No, Fascism is not a Valid Political Belief
A Not-so-gentle Reminder that not all Political Ideologies are Created Equal, Despite some People's Insistence
I actually had a different post scheduled for this week (and I want to chat Epstein, so it'll probably be delayed again), but I’m annoyed. I’m annoyed that we’re seemingly still entertaining full-throated fascism as a political stance in the world. For history’s sake, I would have hoped that we would have learned this lesson following World War II, when, in one of the most dramatic strokes of humanity’s history, anti-fascists of very different political ideologies came together to tear down those ideologies that killed tens of millions and materially and bodily harmed tens of millions more. For humanity’s sake, I would have hoped that we would have struck down the concept that different groups of people be assigned different social and material values based on characteristics like race or ethnic background. For modernity’s sake, I would have hoped that we would have broadly accepted that the solutions to the so-called paradox of tolerance1 would have indicated to Western (especially American) society that “free speech” does not mean that the expression of that freedom renders an individual immune from the social consequences of that expression. And instead of shame and obsolescence, problematic views like fascism have again taken root in popular discourse to the point that they are tolerated all too often.
This post is predicated on a recent viral Youtube video2 where Mehdi Hasan debated 20 “far-right conservatives,” during which, an individual self-described as fascist, which generated a round of applause from the “far-right conservatives.” He went into great detail explaining his fascism, stating that he believes that democracy should be used as a path to autocracy and nothing more. This individual subsequently lost his job immediately following the publishing of that video, and guest starred on a podcast that partnered with him to start a GiveSendGo campaign to fund him while he job searches. Even though this campaign only began on Tuesday, it has, at the time of publishing, accrued north of $37,000. Many comments on that campaign are white nationalist or Neo-Nazi in nature3. He describes on the page that fascism is a “fully legal traditional right wing political [view],” along with, in the original video, describing Francisco Franco as a benevolent leader—seemingly aligning his own Catholicism with that of the former Spanish Nationalist leader. So, let’s talk about this: fascism in general, what happening in America that someone may feel so emboldened to steadfastly hold these beliefs, and what to do about fascists.
As a Background
Fascism has a thousand definitions by a thousand political scientists, but briefly and generally, it has taken the form of utilizing the means of existing government mechanisms (and when those are too slow or deemed insufficient, violence) to entrench an authoritarian leader and a social hierarchy to bring about a national “rebirth.” It is inherently militaristic and is unafraid of using violence against those existing outside the deemed social norms. Critically, fascism is directly opposed to the concept of democracy; fascism is likewise the enemy of communism or socialism, and has little bearing or relation to those ideologies. Fascism is not simple “far-right conservatism,” as conservatism seeks reinforcing the status quo traditions and social hierarchies to not upset the existing social balance. Enforcing traditionalism by means of revolutionary violence is not within the purview of conservatism.
I provide here Umberto Eco’s reading of fascism: roughly, that fascism is hard to attribute because of its colloquial use4, but has hallmarks or “features” that highlight fascist thought and practice, calling it “Ur-Facism5,” or a sort of proto-fascism that facilitates the development of fascism, if you will. Eco grew up under quintessential fascism in Mussolini’s Italy, and developed his understanding of fascism through not only academic literature, but also that lived experience. His original essay is worth the read even if the reader is familiar with the “CliffsNotes,” as it is often misquoted, misattributed, or otherwise misunderstood. As it is quite long and a bit technical, I have used Claude to abbreviate (with some light editing) his 14 features below:
Cult of Tradition: Fascists believe that all truth was revealed long ago and we must return to ancient wisdom rather than seek new knowledge.
Rejection of Modernism: Fascists hate the modern world and especially reject the Enlightenment values of reason and individual rights.
Cult of Action: Fascists believe that taking action is more important than thinking, and that too much thinking makes people weak.
No Critical Thinking: Fascists cannot tolerate disagreement or analysis because questioning their beliefs threatens their power.
Fear of Difference: Fascists exploit people's natural fear of those who are different, making racism a core part of their appeal.
Appeal to Frustrated Middle Class: Fascists target middle-class people who feel economically threatened or politically humiliated.
Obsession with Plots: Fascists convince followers that enemies (often foreigners or minorities) are constantly conspiring against them.
Enemies are Both Strong and Weak: Fascists portray their enemies as both dangerously powerful and pathetically weak at the same time.
Life as Permanent War: Fascists reject peace and compromise, insisting that life is constant struggle and conflict.
Popular Elitism: Fascists tell everyone they are part of the "best people" while creating strict hierarchies where leaders despise those below them.
Cult of Heroism and Death: Fascists glorify dying for the cause and teach that heroic death is the highest honor.
Machismo: Fascists transfer their need for power into aggressive masculinity, rejecting women's equality and non-traditional sexuality.
