian, into a concerted effort to advance policies that tilt the scales, little by little, to a more fascist approach.  

You are fine to let it simmer, but I recall the quote of Hitler to the effect that if you take away freedoms, little by little, over such a period of time where people don't even realize what is going on, by the time they stand up and say enough (i.e. we DO need to protect ourselves from facism), it is too late.

I'd hope people would be more vigilant than you suggest, and I'd hope you might reconsider your thoughts on this matter as well.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top