Why Trump isn't a fascist&The storming of the Capitol was not a coup.

The US has an Enlightenment-inspired constitution with various organs of state abiding by the separation of powers doctrine. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are kept in totally separate and distinct corners to prevent any abuse of power. Consequently, the President (executive) never sits in Congress (legislature), and whilst the President can appoint his own cabinet posts, the Senate must ratify them. The courts are entirely separate again. The President nominates a judge and Congress confirms a justice to the US Supreme Court. This prevents the courts becoming independently too powerful. But, the Supreme Court is a check against executive power that is ultra vires. For example, famously, during the Korean War in the 1950s, President Truman nationalised steel mills during the steel strike. The Supreme Court ruled that the executive order was illegal because it exceeded the powers granted to the presidency under the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected Trump's lawsuit to overturn election results. America has a complete and strict separation of powers which is much stricter than England's separation of powers. This is a v. old political doctrine going back to John Locke, Montesqieu, Thomas Paine, James Harrington etc... and their philosophical writings hugely shaped the framers of the United States Constitution.

The broader structure and strength of the US Constitution is an ability to resist and neutralise abuses of power. The very fact that proceedings are underway to impeach him next week goes directly against the thrust of your charges. There is simply no comparison with Hitler and fascism.

He aligned with fascists. He has repeatedly called the Far Right "people who like me", he says things like "we love you" in their direction. He said "they are all good people" right after they committed murders during the BLM organised violence of the counter-reaction. He commanded them to attack the Capitol "be strong, do what is needed" and then said he loved them. He has announced that the QAnon lunacy is full of good people who love him.

Votes for Biden, were, according to Trump, "illegal". Only votes for Trump were legal.

This isn't exactly the same as Hitlerism, but it's fascistic to support fascists and urge them to attack the prime institution of one's democracy.

As for his tendency to ramble and be incoherent, folks probably don't realise that a number of leading historical fascists like Mussolini for example often made long illogical rambling speeches.

He hasn't issued black uniforms, but really, all I can see so far is that he's a fascist who hasn't yet made it to totalitarian rule, but came close and certainly wanted it.

The very fact that proceedings are underway to impeach him next week goes directly against the thrust of your charges.

Oh God! A sense of proportion is needed here.

Hitler usurped the constitutional role of the President alongside the Chancellorship in 1933. He suspended Habeus corpus, freedoms were annulled, banned other political groups like the communists, and unions were banned. When Hindenburg died in 1934, he simply tore up the Weimar Republic Constitution and declared himself Fuehrer for life passing the Enabling Act. Jews would soon be deported to concentration camps.

Have you heard/seen of China today? What language would use to define that state if you use the word fascism/Nazism with Trump? They actually have concentration camps and actually kill people.

My objection to this argument is that is seems to say that because the attempt to overthrow an elected government (or prevent them from taking office) was bound to fail, that it cannot be called an attempted coup.

I disagree. What matters is the intent, not the outcome.

Another point that needs addressing is the suggestion that anyone less evil than Hitler cannot be called a fascist. Obviously Hitler was the very extreme end of fascism, but that doesn't mean one has to commit genocide to be accurately labelled as the term. I think trying to overturn the results of a presidential election, and inciting violence to that end is of the fascist play book. As well as the post truth agenda.

The only thing that stopped it succeeding is the strength of the US system, but that doesn't make the intended actions and less awful.

Hi DSilva,

Thank you for your replying. I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. I am not defending Trump. I am simply arguing that we have to keep criticisms under the right heading.

If you're talking about the recent events on Capitol Hill, I don't believe there was any attempt to overthrow the government for the reasons I cited above. You must distinguish between a mob that storms the government from a constitutional coup. Remember Hitler with his paramilitary troops attempted a violent insurrection in the 1920s; but it was only in 1933 when Hitler assumed powers under the Presidency when von Hindenburg died that the coup really took place under the assumed office of the Fuhrer. Trump did nothing of the sort. In fact, he left a letter in Oval Office to the next President - as is custom.

As for the definition of fascism, well obviously it's a question of emphasis and we're different people with different opinions on life etc.. which ofc I respect. Personally speaking, I really do think that fascism ought to reserve a sepcial provinence in our political lexicon and ought not to be diluted with various equivalences. I think there is a difference between far-right authoritarianism and fascism. For me, fascism is the ne plus ultra. Of course, the only 'true' fascist movement was led by Mussolini. And whilst Nazism and various inflections are a bit different, they do share several traits that make them v. dangerous. It's a government with absolute power (beyond mere 'authoritarian') that transcends nationalistism/militarism/controlled mass media into the myth of national/racial/ethnic rebirth after a period of decline/destruction and purge certain 'alien' groups. (Such as the Bosnian War etc...). Authoritarian governments are awful and oppressive, but fascist governments are dangerous (as in: pack your bags and get out of the country). Fascism is that level. Places like North Korea and China. Like communism, I feel it ought to retain its potency.