Selective Populism: Fascists claim to speak for "the people" but really only represent whoever agrees with the leader.
Newspeak: Fascists use simplified language and limit vocabulary to prevent complex thinking and criticism.
Eco notes in his essay that not all 14 features are necessary for fascism to form; in fact, even just one is sufficient for “fascism to coagulate around it.” He indicates that these features are not unique—that they can be present in other forms of authoritarianism and that the actual execution of some of the features can be contradictory.
What does this mean?
Fascism intrinsically argues for militarism and violence to upset and enforce a new status quo—a revitalization of some real or perceived past. Despite that one commentator’s attempt to ignore that violent means will lead to violent ends (and seeming deliberate ignorance that the Spanish nationalists and subsequent Francoist Spain, despite being nominally Catholic, also attacked and killed Catholics that didn’t align with their political goals), being a fascist means advocating for that violence, or at least dismissing it as a necessary stepping stone.
Some have argued that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” for problematic beliefs; however, research shows that repeated exposure to an idea affects even those against it (as evidenced for example by this paper on exposure to climate change denial claims). There are some ideologies that do not deserve to see the light of day, and they should instead be shown the door.
That millions of Jews, Poles, Slavs, Roma, and LGBT+ folks died at the hands of German fascism is “a little persecution” to quote that commentator. That hundreds of thousands of Ethiopian, Libyan, Spanish, Slovene, Croat, Montenegrin, Albanian, Greek, Jewish, and Italian peoples suffered due to Italian fascism is only inconvenient at worst. That his lauded Francoist Spain’s killings of hundreds of thousands of government officials, union leaders, teachers, intellectuals, Freemasons (even those only suspected), regional nationalists, non-Spanish nationalist military officers, and yes, even Catholic priests who did not align politically, is irrelevant because of… what? Spain’s economic success in the post-war period? Japan did that in the 80s without killing hundreds of thousands of its own people. As this commentator outlines that he was unhappy with the German persecution of the Christian church (but again, the Jews were only “a little persecuted”), I propose that the commentator’s brand of fascism is one founded in Christian nationalism; the fact that the Spanish Francoist regime was strongly Catholic and had implicit (and even some explicit) backing by the Catholic church to commit these killings means that the killings were valid and therefore beyond reproach.
Why does this matter?
It should not be a bold statement to say that governmental upheaval, even if dramatic or necessary, should not come at the cost of human life. Even if the moral consequence is to be ignored, this is exactly one of the primary reasons why we have democracy and diplomacy: to resolve our societal differences without material or human loss. Upheaval requires rebuilding; rebuilding is much harder with fewer resources.
Shifting a bit, autocracy of any kind comes at the cost of ignoring certain people’s opinions. And people like this commentator consider themselves in the in-group, the people whose opinions would be “valid enough” to not be in the out-group. And despite several decades of cheering for political parties as one would a sports team, it was not until the 2016 election that that mentality of “us vs. them” firmly dug itself into the psyche of American politics.
To be clear, I would not consider the majority of the first Trump administration fascist. Certainly much of the rhetoric was, but the actions taken did not regularly reflect an internalization of a fascist mindset, just a desire—that is, at least not until January 6th, 2021 and the attack on the U.S. Capitol building. If that event were even partially successful, a sort of proto-fascism would have certainly taken hold in the country at that point in time, akin to the Nazi party’s burning of the Reichstag in 1933. Notably though, perpetrators to the event four years ago suffered no lasting, tangible consequences. On the contrary, that that event was deliberately downplayed (‘it wasn’t that bad’), obfuscated (‘actually it was left-wing agitators’), and pardoned for (‘but everyone charged gets a federal commuted sentence/pardon on day 1’) signals that America is in trouble.
The denigration of various peoples like liberals and anyone further left-wing, intellectuals, and immigrants perfectly aligns with fascist ideologies, but again, rhetoric alone does not constitute fascism. And that’s only one example; I could make a reasonable argument for all 14 of Umberto Eco’s indicators That changes with the second Trump administration. The systemic incarceration and deportation of people of largely Latin descent based at least in part on their physical appearance and without probable cause following racist overtones in the election lead-up, firmly and fully internalized the fascist mindset. Whether or not this administration is wanting to entrench a sort of authoritarian conservatism or fascism isn’t clear just yet, but the signs are becoming increasingly worrying.
Dramatically unqualified people have filled the top spots in government and their only real qualification is loyalty to the President, not even to the Constitution. This administration, enabled in part by the Supreme Court and in whole by Congress, has set up an Ur-fascist government that seems to be testing the waters to just how far America can be pushed. And the fact that otherwise ordinary, random people can espouse fascism and be monetarily supported for their fascism is a very deeply disturbing red flag. Add to that the dramatically increased ICE budget (who are often now acting in a paramilitary fashion) and you have a recipe that shouldn’t be published in America’s cookbook.
So how do we change this?
Looking forward to a post-Trump world, it is hard to expect that someone will be able to neatly fill the platform shoes that Donald Trump will leave behind, and his age and health will catch up with him very soon (or possibly his actions, if pressure about Epstein sticks around). None of his children, not J.D. Vance, nor Mike Johnson is ready to take up that Trumpian mantle, and many in the core MAGA-sphere don’t want any of them to. That is one of the inherent “problems” with a cult of personality: it inevitably ends with the death of the leader. However, the residual effects of this time period will continue regardless. Other people espousing this ideology will not go away and are unlikely to change their minds, given the current trajectory.
I see three real non-violent possibilities following the fall of Donald Trump. The first is that someone is able to successfully grab the reigns of the MAGA and redirect that energy for themselves; perhaps it would not be not a political leader, but another outsider like, however unlikely it may seem at the moment, Elon Musk. The second is that no one is able to take up the reigns, and the MAGA movement effectively democratizes. In essence, a “new,” further-right Republican party would be reborn under a sort of neo-Trumpism (and would also likely keep pushing the Democratic party rightward with the shifting of the Overton Window6). This would be similar to what happened with the Tea Party movement by the time of the 2016 election. The third is that the movement relegates reluctantly to the shadows, either becoming disenfranchised with politics (perhaps including aligning with America’s brand of libertarianism) or simply dissipating their more fringe beliefs (probably to still hold onto those beliefs, just not discuss them).
All this to say, Mehdi Hasan’s conversation with this self-proclaimed fascist commentator was one of initial morbid curiosity, but once he realized that the person that he was speaking to had no interest in engaging with reality or even Mehdi’s topic and only had interest in proclaiming his own viewpoints, Mehdi said, “…what are we doing here? I don’t debate fascists.” And this, this is the way to deal with fascists and fascist rhetoric. Ever since the 2016 election, when populism tried to entrench itself in both mainstream parties and only found a home in the Republican party, fascist rhetoric has been slowly normalized both by sheer media exposure and by the authoritarian and rightward creep of MAGA-era Republican politicking. MAGA cannot be allowed to flourish into fascism, but it now flirts with it so often that it could well be mistaken for it. America needs to remember that it fought fascists only 80 years ago, and needs to remind itself on the reasons why.
But that said, this newsletter is meant to be in part a thought exercise of how to heal divisiveness in America. Surely it is divisive itself to consider an individual’s opinions invalid? This brings us back to the paradox of tolerance: we should not tolerate those viewpoints that if enacted in full, would squelch opposing viewpoints. For free expression to be maintained, we cannot allow for viewpoints like fascism, that actively seek to promote its own authority at the cost of all others. If the commentator that this newsletter is referencing actually valued freedom of expression as he says he does, he would intrinsically understand that 1. his own viewpoint would destroy that thing he claims to value and 2. that despite no legal ramifications for exercising that freedom of expression, people and businesses are allowed to not want to associate with him because of how they could be perceived in that same way. Social consequences are not only allowed, but necessary, as it’s how we police legally-protected problematic viewpoints. So the answer is straightforward, don’t platform or value fascism, even under the guise of “free speech.” Learn from its mistakes; it’s important that we talk about it in some capacity (as not talking about it creates a whole new set of issues), but don’t pass it off as reasonable.
As described by philosopher Karl Popper, “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
While ordinarily I would source this video, I am reluctant to source this video or anything related because I do not want to further platform fascism. Fascism is not “far-right conservatism” as the video title implies and should not be mistaken for it. This video and related discussed items are straightforwardly searchable online, and also would be available upon request.
This includes Adolf Hitler quotes as well as general praise for Hitler, calling “brown people” “invaders,” oft-quoting the white nationalist “14 words” mantra “we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children…” and far worse that I don’t feel comfortable with repeating.
Fascism is a tricky term because in many contexts, it is historically used to denigrate opposition leaders in government (much as the labels “communist” and “socialist” have been used in America). In this sense, fascism is often blanketly associated with authoritarian or centralizing actions or movements.
This link is unfortunately paywalled as the essay is not made publicly available free through regular published sources, but both excerpts from the essay and questionably-legal full-text sources are otherwise available with an online search.
The Overton Window is a way to describe what policy measures are available to lawmakers and policymakers given current political discourse (centered around the “median” voter). In simple words, what laws lawmakers can reasonably pass and what policies policymakers can enact in the current political climate. A shift in the Overton Window indicates a shift in voter perceptions, and a shift in understanding how to navigate lawmaking and policymaking.