Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is attracting
astounding attention. The demagogue has
been rising in the polls, his ever-more-bizarre pronouncements sparking
admiration and outrage, but never failing to capture attention. Many media organs have been praising him for
his forthright statements, others have worried that he is straying just over
the borders of respectability, still others treat him as something of a joke.
But Trump is no joke and his campaign is no laughing
matter. His persona and pronouncements
are increasingly dangerous, and pose a direct threat to our country. Trump has exposed a deeply racist, nativist,
and violent strain in U.S. politics, and is exploiting it in a manner designed
to ensure that whether or not he wins the primary campaign or the election,
people will get hurt.
But the media is at a loss as to how to categorize
and deal with Trump. On the traditional
U.S. left-right scale, support for any welfare measures, such as those voiced
by Trump, is generally supposed to indicate leftist leanings. For this reason, confronted with Trump’s
support for social security alongside his hate speech directed at Latinos in
the U.S, commentators have appeared at a loss to find a word to describe Trump’s
emerging ideology or brand beyond vague references to ‘populism’, a catch all
that they also use to describe social democratic Senator Bernie Sanders.
But a glimpse back in time and a little work of
historical comparison shows us that we have the vocabulary to describe Trump
and what he represents, and that what the media sees as ‘inconsistency’, ‘populism’,
or more laughably still, as ‘centrism’, is actually something else, something
very like the Fascism that many believed to have been thoroughly discredited
after the 1930s and 1940s.
I’m aware that there are those on the political left
who throw the word ‘fascist’ around at any idea or individual to their right
who they dislike or wish to discredit. I’m
using it in a much more concrete fashion, and think there are strong parallels
between the ideas and practice that Trump is calling into play, and those that
operated in a variety of places in the 1920s and 1930s in Europe.
It is true that both Sanders and Trump are tapping
dissatisfaction with the status quo, and both invoke a version of
solidarity. But Sanders’ solidarity is
premised on the idea of equality amongst human beings, whereas Trump’s is
premised on the superiority of some people over others. Sanders’ solidarity is an effort to shore up
the general welfare of people across our country, whereas Trump is pitching
himself as the defender of the interests of a sub-set of the population,
promising to attack a vulnerable group of people to better the lives of people
who already enjoy an economic edge by virtue of their race—something about
which many people in the U.S. remain in denial.
Both Sanders and Trump are critical of groups within
our society. But Sanders is critical of
the behavior of a class, and is
proposing to curtail the ability of a
class of plutocrats to exploit the middle and working class. Trump is proposing the general extirpation—through intimidation and
deportation—of a population group defined by ethnicity and language.
A UN Security Council resolution described ethnic
cleansing as “a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to
remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another
ethnic or religious group from certain demographic areas”. The means for that cleansing do not—as is
oft-supposed—have to involve mass killings, but can include
“confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal,
displacement and deportation…threats of attacks on civilians”.
Ethnic cleansing might seem an extreme term to
describe what Trump advocates towards Latinos, and his ideas would have to take
more concrete form before they could be described as such in legal terms. But consider that his goal has been to
portray an entire ethnic group, defined in the minds of the U.S. public by its
immigrant members, as “rapists”, “criminals”, and “drug dealers”, the dregs of
society, somehow dispatched by a Mexican government to undermine the U.S. He wants to embrace a mass deportation policy
that will tear families apart, violate the laws of citizenship, and ignore the root
causes of in-migration to the U.S. He
wants Latinos to walk carefully and fearfully—if indeed they dare walk at all—in
public, aware that the eye of the state regards them as a hostile, foreign menace.
Trump has inspired his GOP colleagues to embrace
similarly dehumanizing language, which evokes the hygenic references of ethnic
cleansing programs. Chris Christie
talked about treating migrants like so many “FedEx packages”, to be tracked and
monitored and removed where necessary.
In the 1930s, fascists used modern technological, organizational, and
administrative innovations to “cleanse” populations and dehumanize the victims—defined
religiously, ethnically, sexually, or politically—of their various purges.
