The Political F-word

When and how should we talk about fascism?

Satirical Trump campaign logo.

When Donald Trump started talking about closing American mosques and perhaps even having Muslims register with the government, when he called for a “deportation force” to search out and expel the 11 million Hispanic immigrants estimated to be in the country illegally, and then when he justified his supporters in “roughing up” a protester at his rally, a number of his fellow Republicans began to use the word fascist.

Once you start viewing Trump through that lens, a number of his previous statements — many of which were seen at the time as so outrageous they would doom his campaign — take on a different significance, particularly his xenophobic comments about immigrants and the way his speeches rely more on assertions of his own greatness than on any identifiable policies or political philosophy. (It also wasn’t the first time he had justified the violence of his followers.)

Pundits have reacted to labeling Trump a fascist in three different ways:

None of those reactions is entirely wrong, as we’ll see. But that conclusion just raises a larger question: Would we have a basis for calling any contemporary figure a fascist? Or has the word just become an insult with no identifiable content? What is fascism, anyway?

If you try to answer that question by looking at expert opinion, you’ll find a muddle. Just about any good article on fascism starts by explaining why it’s so hard to define. Here’s how David Neiwert puts it:

In contrast [to communism], hardly anyone can explain what it is that makes fascism, mainly because all we really know about it is the regimes that arose under its banner. There are no extant texts, only a litany of dictatorships and atrocities. When we think of fascism, we think of Hitler and perhaps Mussolini, without even understanding what forces they rode to power.

Communism has a very concise description: public ownership of the means of production under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Liberal democracy is a government elected by the majority but constitutionally restrained from violating minority rights. For fascism, well, we’ve got the example of Hitler. But what was it about Hitler that made him Hitler? [1] Given that we don’t want another Hitler regime, or anything remotely like it, what should we be looking for and trying to avoid?

In his influential essay “Ur-Fascism“, Umberto Eco warns:

It would be so much easier, for us, if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares.” Life is not that simple.

You can’t identify fascism by blindly correlating policies. Hitler built the autobahn and Eisenhower built the interstate highway system, but Eisenhower was not a Hitler. Reagan and Hitler both increased military spending, but Reagan was not a Hitler. Fascism also is not a political philosophy. (Eco: “Mussolini did not have any philosophy: he had only rhetoric.”) It’s not an economic theory, and it’s not tied to a particular religion.

In his book In God’s Country (about the American Patriot movement of the 1990s), Neiwert adopts this definition (which he attributes to “historians and sociologists”):

a political movement based in populist ultranationalism and focused on an a core mythic ideal of phoenix-like societal rebirth, attained through a return to “traditional values.”

But Eco, who grew up under Mussolini, avoided all definitions, writing that “fascism had no quintessence”. Instead he tried to find deeper, pre-rational roots: “Fascism was philosophically out of joint, but emotionally it was firmly fastened to some archetypal foundations.” and “behind a regime and its ideology there is always a way of thinking and feeling, a group of cultural habits, of obscure instincts and unfathomable drives.”

He reduced these “unfathomable drives” to 14 traits of what he called Ur-Fascism, upon which any specific form of fascism would be based. These 14, he said, “cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism.” The traits include a cult of tradition, anti-intellectualism [2], equating disagreement with treason, fear of difference, permanent warfare, and contempt for the weak. But the one that I want to focus on is #6:

Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. [italics in the original]

This points to what I see as the real difficulty of defining fascism as a political movement: It’s not fundamentally about politics at all. Fascism is primarily a phenomenon of social psychology. I would summarize it as a dysfunctional attempt of people who feel humiliated and powerless to restore their pride by:

  • styling themselves as the only true and faithful heirs of their nation’s glorious (and possibly mythical) past,
  • identifying with a charismatic leader whose success will become their success,
  • helping that leader achieve power by whatever means necessary, including violence,
  • under his leadership, purifying the nation by restoring its traditional and characteristic virtues (again, through violence if necessary),
  • reawakening and reclaiming the nation’s past glory (by war, if necessary),
  • all of which leads to the main point: humiliating the internal and external enemies they blame for their own humiliation. [3]

Now, I think, we’re in a position to talk about Donald Trump and his relationship to the conservative movement. Trump may or may not harbor fascist ambitions himself, but his campaign targets a segment of the population that is psychologically ready for fascism: working-class white Christian males, who have seen their privileged place in American society erode as blacks, women, gays, non-English-speakers, and non-Christians get closer to equality. What’s more, the good-paying no-college-necessary jobs that allowed their fathers to achieve the American dream have vanished, leaving them incapable of carrying forward their patriarchal legacy.

