Trump Isn't a Fascist, but Resistance is Just As Needed
Fascism is not the only threat to freedom after all
Back in the first Trump presidency, one of the biggest arguments among those who opposed him was the question of whether Trump is a fascist. Self-identified leftists, particularly those on the far-left, usually insisted that Trump was literally a fascist, and hence anti-fascist resistance measures were justified. Many of the classical liberals and moderates within the anti-Trump camp, including myself, disagreed. We recognized that Trump was authoritarian, and his authoritarian tendencies needed to be met with strong and firm opposition, but calling him a fascist would achieve nothing. Now that Trump's authoritarian instincts have clearly gotten much worse in his second term, I think it's a good time to revisit this question, and determine where we should stand, or at least, where I personally stand.
Firstly, I still don't think Trump is a fascist. Fascism is a particular political ideology, and while it's not exactly as clearly defined as, say, the definition of a virus, it still has a commonly understood and historically significant meaning. It is clear that Trump simply doesn't share the ideology of Hitler and Mussolini in its entirety. His economic policies lack the socialist-inspired aspects of fascism, he is clearly not antisemitic, he doesn't uphold a cult of youth and vitality (he would likely have to step down as leader if he wanted to do so, given his age), he hasn't said anything in support of eugenics, and while he might have said some racist things, I don't think he objectively meets the definition of a 'white supremacist'. Given all these facts, he doesn't meet the commonly understood and historically rooted definition of fascism. It's just an objective fact. And I think we need to respect objective facts, whether we like it or not. It's the same reason why I refuse to call Trump a conservative: he clearly does not meet the definition of a conservative, whether by the common meaning of the word (since he is not keen on conserving anything), or by the cannon of conservative philosophy going back to the ideas of Edmund Burke. To call Trump a conservative or a fascist would be to permanently distort the meaning of these words, with troubling implications for both our view of history and our ability to understand these ideologies in the future.
Now that we have established that Trump isn't a fascist, the next question we need to ask is, what implications does this have on how we respond to his authoritarianism. And my answer is, I don't think it has much bearing on how we respond. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, period, and true believers in freedom should be unwavering towards any and all attacks on freedom, period, without regard as to what label they come under. There might not even be a label we can agree on regarding the exact ideology Trump, Vance and Musk are practicing right now, because it is so new, and because it appears to be a fusion of several things, but that really shouldn't matter. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, and it doesn't really matter that much what we call it. The hierarchy of authoritarianisms where fascism sits at the top and all other forms of authoritarianism are supposedly 'lesser evils' is not real. Indeed, to think of non-fascist forms of authoritarianism as 'lesser evils' means that they should somehow be tolerated, when they really shouldn't be. That Trump is not a fascist does not make his attacks on free speech, academic freedom, press freedom, constitutional rights and guarantees, and economic freedom any less troubling, or any less worthy of resistance. Given that both Trump and a hypothetical fascist would be attacking the same freedoms, maybe even in similar ways, both of them would merit the same kind of opposition.
I think we, as a society, should actually examine why we are so obsessed with whether some form of authoritarianism is 'fascist' or not. Given that most forms of authoritarianism we have right now are clearly not descendants of that particular early-20th century ideology, an obsession with measuring them by the yardstick of 'fascism' would likely have the effect of understating the danger they pose to freedom and democracy. The far-left has been particularly keen to identify Trump, as well as other authoritarians around the world like Bolsonaro, Bukele and Orban, to give a few examples, as 'fascists'. This, I believe, is rooted in their wish to paint our global moment as one of rising fascism, akin to the 1930s, so that they could position themselves as akin to the 'antifascists' of the 1930s. This, in turn, reflects a particular feature of the Western far-left: they like to endlessly re-fight historical battles, preferring to see the current moment as a continuation or re-enactment of a historical moment of leftist significance, rather than face the fact that we are simply in uncharted territory. This, I think, is due to their commitment to leftist philosophical theories, which were often derived from the history of particular moments of leftist significance. If we are truly in a continuation or re-enactment of one of those moments, the application of theories derived from said moment could be justifiable. On the other hand, if we are simply in uncharted waters, which is what the objective reality suggests, then historically derived theory is likely to be useless, and we should simply adapt to the current situation, while taking a strong stand for our values. In other words, obsession with historical comparisons could be used to justify the leftist approach of theory-based politics, while accepting the uniqueness of our current moment would clearly justify the classical liberal approach of values-based plus objective facts-based politics.
That said, it is not as if we can't learn anything from history at all. As I stated earlier, true believers of freedom should respond to all threats to freedom in equally strident ways, no matter what label they come under. Roosevelt and Churchill did not respond to Hitler the way they did because they uniquely hated fascism. Rather, they responded to fascism ferociously because they saw the threat of global authoritarianism, and they understood that there could be no appeasement towards enemies of freedom. Right now, we still have the possibility of restoring and defending freedom without going to war like they did, and I think we would be wise to learn a thing or two from them, before it's too late. Like Roosevelt and Churchill, we must stand firm for our values, and refuse to give in during this crucial moment.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Progressive Conservative Manifesto, the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series. She is also the author of her autobiography The TaraElla Story.
I think you're absolutely right that the old 20th century definitions don't suit the current moment very well. I viewed the last election as a choice between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Technically totalitarianism is considered a subset of authoritarianism: it's an authoritarian strongman plus a totalizing ideology that injects the state into every aspect of public and private life. But I don't think it's a get-out-of-totalitarianism-free card if your totalitarian state replaces the dictator with a strict party that brooks no dissent and uses legal technicalities to minimize democratic competition, and the kind of cradle-to-grave federally centralized control the Democrats aim for is otherwise at least totalitarianism-adjacent.
The problem with the "resistance" mindset is really that both sides think that's what they're doing. Trump's got plenty of people who are unabashed about their comfort with his authoritarianism, but there are plenty more who are worried about Trump but view the left's totalitarianism as the greater threat. And Democrats have plenty of people who are gung-ho about the federal government getting all up into the minutiae of our lives, and plenty more who hate that but fear Trump more.
So, how do we resist both? It's a sincere question, but not one I have any easy answers for.