P.G. Smith Author

Two days ago, I watched a news report of Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden that compared it to a very racist and xenophobic ‘America First’ rally in 1939 when sentiments were divided over Hitler’s rise to power, and some (including Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg) argued that the US should “not intervene unless the white race was threatened.” Watching clips of Trump’s rally was shocking in its overt racism and xenophobia, but any amateur student of history knows it is nothing new. The phrase ‘America First’ was in common use in 1939.

And it was often used after that. You might want to review the McCarthy era shown in novels like I Married a Communist by Phillip Roth, or The Book of Daniel by E.L. Doctorow, or old video clips of the TV series I Led Three Lives to get the flavor of the Red Scare era. You could also check out the work of William F. Buckley or Jean Kirkpatrick during the Nixon and Reagan years.

To my mind, however, the premier spokesman for populism in America is Patrick Buchanan. If you want to understand the ideas, fears, and ideals underlying right-wing populism today, I urge you to find a u-tube video of Buchanan’s famous campaign speech ‘The Culture War for the Soul of America.” (9/14/92) As a sample, here’s some of what he said at the 1992 Republican Convention, after declaring that the fundamental issue of the 21st century (pace Al Gore) was not the environment, but freedom. Given that liberals were restricting the right and freedom of “real Americans” to reinforce bedrock values like heterosexual marriage, fetal life, and Christian education, which must be protected at all cost, he concluded:

“This election is about more than who gets what. It’s about who we are. It’s about what we believe, what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a culture war, as critical to the kind of country we shall be as the Cold War itself, for this is a war for the soul of America.”

Truer words were never spoken–then or now. They are chilling or inspiring, depending on your point of view, but they clearly articulate the ideals at stake and the fervor with which they are defended by the far right. They are fighting for a way of life (partly imagined, certainly idealized, but partly real) that is being taken away from them by social change that they see as the effect and/or fault of women, minorities, and immigrants (fomented by liberals) who refuse to live according to old norms.

The fallacy is to think that time can be reversed, and norms restored by force of law. It can’t work, even though we are feeling the effects right now in the reversal of Roe v Wade. If Buchanan or Trump have their way it need not end there. Marriage and divorce laws could be changed (back), as well as privacy laws; contract and employment ‘rights’ can easily be reversed by the legislatures that bestowed them; all sorts of medical procedures and pharmaceuticals (e.g. contraceptives) could be regulated; even Christian education could be promoted if we could just get around those pesky Constitutional provisions–and we certainly have the right Supreme Court to do that. There’s almost no end to what can be done with the Supreme Court in the President’s pocket.

Except for the dire consequences, all this would be a farce in the hands of Donald Trump, who cares nothing about any of it, except to enrich his own purse and power. It is certainly corrupt to use the office of the presidency for profit and revenge, but is it fascism?

In his recent book ‘The Wannabe Fascists,’ historian Federico Finchelstein suggests:

“Wannabe fascism is an incomplete version of fascism, characteristic of those who seek to destroy democracy for short-term personal gain but are not fully committed to the fascist cause.” So, it’s fascism without ideology.

An Argentinian scholar, Finchelstein offers a fascinating historical comparison in the example of 20th century Argentinian dictator Juan Peron to explain the difference between populism and fascism. Peron’s enemies (like those of fascists) were liberals and socialists. And (like a fascist) he claimed that “a populist leader is imbued with a legitimacy that transcends laws…” because he directly (almost mystically) represents the people. (Sound familiar?) However, a populist functions within a framework of laws and institutions that act as guardrails to some extent. The populist undermines or circumvents such restrictions (say, by packing courts, rigging elections, or buying up opposing media) without overtly overturning or eliminating them.

Finchelstein offers four criteria for determining where along a fascist spectrum a country falls: 1) propaganda & misinformation; 2) political violence; 3) xenophobia; 4) dictatorship.

He (like many others) sees the insurrection of Jan.6, 2020 as a turning point, when for the first time in US history, a losing candidate refused to accept the results of a legitimate election and was willing to incite violence to overturn it. This illustrates the inherent danger of the idea that “a populist leader transcends the law” since his will embodies the will of the people.

By Finchelstein’s criteria, Trump is not a fascist, but he certainly is a ‘wannabe.’ It is sobering to recognize that we have already fulfilled (or at least grossly flirted with) three of the four criteria for a fascist state. Let’s hope we don’t give Trump the chance to fulfill the last one.

Recommended:

Pat Buchanan–‘The Culture War for the Soul of America’9/14/92

Pat Buchanan–The Great Betrayal (1998)

Federico Finchelstein–The Wannabe Fascists: A Guide to Understanding the Greatest Threat to Democracy (20024)