I agree that the label has many problems. There are certainly some troubling similarities between the "Trumpist movement," and fascist movements, but there are many differences as well. For one, the Trump camp has been openly feuding with the security services and military for a long time, and hasn't done much to court the officer corps. It's also a movement with its core support in the elderly; Trump lost voters under 55 by landslide margins both times.

Most important though, it is far less a movement of unity than the fascist movements. The fascists certainly looked inward for enemies, but they were also looking outward, a far cry from the isolationist trends in Trumpism. There was this potent idea of a "people" that needed to be unified.

While there certainly is some of that in Trumpism, the celebration of the "real Americans" as a sort of exceptional people, the movement takes as its core opponent a whole half of the country. You see this bleed into policy, e.g. when Trump refused to allow a natural disaster declaration for California fires against all past precedent, openly voicing the opinion that federal funds shouldn't go to such liberal states (ironic since the fires largely hit areas he won). There is a war to be waged in Trumpism, but it's primarily a culture war. Fascism was about a sort of top down unity, Trumpism is very much a movement of minority rule.

You can even see this in how Hitler went through pains to organize big rigged plebiscites. By contrast, while Trump will certainly claim he really won the popular vote despite losing by millions of votes, it isn't an area of focus. The GOP has largely embraced the idea that they should be able to rule while gaining fewer votes, and that the system was always intended to work this way, to boost the power of the votes of the more virtuous. There is none of the hand wringing that accompanied Bush II's loss of the popular vote. Instead, state parties are actively working to enshrine Electoral College-like institutions at the state and local level. The GOP proposal for Colorado elections would have let them win the last governors race despite losing by more than 10% for example.

And then there is the full throated endorsement of police and police unions, despite them being both organized labor and public sector workers, a loathed combo in most situations. Contrast this with all the attacks on the military. If I were to look for a parallel, I might look more to apartheid South Africa. The movement is inward looking, focused on minority rule and control of the levers of power.

Countries all throughout the West are going through a transitional period, where the ruling political class is being replaced ("populists are taking over"). The desire for meaningful change is high, and elections are close, so all the major sides (and even wild cards like Trump) believe they have a shot at winning.

I wouldn't frame it simply as "populism." Trump lost by 3.5 million and then 7.5 million votes (his loss margin was equal to 10% of his vote total). He could certainly win this year, but if he does he will likely lose by 9-11 million votes just based on demographics.

The GOP has won more votes in a national election once is the past 36 years, and the trend will almost certainly hold true for 40 years, almost a half century. The only time they won a national election in that period they happened to have the incumbency following 9/11 despite the fact that they lost the popular vote in 2000. And, based on the most complete recount information released back in 2008, they also lost the Electoral College. The Bush victory in 2000 relied on the fact that the deciding state was Florida, where his campaign manager was the AG, in control of the elections, and his brother the governor. Even then, it came down to a party line vote in the court. Without that, the party would be on a near half century losing steak.

So it's populism, but of a very particular sort. It's a populism where restricting access to the ballot box has become a top priority. In a number of states, 1 in every 5, and as much as 1 in every 4 African American males has been stripped of their voting rights. The states where disenfranchisement is highest are all GOP strongholds. When the voters of Florida overwhelmingly supported giving these people their voting rights back, the GOP was able to effectively keep disenfranchisement on the table.

I'm not sure if you can even call it "populism." It is decidedly not about the broad will of any people, but the broad will of "the good people." It also isn't anti-elite. Conservative billionaires are heros. Clarence Thomas isn't in any hot water with the base for cozying up to a billionaire and receiving massive gifts from him. It's anti-intellectual for sure, and against many institutions, but it celebrated elites provided they are the right sort of elite. Again, I think South Africa is the better model here.

Undoubtedly if Trump wins the next election we'll see the same type of thing from the Democrats, etc.

Certainly, but there is a valid point to be made if a "democracy" has handed power to the side getting fewer votes in 3 of the last 6 elections. The problem looks even more acute when you consider the widespread use of disenfranchisement mentioned above and all the structural issues that support highly divergent levels of voter turn out across different populations. You don't get the day off to vote and if you live in some places you could spend the entire work day waiting to cast your ballot. In terms of actual approval, the GOP does even worse than losing by 7-11 million votes would suggest.

And then there are to consider all the ways in which the Senate and the limit on House seats favors small rural states, or even more so the aggressive efforts to make minority rule even easier to achieve.

Most important though, it is far less a movement of unity than the fascist movements. The fascists certainly looked inward for enemies, but they were also looking outward, a far cry from the isolationist trends in Trumpism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not exactly. The immigrants in the border are the "other". You can support better border security policies without framing the way he is doing.. DeSantis and Haley, whatever your feelings towards their policies, are standard rhetoric regarding this stance WITHOUT the "outward enemy" rhetoric. It's a not so subtle difference to emphasize security and being anti-drug smuggling and "poisoning the blood".