In his scapegoating of immigrants at home and foreign enemies abroad, and his vague promises to “make America great again” by applying his own greatness to a government that for decades has been run by “losers”, Trump is playing the role of a charismatic fascist leader.

But the audience he is appealing to didn’t pop out of nowhere. Its sense of grievance has been carefully nurtured and cultivated by decades of conservative propaganda, which has diligently pointed its resentment  downward at scapegoat groups like blacks, Muslims, and Hispanic immigrants, rather than upward at the wealthy bosses who profited by shipping jobs overseas.

In their defense, the propagandists probably didn’t intend to create a fascist movement. Instead, from one election to the next, it was easy to split the natural constituency of the Left by appealing to a sense of victimization among the white working class, using xenophobia, racism, and hot-button religious issues to turn them against the non-white working class, against women and gays, and against the liberal politicians who looked out for the interests of the emerging minorities. [4] As Neiwert concluded in 2004 after an analysis of Rush Limbaugh’s rhetoric:

What this exercise reveals is not so much that Limbaugh is a fascist, but rather, that he is making a career out of transmitting the themes and memes upon which fascism feeds to a mainstream conservative audience.

The result is the confusion that Trump has sown inside the Republican establishment. Fascistic themes of wounded pride and affronted identity were supposed to keep working-class white Christian men voting against their economic interests. [5] But nobody was supposed to take things this seriously.

Now that Trump is doing so, establishment Republicans are starting to yell “fascist!” But that won’t work at this late date, because by now “the themes and memes upon which fascism feeds” have been woven too deeply into standard conservative rhetoric. The audience that Trump has found and speaks to are the same people whose support Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio hoped to gain with winks and nods.

You can, if you want, regard that last sentence as a conclusion marking the end of the article. Or you can keep reading as we make a deeper pass through the psychology of fascism and its relationship to mainstream American conservatism.

To grasp fascism and its shape-shifting nature, you need to understand a series of concepts that can manifest differently in different times and places. What follows are some “themes and memes” of fascism, and where you can hear them in conservative rhetoric today.

Volkheit. A fascist believes that his nation has an essence, which does not evolve with the times, but is a fixed and eternal ideal. In German, an ethnic group is ein Volk, and their Volkheit (i.e. folkhood) is whatever makes them what they are.

The United States is a nation of immigrants that hasn’t seen itself as English for a long time, so its volkheit wouldn’t be strictly ethnic. For a time it was defined by the constructed ethnicity “White”, but even that characterization has become obsolete. Consequently, the “essence” that makes an American an American is hard to define.

But that doesn’t mean we don’t have a volkheit. The yearning towards a volkheit can be seen in way that various Americans feel threatened by non-English-speaking citizens, by the equality of non-whites, by multiculturalism, by non-Christian religions, and by any transnational authority like the United Nations or the WTO. Race plays a role in defining the American volk, but other factors weigh in the scale as well.

Whenever someone uses the phrase real Americans to mean something more than the people who live in or are citizens of the United States, they’re talking about our volkheit, particularly if they cite “real Americans” as the upholders of our “traditional values”.

One place you can see this playing out is in the otherwise inexplicable attempts to make President Obama an “other”: the baseless controversy over his birth certificate, the attempt to portray him as a Muslim, the unique sense of outrage when he does things many previous presidents did without anyone noticing or caring. It’s easy to read this as simple racism, but the real point being argued is that Obama doesn’t belong to the American volk. [6]

Herrenvolk. Fascism depends on a belief in the special status of our particular volk. There is a natural hierarchy of peoples, and we are meant to be at the top of it.

Herrenvolk is usually translated as “master race”, but that’s not exactly right. Herr has an aspect of master or lord — the German word for dominance is Herrschaft — but also of a respected head-of-household. (Herr Schmidt is just Mr. Schmidt.) So the herrenvolk doesn’t necessarily hold everyone else on a leash, but in a well-ordered world all the other volk recognize its natural superiority.

