Let's Call Trumpism what it is - American Fascism.

I think it's probably best just to refer to the Trump phenomenon for what it is: it's Fascism.

Fascism is characterized by xenophobic nationalism and domestic Authoritarianism, centered on the Cult of the Leader. The key to Fascism is to understand that it isn't an aberration from the politics of Modern mass-society (i.e. the nation-states as they have developed after the Age of Revolutions and the Industrial Revolution); instead it's just normal politics.

One option for the political configuration of mass society is Liberal Democracy; another option is Fascism. The key to understanding Fascism is that, where it arises, it is popular. Authoritarian regimes don't spring up in places like Germany or the United States because a tyrant is somehow able to impose his will on an unwilling people (at least, that's now it unfolds in the beginning).

The real divide in the politics of Modern mass society is not the Left-Right divide of the Liberal political spectrum. The REAL divide is Liberalism vs. Authoritarianism. When I refer to capital-L "Liberalism" here I'm not talking about the liberalism of the Left; I'm talking about Liberalism in a more expansive sense, which ranges from the statism of the Left to the Lockean liberalism of the Right. The political spectrum of Left-Right, again, is a Liberal spectrum. It sprang up during the French Revolution, in opposition to the King, who was no kind of Liberal but instead was an Authoritarian. The King (in both Revolutionary France and America), it's worth remembering, also had popular support.

Liberals, whether Right or Left, have two cardinal values: freedom and equality. Both these values are absolutely necessary for a free society; however, they are also somewhat in tension with one another. A society that places high priority on equality will constrain freedom, and a society that places a high priority on individual freedoms will be a society that discounts equality. For the Liberal state to survive, it has to strike some kind of balance between these values. The Social Democracies of Europe give much more weight to equality, while the U.S. traditionally has given much more weight to individual freedoms.

The United States itself has an Authoritarian tradition, and a very deep one. Authoritarianism values preservation of the existing social order, and the exercise of dominance to maintain it, over genuine freedom and equality. Authoritarianism was the ideology that undergirded the institution of slavery, for starters. And since the end of the Civil War it has always been there, as a latent force, and especially associated (as slavery was) with conservative Christianity.

The fundamental Modern political divide is not Left-Right; it is Liberal (both Right and Left) vs. Authoritarian/Fascist.

From the end of the Civil War to the beginning of the Civil Rights era, Authoritarian impulses where either divided between the parties, or they were lodged with Christian populists who had largely removed themselves from politics. The Civil Rights era stoked fear and anger among the Christian populists, and got them to re-engage with politics. But whereas the Christian populists were legacy-Democrats (dating back to the times of the proslavery Democratic party), when they re-emerged (as the Moral Majority of the 1970's and 80's), they would be Republican.

Barry Goldwater, who was an arch Right-liberal if there ever was one, saw the threat that these conservative populists posed to the GOP ("If these Preachers ever get control of the party, Heaven help us").

Since Goldwater's time, America's Authoritarian populist constituency has gradually consolidated under the banner of the GOP, slowly but surely transforming it from a Right-liberal Reaganite party, to an Authoritarian populist party - one that was ripe for takeover by a race-baiting Nativist and Demagogue (the exact kind of man the Founders always feared would arise).

Pre-Modern Authoritarianism is the rule by nobles and kings; after the Liberals overthrew all the kings, Modern Authoritarianism arose with Fascism and the Cult of the Leader. Trump is what Fascism looks like when it comes to America. American Fascism did not arise out of nowhere; and just because Trump doesn't have the powers of office anymore, does not mean that the power of American Fascism is dispelled. Fascism is popular, just like the slave-tyranny of the Antebellum Southern States was popular (in the South). It has to be confronted and destroyed, and this is the primary task of the current generations of Americans. Hopefully, it won't take another war to do it.

 

And Obama was a theocracy to the liberals.

That is worse.

 

Theocracy, of course, is Authoritarian. It privileges order over freedom and equality (or more accurately I guess, it interprets "freedom" in terms of order).

It is of course nonsense to suggest that Obama was a theocrat or that he had theocratic authority. However, the Cult of the Leader that you get with Fascism, definitely does have overtones of the old theocratic nature of pre-Modern Authoritarianism. It's really no surprise that conservative Christians built up a minor cult of devotion to George W. Bush (particularly after 9/11), and that they have made nothing short of an idol of Trump.

 

Theocracy is more akin to militarism or even communism than authoritarianism.

 

That's a very interesting point of view. Never quite thought of it exactly that way but I think the OP nailed it!

 

*shakes head*. Where in the ever-loving world do I begin with this? Well, let's start by deconstructing your view of American History because only then can we discuss Fascism since you're curious about it. To claim that the Framers(and wit large early 17th-18th century America) were Authoritarians due to the slavery system is rather inaccurate.