Trump’s would-be Blackshirts have already invoked
his name when engaging in savage street violence,
and the hirelings at his side during official campaign events have demonstrated
that their hatred and contempt extends to Latinos whether they are undocumented
or citizens, “get out of my country” becoming a rallying cry. Trump, who has attracted
white supremacists to his rallies, and earned himself an endorsement
from a former Ku Klux Klan leader, has also demonstrated that his crude racism
will extend beyond the Latino community in the United States…his “act”, so
appealing to that surprisingly-large strand of white supremacy in the U.S.,
having recently demonized Asians through his mocking expressions, accents, and
stereotypes that go back to 19th century nativism.
Intense, ethnically- and linguistically-defined
nationalism was at the core of fascist worldviews when they arose in the last
century. The “rightful” members of the
nation required a scapegoat, a community that could be shamed or worse. And their nationalism was projected violently
abroad, in a quest for confrontation that Trump promises to embrace, whether in
his talk of forcing Mexico to pay for a wall, his desire to take on China, or
his belligerent brinkmanship.
Trump’s defense of social security, and sporadic
criticisms of the plutocratic class of which he is himself a member, has by
turns confused and attracted those journalists and progressives willing to turn
a blind eye to his hypocrisy and racism.
How, they marvel, can Trump combine the racism associated with the
xenophobic right with defense of social security? It must, they reason, make him a moderate or
at the very least ‘incoherent’.
Trump’s speech is certainly incoherent, bubbling over
with contradictions and inconsistencies where it is even decipherable,
self-aggrandizement and boasting constantly interrupting stream-of-conscious babbling
about politics and policies.
But it should be remembered that this form of
populism—the uplift of a race at the expense of some other group or groups—has been
a staple of right-wing politics, which forms cultural solidarities on the basis
of race. Fascism was able to poach a
handful of converts from across the political spectrum, and even turn leftist
sympathisers because of its attacks on elites (those attacks didn’t have to
make sense or to square with fascisms embrace of corporatism) and its promise
of welfare for the elect. It promised a
vigor that broken or sabotaged political systems could not match.
The fascism that I think Trump recalls was defined
by hyper-nationalism, militaristic saber-rattling, misogyny, confrontation,
name-calling, anti-labor activities, intimidation, showmanship, anti-intellectualism,
economic populism that quickly devolves into corporatism, scapegoating, and the
constant threat of violence. As this
assemblage of descriptors implies, it was part policy and part political
culture. In his history of 20th
century Europe (Out of Ashes,
Princeton: 2015), Konrad Jarausch reminds us that fascism was a “style and feeling
rather than a systematic ideology” (157), which I think sums up Trump’s “act”.
In his style, Trump is certainly reminiscent of some
of the fascist showmen of the 1920s and ‘30s.
And the version of populism that he and his followers propose seems to
demarcate access to the state and its resources in ethno-linguistic and
ideological terms. He is proposing to
regenerate the nation through a kind of purge, portraying his ideological
opponents as weak and degenerate in a way that stops just short of questioning
their humanity.
Trump is pursuing electoral politics at the moment,
but the threat of violence and the threat to upend political practice lurk in
the background. He has attempted to intimidate
the media by letting them know that unpleasant questions could lead to the
curtailment of their access. His threat
to bypass the Republican Party if he is not chosen as its standard-bearer is one
thing. But what sound like tacit threats
to unleash his “passionate” supporters if he is challenged
or bypassed is more sinister, and taps into the trend of right-wing leaders,
who suffer defeat after defeat at the polls, challenging the legitimacy of
those who defeat them through democracy.
I think that Trump is making this up as he goes
along. I doubt that there is a plan and
I doubt that he is imitating some of the vilest constellations of ideas and practices
that we have known in the past hundred years.
But his ignorance is no excuse. For
he has the resources, the ego, and the sociopathy that insulates him from being
able to understand the consequences of his actions, to play a very dangerous
role in the rightward tilt of our politics.
He is embarrassing the Republican Party, but mostly because he is simply
saying out loud and with great bravado and pride what the party has
historically mouthed through innuendo.
His brand of populism, racism, belligerence, and subtle
threats of violence are not without precedents.
But we should look carefully and warily at where those precedents are
and where they have led. And all of
those who find something admirable in Trump’s political mélange should step
back and look carefully at the broader picture to see what it is they might be
in danger of endorsing. Earlier versions
of the toxic brew he is cooking up have led to discrimination, violence, the marginalization
of voices protecting working people and minorities of all stripes, and far, far
worse.
We must learn to call Trump’s version of fascism by
its name, and recognize the extent to which it has entered the mainstream of the Republican Party.