The Fascism Debate

Yes, we are facing the threat of fascism in the United States of America.

We have reputable academic historians alongside the most trusted senior military and political leaders in the country, from both Republican and Democratic parties, warning of a catastrophic political tsunami that would threaten US democracy if Trumpism prevails in the 2024 presidential election.

When the National Weather Service issues alerts and advisories regarding an impending catastrophic event, is it wise to ignore them? Why should we treat political situations any differently?

It is important to note that figures like Hitler and Mussolini were appointed, rather than elected, as dictators. This raises a crucial question: why would the American electorate consider establishing such a disgraceful historical precedent?

---

Fascism is an authoritarian and nationalistic political movement characterized by dictatorial power and centralized control, often accompanied by aggressive nationalism and racism. It typically entails the suppression of dissent, strict regulation of society and the economy, and the use of violence and propaganda to maintain control and promote its ideals.

Two credible sources substantiate the thesis that the United States is confronting the threat of fascism in this critical presidential election: academic historians and primary historical sources.

Academic historians

Robert Paxton is an American political scientist and historian, renowned for his expertise in the history of Vichy France, fascism, and Europe during the World War II era. He is Professor Emeritus of Modern European History at Columbia University and is considered one of the foremost American experts on fascism. Paxton’s influential work, “The Anatomy of Fascism,” examines the practical actions of fascist regimes, particularly those led by Hitler and Mussolini. His research has significantly contributed to the understanding of fascism and its impact on 20th-century Europe.

Paxton has argued that fascism is not primarily an ideology, but a political movement. He has suggested that fascism is driven more by emotions and social dynamics than by a coherent set of ideas or intellectual positions. This perspective challenges the notion of fascism as a traditional “ism” or ideology, highlighting its reliance on feelings and the socio-political context in which it arises, particularly in times when liberal democracy is perceived as failing.

Throughout his career, Professor Paxton has argued that the word fascism has been debased into epithet, an overuse and misapplication of the term in modern political discourse. The term is frequently wielded as a broad and pejorative label to describe a wide range of behaviors or policies that individuals find objectionable, regardless of whether they truly align with historical fascism.

According to Paxton, when “fascism” becomes an indiscriminate insult it loses its value as a diagnostic tool for identifying genuine fascist movements or tendencies. This misuse obscures the nuanced understanding necessary to recognize the conditions that foster real fascist ideologies, thus hindering effective responses to such threats.

Paxton has emphasized the importance of preserving the analytical rigor of the term to ensure that it remains a valuable framework for understanding specific political dynamics. He argues that by maintaining its precise definition, scholars and analysts can better discern and address the complex realities of political movements, particularly those that might genuinely echo the dangerous patterns of historical fascism.

Until January 6, 2021, Paxton had refused to apply the term fascism to Trumpism. While initially hesitant to use the label, Paxton reconsidered when the Capitol was stormed. He stated that Trump’s encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crossed a critical line, making the use of the term “fascism” not only acceptable but necessary. By 2024, while remaining cautious about the political utility of the term, Paxton acknowledges that the characteristics of Trumpism resemble those of original fascist movements.

Robert Paxton explains that fascism can evolve in one of two main directions: entropy or radicalization. When a fascist movement faces entropy, it gradually loses momentum and coherence, often due to internal divisions, lack of clear leadership, or diminishing popular support. This process can be accelerated by external pressures, such as strong opposition from democratic institutions or international condemnation, which can weaken the movement’s appeal and destabilize its structure.

On the other hand, radicalization occurs when a fascist movement becomes more extreme and intense. This path is often fueled by a combination of internal factors, such as charismatic leadership and a devoted base, and external conditions, like socio-economic crises or perceived threats from political adversaries. In such environments, the movement may double down on its authoritarian and nationalistic rhetoric, intensifying its actions to secure power and influence.

Paxton’s analysis of historical fascist movements reveals these patterns, as seen in the rise and fall of regimes like those in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. He notes that contemporary movements can also exhibit these tendencies, where the initial appeal can either dissipate over time or escalate into more aggressive tactics. Understanding these evolutionary paths provides insight into the dynamics of fascism and the conditions that either mitigate or amplify its impact in society.

Primary sources

Primary sources in the academic discipline of history are original, firsthand evidence created or used during the time under study. They provide direct, firsthand testimony of historical events, offering valuable insights into the past. Some examples of primary sources are:

1. Documents: Letters, diaries, official records, speeches, and manuscripts that were written during the period being studied.
2. Visual Materials: Photographs, paintings, maps, and films that capture moments or aspects of the time.
3. Artifacts: Physical objects like tools, clothing, and buildings that were used or made during the historical period.
4. Audio and Video Recordings: Interviews, music, and broadcasts that were recorded at the time.
5. Newspapers and Magazines: Articles and advertisements published during the period, providing contemporary accounts and perspectives.
6. Oral Histories: Interviews and testimonies from people who experienced the events firsthand.

Primary sources are essential for historians, offering genuine insights and evidence that enable researchers to craft narratives and analyses grounded in actual materials from the past. Official statements shared widely on social media, audio and video recordings, and political rhetoric published in newspapers all serve as substantial evidence of the fascist threat posed by Trumpism. However, the most compelling evidence comes from oral histories provided by credible witnesses, which directly substantiate the threat of fascism in the United States.

Recent comments from retired military officers, including John Kelly, highlight concerns about the threat of fascism in the U.S. Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff, has publicly stated that Trump fits the definition of a fascist, citing his authoritarian tendencies and admiration for dictatorial figures like Hitler. These statements underscore concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the potential for authoritarian governance. Such warnings from high-ranking former military officials emphasize the seriousness of these concerns, especially as they relate to the use of military power and the undermining of constitutional principles.

Furthermore, senior military officials, including former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, have expressed similar concerns about Trump’s leadership style and its implications for democracy. These concerns often focus on authoritarian tendencies and the intended misuse of military power. Senior Republican leaders, like Liz Cheney, have researched and substantiated these concerns through formal and public legislative inquiries.

---

When the National Weather Service issues alerts and advisories about an impending catastrophic event, it is wise to take them seriously. We have received warnings from respected academic historians, as well as trusted senior military and political leaders from both Republican and Democratic parties, about a potential political tsunami that would jeopardize US democracy if Trumpism triumphs in the 2024 presidential election. Therefore, we must respond with urgency and purpose.

If the polls are to be trusted, based as they are in less than one percent of respondents, why is the outcome of this presidential election so closely contested? Are economic concerns really worth jeopardizing the most ambitious democratic experiment in human history?

Arguably, approximately one-third of the U.S. population is deeply entrenched in the Trump cult, primarily consisting of Evangelical Christians and Nativists. However, the conservative core of rural America is resilient and attentive to warnings about catastrophic tornadoes. As true American conservatives, rural America and US veterans should remain steadfast in their loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, not personalities. This is both my hope and my prayer.

In the upcoming article of this series, I will explore how men and women of goodwill can become catalysts, both in the United States and globally, in addressing the “process of entropy” to dissolve the threat of fascism, as described by Professor Paxton.

---