Very well reasoned post.

I understand the desire to avoid the dilution of the terms 'far right' and 'fascist'. I also accept that they have been used too loosely in recent months even if the terms will always contain a fair degree of subjectivity.

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that Trump was of the same ilk as Hitler or Mussolini. But equally I don't think anyone could reasonably argue he was a true believer in democracy and demcratic norms. He didn't mind them so much when he won, but he did all he could to overthrow the results of the election and essentially declare himself the supreme ruler of America. After all, if the President had managed to stay in office despite losing, then you are no longer a democracy.

Trump is probably of the same ilk as Bolsarano, Orban etc. While they may not persecute their people, they have very little regard for democracy or the rule of law, declare opponents as enemies of state, pump out propaganda, live in a post truth world, and cultivate a cult of personality around them.

Fortunately the US system was rigid enough to survive Trump's attempts to trample all over it. But who knows what we he would have done, or where he would have stopped were he able to get away with it?

Perhaps 'fascist' is too strong a word. But along with the likes of Orban and Bolsarano I don't think anyone could say they were 'democrats' or believed in the rule of law. Maybe hard right authoritarian is a more apt description.

He aligned with fascists. He has repeatedly called the Far Right "people who like me", he says things like "we love you" in their direction. He said "they are all good people" right after they committed murders during the BLM organised violence of the counter-reaction. He commanded them to attack the Capitol "be strong, do what is needed" and then said he loved them. He has announced that the QAnon lunacy is full of good people who love him.

Votes for Biden, were, according to Trump, "illegal". Only votes for Trump were legal.

This isn't exactly the same as Hitlerism, but it's fascistic to support fascists and urge them to attack the prime institution of one's democracy.

As for his tendency to ramble and be incoherent, folks probably don't realise that a number of leading historical fascists like Mussolini for example often made long illogical rambling speeches.

He hasn't issued black uniforms, but really, all I can see so far is that he's a fascist who hasn't yet made it to totalitarian rule, but came close and certainly wanted it.

That's quite the straw man, even for you!


You seem to have entirely missed the point.
The actions and aims of Trump and his supporters fits the definitions of "fascist" and "fascism" in the OED, in which case it seems somewhat strange to make such a big fuss about its use in that context.

BTW, rather odd use of "slatternly" there. Or were you trying to be ironic?

You're really alleging i made a 'staw man' by using your given example? Bold, if nothing else.

In reply to my post quoting the OED's definitions of fascist and fascism (which fit the Trump/GOP narrative sufficiently), you said...
"The OED does not consider Trump a fascist, nor does any serious political scientist consider his views equatable to Hitler or Mussolini,"
Neither point had I made or even implied. Your response was so far removed from my actual point as to be more of a straw giant.

If you think that those actual definitions don't apply in any way to the actions of Trump and his supporters, feel free to explain.

Are you being intentionally dense or do you honestly not see how you quoting the OED to support your point that Trump is nothing but the 21st century Hitler is more than slightly implied? It beggars belief.

Please don't lie, i know its tricky for you but really.

Ah so we're back to your policy of changing goal posts, how cute. His supporters are irrelevant.

I'd say there's a difference between him aligning himself with fascists and merely accepting their quasi-backing of him. Equally there being a difference between the 'far right' and fascists as well.
His indulging of either set though, whilst decidedly unpleasant, isnt exactly the same as making him a fascist.
So have the Republican party in Hawaii, if the tweet still exists, it was absolutely hilarious saying they were patriots at heart

Corrupt, illogical and moronic but still not exactly fascism though.

Mmm quite possibly, but what he might have done in the future is somewhat beside the point i was making that despite him being a corrupt 'little' hooligan who indulged the worst aspects of Americans wasnt a fascist by any meaningful definition of the word.

You know after he was in prison, Hitler posed as distancing himself from the street thuggery of the SA. He was a gentleman fascist, the sort who would restore law and order and make Germany great again. Not one of those nasty obvious fascists.

Fascists don't all arrive with swastika armbands and raised arm salutes.

Even Hitler's transformation that you mention doesn't account for much. On the subject of Hitler, if I remember correctly, he never really got anything beyond 37% of the popular vote in the elections prior to his being given the Chancellorship by Hindenburg. This means around 60% of the vote was against him.

On the subject of Hitler, if I remember correctly, he never really got anything beyond 37% of the popular vote in the elections prior to his being given the Chancellorship by Hindenburg. This means around 60% of the vote was against him.

Yes, although Hindenburg could justify it on the basis that Hitler had been leader of a national coalition government involving the NSDAP and the DNVP. Of course, I'm not arguing there's a direct mapping between the events of Germany in the early 30s and the US under Trump, just pointing out that fascists come in different flavours, not all of them completely obvious. Another example is Pinochet in Chile - he never adopted the trappings of fascism per se, but he sure acted as one.