The contemporary American form of herrenvolk is American Exceptionalism. When de Toqueville described Americans as “exceptional” in the 1800s, he meant only that a uniquely favorable set of circumstances — like the lack of a competing power on our continent, and the absence of an established class structure and its corresponding centuries-long grudges — had given us a unique opportunity to leave behind Europe’s baggage and make a new start on civilization. That’s why our revolution could succeed, but the revolution in de Toqueville’s France got sidetracked into the Reign of Terror.

But since then, American Exceptionalism has developed into something more than just circumstantial: We are morally exceptional, so things that would be wrong for anybody else are OK for us. Consequently, we can torture people; we can start unprovoked wars; Iran shouldn’t feel threatened by our nuclear arsenal, but we’d be justified in attacking to prevent them acquiring nukes; and so on, because we’re the herrenvolk.

Grievance. Fantasies of belonging to the herrenvolk are like fantasies of secret royalty: If a child is happy with her life and home, she doesn’t need to dream about her real parents coming to claim her. This is why fascism is a product of hard times. When a nation is doing well — its ruling class feels secure, its middle class is confident in its upward mobility, and its lower classes are more docile than desperate — fascism has no place to take root.

But once you start claiming herrenvolk status, you’re left with a conundrum: Why is my life so hard? We’re better than everyone else, so why aren’t we more successful? This is the issue Trump is raising when he complains that “America doesn’t win any more.”

Fascism’s answer is that we have been robbed of our rightful place in the world. Again, fascism’s local variability comes into play. Every fascism has to claim that its volk has been robbed. But who robbed us and how can change in every country.


Indeed, one of the lessons I’ve gleaned from carefully observing the behavior of the American right over the years is that the best indicator of its agenda can be found in the very things of which it accuses the left.

There is no better example of this than Bill O’Reilly’s characterization of the Left as running a “grievance industry“. O’Reilly’s show is little more than a stream of grievances, of wrongs committed against whites, against Christians, against conservatives, against men, and against Real Americans of all types.

Purity. The strength of a volk is in its purity. Conversely, fascism ties a nation’s problems to its failure to guard its purity.

In Nazism, Jews were the impurity corrupting the German volk. In contemporary America, this impurity worry focuses on non-white, non-Christian, or non-English-speaking immigrants, as well as on American blacks who seem not to be assimilating into the white-dominated society.

Purity is a primal, pre-rational concern, which is why the irritation is not soothed by analyses of the economic benefits from immigration, or the overall good behavior of undocumented Hispanics and refugees, or even the rise in deportations during the Obama administration. Meanwhile, every individual crime by an immigrant sets it off again. The belief that foreigners are corrupting the purity of America is foundational; since this impurity is the cause of all our problems, the simple fact that we still have problems is evidence of its corrosive effect.

Another aspect of impurity is moral. The idealized Real America of the white suburbs and small towns of the 1950s had no place for homosexuals or the transgendered. So their presence — and even acceptance! — in contemporary America is evidence of our impurity. Again, evidence is beside the point. Forget that the gay couple living next door trims the lawn perfectly, or that their daughter is valedictorian. If we have problems — and who can say that we don’t? — the impurities we tolerate all around us must be the cause.

Our glorious past. Fascism looks back to a time before impurity set in, when the volk lived securely in its volkheit. For Mussolini, this was the Roman Empire and il Duce was the new Augustus. American conservatives similarly idealize four golden eras: Philosophically, the Golden Age was the founding era, and the Founders are portrayed as divinely inspired prophets. Economically, the Golden Age was the Gilded Age, when capitalists worked their magic unhindered by regulations. Militarily, it was World War II, when our entire society was mobilized behind the war effort. Culturally, the Golden Age happened in the Ozzie-and-Harriet suburbs and small towns of the 1950s.

The importance of this mythology is why any accurate assessment of American history is so threatening to conservatives that they find it necessary to promote their own pseudo-historians. In his announcement speech, for example, Ben Carson attributed the rise of America to the “can-do attitude” of the “early settlers”. His point comes completely undone if you understand the role of land stolen from the Native Americans and developed by slave labor. Similarly, conservatives can only see World War II as a battle of Freedom against Barbarism; the suggestion that dropping nuclear bombs on civilians is barbaric cannot be entertained.

