==
“I’m the opposite of a Nazi!”
Donald Trump, reassuring us that he is definitely, totally, absolutely not a Nazi.
==
Fascism: a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition
At the core of fascism is loyalty to tribe, ethnic identity, religion, tradition, or, in a word, nation.
==
a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
==
Nazi : a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person
==
So. Kinda feels like if you have to tell people you are not something, you have an issue. Just the fact anyone would have to explain, let alone a presidential candidate, that “I am not a nazi” means that some people may actually be thinking you are one. Uhm. That seems bad if you want to be a president. It makes it a bit difficult to simply bucket it into the “other side being hyperbolic” category. Anyhoo.
Let’s be clear. One can be a fascist, and apply fascist rhetoric, and not be a nazi, but if one is a nazi, they are fascist. Trump wallows in the wretched hollow in-between.
In that in-between he fosters a lot of fascist like shit. Once again, he could absolutely spew fascist rhetoric and not be a nazi. Social scientists have pointed out for decades that not all fascist movements are the same nor created equal. It’s an idea that morphs to the user and to the context, but for the most part it is a counterrevolutionary reaction to the rise of Marxism, socialism, or liberalism. For Hannah Arendt, it was totalitarianism. For others it is seen as a contingent process (a counterreaction to socialism and/or liberalism. Is it an ideology? Is it more a style of leadership? Is it a political method? All I really know is whatever it is, it is always captured in rhetoric. And that means we end up debating words and meanings.
Which leads me to Trump (“the opposite of a nazi”).
We are continuously encouraged to not believe what Trump says, but if we can’t trust what a president says, how do we attain common understanding? (answer: we don’t. ever.). That becomes a bigly problem because his aggressive rhetoric never ends; it doesn’t even pause. If Trump is elected next week, it will continue all day, every day, for four more years. And it will be in front of you, in the news, on your screen, on social media, every day, for four more years. And THAT means we will debate all day, every day, what is fascist and what is not. Lets be honest. We just can’t tune it out. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to simply tune out the firehose of invective. When a presidential candidate says things like this, it is newsworthy. When the President says things like this, it is definitely newsworthy.
The roots of Trumpism is grounded in something real – mass disillusionment with liberal democracy (or just government writ large). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the roots of fascism reside in mass disillusionment. From there we shift to charismatic leadership as a facet of fascism. It’s a mass political movement led by a charismatic leader. Now. Bernie Sanders is charismatic, but no one would say he’s a fascist. Heck. Some movements are authoritarian, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re fascist. Here is where context matters – “what is it about the context today that shares something from a previous context, in terms of how we understand fascism back then?” And that’s where there’s a major debate, right? The goalposts constantly move so we reformulate, and we say, “these are things that constitute fascism.” To be clear (once again). Trump thrives in the wretched hollows within this goalpost shifting.
Which leads me back to the beginning: we are publicly, honestly, discussing fascism.
Here is the thing. The most important thing (in my mind). The fact we are even having the discussion. One of the characteristics of Trump and Trumpism, and even MAGA, is that it always explores the ‘lines’ of things. It edges into the unacceptable, the illegal, the gray areas of norms. It creates just a bit of plausible deniability and just a smidge of acceptability. So, in the end, how do we judge because it is a nuanced thought. So, let’s offer a nuanced thought and a non-nuanced thought to end this Trump and fascism debate:
-
Nuanced – “the enemy within.” Fascism is grounded in a an unequivocal “us versus them” narrative where “them” is defined by “us” and while someone may self-identify as an “us,” you are not admitted to the “us club” unless the “us elite” (authoritarian/totalitarian inner circle) accept you. I am fairly sure Trump WOULD have been a Nazi (as long as he could be a leader), but I don’t think he is one, he is simply a stupid narcissistic bully, i.e., an authoritarian. In fact I don’t know anyone who’s a liberal who doesn’t think “Donald Trump is an authoritarian, perhaps, fascist leader.” I would be surprised if it hasn’t crossed the mind of every sane person. Suffice it to say if someone is considering it, you just may be.
- Non-nuanced – consistent signaling. Every leader attempts to craft lasting relationships with people grounded in the ability to send the right signals at the right time, i.e., the ability to show not tell (although “showing” the right words offers through lines). A leader’s vision is just a big ball of signals. In fact that’s what the vast majority of human relationships consist of. Trump’s superpower is consistent signaling while getting the external world to view his often heinous signals in a one-off manner. My point here is if someone sends out a bunch of signals, over and over and over again, it just may be that the signals are indicative of a larger truth.
Ponder.