Thread: Why you should stop calling Donald Trump a fascist

Why you should stop calling Donald Trump a fascist

By Max Ehrenfreund December 4 at 11:40 AM

"Fascist" is often used as a cheap, meaningless insult in U.S. politics. But recently, it's become a serious charge that elected officials, political operatives and pundits on both sides of the aisle have lobbed at GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

After Trump suggested he'd back a federal registry for Muslims residents, Wall Street Journal conservative columnist Bret Stephens called the idea "fascism, plain and simple." Recounting Trump’s passive responses to violence committed by his supporters, CNN commentator Sally Kohn said on Wednesday, “There’s a word for this: fascism.”

Max Boot, a scholar of foreign affairs who is advising Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was more direct:

Some of Trump's rhetoric does invoke the tyrannical speeches of fascist leaders of the past. Asked about his plans to track American Muslims, Trump ominously told Yahoo News last month, "Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country."

But the key aspects of fascism are at odds with Trump's persona and his message. For all his bluster, a President Trump wouldn't pursue the authoritarian, collectivist agenda that characterized Germany's Nazi Party and Italy's Benito Mussolini, at least not according to what he's said so far about his political views. Calling Trump a fascist risks misleading voters about his agenda, which is not that much different from that of his rivals for the GOP presidential nod.

These are just a few of the major differences between Trump and the fascists of history:
1. Trump’s message is individualist

One common characteristic of fascist regimes was their insistence on collective rather than individual identity. Fascist leaders believed the life of the nation as a whole took precedence over the lives of the people who made it up, imposing a brutal uniformity on the lives of their citizens.

"The Italian nation is an organism, having aims, life and means of action superior to those of the single or grouped individuals who compose it," stated Mussolini's Labor Charter in 1927.

That vision of a unified state conflicted with the complicated reality of European countries, which diverse religious, racial and ethnic communities called home. Fascist leaders tried to eliminate these differences. Members of disfavored groups lost their legal identities, rights and citizenship — if not their lives. Even favored groups were subjected to oppressive discipline.

[Read more: Donald Trump is polling better than ever. Here's why.]

Under Mussolini, for instance, every Italian schoolchild was required to join a youth organization where they imbibed fascist propaganda and militaristic training. Teachers swore an oath to the fascist regime. The party took over sports, such as bocce, which were transformed from a form of casual recreation into a means for the Italian nation to improve and excel.

Like Trump, these leaders gained followers by giving long, angry speeches that blamed the country's problems on foreigners. They addressed their rhetoric to a frustrated middle class, describing them as victims of internal and external enemies.

In this way, some of the conditions that allow fascist ideology to take hold exist in the United States, said Robert Paxton, a leading American scholar of fascism. Americans' belief that hard work brings material rewards has prevented radical movements and politicians from taking power, he said. For the past 15 years, however, income for the typical household has declined, leading some Americans to lose confidence in the existing political system.

"A sense of victimhood is absolutely essential" to the rise of fascism, Paxton said, "and I think that's very strong in America today."

Trump, though, is not a fascist, according to Paxton. The candidate's message lacks the collectivist element that was common to many fascist regimes. Individual ambition is a crucial part of the story he tells voters about himself as a successful, self-interested businessman.
2. Trump doesn’t oppose democracy

Trump also does not oppose constitutional government and representative democracy, another crucial trait of historical fascists. The militaristic societies they formed couldn’t tolerate dissent and debate. Differences of opinion contradict the fascist idea of a collective identity.

The Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt, for instance, contended that parliaments couldn't truly represent the will of a united people, only various opposed factions. Instead, Schmitt wrote, a dictator would speak on the people's behalf with one voice.

[Read more: It's not just Donald Trump: Half of Republicans his views on immigrants and refugees]

Fascist leaders threw out existing national constitutions, replacing representative government with dictatorships that brutally suppressed dissent. They used paramilitary organizations to intimidate their political opponents.

Trump recently defended the behavior of supporters who assaulted a protester at one of his rallies, saying “Maybe he should have been roughed up.” But that’s still a far cry from the mass suppression of dissent typical of fascist movements and regimes. Trump isn’t supporting a systematic campaign of intimidation. And he hasn't called for suspending the U.S. Constitution or pledged to arrogate legislative power to himself if he wins the presidency.
3. Trump doesn't support a fascist welfare state

The platforms of fascist parties were fiercely anti-capitalist. In 1920, the Nazi Party's Twenty-Five Points, for instance called for the confiscation of income from capital gains, the nationalization of industries and "an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare."

Once in power, fascists typically collaborated with the economic elite to achieve their military aims, and they banned unions independent of the party. But their written principles certainly would have affronted Trump’s capitalist ideals.

Trump is somewhat more liberal on economic issues than some of his competitors for the GOP nod. He opposes reductions in Social Security, for example. In general, though, Trump boasts about being a wealthy businessman, and his tax proposals are typical of the Republican Party — he'd substantially reduce taxes for the rich.
4. Trump’s positions are similar to other GOP candidates

Trump's rhetoric is extreme and colorful, but on taxes and other issues, his platform is similar in substance to those of his GOP rivals and in accord with the opinions of rank-and-file Republicans. Calling Trump a fascist suggests there's something special about him that distinguishes him from the rest of the party.

For example, many of the GOP candidates criticized Trump for proposing a registry for Muslims, but fellow candidate Ben Carson's proposal went even further: a database that would not discriminate against Muslims explicitly but would instead include every single person in the country.

Likewise, when Trump suggested that law enforcement should close certain mosques to prevent Islamist terrorism, Rubio suggested that Trump's proposal wasn't broad enough. "It's not about closing down mosques. It's about closing down any place, whether it's a cafe, a diner, an Internet site, any place where radicals are being inspired," he told Megyn Kelly of Fox News.

