The hysterical screeds that self-styled “elite” Progressives are writing about Trump’s alleged fascism betray appalling historical and political ignorance. It’s time again, therefore, for an education about political systems. Before I begin, though, let me give you a perfect example of the shrill, uninformed rants from America’s supposedly educated class. This comes from the New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik:

As I have written before, to call him a fascist of some variety is simply to use a historical label that fits. The arguments about whether he meets every point in some static fascism matrix show a misunderstanding of what that ideology involves. It is the essence of fascism to have no single fixed form—an attenuated form of nationalism in its basic nature, it naturally takes on the colors and practices of each nation it infects. In Italy, it is bombastic and neoclassical in form; in Spain, Catholic and religious; in Germany, violent and romantic. It took forms still crazier and more feverishly sinister, if one can imagine, in Romania, whereas under Oswald Mosley, in England, its manner was predictably paternalistic and aristocratic. It is no surprise that the American face of fascism would take on the forms of celebrity television and the casino greeter’s come-on, since that is as much our symbolic scene as nostalgic re-creations of Roman splendors once were Italy’s. What all forms of fascism have in common is the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history. It promises to turn back time and take no prisoners. That it can appeal to those who do not understand its consequences is doubtless true. But the first job of those who do understand is to state what those consequences invariably are. Those who think that the underlying institutions of American government are immunized against it fail to understand history. In every historical situation where a leader of Trump’s kind comes to power, normal safeguards collapse. Ours are older and therefore stronger? Watching the rapid collapse of the Republican Party is not an encouraging rehearsal. Donald Trump has a chance to seize power.

I’m actually impressed by those two paragraphs because, broken down, Gopnik actually says only one thing, which is that people who love their country are nascent fascists. He just lards that conclusion up with a bunch of pseudo-erudite allusions to different countries’ different national characteristics. People who read those paragraphs think they’re smart and sophisticated but emerge merely misinformed. To explain how wrong Gopnik is, let me give you actual information about political systems.

To begin with, forget all the labels you learned in school. When it comes right down to it, every single political system exists on a single continuum that ranges from complete state control with no individual freedom (statist system) to a complete lack of state control with unlimited individual freedom (anarchy). For purposes of this discussion, however, let’s ignore anarchy because it seldom happens and, when it does, it’s almost instantly replaced, usually by a strong man or a strong group that steer the government in a statist direction.

What we’re going to work with is a real-world continuum, one that goes from total government control with no individual liberties to minimal government control with maximum individual liberties. Like this:

If you cast your mind back through history and across the globe, you’ll be able to think of innumerable examples of government systems that cluster around the left end of this continuum. They go by all sorts of different names: communism, personality cult, military junta, theocracy, oligarchy, socialism, and fascism are just a few examples.

The name given the system doesn’t really matter. Whether people are subject to complete control from a personality cult such as that in North Korea; a theocracy such as that in Iran; an oligarchy such as that in Russia; or a communist party such as that in Cuba is irrelevant to the core issue: a particularly unpleasant form of government is one in which all power is vested in the state and the people have no individual rights.

Just to show you how little labels really matter, think about the fact that Britain, which was an exceptionally free nation by 19th century standards, was a monarchy, while the Soviet Union, one of the most repressive countries in modern history, styled itself as a “democracy.” Again, you need to focus on the issue of government control versus individual freedom, rather than on the often falsely complimentary or peculiarly anarchronistic labels these countries give themselves.

Thanks to the Founders’ genius in enshrining the Bill of Rights, America has historically been on the individual liberties side of the spectrum. While we’ve never achieved the libertarian dream of a country with only the most skeletal of governments, until recently we could certainly boast that Americans functioned with less government interference than that found in most other places around the world. (And yes, if you’re thinking that America is not very free anymore, you’re right, since government controls us more, takes more of our money, and impinges more on our freedom than at any time, I suspect, since WWI.)

So now that you’ve gotten a handle on the only two types of government that actually exist — more state control or less state control — let’s zero in on “fascism.” It started in Italy, so a good beginning is Mussolini’s classic description of fascism: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Boom! Statism writ large.