I wouldn't say they are fascist. But they may (unconsciously) hold views that conform with fascist tendencies — schopenhauer1

Many Christian literalists hold monarchy as an ideal, as that is what they expect in an afterlife. The extent to which such a view is consciously held varies, but it tends to be there to some degree as a consequence of the culture.

Many Christian literalists hold monarchy as an ideal, as that is what they expect in an afterlife. The extent to which such a view is consciously held varies, but it tends to be there to some degree as a consequence of the culture. — wonderer1

That might be so, yes. I think I have heard this before. I can also see it being, "God brings us messengers in various flawed forms". But you see, notice the convenience that the message is what they already wanted to hear. So it is a very convenient belief to have.

Absolutely. The leader is divinely appointed and the electorate either acedes to the will of God and is rewarded or is punished for rejecting God's will. There has been a lot written about how Donald Trump is analogous to the Persian King Cyrus, who allowed the Jews in exile in Babylon to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple. It's not just one person writing on this, but a major theme.

All the problems since 2020, the Ukraine War, the Gaza War, high inflation? Divine punishment for rejecting Trump (or failing to fight for him after he won).

Cyrus is in many ways a good choice because he is a pagan king and not entirely righteous (even the stand out kings of Israel, David and Solomon, have their many very unrighteous moments). This helps wave away claims about Trump's lack of religious observance, the various scandals, etc.

But there is also a movement to see Trump as a sort of prophet, or I've even heard "John the Baptist of the Second Coming." I don't think it's likely, but given the fervency of some Q circles, I could certainly see a small subsection of Trumpism becoming a religion akin to Rastafarianism. When Trump dies, there will be a vacuum in that enviornment, and people willing to step in with prophecy. Given how things already are, it wouldn't be that shocking to see pronouncements that Trump isn't really dead, but in heaven like Elijah, and likely to return in the last days. Modern Judaism has some groups like this too around certain leaders.

You can buy Saint Donald Trump prayer candles and icons, and I'm not sure they are 100% ironic. But the full on Trump worship crowd is a small subset of a subset of his supporters, not a particularly large group.

Fascism has long been absorbed into the structure of the American state, starting with FDR. It's corporatism, grand public works, state propaganda, have a frightening similarity (Wolfgang Schivelbusch – Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939) with the policies of Mussolini and Hitler. The missing element is the abject totalitarianism, although we’ve seen it rear its ugly head during the pandemic.

But Fascism was rarely a policy program. Though in Italy it was founded on corporatism, it was willing to use any economic system, whether liberal or socialist, to advance the interests of the State. In the mouths of its founders, Fascism was more of an ethos. It held a quite common view of man as a political animal, a la Aristotle, and thus conceived of man's duty towards the polis as obligatory, one of duty rather than freedom. Any bourgeois aloofness from the political life was denounced. Wherever man focused more on his own life he risked atomizing the whole.

Its weird statist ethos is observable in some rhetoric nowadays. For instance any ideas that regard the State as "the foundation of all rights and the source of all values in the individuals composing it" (Giovanni Gentile – The Philosophic Basis of Fascism) agrees with fascism at one of its most fundamental points. Another is its opposition to individualism—"Fascism is opposed to all the abstractions of an individualistic character based upon materialism typical of the Eighteenth Century" (The Doctrine of Fascism – Benito Mussolini). Anti-individualism is absolutely rife nowadays. Defending individualism on this very forum is sure to be met with disdain. Fascism also despises historical materialism and class conflict, a la Socialism, because it refutes homo economicus and the division of classes; but it seeks to retain the "sentimental aspiration" of it, "to achieve a community of social life in which the sufferings and hardships of the humblest classes are alleviated (The Doctrine of Fascism – Benito Mussolini)". Of course, this is achieved through the state rather than communal responsibility, from one man to another.

At any rate, fascism is dead. At best we can have some philosophers and some parties that could be described as Neo-Fascist, even where they themselves might repudiate the label. One can read philosophers Alexander Dugin or his French collaborator Alain De Benoist to see what they're up to. Their whole project, as of now, is illiberalism. And I fear that, from all sides Left and Right, their ideas are catching on.

Fascism has long been absorbed into the structure of the American state, starting with FDR. It's corporatism, grand public works, state propaganda, have a frightening similarity (Wolfgang Schivelbusch – Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939) with the policies of Mussolini and Hitler. The missing element is the abject totalitarianism, although we’ve seen it rear its ugly head during the pandemic. — NOS4A2

This is a false equivocation. Fascism has various aspects, not simply that the state sponsors programs, or gives subsidies to corporations. To be fair, Trump doesn't have the militant ideology of traditional fascism, but it has all the hallmarks that surround it:

1) Race baiting/identity politics (poisoning the blood, calling enemies vermin, demonizing illegal immigrants in harsh rhetoric)
2) Allusions to a glorious past (Make America Great Again)
3) Use of para-military forces to enforce will (January 6th, rallies, etc.)
4) Cult of personality of the leader (the unwavering support for Trump no matter what he says or does)
5) A support for fellow strongmen and dictators (admires Putin, Kim Jung Un, Orban, etc.)
6) Vows to exact vengeance on political rivals (calling them vermin, etc.)
7) General amoral stances to get things done (no moral center to values, simply transactional)
8) Believing executive power to be practically unlimited (this new case that the president is immune from any wrongdoing unless a Congress deems it so in an impeachment and conviction).
9) Ignoring democratic norms (using the ambiguities in the system to get into power, like asking for votes to those who count the votes, suing districts for counting the votes wrong, etc.. trying to have the rally-goers and vice president hold up a procedural vote.)