On other issues, such as abortion, climate change, and monetary policy, Trump's opinions are also in line with his party. While his presentation may be unusual for a U.S. presidential candidate, his policies are not. Trump is a Republican, not a fascist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ump-a-fascist/

Good article by writer for Washington Post.

Thank you!!

I think conservatives should support the development of green energy. It would stimulate new products that we could make and help our trade deficit. General Motors succeeded because items like the Detroit 6-71 diesel engine were sold everywhere, all over the world. Back then countries wanted to modernize, and they used US produced heavy machinery, trucks, electric motors, generators---and we had booming exports and full employment.

Now everyone wants to have the latest electrical item----air conditioners, refrigerators, microwaves. People in undeveloped areas want these, but I think the days of mega hydro generation are over, nuclear plants are too ubiquitous in unstable areas. So small scale electric generation from renewable resources would be a perfect opportunity for US industry.

Originally Posted by Captainron

I think conservatives should support the development of green energy. It would stimulate new products that we could make and help our trade deficit. General Motors succeeded because items like the Detroit 6-71 diesel engine were sold everywhere, all over the world. Back then countries wanted to modernize, and they used US produced heavy machinery, trucks, electric motors, generators---and we had booming exports and full employment.

Now everyone wants to have the latest electrical item----air conditioners, refrigerators, microwaves. People in undeveloped areas want these, but I think the days of mega hydro generation are over, nuclear plants are too ubiquitous in unstable areas. So small scale electric generation from renewable resources would be a perfect opportunity for US industry.

Most Republicans do support renewable energy. We just don't want the government forcing it down our throats through these government-run schemes and scams like carbon credits, remember that one? Or using too much subsidy to make new products viable, some but not much because eventually they must be stable viable products that can be produced through the private market without government subsidy. Americans also want certain things and not others. Solar panels have a great future when they are designed in a way that doesn't make your home look ugly. The solar farms are a great idea but take a lot of land, so not sure how viable that will be in our state since all of our land is needed for agriculture and forestry. Solar on commercial buildings works great because their roofs are flat and the solar panels can't be seen and even if they are, no one really cares, they can be concealed with signs and facades on the front of the buildings.

Fascism arose out of Socialism and actually comes from the Left, not the Right. Hillary and Bernie are more Fascist than Trump. Check out the book, Liberal Fascism.

Calling someone a Fascist is the same type of tactic used by the socialists to smear someone and end debate by calling them racist and it should be ignored.

They are getting pretty good at siting new power facilities. If solar was perfected (I'm not saying its' present state is good) really arid lands would become productive; these could even be adjacent to an area that has other features such as: coastline (think port facilities, resorts); mountainous areas---where specialized agriculture could flourish. Or for example, with wave energy we might have areas of the Alaskan coast that could become manufacturing centers, and export back to Asia, instead of them exporting to us.

I see a lot of possibilities. Why do conservatives not see possibilities in this? FYI, General Motors was actually highly subsidized by the US military. In this time, I would rather see more stimulation of the US National Laboratories. But in fact there is a good amount of progress that now Republicans sometimes will criticize----such as in fuel economy and aerospace research.

Originally Posted by Captainron

They are getting pretty good at siting new power facilities. If solar was perfected (I'm not saying its' present state is good) really arid lands would become productive; these could even be adjacent to an area that has other features such as: coastline (think port facilities, resorts); mountainous areas---where specialized agriculture could flourish. Or for example, with wave energy we might have areas of the Alaskan coast that could become manufacturing centers, and export back to Asia, instead of them exporting to us.

I see a lot of possibilities. Why do conservatives not see possibilities in this? FYI, General Motors was actually highly subsidized by the US military. In this time, I would rather see more stimulation of the US National Laboratories. But in fact there is a good amount of progress that now Republicans sometimes will criticize----such as in fuel economy and aerospace research.

I have no problem with subsidy through military programs so long as there's a viable end game and it's not a scam or a sham. I agree there are numerous possibilities. I love the solar but the industry just hasn't fine-tuned that business to kick-off in the US housing market and until they do that, it's hard to make progress. I prefer the solar energy over the wind energy because of the damage to birds by the wind mills. That is awful. So, one idea I had is if solar companies would come up with a small system one that people could put in a garden on on the back of the house or a side of the garage or an outbuilding that would supply solar power to everything except the HVAC, hot water heater, stove, and dryer. Basically supply everything that could operate off of an outlet, all outlets, lights, exhaust fans, refrigerators, computers, televisions, dishwasher, washing machine, and so forth. I'm not sure how much this would save but probably around 20% per household. Have a large battery back up device that you could store in a closet or cabinet to save the power and this would be a very economical system for people to start using while reducing use of commercial power. You own it, it's portable, and you take it with you when you move if you want, or leave it and sell it with your house if you own. Of course if you rent, you would take it with you.

There are all kinds of alternatives. Generally speaking people have gone to natural gas because it is cheaper. Appliances are becoming more energy efficient, also. Natural gas cooperative power generation faced a supply problem five years ago, but the discovery of new US resources has brought the bulk prices way down.

I've dealt with marine power generation and storage (which is low voltage direct current, but the current varies from 12 to 48 v) and inventions coming from places like Britain Germany and Scotland are making individual wind generation for small scale battery power very feasible. As energy efficiency increases, and technology behind such modes improves reliance on traditional electrical generation seems less and less likely.

People have been trying to live off the grid, but actually nowadays it is very feasible. You might want to have some backup heat---like wood---and it does vary according to the climate zone you're in. Around the world alternative energy is moving ahead, but US conservatives seem to disdain it. So we will lose out on manufacturing opportunities.

O gave our solar panel manufacturing to CHINA when we HAD trained workers in the USA to do the job.