Unlike Britain, who sought to colonize states and owned those colonies(up until 1970!), the United States historically traditionally abandons its colonies. Puerto Rico cries to the US, and we're not that interested. Alaska/Hawaii might as well be their own separate things. We didn't even make an attempt of colonizing the Middle East, even though we should have if we were serious about "exporting democracy".

If the US were an Authoritarian State(in the manner in which you describe), it would be the worst authoritarian state in the history of the developed world. Not only did America fail to expand beyond the 50 State borders, it also failed to unify the State and exists in perpetual division.

And even said State borders and Manifest Destiny, other than the US-Mexico war, most of it was through the Louis-Clark expedition and unclaimed territory.(such as the Louisiana Purchase.)The problem with how modern day universities are teaching political theory and US civics is that you're not merely being taught wrong, you're being taught fallacious interpretations of world history.

And as a result, you equate conservatism to Fascism, which would be hilarious if it weren't so ignorantly inaccurate.

So lets discuss what happened to modern day conservatism, before discussing Fascism wit large. Because the two systems are utterly incompatible. While you cite the "Goldwater Republicans"(a rather fringe and irrelevant group of Republicans), more prominent in American History were the Rockefeller Republicans(aka: The neoconservatives.)

It is this money'd group, that for the first time in American history injected money into politics and newspapers particularly. Before these bandits hijacked politics, money had about as much relevance in politics as we do today as posters: Almost none. But the Rockefeller's saw a gold mine, and as a result they found themselves prominently in control of the GOP. Other wealthy merchants, seeing the success of the Rockefeller's poured in money as well. So far sooner than Citizens United, our political system was corrupted.

But money wasn't the only corruption, they added in a word so fatal to the American country that today, we suffer it: They uttered the word democracy.

Not a single person referred to the American State as a democracy prior to the mid-1900's. Not a single person thought to claim America a democracy, for she never was one. She was a federal Republic. But Republics cannot be brought out so easily, or owned. But democracies? Ripened for the abuse(or, can we call it abuse if it's really a function?). Once they called it a democracy and expanded the control of the parliament through money(and when States no longer elected their senators). That's when the goose was cooked and we have the modern system.

So the state of affairs you blame today, are not on some ultra-conservative christian racists in your imagination. But from oil and media tycoons of the late 19th-early 20th century. In fact, the evangelicals are as much victim as anybody else, for having their status played up as some figure within the party, only not to realize that a religious state is incoherent with a secular union, and that they are only being used for votes.

So now that we have corrected the historical errors of the OP, let's turn to what Fascism is since the OP charges that "Trumpery is Fascism", the OP does so by proclaiming a "cult of the leader" but that's not necessarily the function of the said Head of State.

Mussolini didn't much mention the figure of the head of the government, because it was the system of Fascism that is more relevant then its political leader. The bundle is gathered together, because individually the sticks would crumble and fall. And fall they have, in America's democracy. Our divide is the proof of Fascism's greatest truth and realization of modern politics, which the Fascist revolutionaries detested in their rise to power.

Since the State is supreme in Fascism, the political head must represent the State and only the State. If the head pursues his own interests without regard for the State, he cannot be called a Fascist. If one views Trump as ultimately self serving and not carrying about the purpose of the State, then he cannot be called a Fascist. Fascism does not permit individual expression to go beyond the State, and political expression is no different.


Do we have proof of the fact that the Head is less relevant than the State under Fascism? Well, for those who viewed Fascism/Nazism as synonymous, let's take a quote from Hitler in his war declaration against Poland:

"It is of no importance if we the individual lives, as long as Germany lives." He went on to name the various successors if he should fall in the war. He also asked that the successor be given the same blind obedience. While the Head of State has the authority of the State, it is only so if he abides by the State. Should he fail, he/she would be replaced.

Fascism is primarily systematic in nature, the individual is only a part of a key cog of a system. The individual is not given that importance. Mussolini strikes this difference in his book, as he attacks egalitarian liberalism for having done the opposite.

I will note that while I've studied Fascism exclusively and am a proud Fascist-Technocrat, I have made several revisions in accordance to the geopolitical and economic challenges of our times. But the core truth of the collective and individual coming together, and the greater importance of the State over egalitarian politics is truer than ever before.

If you want to debate Fascism fine, but Trump nor conservatives are fascists.

 

It is autocratic that is for sure. Trump does have Facist tendencies. If he got a second term we would have had to sing

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,

 

Two thumbs up, @Modus Ponens .

 

It's nice that that's your opinion, but you're begging the question.

I do think that Conservatism and Fascism are ideological cognates; I regard them both as Authoritarian, with Conservatism being the pre-Modern (throne and altar) variety, and Fascism being the Modern version. In the OP I canvass some of the reasons why I think this (which you aren't addressing)

This evinces such gross historical ignorance, it barely merits a response. Money and economy has always been a key driver of politics - everywhere. The Republicans began as a Right-liberal (particularly antislavery) party, but almost immediately after the Civil War they became the party of monied Northern industrialists. Plutocracy can morph into Fascism (much as Statism can morph into Communism), but I aver that (in neither case) has that happened in U.S. history. I will say however, that Right-liberals have a tendency to align politically with Authoritarians - in the U.S. particularly. This happens basically because they view Left-liberals as a common enemy. The mistake of American Right-liberals was that they thought they would always be the superior-party in this alliance. The Trump era has demonstrated what happens when you try to ride the conservative populist (Authoritarian/Fascist) tiger...

Just a programming note: it is one of the biggest tells of American Fascism, that it will actively denigrate "democracy," both in concept and its historical reality in the United States.

Yeah, I've heard it all before. This is a standard piece of Authoritarian sophistry that has been popular since the Bush years. Actually its Authoritarian roots can be traced to the late 1970's, when Conservative activists started to openly advocate for a strategy of voter suppression as a way of winning elections for Republicans. But as a talking-point it would have never got off the ground, without victory in the Cold War. A typical 1980's Reaganite would be aghast at any conservative going around declaiming "We aren't a democracy." They would immediately suspect you of being a Commie.

Now you're actually beginning to make some sense. The 1960's saw a huge re-alignment in our national politics: Black Americans at that time completed their shift from being a Republican voting-bloc to being a reliable Democrat constituency; White Christian populists moved over to the Republicans. The 1960's basically had a general libertarian effect on the whole society: values became more liberal, and the economy wrested off a lot of state-involvement. You're right, the Christian populists (who I agree are against the division of Church and State) lost on both scores. But the GOP was able to sell them the elixir of cultural and racial Ressentiment, which (like Lucy with the football) duped ethnic Whites to vote, again and again, for their Republican masters and against their own interests. It really was only a matter of time before a racist Demagogue came along to take advantage of the anger and despair of the deplorable Authoritarians....

Geez Man, Mussolini was a textbook charismatic Fascist Leader (he wasn't called "Il Duce" for nothing)! As you are evidently holding a brief for Fascism in general (and against democracy), I conclude that you are also an adherent of American Fascism. It's sad. In my view you represent a threat to the very idea (and existence) of the United States as it was founded. You're on the wrong side of history, and if the country is lucky, the Deplorables will be spoken of in the American history textbooks of the future, the way that people today regard the Italians who supported Mussolini.

No, you are conflating Fascism and the Total State. It is true that both are Authoritarian, but not every Fascist state is Totalitarian (though structurally speaking, Fascist states do tend in the direction of Totalitarianism). Fascism is, alike with Liberal democracy, a political configuration of Modern mass-politics; and Fascism, just like Liberal democracy, comes in different national flavors. Contemporary Japanese democracy is something quite different from Italian democracy, which again is very different from Canadian. Likewise, Fascism takes on the trappings of the state and society where it emerges. Trump is what Fascism looks like when it comes to America (or at least, what Fascism looks like when it first rises to political power; we can expect future Fascist leaders in America to be much more "effective" than Trump)

This is charmingly naive. Charismatic authority (a la Max Weber) is essential to the Fascist state. And as the Cult of the Leader is built up, the rhetoric typically employed is that the Leader personifies the national will and the national interest. The practical effect of this of course is not a Leadership that is responsive to the people, but a Leader that can act with impunity, because the national interest is reduced to his own interest. This of course describes Trump to a tee.

Fascism is basically a thugocracy. Fascism is basically a redux of pre-Modern Authoritarianism, but it crucially lacks the "vertical" (religious) dimension for legitimizing its smash-and-grab political programme. The anchor that traditional religious authority extended to the regime, now must be provided for by ersatz forms, and the precise character of these forms will depend a lot on cultural & historical contingencies. But the general Patriarchal ideal is a good through-line seen connecting pre-Modern and Modern forms of Authoritarianism: the nation as a kind of family, with the Paterfamilias at the head, with the power of life and death over everyone else. Beyond that Fascism has little ideological coherence, it is just a catch-as-catch-can way for Authoritarians to install themselves permanently in power, and to oppress their political enemies (the very idea of political opposition being illegitimate for the king and the Fascist leader, alike )

Well nothing you've said comes close to a refutation of (any of) my claims about American Fascism. As for your being a "proud Fascist-Technocrat," I have to conclude that you're a booster of the CCP, since that formula is the closest description one can make of their system (which is indeed a different flavor from the distinctly American brand of Fascism, with Conservatism in America).