Which “various aspects” have I missed?

Which “various aspects” have I missed? — NOS4A2

You focused on some of the structural stuff that doesn't apply. I don't even care if this should be called "fascism proper". It's certainly using the tools and has the hallmarks of how fascists use and abuse power.

I also focused on the philosophical premises, which you avoided.

Hallmarks and echoes aren’t good enough, I’m afraid. One has to show that fascism is the guiding “thought and action” behind he who implements it.

Hallmarks and echoes aren’t good enough, I’m afraid. One has to show that fascism is the guiding “thought and action” behind he who implements it. — NOS4A2

Well, you ignored what I said in my last post. I said that I don't even care if it's not considered fascisim proper. It's certainly using the tools and has the hallmarks of how fascists use and abuse power.

Ah, fascism improper. Ok

I think anyone seriously entertaining Fascism as an incoming concern in the USA isn't up to having a conversation about it.

Don't leave us hanging, tell us why. :wink:

Ah, fascism improper. Ok — NOS4A2

Call it fascism-adjacent. Who knows what a second term will look like. In the case of the US, you can't just have fascism full-on. It has to be a slow build. It's going to look different.

I wasn't sure anyone would care about the reasoning, about US politics, from an irish expat in NZ :P

The USA has an armed populace.

The USA has an armed populace. — AmadeusD

That doesn't mean anything. Most of the people who have the huge stockpiles are probably Trump supporters.

I see nothing adjacent here and see much of what you described in the activities of his opponents. At any rate, there is a thread for that topic and if you wish to debate it we can take it up there.

The USA has an armed populace.
— AmadeusD

That doesn't mean anything. Most of the people who have the huge stockpiles are probably Trump supporters. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I was thinking what Schop said. I don't think ownership of guns is a vaccination against fascism.

And I think this is ultimately why nothing "sticks" to Trump. His supporters do not care so long as he destroys the evil they are convinced is trying to rule their lifes.[/quote]

activities of his opponents — NOS4A2

See here:

I think though that a bunch of the personality cult is tongue-in-cheek. The Trump voter base seems far more concerned with their enemies than with their "glorious leader". Arguably Hillary Clinton as the embodiment of evil is as important to the Trump movement as Trump is. — Echarmion

Also, again, it's a slow build whereby the guardrails get taken off a bit at the time and normalized. Then use whatever norms that aren't strict laws to make decisions that work against the spirit of democratic governance, if not strictly illegal.

nothing "sticks" to Trump. — schopenhauer1

An intentional or unintentional pun on the question of Fascism?

An intentional or unintentional pun on the question of Fascism? — Fooloso4

Haha, you can give @Echarmion credit for that. His quote actually. But yeah, that is a good one :smile:

Also, again, it's a slow build whereby the guardrails get taken off a bit at the time and normalized. Then use whatever norms that aren't strict laws to make decisions that work against the spirit of democratic governance, if not strictly illegal.

Like prosecuting one’s political opponents or removing them from the ballot? Given the unprecedented nature of each of these, we can watch in real time as the guardrails get removed one piece at a time.

Like prosecuting one’s political opponents or removing them from the ballot? Given the unprecedented nature of each of these, we can watch in real time as the guardrails get removed one piece at a time. — NOS4A2

Prosecuting politicians who try to remove the guardrails off the political process (illegally asking for votes, encouraging, aiding, and not calling off a violent insurrection in the Capitol as sitting president?).

Prosecuting politicians who try to remove the guardrails off the political process (illegally asking for votes, encouraging, aiding, and not calling off a violent insurrection in the Capitol as sitting president?).

Prosecuting political opponents for trumped up charges, yes. Though such activity could be construed as communist, or Putinist, I suppose.

That doesn't mean anything. Most of the people who have the huge stockpiles are probably Trump supporters. — schopenhauer1

This certainly appears to me like you're not thinking very hard.

This certainly appears to me like you're not thinking very hard. — AmadeusD

Based on these low quality comments, it looks like projecting here. This is now the second thread I've seen you have not much to add when it comes to supporting your ideas except for sound bytes followed by ad hom.

Yes, I was thinking what Schop said. I don't think ownership of guns is a vaccination against fascism. — Tom Storm

Willingness to use them against the government may be, though. I'm not saying this wont lead to disaster - I just cannot see how its possible fascism rears its head, unless seriously re-defined from its European origin. I don't think Rorty's conception is great, but even using that, I can't see it happening.

Feel free to thnk what you think my friend :)