Any reading of history in which America is a nation like other nations, exemplifying both good and evil, is beyond the pale.

Betrayal. Any myth of a glorious past is vulnerable to the criticism Jack Burden makes in All the King’s Men:

If it was such a God-damned fine, beautiful time, why did it turn into this time which is not so damned fine and beautiful if there wasn’t something in that time which wasn’t fine and beautiful? Answer me that one.

Impurity of the volk is only a partial answer, and the machinations of our enemies can’t be a complete answer either, because they shouldn’t be able to stand against the herrenvolk. No, we are suffering now because we have been betrayed by our leaders and by the culturally influential classes.

For Hitler, this was the famous Dolschstosslegende, the myth that German armies did not lose World War I in the field, but were “stabbed in the back” by traitors in high places at home.

You can hear the current dolschstosslegende in Ted Cruz saying that President Obama “does not wish to defend this country”. Or Michele Bachmann’s description of Obama’s immigration policy:

We have this invasion because a political decision was made by our president to intentionally flaunt the laws of the land and put at risk the American people, our culture, our way of life, our economic standing, and also he’s willing to allow a pandemic of disease to come into our country.

The conservative version of recent American history is full of betrayals: FDR betrayed the cause of freedom at Yalta, JFK surrendered American sovereignty to the UN, the Democratic Congress gave away the victory Nixon had won in Vietnam, and Obama not only gave away Bush’s victory in Iraq, but negotiated a “surrender” to Iran.

What the Republican establishment never expected was that they too would be included among the betrayers. But when John Boehner announced his retirement, no one cheered louder than the Republican base. And who imagined that Eric Cantor would be tarred as a traitor to conservatism? Ben Carson says, “I’ll tell you a secret. The political class comes from both parties and it comes from all over the place.” And Ted Cruz writes:

In 2010, we were told that Republicans would stand and fight if only we had a Republican House. In 2014, we were told that Republicans would stand and fight just as soon as we won a majority in the Senate and retired Harry Reid. In both instances, the American people obliged. Now we’re told that we must wait until 2017 when we have a Republican president.

Trump is just echoing them when he says, “I am more disappointed in the Republicans than the Democrats.”

Cruelty. Psychologically, the key to fascism is the (usually unstated) belief that you can work out your own humiliation by humiliating others. Did you fight bravely in the Great War, only to see your country shamed at Versailles, and your family lose everything in the subsequent inflation and depression? Go beat up a union organizer, or throw rocks through the windows of a Jewish shopkeeper; you’ll feel better.

And maybe you do, for a while, but in the morning you return to the same life you had yesterday. So like any addiction, the temptation is to try more next time. Maybe if you’d killed the organizer or set fire to the shop, the feeling would have lasted.

A similar pattern explains the way Republican presidential candidates seem to glory in their cruelty and heartlessness. Trump mimicked and ridiculed a reporter’s disability (echoing Rush Limbaugh’s mocking of Michael J. Fox), Chris Christie didn’t just call for leaving Syrian refugees to their fate, he specifically said he would refuse entry to “orphans under the age of five”. Several candidates have called for the return of torture, even though it accomplishes little beyond making suspected terrorists suffer. The persistent weakness in the protect-traditional-marriage argument was that its proponents could not identify anybody who would benefit; the point was entirely to make gay and lesbian lives harder. Republican deportation policies will break up families, and no one benefits from sending DREAMers back to a country they don’t remember. But none of that seems to matter.

What does matter is that when a candidate says something that is harsh or offensive, his poll numbers go up. [7] The Republican base is angry and is looking for a candidate who will inflict pain on its enemies. That pain is not a regrettable side-effect of a policy that accomplishes something else; inflicting pain is the accomplishment.

What’s the matter with Kansas today? For decades, the Republican establishment has used fascist themes as a tactic: While their policies destroyed unions, empowered employers, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle class, allowed higher education to become unattainably expensive for families not already wealthy, and made it easier to ship blue-collar jobs overseas, they could appeal to working-class whites on a symbolic level, offering them pride rather than paychecks or opportunities.

Now those chickens are coming home to roost: Republicans have set the stage for America to have an actual fascist movement, one that will see them as part of the corruption that needs to be purged. Like the businessmen who funded Hitler as a way to distract workers from communism, they thought they could control this, but they can’t.

