There is a lot of sturm und drang (storm and stress – thank you, Goethe) these days about how a Trump victory next week will usher in an era of fascism in America. In other words the left is desperately trying (and has been since 2016) to convince the American voter that a vote for Trump is a vote for a particularly nasty form of an authoritarian government. But if you ask people what exactly defines fascism, they can’t really. Oh, you’ll get all kinds of answers, but what it really boils down to when you parse out responses is “I don’t like what he says, and because I know that I am a true and moral progressive, he must be a fascist.”
Puts on political science professor hat.
Ahem. In today’s class we will be discussing fascism – what that means, how do we identify it when we see it and are we seeing it now?
Okay. Let’s define fascism (as it’s defined academically and not by the screaming talking heads on CNN or MSNBC or any of the other outlets).
Fascism is a form of authoritarian government defined and implemented by Benito Mussolini in Italy in the 1920s. Mussolini’s government held power in Italy for almost twenty-one years, from 1922 until the Allies liberated Italy in 1943 at the end of World War II.
Mussolini’s elevator spiel (quick and easy definition) for fascism was as follows: All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
So, to be clear. In a fascist state, everything, the economy, the people, the land, the bureaucracy, the culture… EVERYTHING is a part of the state. There is not one thing that is not a part of the state. That is what he meant by ALL within the state, NOTHING outside the state. The state is the government and its bureaucracy which enforces government laws and regulations. Bear in mind that Italy did not have individual states at this point in time. The only government authority, outside of local police, was the federal government. States in Italy were not created until the 1970s. So, if you’re going to compare potential Trump policies/actions, for the purposes of this class, we’ll only be comparing federal actions and policies.
Most importantly, in a fascist state there is nothing AGAINST the state. Nothing. No dissent, no disagreement, no alternatives, no unapproved ideas or words, no unapproved art, music, or books.
Yes, I’m serious. All of that. Any questions?
Now, let’s look at what Trump talks about, and what he did during his first term. And then we’ll compare that to what the Democrats are saying they want to do and what they have done.
First off… can anybody point to anything Trump actually did during his first term that could fit the definition of fascism?
Yes, you with the purple hair, face tattoos, and ze/zir on your nametag. What’s your example?
No, the border wall doesn’t fit. Illegal immigration is a state of affairs where non-citizens attempt to enter a nation-state without going through the proper channels to get a visa or present a passport to some sort of border control authority. The border wall is designed to prevent that random entry into the country from happening. The border is a federal responsibility, but requiring some form of identification and following a process (i.e. vetting migrants and visitors and not allowing convicted criminals entry) to enter the country is not fascist. If that were the case, every single nation-state on this planet would be fascist. As an aside, yes, I recognize that our immigration/asylum/citizenship process is unduly complex and long overdue for an overhaul. That is not what we are discussing here. Now if the border controls prevented citizens from leaving? That’s an entirely different scenario. That would be North Korea.
Anything else? Yes, you in the back wearing the pink pussy hat, whacha got?
Abortion? Okay, let’s look at that issue. The Dobbs decision put the question of abortion restrictions back on the states as noted by the Tenth Amendment. As a brief review, the Tenth Amendment states that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government go to the states or the people: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Dobbs case explicitly moved the power of deciding on the existence and level of restrictions on abortion back to the states. By the way, the states were perfectly happy to let to let SCOTUS handle the question because it gave them a scape goat to point to when their own constituents got salty. Passing the blame is a time-honored political tradition, remember. However, the decision in Dobbs also means that SCOTUS implicitly denied the federal government the ability to enact a national ban on abortion. So, abortion is now outside the purview of the federal government. Which means it is outside the state. Supporting Dobbs is not fascist by Mussolini’s own definition. Wanting it to be a federal law is fascist…
All within the state.
Next question… yes, the kid in the middle with a man-bun wearing the “This is what a feminist looks like” t-shirt.
Allowing and encouraging the spread of “misinformation?” Yes, I used air quotes because my next question is to ask you to define “misinformation” without using the terms “hate speech,” “offensive speech,” or telling me that people shouldn’t be exposed to “wrong” information.
Ah, you can’t. Okay. Let’s continue.
First of all, who the hell are you to decide what people can and can’t hear or say? Secondly, how do you know that what you’re spouting is correct and not itself “misinformation?” There’s not enough room on this blog to detail all the patently false information that the Democratic Party and its myrmidons in the mainstream media have been passing off as gen-u-wine expert advice. Suffice it to say that challenging the statements (including those by self-proclaimed experts) made by politicians and others is the lifeblood of democracy. If you cut off disagreement because someone challenges your opinion, or asks for your data so they can see if your research can be replicated… YOU are the fascist.
Thirdly, if you are offended by something someone said, that’s a you problem, not a me problem. If you decide that hearing someone stating the truth, or question the ideology, is offensive, you have taken offense, offense has not been given. You made a choice to be offended – you made a choice to get your knickers in a twist about it. If someone does say something truly offensive (e.g. uses a racial/sexist slur) then as a mature individual you have the choice of ignoring the statement and the individual (cut them out of your life if necessary), or attempting to calmly explain why the comment/word is insulting. But stomping your feet and screaming in somebody’s face like a petulant three-year old, simply because they stated they disagree with you, is not going to win them over. Nor does it make you look like an intellectual.
The best way to counter an argument or opinion you don’t agree with is to let the sun shine in on it. Open dialog allows ideas to be aired, discussed, ridiculed, accepted, and rejected. Declaring some opinions to be the equivalent of persona non grata simply drives them underground where the cool factor ratchets up by the hour. People who discuss ideas from someone and somewhere other than a self-proclaimed expert, or the mainstream media, or political pundits, are, most emphatically, not fascists.
What’s next? Yes, the gentleman in the suit with the serious expression, and the concerned head tilt. Whatcha got?
Ah, Project 2025. The scariest bogeyman of the current election cycle. Or at least the left tried to make it a super-scary creature… their equivalent of Pennywise, waiting to attack them from the dark. I’m sorry, sir, but Project 2025 does not live up to the hype. I actually tried to read it. It’s about a thousand pages detailing which of the innumerable federal bureaucracies we’ve been saddled with need to be subjected to personnel cuts, or outright eliminated. It’s not a Trump camp created document, rather it is a product of the Heritage Foundation. Yes, a conservative think tank. But hardly the equivalent of the Trilateral Commission or some other legendary bogeyman. Why do you object to shrinking the federal bureaucracy? Do you truly love it that much? Ah, you work for the feds… yeah, you’d probably join the ranks of the unemployed. Welcome to the party!
Remember when Bill Clinton and Al Gore stood on the White House lawn surrounded by stacks of government regulations and announced their plan to reduce the size of the government? Yeah. That one. Project 2025 is a plan for reducing the bloat in the federal government. Are you saying you support the continued increase of the federal bureaucracy since they’re the ones best suited to telling us how to behave? Well, then my good sir… you just might be a fascist.
So what are we left with? What exactly has Trump done that makes him the presidential candidate planning on implementing a fascist form of government? Decreasing the size of government? No, that’s antithetical to fascism. Not allowing disagreement? I’d say no. He enjoys sparring with people who disagree with him and has not said one damn thing about squelching opinions and disagreements. Oh, sure, he’s made fun of opposing views, but that’s not censorship. Trolling his opponents is also not censorship. Y’all need to go out and rediscover your sense of humor.
Harris and the Democratic machine on the other hand… strangling free speech platforms, suggesting the government needs to control what’s posted on social media and what gets discussed in public, getting platforms like Facebook and others to throttle dissenting views (yes, it happens regardless of whether you believe it or “don’t know anybody that’s happened to”), supporting terror groups like Hamas when they intimidate Jewish students on college campuses, telling women that they aren’t real women if they don’t vote for Harris (check out Michelle Obama’s speech the other day), or telling black men they’re women-hating failures and not really black (Barack Obama and Joe Biden) if they don’t vote for Harris. Telling everybody that holds a different opinion that unapproved opinions are (pick all that apply) misogynistic, racist, homophobic, or transphobic – that’s fascist in nature.
Nothing outside the state.
Additionally, the Ds and Harris are quick to turn on anybody initially on their “side” who might venture to disagree. Look at what happened to Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City when he said that he doesn’t buy the “Trump is fascist” statement. All of a sudden, those corruption charges resurfaced and are being filed. Huh. Wonder why?
Nothing against the state.
Just to wrap things up… when judged by his actions as President rather than the ginned-up and false scandals (need generals like Hitler had, Russia collusion hoax, very fine people, veterans are suckers, hooker pee story, everything else), Trump is not a fascist, nor are his ideas fascist.
You should be asking yourself… why are the Dems seemingly so convinced that Trump is a fascist? <Church Lady voice>Could it be pro-jec-tion?</Church Lady voice>
Okay. Your homework, to be completed before our next meeting, is to find a news source you are afraid to tell your friends about, and see what the stories are there. It’s okay. There might be some mind-opening ideas, but I promise there’s no cooties.
Class dismissed. You may go.