Except that, if it’s statism writ large, why did the communists, who are obviously statists, hate it? Progressive/Democrat academia and politicians say that this hatred arose because communism is a warm, cuddly, sharing kind of statism, while fascism is a mean, nasty, right-wing Republican kind of statism. Not even close and definitely no cigar.

Both communism and fascism are statist belief systems that reject individual liberties. American conservatives (many of whom identify with the Republican party), being all about the Bill of Rights, small government, and individual liberty, aren’t playing in the communist and fascist sandbox. Heck, they’re not even in the same playground.

Communism, the “purest” form of socialism, says that there should be no private ownership. Everything should be owned by the people for the benefit of the people.

Doesn’t that sound all nice and equal? It’s not. The only way to achieve “everything owned by the people for the benefit of the people” is to place ownership in the government as the people’s representatives. However, once you’ve placed everything in government hands, you’ve created a government class.

Government classes with total power are scary. Everything that is bad in individuals — greed, carelessness, stupidity, corruption, nepotism, bullying — is magnified beyond all imagination when it’s concentrated in a single all-powerful government.

Think of it this way: inbreeding somehow never magnifies good qualities, such as brains, physical aptitude, physical beauty, or a stable personality. Instead, it magnifies malignant traits: lack of brains to the point of mental retardation, physical failures (for example, the hemophilia that led to the Russian monarchy’s downfall), physical ugliness (just think of that Hapsburg jaw), and personalities that were unstable to the point of madness (there’s a whole website dedicated to mad monarchs).

In the same way, concentrating power in government, contrary to people’s expectations, never leads to a golden age of wealth, morals, and generosity. Instead, it invariably leads to economic and moral collapse, as we’ve seen in Europe, and too often leads to despotism (e.g., Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, and on and on).

Okay, that’s communism. But what about fascism? It’s communism’s opposite, right? Wrong. Very, very wrong.

Just as with communism, fascism is predicated on complete state control. To repeat Mussolini, “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” The difference is that the state does not nationalize industry. Instead, it leaves ownership in private hands, while vesting control in the state. Fascism gives the illusion of capitalism because individuals still “own” and “run” the companies, but in fact, the government and these individuals are in cahoots for both control and profit. What’s missing entirely is a free market. It’s all in the state and for the state.

For ordinary citizens, the difference between communism and fascism is like the difference between wearing ugly stainless steel handcuffs and stainless steel handcuffs with some sparkly rhinestones. The citizens are still wearing handcuffs because the state is still calling the shots. It’s just that in the fascist state, at least before the state really gets the bit in its teeth, there’s an illusion that things are nicer.

In other words, communism and fascism are just different flavors of statism. Moreover, when they’re not fighting for power, they’re inclined to support each other, as was the case with Hitler and Stalin, right up until Hitler decided he wanted Stalin’s territory too. Likewise, in Spain, there was a civil war not because communism and fascism are natural enemies, but because they were jealous rivals both seeking the throne.

Given all this, how did American conservatives, the people who oppose statism and believe in individual liberty, end up being tarred constantly as fascists? Well, look to the Leftist takeover of Hollywood, academia, and media.

After World War II, the American Left needed to elevate communism’s status and, Leftists hoped, give the Soviet Union the upper hand in the Cold War. What better way to do that than to attach to conservatives, those who cherish individual liberty, the “fascist” label, a label closely associated with Hitler, the ultimate madman? It didn’t matter that the label was completely inapposite. The only thing that mattered was that it stick, along with all the ugly associations surrounding it.

The takeaway from the above lecture is that communism and fascism are related ideologies, both predicated upon complete state control over markets and men. The only difference is that with communism the government nationalizes all industry while with fascism the government co-opts but does not nationalize industry. Instead, it ties capital to government, abandoning the free market, and then exerting total control over citizens in all other areas of life.

And what about that toxic nationalism that Gopnik things is fascism? It’s true that nationalism was the gloss that Hitler brought to Naziism. If he hadn’t been vested with complete power, though, the nationalism would have been as innocuous as chants of “USA! USA!” at Olympic games or the flag waving on Independence Day.

However, becauseconcentrated power is toxic power, Hitler took that nationalism, mixed it with perverse race theology, and decided to rule the world as a master race — and to purge or enslave everyone else. The genocidal nationalism wasn’t the cause of Hitler’s mania; it was the toxic result of concentrating complete political power in the hands of a small group that went mad with that power.

So how about we go back now and look again at those two inane paragraphs that Adam Gopnik offered to justify his claim that Trump and his supporters are fascists?

As I have written before, to call him a fascist of some variety is simply to use a historical label that fits. The arguments about whether he meets every point in some static fascism matrix show a misunderstanding of what that ideology involves. It is the essence of fascism to have no single fixed form—an attenuated form of nationalism in its basic nature, it naturally takes on the colors and practices of each nation it infects. In Italy, it is bombastic and neoclassical in form; in Spain, Catholic and religious; in Germany, violent and romantic. It took forms still crazier and more feverishly sinister, if one can imagine, in Romania, whereas under Oswald Mosley, in England, its manner was predictably paternalistic and aristocratic. It is no surprise that the American face of fascism would take on the forms of celebrity television and the casino greeter’s come-on, since that is as much our symbolic scene as nostalgic re-creations of Roman splendors once were Italy’s. What all forms of fascism have in common is the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history. It promises to turn back time and take no prisoners. That it can appeal to those who do not understand its consequences is doubtless true. But the first job of those who do understand is to state what those consequences invariably are. Those who think that the underlying institutions of American government are immunized against it fail to understand history. In every historical situation where a leader of Trump’s kind comes to power, normal safeguards collapse. Ours are older and therefore stronger? Watching the rapid collapse of the Republican Party is not an encouraging rehearsal. Donald Trump has a chance to seize power.

Doesn’t he sound so sophisticated naming all those countries and talking about their different characteristics? Don’t be fooled, though. All those words are just window dressing. There’s nothing there. As I explained above, the essence of fascism isn’t nationalism, it’s statism.

Nationalism — a national identity and support within the nation for that identity — exists in all nations. It’s the concentration of power in the state that makes nationalism toxic. So Gopnik’s got the wrong end of the horse when he says that anyone who dares to love his country is a nascent fascist. A nascent fascist is anyone who seeks to concentrate power in the government at the cost of individual liberties for citizens — and nationalism is one of the means by which the fascist exerts that control.

So what about the fact that Trump keeps talking about “making America great again”? Doesn’t that prove that he’s a nascent fascist who’s using nationalism as the means by which he seizes that glorious concentrated power? No.

If you dig just a little way down into the Trump agenda, you find out that when he talks about “making America great again” he’s mostly talking about enforcing laws and policies already on the books. Was Clinton a fascist when he signed into effect some of those laws? Is the history of America right up until Obama was elected fascist because we had laws, most of which Obama ignores? The answers, naturally, are no. There’s nothing fascist about enforcing our immigration laws, our national security laws, and our criminal laws, or about elevating the constitution as the primary document from which American law flows. We’re not charting new territory here. We’re returning America to its natural mostly-free state.

Trump is also promising to get the government out of American businesses, another policy that is the opposite of fascism. Remember, fascism is all about a government/industry partnership to further state control. It’s communism with cash. So Trump’s promise to decrease regulations and lower taxes to weaken government’s ability to interfere with private citizens is a step towards freedom, rather than its opposite.

Another Trump promise is to respect the Second Amendment, keeping guns in the hands of private citizens. Remember: The single biggest barrier to total state control is an armed citizenry.

No fascist — that is, no person ever seeking complete control over individuals within the state — would dare keep arms in citizen’s hands. After all, once the fascist has accomplished the things people like, such as getting the trains to run on time, the fascist invariably starts doing things that people don’t like: controlling their thoughts and actions, controlling their economy, and imprisoning or killing anyone who doesn’t get with the fascist program. You can’t do that when your citizens shoot back.

Trump’s evolution from totally pro-abortion to mostly pro-life is also anti-fascist. Fascists don’t look out upon the population they control and see a collection of individual human beings. They see widgets, all intended to better serve the state. Once you’ve reduced people to widgets in your own mind, it’s a surprisingly short step to deciding that some of those widgets are defective and need to be destroyed.

Does the above mean I’m blind to Trump’s faults? Goodness, no! For starters, in common with the elites who framed my early life, I don’t like his bombastic, bumptious, often crude style. I’d love someone suave, sophisticated, and erudite — but that person wouldn’t be Trump. Nor would it be anyone from the political Left. The entire notion of suave, sophisticated, and erudite is dead and gone in American politics.

Nor I’m I blind to Trump’s “only I can fix things” promises, which are crudely enough stated to imply demagoguery. However, push aside his lack of subtlety, and Trump’s not doing anything that any other presidential candidate hasn’t done. After all, it was Barack Obama who promised to control the rise of the ocean (something at which he signally failed, since I believe the ocean has risen by at least a millimeter since he took over). All presidential candidates promise that, under their leadership, things will be better.

Even if Trump isn’t a despot in the making, are his supporters fanatics who would like him to be a despot? Doubtful. I think what most Trump supporters hope Trump means when he talks about “fixing things,” is that he’ll take our sclerotic government and say “You’re fired” to corrupt, redundant, useless, or lazy bureaucrats who suck at the government teat but provide no benefit for America’s citizens.

What we imagine him doing is taking broken institutions and either destroying them (bye-bye, abusive EPA), cleaning house (IRS, you’re next), or returning them to their original mission (the military is not a social justice experiment). GOP politicians, despite their invariable promises to “clean up” government, seem incapable of making the tough calls necessary to purge or fix what’s broken in the existing system. Trump’s history and rhetoric make it seem possible that he’s finally the one with the courage to make those hard choices and tame the federal beast.

So if Trump isn’t the fascist in the presidential race, who is? Hillary.

Hillary believes government is the answer. As one Hillary fan pointed out, in a squiblet that has made the rounds amongst my Leftist friends on Facebook, the Leftist fear is that Trump will shrink the same government that Hillary seeks, at minimum, to maintain and, at most, to enlarge significantly:

“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

Hillary wants to amend the First Amendment, to end criticizing the government especially when that government is Hillary. The right to criticize government is, of course, the foundation of a free society.

Hillary wants to do away with the Second Amendment, taking arms from American citizens and leaving those arms solely in government hands (including the hands of the same police she reviles as she panders to minority voters).

Hillary wants to create a hard Left Supreme Court that will use the power of the Court to further concentrate power in government.

Hillary is deep in the arms of Wall Street, creating the perfect government-business hybrid that is at the heart of fascism.

Hillary wants to change the composition of America’s electorate to ensure herself a permanent majority (kind of like Erdogan did and is doing).

I’m not enamored of Donald Trump but once one strips away his bombast, his instincts are not fascist instincts. Hillary’s are. Ignore the hysteria from the media, Hollywood, and all the other usual suspects,and keep those core distinctions in mind when you go to your polling station in November.

UPDATE: David Foster had such on-point comments that I had to include them here:

Today’s ‘progressivism’ combines elements of both Marxism and Fascism, but I believe it is closer to Fascism. There is the obsession with race/ethnicity. There is the desire to control the economy indirectly, through captive corporations, rather than directly. They tend to sneer at economic development, which Marxists worshipped. And a high % of ‘progressives’ are followers of bizarre forms of mysticism (magical crystals, belief in a conscious Gaia, etc) rather than materialists in the philosophical sense. Fundamentally, I think Marxism is a bastard child of the Enlightenment; Fascism is explicitly counter-Enlightenment. Aldous Huxley put it this way: “In the field of politics the equivalent of a theorem is a perfectly disciplined army; of a sonnet or picture, a police state under a dictatorship. The Marxist calls himself scientific and to this claim the Fascist adds another: he is the poet–the scientific poet–of a new mythology. Both are justified in their pretensions; for each applies to human situations the procedures which have proved effective in the laboratory and the ivory tower. They simplify, they abstract, they eliminate all that, for their purposes, is irrelevant and ignore whatever they choose to regard an inessential; they impose a style, they compel the facts to verify a favorite hypothesis, they consign to the waste paper basket all that, to their mind, falls short of perfection…the dream of Order begets tyranny, the dream of Beauty, monsters and violence.” One way in which ‘progressivism’ differs from *both* Marxism and Fascism lies in its hostility to men.

Share this: Email

Parler

Facebook

Twitter

More

Reddit

LinkedIn



Pinterest

Tumblr



Skype

WhatsApp