Donald Trump is taking advantage of this situation, but he is not the problem. Ted Cruz will happily fill his role if something goes wrong, and if the fascist movement can’t win the Republican nomination or the presidency in 2016, there’s always 2020 or 2024. Who knows who might step forward to claim its leadership?

In the long run, I can only see one way out of this trend: Democrats need to offer a program that will genuinely do something for the working class, in the same way that the New Deal headed off American fascism in the 1930s. Americans who feel frustrated and humiliated by the culture and economy of the 21st century need to know that they can get help fixing their lives; there’s no need to seek relief by making others suffer too.

[1] Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism is almost comical in its willingness to latch onto Hitler’s superficial traits (like his vegetarianism and support for universal health care) while never zeroing in on his movement’s toxic essence. The Onion could not write a line more ridiculous than this:

The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

[2] The anti-intellectual nature of fascism is one reason it remains undefined. A real fascist is in the streets, not sitting in a library making up theories.

[3] The dysfunctionality of this program is why fascist regimes tend toward short-but-spectacular lives, particularly if the Leader is a true believer, and is not just using the movement to gain power. Humiliating others doesn’t really soothe your own humiliation, so the regime must constantly up the ante to maintain its supporters’ enthusiasm. Ultimately, no conquest and no level of enemy humiliation is enough. The world must fall, and the enemies must be exterminated.

[4] This is the theme of Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas? from 2004.

[5] For example, the struggling whites in Kentucky who just voted to eliminate their own health insurance.

[6] As you might expect, Trump voters believe these stories about Obama at a higher rate than supporters of other candidates.

[7] Josh Marshall has an interesting take on this: He believes that it isn’t Trump’s cruelty that appeals to the Republican base so much as his refusal to apologize for it.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • weeklysift  On November 30, 2015 at 8:43 am

    Neiwert has a more recent post that comes to a conclusion similar to mine:

  • Larry Stauber  On November 30, 2015 at 10:03 am

    Thank you for this interesting article. I realize your focus is Fascism or Not, but I would have liked it more if you had used the word “Reactionary”. Describing some of the current crop of presidential candidates as conservative is an insult to true conservatives who are not reactionary.

    • Jacquie Mardell  On November 30, 2015 at 3:02 pm

      Yet they themselves seem to identify as conservative.

    • Dan Cusher  On December 1, 2015 at 6:26 pm

      What exactly do you mean by “true conservatives”?

      • M'thew  On December 4, 2015 at 5:03 am

        Perhaps he means “true scotsmen”, but then conservative?

      • Dan Cusher  On December 4, 2015 at 10:46 am

        That’s what it looks like, but “no true Scotsman” is one of those arguments that is usually a fallacy but not always, so I figured I would ask. But yeah, you’re probably right.

        And now that I think about it, I also want to ask Larry Stauber: What exactly do you mean by “reactionary”?

  • SandPen  On November 30, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Agree with your conclusion on the long-term remedy but that doesn’t remove the near-term concern of giving the Democrats that opportunity. For all the interesting analyses of Fascism, it doesn’t remove the fact that its current leader is potentially as dangerous a narcissist as Hitler.

    • Tom Hutchinson  On November 30, 2015 at 12:45 pm

      Clear up this statement please. Who is “its” leader?
      Thank you.

  • Jeff Rosenberg  On November 30, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    Thank you for an empirically-based interpretive analysis of such an important political dynamic in the USA. In my learning about slavery (see e.g., “Our Man in Charleston: Britain’s Secret Agent in the Civil War South”), I’m intrigued by the underlying current of fear at the time such as a massive slave revolt. The sense of threat, of “these others” stealing/taking/claiming what is ‘yours’, appears to be ever-present. The threat of “those others,” even while forfeiting or losing what is yours (as you mention with Kynect), speaks to a tendency towards tribalism that is so fundamental that it trumps self-interest and logic.

  • Chalky  On November 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm

    “In the long run, I can only see one way out of this trend: Democrats need to offer a program that will genuinely do something for the working class, in the same way that the New Deal headed off American fascism in the 1930s”.

    But what is that? We’re losing jobs to technological displacement and offshoring, not just to a temporary recession.

    • Philippe Saner  On November 30, 2015 at 6:06 pm

      Massive infrastructure spending and universal basic income might be a good start.