 

Brownshirts are burning american cities, the twitter mob is canceling human lives for thought-crimes, the intelligence apparatus is illegally spying on a political campaign, a rogue special counsel together with 15 partisan hacks are engaged in a witch hunt and a fishing expedition looking for a crime, not investigating one, the ruling class is trying to unseat a legitimately elected president through a bogus impeachment, the media owned by the ruling class is engaged in a 4 year disinformation and smear campaign to demonize a legally elected president, covering up real crimes and censoring inconvenient facts... but it's Trump who is a fascist.

 

The OP had to invent a definition for facism...

 

"The OP had to invent a definition for facism..."

A pretty standard definition. You have a better one?

 

violent brownshirts, persecution of thought crime (aka the cancel culture), persecution of the opposition (aka the witch hunt/fishing expedition, bogus impeachment), disinformation campaign, delegitimization and dehumanization of the opposition, suppression of information and censorship by subservient fully owned media.

 

What the hell are you talking about?
Under Trump his staffers were leaking information on regular basis, and after they were fired or quit they wrote sensational books making unverified claims. Trump was constantly under attack from mass media. If he was authoritarian, he would unleash IRS on his enemies, and made sure every federal agency made life difficult for his loudest opponents. He would also instruct DOJ to look for any possible excuse to discredit journalists and celebrities who publicly oppose him!

Trump is authoritarian? Really?

 

Of course he's an Authoritarian, a Fascist. The fact that he's incompetent doesn't make a difference. His core supporters are Authoritarian/Fascist as well; the fact that they hold little personal power doesn't change the reality of their political values.

The way I see it, with Trump the United States of America is playing a Dictator Simulation game, at the lowest level of difficulty. If Trump had even below-average ability in marshalling power to supererogate power to himself, the country would be in serious, serious trouble.

 

Definition of fascism

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial controlearly instances of army fascism and brutality— J. W. Aldridge

 

I've read some really silly and ahistorical crap here but that's pretty much top of the line. If indeed fascism ever comes to America it will come from the left not the right. You can hear it in the none to subtle pronouncements of AOC, the so-called Trump accountability, even Jake Tapper's statement about holding Trump supporters accountable. That's real fascism unlike Trump complaining about the news coverage he gets.

 

Brownshirts? "Stand back, and stand by" militias, some of whom stormed state capitals and occupied them under arms, others of whom plotted to assassinate a governor the Demagogue vocally opposed. Never mind also the insignia-free "little green men" he sent to break up protests, including peaceful protesters in front of the White House!

Persecution of thought crime? The Leader's ability to intimidate (both politicians and private citizens) with his Twitter-arm (which should be canceled, but isn't). Never mind also his clear intention, and occasional overt attempts, to use the power of his office to punish the press. Never mind also the scads of politically motivated firings, the repeated attempts to leverage the DOJ to jail political opponents - all purely the stuff of 2nd world kleptocracies.

Disinformation campaign? Look no further than his constant retailing of conspiracy-theories, not to mention his (fully impeachable) attempt to leverage American foreign policy to smear his political opponent. Not to mention that the most-watched news network in the country completely suborned itself to him as his private ministry of information, retailing and magnifying all his lies.

Delegitimation and dehumanization of the opposition? Like Birtherism, you mean? Or calling routinely calling women who opposed him "nasty," calling Blacks who opposed him "low IQ," saying that their home districts were "rat infested" places - or suggesting they weren't even American in the first place??

I don't know why I bother with you people. You enthusiastically endorse all of the above, you embrace hypocrisy, you are enemies of the American project.

 

Content-free rebuttal is content-free.

 

It wasn't content free. But then I long ago gave up expecting leftists to admit there own perfididdy. It is typical of the left to accuse others of what they themselves do.

 

No, in fact it is the Big Lie of Conservatives, to routinely accuse their political opponents of what they routinely do.

 

Except we don't.

 

pure nonsense! wanting to put your country first does not make you xenophobic. Your attempt to use WORDS as WEAPONS is sad. When someone donates to police, do they donate to their local police or a police department in another town or even another country? How does that make sense? You know what is more important than WORDS? I do! It's called COMMON SENSE and LOGIC, get some!

 

But obama, but hillary, but but but... You only know what your crackpot media tells you.

 

It took me about ten minutes to see what trump is back when he gave his first rally. Within a few weeks he had confirmed my worst suspicions. As his niece [the psychologist] says, the man is a monster.

But the people who support him are far more dangerous. They first time I heard his minions cheer for calls of extreme torture, I almost threw up. When he called for the deaths of the families of terrorists and they cheered, I knew these people are fantastically dangerous - the greatest threat this country has ever seen.