Please
read the whole thing (less than 1700 words), but here’s a hint: it’s not about ideology but about
behavior.
As a
political scientist, I approach the application of the term “fascist” to any
contemporary figure with caution.
My
reluctance is based on three major reservations. First, people often use the
term pejoratively, sometimes out of ignorance, and not technically. Just ask
President Obama. Second, using a term so closely connected to particular
historical figures such as Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco can be misleading when
we consider how the term might be used at present about far-right authoritarian
figures such as Viktor Orbán of Hungary. The historical context might actually
distract us from understanding contemporary varieties of fascism. Third, in
political theory this term is essentially contested, meaning that no consensus
definition exists.
Still,
since the term is flying around like Mr. Trump’s hair in the wind, I’d like to
decide whether it is appropriate.
A
variety of definitions for fascism have been suggested by political theorists,
politicians, and cultural commentators. I’ve selected a recent one from the
throng that seems to shed the most light on the current situation. (Several
others are similar in large degree; if we can’t come to a consensus definition,
it seems to me that political theorists can probably agree on three-quarters of
the term’s meaning.)
The
definition I’ll use is by Columbia history professor emeritus Robert Paxton
from his book, The Anatomy of Fascism (Vintage Press, 2005, on
page 218):
“A
form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community
decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants,
working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons
democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical
or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Taking
relevant phrases one-by-one will serve as my evaluation of Mr. Trump and his
supporters. (I must evaluate his supporters at least generally; fascism may
feature one man but must be, by most definitions, a mass movement.)
1)
“obsessive preoccupation with community decline”—At the core of Trump’s message,
this theme drives much of the rest. He asserts, and his followers declare, that
America has fallen from greatness (in no particularly defined way). The “Make
America Great Again” slogan sums this up neatly. This theme has been visible in
his bashing of many American cities as crime-ridden and decrepit though this
view is not factually in line with a number of recent trends in many cities.
2)
“humiliation or victimhood”—This sums up Trump’s hazy views of foreign policy
and helps explain some of his haphazard actions in that sphere. America, he
says, is treated as second-rate by China and disdained by Iran and ignored by
others in the international realm. Bluster and isolated military action (for
instance in Syria) were his response. Trump also evokes as victims the citizens
who are working class or small business owners, not prospering economically,
white, and male. The fact that Trump, a big business owner who has shown little
concern for workers in his own dealings, perhaps causes some measure of this
victimization is an irony apparently invisible to many of his supporters.
3)
“compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity”—Trump pays ample lip service
to unity, by which he means absolute agreement with him. He continues to tout
his energy (and that of his supporters), but in the current campaign has often
looked tired and has rambled bizarrely, causing many observers to question his
fitness. He has since 2015 continually disparaged immigrants as a form of
support for white American purity. Some of those comments are so extreme (“they’re
eating cats”) that they provoke laughter—and then deep concern that he would
say such nonsense and be taken seriously by anyone.
4)
“mass-based party of committed nationalist militants”—This seems to be how he
regards his base, though because they number about a third of the electorate, he
must also appeal to independent voters. The ultranationalist commitment of many
Trump backers, and their willingness to excuse anything he says and does,
remains as clear now as ever. Also, some of his most militant supporters
include the KKK, American Nazis, and other white nationalists who exhibit
fascist characteristics.
5)
“working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites”—The
Republican Party to a great extent has become the Cult of Trump. Leaders such
as Sen. Mitch McConnell disparage Trump on occasion but usually treat him as
the party leader and support him in public. Many in the GOP back him without
question or reservation despite the anti-democratic comments he has made and
actions he took as president. A large minority of prominent GOP officials and
staffers have refused to cooperate with him this election, including his own
former vice-president and more than half of his cabinet officers plus many from
previous Republican administrations and former-nominee Mitt Romney’s staff.
Still, the bulk of the GOP, the traditional elites, support him. Also, economic
elite contributions to Trumpist candidates for office continue to flood in.
Would many GOP leaders wish for a different candidate? Yes, but despite their misgivings,
they did nothing to make that happen.
6)
“abandons democratic liberties”—He’d like to. He does not respect democratic
process or norms, civil rights, freedom of the press, separation of powers, and
ethics laws and norms. The list of events in which Trump has thwarted or
attempted to thwart the rule of law is too long to catalog—if a person is
unaware of it, that’s simply self-delusion. In particular, his disdain for the
electoral process (or rather his warped view of it) has continued unchanged from
his 2015 candidacy.
7)
“pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal
restraints”—Trump has incited violence, both during the 2016 campaign and during
his term, particularly against scapegoated groups. He incited violence on Jan.
6, 2021, in what may be most accurately called sedition. His verbal attacks in
this regard have almost no parallels in the history of presidents. And, as
stated in 2016, “does Trump have personal ethical restraints? Have we seen any?
(I’ll state this as an open question in the hope that someone will point out
when he took an ethical stand that would not also result in some benefit to
himself. My internal reference point on this topic is the Trump University scam
and his series of lies by way of explanation.)”
8)
“goals of internal cleansing and external expansion”—Trump’s internal cleansing
as president took the form of deportations of undocumented people with no clear
strategy or consistency; the targeting of Muslims from particular countries but
not others (with no rationale to explain the distinction); the targeting of
sanctuary cities, which are usually liberal and opposed to Trump in general;
withdrawal of federal support for the civil rights of particular groups of
citizens (for example, people of color and the gay and transgender
communities); and vicious attacks on the free press. So far, Trump has not
emphasized territorial expansion, though bellicose actions and rhetoric without
a clear rhyme and reason were his presidential norm (as with Syria, NATO, Iran,
and North Korea). He appears to be isolationist rather than expansionist.
However, the “internal cleansing” agenda, including threats to his political
opponents if he should be elected again, is clear.
A few
relevant items may be added to Paxton’s description.
He
has spoken and acted in such a way that he received the endorsement of white
nationalist groups and leaders. They are in essence fascists. His endorsement
by both Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen, the famed French fascists, is in
keeping with this theme.
He
holds no respect at all for fact and truth. If he truly believes all the
contradictory things he says, then he has a serious psychological problem. If
he does not, he’s an opportunistic, manipulative, and constant liar. Many
fascist leaders historically have exhibited this characteristic—indeed, have
specialized in it.
As
president he surrounded himself with far-right advisors—that is, when he was
not engaged in nepotism.
He
cannot, for more than a few minutes at a time, behave publicly as presidents
need to behave. His erratic statements and visceral loathing for anyone who
disagrees with him—his bullying threats, his personal put-downs—are not
remotely presidential and are unworthy of that office. (They are, however,
reminiscent of a couple of famous fascist dictators.)
Finally,
theorists speak often of a charismatic leadership principle in fascism. Trump’s
few policy statements are notoriously vague, inconsistent (some are fairly
liberal, some conservative), and frequently incomprehensible. The most famous
is probably his grand claim that he would make Mexico pay for his “beautiful
wall.” How would he make China kowtow to American trade interests? How could he
accomplish any of the changes he advocated? Trump’s answer: he will do these
things through the force of his personality and will.
But
of course he was not able to. He had enough charisma to get elected in 2016—barely.
He does not have enough to govern effectively, or to gain the cooperation of
enough people in government to achieve his goals. For example, his failure to effectively
address the COVID-19 pandemic created quarrels inside his administration and
contributed to his loss to Biden in 2020.
Is
Trump a fascist? Not ideologically, because he’s not ideologically much of
anything except a plutocrat. However, to the extent he was able as president,
he acted, functioned, as a fascist.
And
that means it’s time for Americans of all political stripes to stop him, by any
legal and ethical means, for example in the 2024 election.
What’s
at stake? For Republicans, your political party is being undermined and sullied
by this crass authoritarian. For all of us, the stakes are our liberties, our
identity as Americans, and ultimately ourselves.
Note:
During the 2016 presidential campaign, I posted an evaluation entitled, “Does
This Term Fit That Candidate?” I updated it in August, 2017, after half a year
of a Trump presidency. Now, with the 2024 election less than a week away, here
are further thoughts. I’ve revised all earlier comments.