      America needs infrastructure repair, and basic income helps people survive in a world where their work is no longer necessary.

      Some kind of anti-Wall-Street action would be a crowd-pleaser. Hard to do something like that in a genuinely constructive way though.

      • Chalky  On December 2, 2015 at 10:13 am

        Agree with the infrastructure, but not sure this country has the resources to support a universal income, or whether that would be a good idea.

        I don’t think we need an anti-Wall Street action, so much as an anti-future-financial-crash action. I.e. basic safeguards to prevent poor investment decisions from destabilizing the economy.

    • Anonymous  On November 30, 2015 at 6:08 pm

      “What is that?” Is what the left needs to figure out. That’s where we need to be looking, even if we don’t know the answer yet.

      • Maud Essen  On November 30, 2015 at 9:38 pm

        Thank you for this essay and discussion! In addition to renovating our infrastructure, we need to invest massive effort in repurposing the economy to function successfully on non-fossil sources. These are the jobs that will provide wages for the working class and start to rebuild the middle class. If you don’t like what’s going on in our society and elsewhere in the world when the permanent-war is just over access to oil, imagine what society will become when we’re fighting over access to clean air, potable water, and food.

      • Nico Ruesch  On December 24, 2015 at 4:25 am

        ““What is that?” Is what the left needs to figure out. That’s where we need to be looking, even if we don’t know the answer yet.” Exactly!

  • ARob  On November 30, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    The desire to humiliate to relive humiliation is by no means restricted to conservatives. I’m currently reading “Year Zero, a History of 1945” by Ian Buruma that has a chapter entitled “Revenge”. After the official end of the war, both left wing and right wing groups engaged in humiliating their “inferiors”. I agree that it is a common trait in fascism, but it is a universally human trait.

    • ARob  On November 30, 2015 at 3:33 pm

      Make that “the desire to humiliate to relieve humiliation.”

      • Jeff Rosenberg  On November 30, 2015 at 4:29 pm

        I like “relive” as it underscores the need to repeat that which hasn’t been accepted and processed — to use Freud’s term, “repetition compulsion.”

    • weeklysift  On December 1, 2015 at 5:53 am

      I agree that it’s a human trait. A lot of what’s in fascism are common human traits, emphasized and organized in a particular way.

  • Anonymous  On November 30, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    I dunno if it would help this strong essay, but, I missed discussion of the relationship between government and the corporation in the effort to pin down the fascist (corporatist?) ideal. The Tea Party astroturf would never have been so green without assistance and support of these monkey-wrenching efforts by the captains of industry.

  • Rebecca (@Geaux_RC)  On November 30, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    One of my professors in college said that defining fascism was like nailing jello to a wall – it’s messy and good luck making it stick. An excellent article that elaborates on that concept (for lack of a better word) and its connection to American politics. I’d give you a standing ovation if you could see me!

  • coastcontact  On December 1, 2015 at 1:46 am

    I didn’t need you to tell me that Trump and most of the GOP candidates are spouting Fascist ideas and points of view. I titled my piece “Is the United States Becoming a Nazi Replica?”

    -Doctor Ben Carson: ‘We should have a database on everybody’

    -Donald Trump told NBC News there should be a database of all Muslims.

    -Senator Ted Cruz agrees with Donald Trump. He would winnow the field of acceptable refugees down to only Christian Syrians, similar to what Jeb Bush proposes.

    -Kasich on Syrian Refugees: ‘We Don’t Know Who They Are, Where They Come From’

    -There’s nothing outrageous about barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. unless they pass background checks, Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said on “The Kelly File.”

    The question is what are thinking Americans to do? They have frightened me to the point that I am contemplating a move out of the USA if any of these mad men become president.

    The second question is can Hillary Clinton win the White House? Historically the control of the White House has changed every four to eight years. I am not concerned with the people reading this blog. The hysterical like love of Donald Trump that seems to be growing, and does remind me of Hitler, that says the United States as we have known it may be coming to an end.

    • weeklysift  On December 1, 2015 at 5:59 am

      I’m a bit more hopeful. The Republican candidates are competing for the voters most likely to show up for a Republican primary election. That skews the discussion, and skews our perception of which arguments are succeeding.

      In 2012, Mitt Romney sailed a careful course, tacking just far enough right to win the nomination, then trying to swerve back to the center for the general election. It didn’t quite work. Whoever comes out of the 2016 Republican process is going to have taken a lot of positions far to the right of where Romney was. I think they’ll have a hard time appealing to the full electorate. But we’ll see.

  • Eileen Wilkinson  On December 2, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    Best analysis I have seen on the popularity of Trump and his ilk. Scary, though!

  • Nancy Banks  On December 6, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    More fodder for your argument Some of the material I get from my right-wing brother makes me cringe such as this recent post:
    Wow..what a litany of charges voiced by Mike Gallagher radio talk show host.. You may not agree with all of Gallagher’s charges..But it is his (Mike’s) comments for you to believe or not to believe…John e B


    Nobody wants to hear it, but it’s pretty convincing…
    When you start producing lists like this it becomes increasingly more difficult to believe in our President.


    Mike Gallagher is the 8th most recognized
    talk radio personality in the country, and is heard by over 2.25
    million listeners weekly. He compiled and wrote the following essay
    entitled, “Obama: It was You.”

    President Obama:

    This is why you didn’t go to France to
    show solidarity against the Muslim terrorists:

    It was you who spoke these words at an
    Islamic dinner – “I am one of you.”
    It was you who on ABC News referenced
    -“My Muslim faith.”
    It was you who gave $100 million in US
    taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
    It was you who wrote that in the event
    of a conflict – “I will stand with the Muslims.”
    It was you who assured the Egyptian
    Foreign Minister that – “I am a Muslim.”
    It was you who bowed in submission
    before the Saudi King.
    It was you who sat for 20 years in a
    Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing
    It was you who exempted Muslims from
    penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to
    It was you who purposefully omitted –
    “endowed by our Creator ” – from your recitation of The Declaration Of
    It was you who mocked the Bible and
    Jesus Christ’s Sermon On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the
    ‘HOLY’ Qur’an.
    It was you who traveled the Islamic
    world denigrating the United States Of America.
    It was you who instantly threw the
    support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero
    Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade
    It was you who refused to attend the
    National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer
    breakfast at the White House.
    It was you who ordered Georgetown Univ.
    and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would
    agree to go there to speak but, in contrast, you have NEVER requested
    that the mosques you have visited to adjust their
    It was you who appointed anti-Christian
    fanatics to your Czar Corps.
    It was you who appointed rabid Islamists
    to Homeland Security.
    It was you who said that NASA’s
    “foremost mission” was an outreach to Muslim
    It was you who, as an Illinois
    ‘Senator’, was the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of
    It was you who were the first
    ‘president’ not to give a Christmas Greeting from the White House, and
    went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH
    It was you who curtailed the military
    tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
    It was you who refused to condemn the
    Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
    It is you who has refused to speak-out
    concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim
    culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation
    of hypothetical human-rights abuses.
    It was you who, when queried in India,
    refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists,
    and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and
    the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists
    It was you who funneled $900 Million in US taxpayer
    dollars to Hamas.
    It was you who ordered the USPS to honor
    the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative
    It was you who directed our UK Embassy
    to conduct outreach to help “empower” the British Muslim
    It was you who funded mandatory Arabic
    language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our

    • Philippe Saner  On December 6, 2015 at 4:51 pm

      [Citation needed]

      Because I don’t recognize most of the stuff in that rant, and the parts I do recognize I recognize as BS. Makes it hard to trust the rest, especially with absolutely no supporting evidence.

  • mysanal  On December 8, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    Reblogged this on Mysa and commented:
    This scares the hell out of me.

  • Sam Wight  On December 12, 2015 at 3:28 pm differs somewhat on your take. Both were good reads.


  • By Immature Forms | The Weekly Sift on November 30, 2015 at 11:24 am

    […] This week’s featured post is “The Political F-word: When and how should we talk about fascism?“ […]

  • By Fascism? | Rturpin's Blog on December 2, 2015 at 11:03 am

    […] generated a discussion of fascism, even if he isn’t rightly a fascist. Doug Muder does a good job of digging into what fascism is, if anything, and what relationship it has to the angry right that […]

  • […] The Political F-word: When and how should we talk about fascism? by Doug Muder for The Weekly Sift. […]

  • By Thoughts and Prayers | The Weekly Sift on December 7, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    […] week’s post about fascism, “The Political F-word“, had one of the best first weeks in Weekly Sift history: At 7700 hits so far, it’s […]

  • By How Republicans Trumped Themselves | The Weekly Sift on December 14, 2015 at 7:56 am

    […] of people willing to describe Trump as either a racist or a fascist — a term I discussed two weeks ago. But whatever you think of that usage, the undeniable racists and fascists have started welcoming […]

  • […] myself describing the difference between hucksters (Trump) and crackpots (Carson). I looked at models of fascism, and discussed how the Trump campaign did or didn’t fit them. I tried to figure out what […]

  • By The Yearly Sift: 2015 | The Weekly Sift on December 28, 2015 at 10:12 am

    […] about the proper usage (and non-usage) of words like nigger and bitch; (13K hits); and “The Political F-word” (10K hits), which compared Donald Trump’s campaign and following to various models of […]

  • By JaxMurals | Donald Trump Banner in Riverside on January 8, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    […] people think he is what this country needs, others see him as a fascist comparing him to Hitler. This vandalism is a clear display of that idea, staring right into the […]

  • By Standing Up | The Weekly Sift on January 18, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    […] while I’m on that subject (again), here’s a fascinating historical tidbit from Robert O. Paxton’s The Anatomy of […]

  • By Trump is an opportunistic infection | The Weekly Sift on February 29, 2016 at 8:35 am

    […] had to expel anybody who dog-whistled about Obama, there’d be no party left. Are there echoes of fascism in his giant rallies and cult of personality? In his celebration of real and imaginary violence […]

  • By Peak Drumpf | The Weekly Sift on March 7, 2016 at 8:59 am

    […] message that’s emerging: Not that Trump is crude (which he is) or racist (which he is) or a proto-fascist (which he is) or unprepared for the presidency (which he is) or any of that. But he’s a […]

  • […] either does or doesn’t fit into the recent history of the conservative movement, whether his authoritarian appeal represents some kind of danger to democracy, and so on.Those questions may be interesting in their own right, but answering them involves […]

  • By With Some Exceptions | The Weekly Sift on November 7, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    […] nearly a year, I’ve been wavering over whether fascist is the right word for Trump. (There are similarities and differences.) But forget the semantics and look at what we can see: […]

  • […] had to expel anybody who dog-whistled about Obama, they’d have no party left. Are there echoes of fascism in his giant rallies and cult of personality? In his celebration of real and imaginary violence […]

  • By Plagues | The Weekly Sift on July 19, 2021 at 12:29 pm

    […] in 2015, I wrote an article examining why it made sense to use the word fascist when discussing Trump, and how his candidacy was the result of fascistic themes mainstream […]

  • […] hurling an insult at him the way they might hurl eggs at a detested speaker. Or they could have a reasonable definition of fascism that fits Trump like a glove, as well as capturing key traits that made Hitler and Mussolini what they […]

  • By McMinn County’s Maus Problem | The Weekly Sift on January 31, 2022 at 9:32 am

    […] Jews-in-general the victims, and I can kind of see that. Especially in the current climate, when actual fascism is raising its head in America, and Nazi propaganda tropes about manipulative Jewish moneymen are […]

  • By The Monday Morning Teaser | The Weekly Sift on September 5, 2022 at 8:50 am

    […] started applying the F-word to Trump in 2015. At the time, I felt an obligation to define what I meant and why I thought the word applied, so […]

  • […] 2015, I felt obligated to write an article describing what I meant by “fascism” before I started using the word. I boiled it down to these key […]

  • […] For comparison, before I started referring to Trump as a fascist, I wrote an article explaining what I mean by that term. I don’t carry all my writings in my head, though, so if you stopped me on the sidewalk and […]

  • By Why fascism? Why now? | The Weekly Sift on April 17, 2023 at 10:55 am

    […] to argue about whether to call this worldwide movement “fascism”. I’ve explained why I do, but if you’d rather reserve the word for Hitler, Mussolini, et al, that’s fine. Trump, […]

  • By Not Silent | The Weekly Sift on April 17, 2023 at 12:11 pm

    […] they failed to break torture, and we have since been able to reclaim fascism, a word that has a lot of work to do these days. In 2021, I updated my 2014 analysis to include […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: