Though a conservative, I am not a MAGA guy. Far from it. But this ploy of painting Trump as Hitler reincarnate who is going to throw the entire staff of MSNBC in to concentration camps and shoot Rachel Maddow has spilled the banks of bullshitery to flood Delusionland.
Don't like Trump personally, but for many of the reasons you listed am not concerned with a second term. I voted for him because current democrats seem like pure evil and I feel the people Trump is aligning himself with have diverse ideologies and are all genuine people. I'm not confident the first amendment would survive a Kamala presidency.
You’re worried about the first amendment and you support the candidate that openly wants to criminalize flag burning. Trump also has a big problem with the press as we have constantly seen, do you feel confident that he supports freedom of the press? Even the Supreme Court would say flag burning falls under the protections of the first amendment. I just don’t understand.
Trump says dumb things "off the cuff". I personally don't believe he will do anything like ban flag burning, most of it are often exaggerated for his MAGA base. The things I have heard from democrats sound pretty genuine, they do not want people to speak their minds. They have actively been trying to control free speech. I am measuring the actions of the left vs actions of the right. Left is way worse in my personal opinion, you don't need to agree.
I am a Christian conservative and possibly even MAGA. Although I don’t like labels, what I have seen from Trump in the past 5-6 months has made me a believer. I don’t agree with the Trump of 2020, at all or everything he said and does. I appreciate the people he has surrounding him, but I do not delusionally support him. I do love his fight for our country though. My faith is in Jesus and I won’t have fear in either outcomes.
I’m sure I’m not your normal supporter, but Ana I have grown to appreciate you so much. I look for your insight and perspective. I’m pretty sure you are up against a wave of anger and frustration, and I am so sorry for that. From either side. I’m pretty sure I’m older than you, but you remind me of like a wise Auntie. Thank you for being you and what you are doing. There are conservatives who have their eyes and ears open. Many blessings to you…. Julia
Ana I just subscribed. Thank you for being an independent voice in this crazy world of politics. While this interview confirms my belief that we are in a hopeless situation I did appreciate someone else saying it. I really needed to hear your opinion Friday on Trumps comments about Liz Chaney. I obviously am not a supporter of his but I can’t believe people thought what he said was a death threat an AZ is now trying to charge him. He clearly was saying if she had to go to war she would not be eager to send others! I totally agree. I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. We CAN criticize people without twisting their words…..right?
Danielle, you are totally right and I'm actually writing something up about it right now. I should have something published by tonight or tomorrow morning for paid subs. Thank you for your support and quest for truthful reporting.
I think Fascism is one of those words that gets tossed around a lot, but I honestly couldn’t define it. I’m not going to get lost in the semantics of whether or not Trump fits the criteria of a fascist, whatever that definition is (I seriously can’t find an agreement on the definition).
However, I do know that Trump constantly praises authoritarians, he constantly tries to create his own reality whether it’s by lying or denouncing any negative media, and I think he is completely serious about using the United States military against its own people. He’s said other questionable things about making flag burning a crime which is actually a violation of the first amendment in every way. It’s also not clear if he’s serious about locking up his political opponents or going after what he calls “fake news”. There’s also the weird little things that Trump has in common with authoritarians like his obsession with crowd sizes or his focus on “good genes”. Then of course he quite literally tried to steal an election and didn’t respect the democratic process. Trumps obsession with loyalty is also disturbing. The way he completely turns on people who aren’t 100% loyal to him shows how he doesn’t tolerate any form of dissent. He’s also supported by self identifying Nazis and White Nationalists. There’s so much other stuff that I could mention.
Long story short, I’m not sure if Trump should be considered a fascist, but people are absolutely right to call him dangerous. At the very least, Trump has a lot of overlap with other authoritarians. We are lucky that Trump is stupid and incompetent and that so many of the people he worked with refused to do his bidding. This makes his very bizarre choice of JD Vance as a running mate concerning though. Vance reeks of ambition and associates with very disturbing people like Peter Thiel who seems to not agree with the idea of democracy. So many competent and dangerous people seem to have learned that sucking up to Trump is a great way to get in a place of power.
I don’t think people are being hyperbolic when they bring attention to the danger that Trump is to our country. Whether fascist is the right word or not hardly matters. None of his actions should be downplayed.
I will just copy and paste a response I sent to Ana, cause i don’t want to rewrite the whole thing. “ We conflate fascism with other movements way too much. Fascism is a very specific ideology and form of governance. Many times, even historians for the sake of simplicity will conflate fascism with other “Third Way” political movements of the early 20th century when they are in fact, separate from one another.
I have studied National Syndicalism, Fascism, and National Socialism at a doctorate level, as well as other ideologies of that era, and they are all different. There are very stark differences between Fascism and Nazism. By taking a contrasting the two, anyone reading should have a clear understanding of both, and therefore recognize what they are and what they aren’t.
The only real working example of fascism we have is Mussolini’s tenure between 1922 and 1938. I say 1938, because that was the year that Italy and Germany signed the Pact of Steel, and after that, fascism sort of died, and morphed into a wishy washier form of National Socialism, due to Hitler’s complete and total domination over Mussolini and Italy, in terms of military power and geo political clout.
Fascism was the first of the “Third Way” movements. The third way, was the idea that the left and the right were not the only ways. At this point in history, the Bolshevik revolution had just occurred and communist and socialist dictatorships had popped up around Eastern Europe, and traditional fiscal conservatism and republics dominated much of the Western world. The rise of fascism rose in Italy, after the nation felt high hatted by the U.S., Britain, and France right after World War One. Mussolini himself had been a socialist, but was very irritated with the rigidness of the international sway the Communists in Russia had over the Italian Socialist Party and to a further extent, globally. He broke with the party, and formed his own.
Without continuing into a 100 page essay on the complete history of its rise, his ideas and fascism in practice, had both right wing and left wing components. One component of fascism economically, is complete government domination over private industry AND over unions. While the government would not and never aspired to completely take over most industries, the government dominated those industries so thoroughly that they may as well had just seized them. They essentially controlled corporations and what they produced and at what price. They also controlled unions in the same manner, except they went further in many cases, making unions part of the government. This allowed them to control wages, making it impossible for corporations to produce products without government consent. The reasoning was for the good of the “public”, which on paper is the state, as the people make up the state. These were ran by the Ministry of Corporations.
Another core tenet of fascism is militarism. Regaining former colonial glory, which feeds into the nationalist side of it all. It also gives people a sense of pride. Many people of random jobs would wear a military style uniform, which gives everyone sense of belonging, power, and self importance. Quite frankly, this is something the Italian people had not had in generations. They had been a beaten people for centuries. Losing to every historical nation left and right on the battlefield, without major international industries, and little geo political importance.
These are some of the many basic things that national socialism and fascism have in common. However, here are differences. Fascism by itself is not a racist ideology. There was racism against black people for instance, however that wasn’t due to fascism. There always has been, and still is today, a strangely large portion of native Italians, especially in the lower regions like Sicily, who still resent an entire race over the conquest of the Moors.
To make the point, before 1938, when Hitler began to dominate Italy, Anti Semitism and racism beyond that wasn’t prevalent in Italy. In fact, Jewish people held positions of power in Mussolini’s government and thousands of Jews were voluntarily and happily part of the party. One of Mussolini’s mistresses was a Jew. Cultural Fascism was about Italians maintaining traditional Italian culture, which by itself is not a problem, however the government would not allow non Italian culture to exist at all within its nations borders. It therefore was also extremely anti immigration from pretty much anywhere. The issue of culture was enforced by the Ministry of Popular Culture.
Fascism also did not see the mass extermination of peoples on the levels you might imagine. That would change as Hitler became involved and Nazism would dominate. Reporters were jailed, and opposition leaders were killed, but it was comparatively rare. This is because the entire point of fascism is to have no opposition. And to be fair, there wasn’t much in Italy. It doesn’t work with much opposition, bc the point is that it is other nations who have put yours down, not those from within. So it’s an ideology with an outside enemy that the nation must fight, not one from within, which is very different from National Socialism.
Fascism is not so much a dictatorship as you might think. One must remember, the Grand Council of Fascism removed Mussolini from power, and if a foreign power (Germany) that pretty much controlled Italy at that point, had not had them executed by foreign soldiers (Germans), then Mussolini would stayed deposed. The Grand Council of Fascism had a lot more power than most think. Mussolini sat as its founder, spokesperson and leader, but votes were taken. The nation was ran by a tiny board of fascist leaders, rather than just one man.
Fascism is nationalistic, militaristic, and xenophobic. The whole goal was to restore former Roman Imperialism with complete unity among the people. Whereas with National Socialism the entire idea is to eliminate Jewish people to create living space for Aryans.
Nazis believed that the Jews controlled all of the world. They controlled capitalism and communism. They were not capitalist like many say. They had “private industries”, but not really. Same thing as the fascists. They controlled all the private industries behind closed doors. The government controlled prices, wages, what was manufactured and regularly took over factories when owners would not cooperate.
Anyway, the whole idea was that Jewish people created capitalism to create economic disparity and divide, to push people towards communism. Then since the Jews also controlled communism according to the Nazis, everyone would fall under the grip of a global Jewish dictatorship. Pretty out there stuff. Mussolini actually called Hitler a “mad man” when he first read Mein Kampf. So with National Socialism it’s all about race and murdering those who seek to destroy from the inside. Which is very different from socialism. Their economic system was similar and the way they dressed, but that’s about it.
The ideologies come from two separate perspectives entirely. Because they were Allies we conflate them, but that has led us to not really even know what they are. Anyway, anyone reading this can figure out, Niether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris are Fascists or Nazis.”
You may think they are authoritarian. But these again, are two specific ideologies that have meanings, specific practices, and political goals. They share some aims with other political movements throughout history, both left and right, however they are their own thing, relegated currently to their own place in history.
No. Not dumb. Politically or monetarily motivated maybe. But not dumb however. Not even one of them would challenge anything I wrote, except for my conclusion. However neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris have or show any signs attempted global domination nor any real kind of actual expansionism, nor will or have either attempted to have the government take over the private sector through price controls and such or absorb unions into govt bodies. Both are core parts of fascism and national socialism. In order to have complete control of society, one must subvert all other powerful interests in the nation. That’s also common in other forms of actual totalitarian governments, such as syndicalism and communism, however communists seize all private property rather than do so behind closed doors. Regardless of the methods, without such actions, reaching a true totalitarian government is almost impossible. Expansionism is also an important tenet of both ideologies as seen in practice and rhetoric. Whether it’s regaining long lost territories (Fascism) or more space for a particular race (National socialism), it’s an undeniable part of both ideologies. Again, neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris are for that. Therefore, neither can be that.
To further make the point, to be a Nazi, you believe in wiping out other races out of existence or making them subservient. In order to do that, other lands must be taken, bc after the local “problem” is dealt with, there will be a “threat” from the others. This leads to everywhere else being needing to be conquered. It’s the natural evolution of the ideology. It’s something discussed by everyone from Goebbels to Himmler to Goring, to Hitler. Hitler talks about Germany is for Germans as a primary issue, but as he would put it, the “global jewry” must be eliminated. It’s all in Mein Kampf. It was carried out in practice. This is what actual Nazis believe.
Fascism is very much dead, as it only can exist in practice, in a nation which has lost its former glory. The whole idea behind its nationalism, is restore a lost empire. A fascist leader creates the cult of personality, outlaws other cultures, and enhances the traditional culture of the nation, and squelches free speech to ensure the masses are blindly behind the imperial goals of the leadership. This is why fascism would not work in America. We have lost no territory. We are the same size we have been since World War Two. We go through periods of decline and periods of heights, but we still are a superpower even if we are in decline. For fascism to work, a nation can’t just be in decline, it has to have lost everything. You could argue Trump says that we are in decline and plays on nationalist sentiment, but that’s not unique. Most politicians since the beginning of time have done, including most Democrats and republicans in the history of our nation. That in itself is not fascism.
Fascists and Nazis have different reasons for being militaristic however they both are. National Socialists lie about their aims, as they are much more unpalatable to a general populace. That is why the Third Reich’s leaders said Poland attacked them, and things like Czechoslovakia wanted to join them. It was really to carry out mass murder and then steal resources to further their mass murder in other regions. No serious person would ever argue that Trump or Harris want to take over the entire world to exterminate entire races in every nation and continent. Therefore they are not Nazis.
Just the same as since Kamala Harris doesn’t want to take over all private property, no one can seriously allege she is a communist.
The historical record is very clear. One only needs to do unbiased research of the components of fascism and national socialism to understand what they are. Anyone can do that. You can do it yourself. All it takes is a lot of time and research. Look up the policies of Volksgemeinschaft and Lebensraum. Look up the policy Spazio Vitale. Research these and decide for yourself whether Trump or Harris fit the bill. I know you won’t. Anyone who says that they do are being paid to or are politically motivated. It’s that simple. There are zero experts that actually think that either of them are Fascists or National Socialists.
It’s totally fair to think that Trump might want to be a dictator. I don’t think that personally. I think he has a massive ego and can’t stand losing. But it’s not unfair to think such things. However, as you’ll find, he’s definitely not a Nazi or Fascist.
Sorry to blow you up in the comments, but you can obviously see that I am passionate about this lol. Also, look up Giuseppe Bottai and research his life until he, along with the rest of Italy, came under the influence of Germany and National Socialism. After that, period as I have previously pointed out, Fascism died and became a half hearted National Socialism. He is an important figure in understanding expansionism. It is he who said that Italians would “illuminate the world with their art, educate it with their knowledge, and give robust structure to their new territories with their administrative technique and ability". Very similar to the Romans goal.
Another good look up is Giovanni Gentile, another prominent fascist philosopher and one the most prominent members of the National Fascist Party.
Thank you, Ana and Daniel, for an excellent and informative interview. The word "fascist" has become an ill-defined pejorative that Democrats love to hurl at Trump just as he calls his opponents Communists and Marxists when they clearly are not. As Daniel pointed out, the only real example of actual fascism we have seen is the Mussolini government in Italy. I realize that language and, specifically, the meaning of individual words, changes over time. But the policies of Donald Trump and, perhaps more importantly, the policies of Project 2025, are clearly not fascist. I believe it would be more accurate to describe those policies as steps towards "pure capitalism," unhampered by government regulations.
I was distressed by your argument with Cenk about the word "fascist," but even more so by the outrageous response from some people on the left. I am sure that you will not let these attacks change what you do or what you say or what you believe.
You are a journalist - a reporter - and your job is to tell the truth. Don't let anyone stop you, please!
Maybe you’ve just latched onto something. Given all the hype I am fairly well convinced that there is no common definition for fascist that would apply to Trump or anyone else.
In a recent poll, 50% of the public called trump a fascist when given the definition. I think he can be called a fascist by many definitions, but this is an opinion
I don't think Fascist is an easily definable word like American or citizen. Some experts think Trump is a fascist and some don't. And some experts have different definitions than others. There's not really a good way to prove it.
My opinion is that if it there are some experts on the matter saying it, then it no longer belongs in the realm of "crazy".
The political effects of repeating such a claim is a different matter. But on a moral basis, I have no problem with someone calling him a fascist
I do worry that if people genuinely do think he's a fascist they'll take physical/violent action against him, which has already happened to some extent with the second attempt on his life. Had either one of those guys been successful in assassinating Trump all hell would break loose. That's one of my main concerns with throwing these scary terms around that give the impression that he's some 20th Century European-style fascist. But I do think he has authoritarian traits.
I will agree that the word fascism in public discourse seems to be primarily used as an epithet rather than an academic explanation of Trump's brand of politics. Therefore, such uses of an emotionally-packed term can be deemed irresponsible. No matter how valid the claim of fascism is, I think such phrases cause alarm bells to go off in people's brains that ultimately hampers their ability to reason.
This is probably why people like that one politician mistakenly believed that Trump said he would put her a death camp. She heard the word "fascist" and magically conjured in her head all these things we historically associate with the term. A more fruitful conversation is probably isolating the elements of Trumpism one considers especially troubling and coming up with valid solutions for stopping such things.
Courtney, not to creep you out or anything, but I love your mind and appreciate your input. You're reasonable and never fail to be thought provoking. Thank you!
Hey Ana, I had responded to a thread on x where ppl were really trying to get under skin on this issue, and you may have seen it but probably not. The other nights edition of TYT was one of the most frustrating I’ve ever seen. Cenk’s argument was silly, and made me want to jump through my phone screen when he asked for a definition. I haven’t watched the podcast yet, and maybe the Historian addressed what I’m gonna write, but I want to get my two cents in lol.
We conflate fascism with other movements way too much. Fascism is a very specific ideology and form of governance. Many times, even historians for the sake of simplicity will conflate fascism with other “Third Way” political movements of the early 20th century when they are in fact, separate from one another.
I have studied National Syndicalism, Fascism, and National Socialism at a doctorate level, as well as other ideologies of that era, and they are all different. There are very stark differences between Fascism and Nazism. By taking a contrasting the two, anyone reading should have a clear understanding of both, and therefore recognize what they are and what they aren’t.
The only real working example of fascism we have is Mussolini’s tenure between 1922 and 1938. I say 1938, because that was the year that Italy and Germany signed the Pact of Steel, and after that, fascism sort of died, and morphed into a wishy washier form of National Socialism, due to Hitler’s complete and total domination over Mussolini and Italy, in terms of military power and geo political clout.
Fascism was the first of the “Third Way” movements. The third way, was the idea that the left and the right were not the only ways. At this point in history, the Bolshevik revolution had just occurred and communist and socialist dictatorships had popped up around Eastern Europe, and traditional fiscal conservatism and republics dominated much of the Western world. The rise of fascism rose in Italy, after the nation felt high hatted by the U.S., Britain, and France right after World War One. Mussolini himself had been a socialist, but was very irritated with the rigidness of the international sway the Communists in Russia had over the Italian Socialist Party and to a further extent, globally. He broke with the party, and formed his own.
Without continuing into a 100 page essay on the complete history of its rise, his ideas and fascism in practice, had both right wing and left wing components. One component of fascism economically, is complete government domination over private industry AND over unions. While the government would not and never aspired to completely take over most industries, the government dominated those industries so thoroughly that they may as well had just seized them. They essentially controlled corporations and what they produced and at what price. They also controlled unions in the same manner, except they went further in many cases, making unions part of the government. This allowed them to control wages, making it impossible for corporations to produce products without government consent. The reasoning was for the good of the “public”, which on paper is the state, as the people make up the state. These were ran by the Ministry of Corporations.
Another core tenet of fascism is militarism. Regaining former colonial glory, which feeds into the nationalist side of it all. It also gives people a sense of pride. Many people of random jobs would wear a military style uniform, which gives everyone sense of belonging, power, and self importance. Quite frankly, this is something the Italian people had not had in generations. They had been a beaten people for centuries. Losing to every historical nation left and right on the battlefield, without major international industries, and little geo political importance.
These are some of the many basic things that national socialism and fascism have in common. However, here are differences. Fascism by itself is not a racist ideology. There was racism against black people for instance, however that wasn’t due to fascism. There always has been, and still is today, a strangely large portion of native Italians, especially in the lower regions like Sicily, who still resent an entire race over the conquest of the Moors.
To make the point, before 1938, when Hitler began to dominate Italy, Anti Semitism and racism beyond that wasn’t prevalent in Italy. In fact, Jewish people held positions of power in Mussolini’s government and thousands of Jews were voluntarily and happily part of the party. One of Mussolini’s mistresses was a Jew. Cultural Fascism was about Italians maintaining traditional Italian culture, which by itself is not a problem, however the government would not allow non Italian culture to exist at all within its nations borders. It therefore was also extremely anti immigration from pretty much anywhere. The issue of culture was enforced by the Ministry of Popular Culture.
Fascism also did not see the mass extermination of peoples on the levels you might imagine. That would change as Hitler became involved and Nazism would dominate. Reporters were jailed, and opposition leaders were killed, but it was comparatively rare. This is because the entire point of fascism is to have no opposition. And to be fair, there wasn’t much in Italy. It doesn’t work with much opposition, bc the point is that it is other nations who have put yours down, not those from within. So it’s an ideology with an outside enemy that the nation must fight, not one from within, which is very different from National Socialism.
Fascism is not so much a dictatorship as you might think. One must remember, the Grand Council of Fascism removed Mussolini from power, and if a foreign power (Germany) that pretty much controlled Italy at that point, had not had them executed by foreign soldiers (Germans), then Mussolini would stayed deposed. The Grand Council of Fascism had a lot more power than most think. Mussolini sat as its founder, spokesperson and leader, but votes were taken. The nation was ran by a tiny board of fascist leaders, rather than just one man.
Fascism is nationalistic, militaristic, and xenophobic. The whole goal was to restore former Roman Imperialism with complete unity among the people. Whereas with National Socialism the entire idea is to eliminate Jewish people to create living space for Aryans.
Nazis believed that the Jews controlled all of the world. They controlled capitalism and communism. They were not capitalist like many say. They had “private industries”, but not really. Same thing as the fascists. They controlled all the private industries behind closed doors. The government controlled prices, wages, what was manufactured and regularly took over factories when owners would not cooperate.
Anyway, the whole idea was that Jewish people created capitalism to create economic disparity and divide, to push people towards communism. Then since the Jews also controlled communism according to the Nazis, everyone would fall under rhetorical grip of a global Jewish dictatorship. Pretty out there stuff. Mussolini actually called Hitler a “mad man” when he first read Mein Kampf. So with National Socialism it’s all about race and murdering those who seek to destroy from the inside. Which is very different from socialism. There economic system was similar and the way they dressed, but that’s about it.
The ideologies come from two separate perspectives entirely. Because they were Allies we conflate them, but that has led us to not really even know what they are. Anyway, anyone reading this can figure out, Niether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris ade Fascists or Nazis. Maybe this will help you explain to Cenk!
DAN! THANK YOU! I went to graduate school for Political Science, and I guess we're both getting frustrated because what people are saying conflicts with what we've learned through studying history. And I'll admit my "debate" with Cenk was humiliating for me because when I asked him "was Trump able to succeed" I was trying to get at the lack of action Trump took to foster a fascist state (i.e militarism/weakening and eliminating governing bodies). People think I said that because I think he's a fascist but it's ok because he failed, but that's not the case.
Yes it’s very irritating. No U.S. politician I can think of off the top of my head, in either party, is a fascist. I mean, maybe there is some obscure fringe person, but no one I can think of currently. It’s incredibly frustrating because words have meanings. To just throw around the word fascist all the time (both sides do this) completely eliminates the words meaning. It scares people. It manipulates people. It if we have no actual understanding of fascism, Nazism, syndicalism, communism etc etc, how are people supposed to know what it actually looks like when an actual fascist comes along? Beyond that, bc it is a false claim, it completely undermines media and political trust. It’s such a dumb thing to do and therefore important for people to stop doing. Specifically in places of power on both sides.
There are many who simply don't understand what fascism really is and/or what's wrong (on multiple levels) with claiming Trump's an "existential threat to democracy." Frankly, they're just regurgitating.
But no doubt, many of them wouldn't care or change even if they were made aware. And they'd arguably vote for anyone so long as it wasn't Trump. Of course, similar can be said for some Trump supporters. Zero critical thought on both sides, which is rampant these days.
Have you considered teeing up a podcast/discussion on how can anyone support a vote for Harris*, given ...
She's repeatedly been:
- woefully unprepared and unknowledgeable on critical topics
- unable to think on her feet
- unable to articulate substance in a coherent, intelligent, and confidence-inspiring manner
** as both VP and candidate for POTUS**
And lest anyone forgot, she dropped out early in her bid for the '20 presidential race because practically NOBODY supported her: 3-4% polling tops.
She wasn't even remotely close to Bernie, Biden, or Bloomberg. Even Buttigieg, who had only held the office of mayor in a SMALL city (population of ONLY 100K!!!) kicked her ass.
The ONLY reason Biden made her his VP pick was she's a "woman of color" and we all know it.
Both Biden and she have expressed she was instrumental in the important policy decisions/actions. OK, so can anyone claim with a straight face, backed with facts, that due to that admininstration, they're in a better position financially? That the U.S. interior is safer domestically? That international conflict hasn't risen? That the last four years have brought all of us closer together as a UNITED nation? That we're all enthusiastic about the "progress" that's been made the past 4yrs?
Last but not least, she couldnt articulate ONE thing she'd do differently than done under Biden's lead. Yet, SHE'S going to bring the transformative change that EVERYONE'S ready for.
I saw your attempted conversation with Cenk where he started yelling. The term nobody is talking about but should be, is "political extremism". Political extremism isn't just about committing violence. When Fox News smears democrats as communists, and when MSNBC and CNN accuse republicans of being fascists, they are engaging in political extremism as a smear campaign. I think the majority of the political extremism is coming from corporate media, intentionally using political extremism to use fear as a campaign strategy, but there are some smaller intellectual circles who write pseudo-histories, or revisionist histories, as a means of smearing their political enemies. Political extremism has always existed in America, but the rules of debate usually win historically. We need logic and debate rules to call out political extremism, because sometimes it actually does turn into violence.
January 6th,and the fake elector scheme,while pressuring SOS of Georgia and Mike Pence not to certify the 2020 election,seem pretty fascist.. Also,there is never going to be any substantial policy like FDR. America is already too rich of a country for any reasonably policy to move the needle on QOL to make any political impact, even the average African American is richer than the average person that lives in Europe.
Uh what? For one averages are a really bad way to measure wealth. The people in this country with net worths over 10 billion dollars can greatly bring up the average. An average says nothing about the inequality of the wealth in this country. I’m not sure how you’re living to be in a position to say that a policy wouldn’t move the needle on QoL, but speak for yourself. There’s a massive list of policies that would benefit so many Americans if passed today.
Look at Biden industrial policy,he built manufacturing plants all in red states,they are voting for Trump anyway,even though they admit the plants are good. Most Americans are well off,and even if some policies would improve QOL,it would not be enough to move the needle politically. There are people on medicaid and Obamacare,who are still going to vote for Trump.
Even if you concede that Trump, the man, is not a "studied" fascist, you must admit that the people who influence him (Steven Miller being the worst) believe in fascist ideas, right?
Love to watch your journey, Ana! Your chat with Chris Williamson drew me to subscribe to your substack. I’ve spent a lifetime unaligned and independent.
The basic premise of Bessner’s assessment of Trump is false. He describes him as “obviously xenophobic and racist”, which Ana, you readily accepted. This is false.
There is broad evidence of Trump throughout his private life supporting minorities and providing a world of opportunities for the disadvantaged, including legal immigrants. His opposition to a world view of open borders is no different than Clinton’s and Obama’s positions and policies in decades gone by.
Trump’s hyperbolic communication style certainly sounds over the top, highlighting egregious effects of uncontrolled immigration. He is a showman. So go ahead, call Clinton, Obama, Trump, and every president before Biden xenophobic. That has absolutely nothing to do with fascism. The only thing religious, or “fascist”, about Trump is his firm belief in America being the best, albeit imperfect, system and society on earth and his commitment to defend it.
Congress needs to do its job and legislate immigration policy that represents the values of all Americans, and whoever holds the Executive Branch needs to do their job and enforce those policies.
And the voting public needs to refocus on policies, not personalities or identity politics in this election. If you believe the Democrat Machine — with Biden and Kamala façades — has the country on the right track, go ahead and vote for them. If not, join Tulsi and RFK in what is shaping up to be a Unity Administration that can rid itself of the corruption on both Left and Right. Those are the policies that I’m voting for. Frankly, that’s how everyone who’s unaligned should vote in this election.
Yeah, Trump's not a Fascist, and the word is erroneously used for fear-mongering. (Unsuccessfully, I might add, unless you prescribe to the preaching to the choir gospel of rhetoric.) In the US, we don't need to look abroad for genocidal, sadistic, and bigoted politics and political leaders with oppressive leanings. The Nazis directly learned their horrific ways from our playbook but turned it down a notch at first because they thought we were too extreme. My dislike for Trump stems from his complete lack of respect for women, which is common among rapists, and what he says and allows to be said in his presence regarding Black and Brown people, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQIA2S+ people, people with disabilities, etc. While he may flip-flop and speak out of both sides of his mouth to get votes like most politicians, these aspects of his personality have been ever-present and make him, by my estimation, dangerous both personally and politically. If I wouldn't trust you alone with my kid, you're not getting my vote. I enjoyed this podcast and the attached article, thank you.
I have no interest in contributing to this discussion in any way. The only reason I’m posting this is your comment on the Nazis modeling their ways on activities in the US is intriguing and I was wondering if you have any more information on that. I have often thought that some of the atrocities committed during the Jim Crow era were as bad or worse than things I had heard about from the Holocaust.
I'm sorry it took me so long to respond! I gathered some links that you might be interested in. Also, Rachel Maddow has a podcast called Ultra and a book called Prequel with a ton of great information.
I’ve been on the fence about subscribing to your new Substack Ana, but you’ve pushed me over the top and I just signed up. I just can’t imagine having the courage that you’ve displayed in the last year. There is so much pressure to tow the political party line and for you to reject that premise and speak out regardless of the fallout is really special. I definitely don’t agree with you on a lot of things, but dammit you’ve won my heart.
An interesting discussion! The nuances of terminology, especially concerning a 'fascist' isn't something I've delved into before, so I very much enjoyed this discussion. I think the hate levelled at Ana for not wanting to describe Trump as fascist stems from the overuse of the term in modern discourse, and the strange notion that somehow this means she's supporting him ('cause he's still a terrible person and a bad candidate regardless of how his politics are categorized).
Though a conservative, I am not a MAGA guy. Far from it. But this ploy of painting Trump as Hitler reincarnate who is going to throw the entire staff of MSNBC in to concentration camps and shoot Rachel Maddow has spilled the banks of bullshitery to flood Delusionland.
Don't like Trump personally, but for many of the reasons you listed am not concerned with a second term. I voted for him because current democrats seem like pure evil and I feel the people Trump is aligning himself with have diverse ideologies and are all genuine people. I'm not confident the first amendment would survive a Kamala presidency.
You’re worried about the first amendment and you support the candidate that openly wants to criminalize flag burning. Trump also has a big problem with the press as we have constantly seen, do you feel confident that he supports freedom of the press? Even the Supreme Court would say flag burning falls under the protections of the first amendment. I just don’t understand.
Trump says dumb things "off the cuff". I personally don't believe he will do anything like ban flag burning, most of it are often exaggerated for his MAGA base. The things I have heard from democrats sound pretty genuine, they do not want people to speak their minds. They have actively been trying to control free speech. I am measuring the actions of the left vs actions of the right. Left is way worse in my personal opinion, you don't need to agree.
Great stuff. Keep challenging the "official" narrative. Keep trusting your readers to think for themselves.
I am a Christian conservative and possibly even MAGA. Although I don’t like labels, what I have seen from Trump in the past 5-6 months has made me a believer. I don’t agree with the Trump of 2020, at all or everything he said and does. I appreciate the people he has surrounding him, but I do not delusionally support him. I do love his fight for our country though. My faith is in Jesus and I won’t have fear in either outcomes.
I’m sure I’m not your normal supporter, but Ana I have grown to appreciate you so much. I look for your insight and perspective. I’m pretty sure you are up against a wave of anger and frustration, and I am so sorry for that. From either side. I’m pretty sure I’m older than you, but you remind me of like a wise Auntie. Thank you for being you and what you are doing. There are conservatives who have their eyes and ears open. Many blessings to you…. Julia
Welcome Juls! And thank you for the kind note and for keeping an open mind.
Ana I just subscribed. Thank you for being an independent voice in this crazy world of politics. While this interview confirms my belief that we are in a hopeless situation I did appreciate someone else saying it. I really needed to hear your opinion Friday on Trumps comments about Liz Chaney. I obviously am not a supporter of his but I can’t believe people thought what he said was a death threat an AZ is now trying to charge him. He clearly was saying if she had to go to war she would not be eager to send others! I totally agree. I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. We CAN criticize people without twisting their words…..right?
Danielle, you are totally right and I'm actually writing something up about it right now. I should have something published by tonight or tomorrow morning for paid subs. Thank you for your support and quest for truthful reporting.
I think Fascism is one of those words that gets tossed around a lot, but I honestly couldn’t define it. I’m not going to get lost in the semantics of whether or not Trump fits the criteria of a fascist, whatever that definition is (I seriously can’t find an agreement on the definition).
However, I do know that Trump constantly praises authoritarians, he constantly tries to create his own reality whether it’s by lying or denouncing any negative media, and I think he is completely serious about using the United States military against its own people. He’s said other questionable things about making flag burning a crime which is actually a violation of the first amendment in every way. It’s also not clear if he’s serious about locking up his political opponents or going after what he calls “fake news”. There’s also the weird little things that Trump has in common with authoritarians like his obsession with crowd sizes or his focus on “good genes”. Then of course he quite literally tried to steal an election and didn’t respect the democratic process. Trumps obsession with loyalty is also disturbing. The way he completely turns on people who aren’t 100% loyal to him shows how he doesn’t tolerate any form of dissent. He’s also supported by self identifying Nazis and White Nationalists. There’s so much other stuff that I could mention.
Long story short, I’m not sure if Trump should be considered a fascist, but people are absolutely right to call him dangerous. At the very least, Trump has a lot of overlap with other authoritarians. We are lucky that Trump is stupid and incompetent and that so many of the people he worked with refused to do his bidding. This makes his very bizarre choice of JD Vance as a running mate concerning though. Vance reeks of ambition and associates with very disturbing people like Peter Thiel who seems to not agree with the idea of democracy. So many competent and dangerous people seem to have learned that sucking up to Trump is a great way to get in a place of power.
I don’t think people are being hyperbolic when they bring attention to the danger that Trump is to our country. Whether fascist is the right word or not hardly matters. None of his actions should be downplayed.
I will just copy and paste a response I sent to Ana, cause i don’t want to rewrite the whole thing. “ We conflate fascism with other movements way too much. Fascism is a very specific ideology and form of governance. Many times, even historians for the sake of simplicity will conflate fascism with other “Third Way” political movements of the early 20th century when they are in fact, separate from one another.
I have studied National Syndicalism, Fascism, and National Socialism at a doctorate level, as well as other ideologies of that era, and they are all different. There are very stark differences between Fascism and Nazism. By taking a contrasting the two, anyone reading should have a clear understanding of both, and therefore recognize what they are and what they aren’t.
The only real working example of fascism we have is Mussolini’s tenure between 1922 and 1938. I say 1938, because that was the year that Italy and Germany signed the Pact of Steel, and after that, fascism sort of died, and morphed into a wishy washier form of National Socialism, due to Hitler’s complete and total domination over Mussolini and Italy, in terms of military power and geo political clout.
Fascism was the first of the “Third Way” movements. The third way, was the idea that the left and the right were not the only ways. At this point in history, the Bolshevik revolution had just occurred and communist and socialist dictatorships had popped up around Eastern Europe, and traditional fiscal conservatism and republics dominated much of the Western world. The rise of fascism rose in Italy, after the nation felt high hatted by the U.S., Britain, and France right after World War One. Mussolini himself had been a socialist, but was very irritated with the rigidness of the international sway the Communists in Russia had over the Italian Socialist Party and to a further extent, globally. He broke with the party, and formed his own.
Without continuing into a 100 page essay on the complete history of its rise, his ideas and fascism in practice, had both right wing and left wing components. One component of fascism economically, is complete government domination over private industry AND over unions. While the government would not and never aspired to completely take over most industries, the government dominated those industries so thoroughly that they may as well had just seized them. They essentially controlled corporations and what they produced and at what price. They also controlled unions in the same manner, except they went further in many cases, making unions part of the government. This allowed them to control wages, making it impossible for corporations to produce products without government consent. The reasoning was for the good of the “public”, which on paper is the state, as the people make up the state. These were ran by the Ministry of Corporations.
Another core tenet of fascism is militarism. Regaining former colonial glory, which feeds into the nationalist side of it all. It also gives people a sense of pride. Many people of random jobs would wear a military style uniform, which gives everyone sense of belonging, power, and self importance. Quite frankly, this is something the Italian people had not had in generations. They had been a beaten people for centuries. Losing to every historical nation left and right on the battlefield, without major international industries, and little geo political importance.
These are some of the many basic things that national socialism and fascism have in common. However, here are differences. Fascism by itself is not a racist ideology. There was racism against black people for instance, however that wasn’t due to fascism. There always has been, and still is today, a strangely large portion of native Italians, especially in the lower regions like Sicily, who still resent an entire race over the conquest of the Moors.
To make the point, before 1938, when Hitler began to dominate Italy, Anti Semitism and racism beyond that wasn’t prevalent in Italy. In fact, Jewish people held positions of power in Mussolini’s government and thousands of Jews were voluntarily and happily part of the party. One of Mussolini’s mistresses was a Jew. Cultural Fascism was about Italians maintaining traditional Italian culture, which by itself is not a problem, however the government would not allow non Italian culture to exist at all within its nations borders. It therefore was also extremely anti immigration from pretty much anywhere. The issue of culture was enforced by the Ministry of Popular Culture.
Fascism also did not see the mass extermination of peoples on the levels you might imagine. That would change as Hitler became involved and Nazism would dominate. Reporters were jailed, and opposition leaders were killed, but it was comparatively rare. This is because the entire point of fascism is to have no opposition. And to be fair, there wasn’t much in Italy. It doesn’t work with much opposition, bc the point is that it is other nations who have put yours down, not those from within. So it’s an ideology with an outside enemy that the nation must fight, not one from within, which is very different from National Socialism.
Fascism is not so much a dictatorship as you might think. One must remember, the Grand Council of Fascism removed Mussolini from power, and if a foreign power (Germany) that pretty much controlled Italy at that point, had not had them executed by foreign soldiers (Germans), then Mussolini would stayed deposed. The Grand Council of Fascism had a lot more power than most think. Mussolini sat as its founder, spokesperson and leader, but votes were taken. The nation was ran by a tiny board of fascist leaders, rather than just one man.
Fascism is nationalistic, militaristic, and xenophobic. The whole goal was to restore former Roman Imperialism with complete unity among the people. Whereas with National Socialism the entire idea is to eliminate Jewish people to create living space for Aryans.
Nazis believed that the Jews controlled all of the world. They controlled capitalism and communism. They were not capitalist like many say. They had “private industries”, but not really. Same thing as the fascists. They controlled all the private industries behind closed doors. The government controlled prices, wages, what was manufactured and regularly took over factories when owners would not cooperate.
Anyway, the whole idea was that Jewish people created capitalism to create economic disparity and divide, to push people towards communism. Then since the Jews also controlled communism according to the Nazis, everyone would fall under the grip of a global Jewish dictatorship. Pretty out there stuff. Mussolini actually called Hitler a “mad man” when he first read Mein Kampf. So with National Socialism it’s all about race and murdering those who seek to destroy from the inside. Which is very different from socialism. Their economic system was similar and the way they dressed, but that’s about it.
The ideologies come from two separate perspectives entirely. Because they were Allies we conflate them, but that has led us to not really even know what they are. Anyway, anyone reading this can figure out, Niether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris are Fascists or Nazis.”
You may think they are authoritarian. But these again, are two specific ideologies that have meanings, specific practices, and political goals. They share some aims with other political movements throughout history, both left and right, however they are their own thing, relegated currently to their own place in history.
Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism should be a required high school. Dictators come in all flavors.
Why are there fascism scholars that disagree with you? Are they dumb?
No. Not dumb. Politically or monetarily motivated maybe. But not dumb however. Not even one of them would challenge anything I wrote, except for my conclusion. However neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris have or show any signs attempted global domination nor any real kind of actual expansionism, nor will or have either attempted to have the government take over the private sector through price controls and such or absorb unions into govt bodies. Both are core parts of fascism and national socialism. In order to have complete control of society, one must subvert all other powerful interests in the nation. That’s also common in other forms of actual totalitarian governments, such as syndicalism and communism, however communists seize all private property rather than do so behind closed doors. Regardless of the methods, without such actions, reaching a true totalitarian government is almost impossible. Expansionism is also an important tenet of both ideologies as seen in practice and rhetoric. Whether it’s regaining long lost territories (Fascism) or more space for a particular race (National socialism), it’s an undeniable part of both ideologies. Again, neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris are for that. Therefore, neither can be that.
To further make the point, to be a Nazi, you believe in wiping out other races out of existence or making them subservient. In order to do that, other lands must be taken, bc after the local “problem” is dealt with, there will be a “threat” from the others. This leads to everywhere else being needing to be conquered. It’s the natural evolution of the ideology. It’s something discussed by everyone from Goebbels to Himmler to Goring, to Hitler. Hitler talks about Germany is for Germans as a primary issue, but as he would put it, the “global jewry” must be eliminated. It’s all in Mein Kampf. It was carried out in practice. This is what actual Nazis believe.
Fascism is very much dead, as it only can exist in practice, in a nation which has lost its former glory. The whole idea behind its nationalism, is restore a lost empire. A fascist leader creates the cult of personality, outlaws other cultures, and enhances the traditional culture of the nation, and squelches free speech to ensure the masses are blindly behind the imperial goals of the leadership. This is why fascism would not work in America. We have lost no territory. We are the same size we have been since World War Two. We go through periods of decline and periods of heights, but we still are a superpower even if we are in decline. For fascism to work, a nation can’t just be in decline, it has to have lost everything. You could argue Trump says that we are in decline and plays on nationalist sentiment, but that’s not unique. Most politicians since the beginning of time have done, including most Democrats and republicans in the history of our nation. That in itself is not fascism.
Fascists and Nazis have different reasons for being militaristic however they both are. National Socialists lie about their aims, as they are much more unpalatable to a general populace. That is why the Third Reich’s leaders said Poland attacked them, and things like Czechoslovakia wanted to join them. It was really to carry out mass murder and then steal resources to further their mass murder in other regions. No serious person would ever argue that Trump or Harris want to take over the entire world to exterminate entire races in every nation and continent. Therefore they are not Nazis.
Just the same as since Kamala Harris doesn’t want to take over all private property, no one can seriously allege she is a communist.
The historical record is very clear. One only needs to do unbiased research of the components of fascism and national socialism to understand what they are. Anyone can do that. You can do it yourself. All it takes is a lot of time and research. Look up the policies of Volksgemeinschaft and Lebensraum. Look up the policy Spazio Vitale. Research these and decide for yourself whether Trump or Harris fit the bill. I know you won’t. Anyone who says that they do are being paid to or are politically motivated. It’s that simple. There are zero experts that actually think that either of them are Fascists or National Socialists.
It’s totally fair to think that Trump might want to be a dictator. I don’t think that personally. I think he has a massive ego and can’t stand losing. But it’s not unfair to think such things. However, as you’ll find, he’s definitely not a Nazi or Fascist.
Sorry to blow you up in the comments, but you can obviously see that I am passionate about this lol. Also, look up Giuseppe Bottai and research his life until he, along with the rest of Italy, came under the influence of Germany and National Socialism. After that, period as I have previously pointed out, Fascism died and became a half hearted National Socialism. He is an important figure in understanding expansionism. It is he who said that Italians would “illuminate the world with their art, educate it with their knowledge, and give robust structure to their new territories with their administrative technique and ability". Very similar to the Romans goal.
Another good look up is Giovanni Gentile, another prominent fascist philosopher and one the most prominent members of the National Fascist Party.
Thank you, Ana and Daniel, for an excellent and informative interview. The word "fascist" has become an ill-defined pejorative that Democrats love to hurl at Trump just as he calls his opponents Communists and Marxists when they clearly are not. As Daniel pointed out, the only real example of actual fascism we have seen is the Mussolini government in Italy. I realize that language and, specifically, the meaning of individual words, changes over time. But the policies of Donald Trump and, perhaps more importantly, the policies of Project 2025, are clearly not fascist. I believe it would be more accurate to describe those policies as steps towards "pure capitalism," unhampered by government regulations.
I was distressed by your argument with Cenk about the word "fascist," but even more so by the outrageous response from some people on the left. I am sure that you will not let these attacks change what you do or what you say or what you believe.
You are a journalist - a reporter - and your job is to tell the truth. Don't let anyone stop you, please!
Really disappointing. If Trump is not a fascist, the word has no meaning
Maybe you’ve just latched onto something. Given all the hype I am fairly well convinced that there is no common definition for fascist that would apply to Trump or anyone else.
In a recent poll, 50% of the public called trump a fascist when given the definition. I think he can be called a fascist by many definitions, but this is an opinion
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-fascist-concerns-poll/story?id=115083795
I don't think Fascist is an easily definable word like American or citizen. Some experts think Trump is a fascist and some don't. And some experts have different definitions than others. There's not really a good way to prove it.
My opinion is that if it there are some experts on the matter saying it, then it no longer belongs in the realm of "crazy".
The political effects of repeating such a claim is a different matter. But on a moral basis, I have no problem with someone calling him a fascist
I do worry that if people genuinely do think he's a fascist they'll take physical/violent action against him, which has already happened to some extent with the second attempt on his life. Had either one of those guys been successful in assassinating Trump all hell would break loose. That's one of my main concerns with throwing these scary terms around that give the impression that he's some 20th Century European-style fascist. But I do think he has authoritarian traits.
I will agree that the word fascism in public discourse seems to be primarily used as an epithet rather than an academic explanation of Trump's brand of politics. Therefore, such uses of an emotionally-packed term can be deemed irresponsible. No matter how valid the claim of fascism is, I think such phrases cause alarm bells to go off in people's brains that ultimately hampers their ability to reason.
This is probably why people like that one politician mistakenly believed that Trump said he would put her a death camp. She heard the word "fascist" and magically conjured in her head all these things we historically associate with the term. A more fruitful conversation is probably isolating the elements of Trumpism one considers especially troubling and coming up with valid solutions for stopping such things.
Courtney, not to creep you out or anything, but I love your mind and appreciate your input. You're reasonable and never fail to be thought provoking. Thank you!
Thanks for you kind words 🙏🏽
It made my day! 😊
Hey Ana, I had responded to a thread on x where ppl were really trying to get under skin on this issue, and you may have seen it but probably not. The other nights edition of TYT was one of the most frustrating I’ve ever seen. Cenk’s argument was silly, and made me want to jump through my phone screen when he asked for a definition. I haven’t watched the podcast yet, and maybe the Historian addressed what I’m gonna write, but I want to get my two cents in lol.
We conflate fascism with other movements way too much. Fascism is a very specific ideology and form of governance. Many times, even historians for the sake of simplicity will conflate fascism with other “Third Way” political movements of the early 20th century when they are in fact, separate from one another.
I have studied National Syndicalism, Fascism, and National Socialism at a doctorate level, as well as other ideologies of that era, and they are all different. There are very stark differences between Fascism and Nazism. By taking a contrasting the two, anyone reading should have a clear understanding of both, and therefore recognize what they are and what they aren’t.
The only real working example of fascism we have is Mussolini’s tenure between 1922 and 1938. I say 1938, because that was the year that Italy and Germany signed the Pact of Steel, and after that, fascism sort of died, and morphed into a wishy washier form of National Socialism, due to Hitler’s complete and total domination over Mussolini and Italy, in terms of military power and geo political clout.
Fascism was the first of the “Third Way” movements. The third way, was the idea that the left and the right were not the only ways. At this point in history, the Bolshevik revolution had just occurred and communist and socialist dictatorships had popped up around Eastern Europe, and traditional fiscal conservatism and republics dominated much of the Western world. The rise of fascism rose in Italy, after the nation felt high hatted by the U.S., Britain, and France right after World War One. Mussolini himself had been a socialist, but was very irritated with the rigidness of the international sway the Communists in Russia had over the Italian Socialist Party and to a further extent, globally. He broke with the party, and formed his own.
Without continuing into a 100 page essay on the complete history of its rise, his ideas and fascism in practice, had both right wing and left wing components. One component of fascism economically, is complete government domination over private industry AND over unions. While the government would not and never aspired to completely take over most industries, the government dominated those industries so thoroughly that they may as well had just seized them. They essentially controlled corporations and what they produced and at what price. They also controlled unions in the same manner, except they went further in many cases, making unions part of the government. This allowed them to control wages, making it impossible for corporations to produce products without government consent. The reasoning was for the good of the “public”, which on paper is the state, as the people make up the state. These were ran by the Ministry of Corporations.
Another core tenet of fascism is militarism. Regaining former colonial glory, which feeds into the nationalist side of it all. It also gives people a sense of pride. Many people of random jobs would wear a military style uniform, which gives everyone sense of belonging, power, and self importance. Quite frankly, this is something the Italian people had not had in generations. They had been a beaten people for centuries. Losing to every historical nation left and right on the battlefield, without major international industries, and little geo political importance.
These are some of the many basic things that national socialism and fascism have in common. However, here are differences. Fascism by itself is not a racist ideology. There was racism against black people for instance, however that wasn’t due to fascism. There always has been, and still is today, a strangely large portion of native Italians, especially in the lower regions like Sicily, who still resent an entire race over the conquest of the Moors.
To make the point, before 1938, when Hitler began to dominate Italy, Anti Semitism and racism beyond that wasn’t prevalent in Italy. In fact, Jewish people held positions of power in Mussolini’s government and thousands of Jews were voluntarily and happily part of the party. One of Mussolini’s mistresses was a Jew. Cultural Fascism was about Italians maintaining traditional Italian culture, which by itself is not a problem, however the government would not allow non Italian culture to exist at all within its nations borders. It therefore was also extremely anti immigration from pretty much anywhere. The issue of culture was enforced by the Ministry of Popular Culture.
Fascism also did not see the mass extermination of peoples on the levels you might imagine. That would change as Hitler became involved and Nazism would dominate. Reporters were jailed, and opposition leaders were killed, but it was comparatively rare. This is because the entire point of fascism is to have no opposition. And to be fair, there wasn’t much in Italy. It doesn’t work with much opposition, bc the point is that it is other nations who have put yours down, not those from within. So it’s an ideology with an outside enemy that the nation must fight, not one from within, which is very different from National Socialism.
Fascism is not so much a dictatorship as you might think. One must remember, the Grand Council of Fascism removed Mussolini from power, and if a foreign power (Germany) that pretty much controlled Italy at that point, had not had them executed by foreign soldiers (Germans), then Mussolini would stayed deposed. The Grand Council of Fascism had a lot more power than most think. Mussolini sat as its founder, spokesperson and leader, but votes were taken. The nation was ran by a tiny board of fascist leaders, rather than just one man.
Fascism is nationalistic, militaristic, and xenophobic. The whole goal was to restore former Roman Imperialism with complete unity among the people. Whereas with National Socialism the entire idea is to eliminate Jewish people to create living space for Aryans.
Nazis believed that the Jews controlled all of the world. They controlled capitalism and communism. They were not capitalist like many say. They had “private industries”, but not really. Same thing as the fascists. They controlled all the private industries behind closed doors. The government controlled prices, wages, what was manufactured and regularly took over factories when owners would not cooperate.
Anyway, the whole idea was that Jewish people created capitalism to create economic disparity and divide, to push people towards communism. Then since the Jews also controlled communism according to the Nazis, everyone would fall under rhetorical grip of a global Jewish dictatorship. Pretty out there stuff. Mussolini actually called Hitler a “mad man” when he first read Mein Kampf. So with National Socialism it’s all about race and murdering those who seek to destroy from the inside. Which is very different from socialism. There economic system was similar and the way they dressed, but that’s about it.
The ideologies come from two separate perspectives entirely. Because they were Allies we conflate them, but that has led us to not really even know what they are. Anyway, anyone reading this can figure out, Niether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris ade Fascists or Nazis. Maybe this will help you explain to Cenk!
DAN! THANK YOU! I went to graduate school for Political Science, and I guess we're both getting frustrated because what people are saying conflicts with what we've learned through studying history. And I'll admit my "debate" with Cenk was humiliating for me because when I asked him "was Trump able to succeed" I was trying to get at the lack of action Trump took to foster a fascist state (i.e militarism/weakening and eliminating governing bodies). People think I said that because I think he's a fascist but it's ok because he failed, but that's not the case.
Yes it’s very irritating. No U.S. politician I can think of off the top of my head, in either party, is a fascist. I mean, maybe there is some obscure fringe person, but no one I can think of currently. It’s incredibly frustrating because words have meanings. To just throw around the word fascist all the time (both sides do this) completely eliminates the words meaning. It scares people. It manipulates people. It if we have no actual understanding of fascism, Nazism, syndicalism, communism etc etc, how are people supposed to know what it actually looks like when an actual fascist comes along? Beyond that, bc it is a false claim, it completely undermines media and political trust. It’s such a dumb thing to do and therefore important for people to stop doing. Specifically in places of power on both sides.
Wow!!! Ana really responds in here! I feel like I found a gold mine. Woo Hoo!!!
VERY interesting and thought provoking!
There are many who simply don't understand what fascism really is and/or what's wrong (on multiple levels) with claiming Trump's an "existential threat to democracy." Frankly, they're just regurgitating.
But no doubt, many of them wouldn't care or change even if they were made aware. And they'd arguably vote for anyone so long as it wasn't Trump. Of course, similar can be said for some Trump supporters. Zero critical thought on both sides, which is rampant these days.
Have you considered teeing up a podcast/discussion on how can anyone support a vote for Harris*, given ...
She's repeatedly been:
- woefully unprepared and unknowledgeable on critical topics
- unable to think on her feet
- unable to articulate substance in a coherent, intelligent, and confidence-inspiring manner
** as both VP and candidate for POTUS**
And lest anyone forgot, she dropped out early in her bid for the '20 presidential race because practically NOBODY supported her: 3-4% polling tops.
She wasn't even remotely close to Bernie, Biden, or Bloomberg. Even Buttigieg, who had only held the office of mayor in a SMALL city (population of ONLY 100K!!!) kicked her ass.
The ONLY reason Biden made her his VP pick was she's a "woman of color" and we all know it.
Both Biden and she have expressed she was instrumental in the important policy decisions/actions. OK, so can anyone claim with a straight face, backed with facts, that due to that admininstration, they're in a better position financially? That the U.S. interior is safer domestically? That international conflict hasn't risen? That the last four years have brought all of us closer together as a UNITED nation? That we're all enthusiastic about the "progress" that's been made the past 4yrs?
Last but not least, she couldnt articulate ONE thing she'd do differently than done under Biden's lead. Yet, SHE'S going to bring the transformative change that EVERYONE'S ready for.
*Can anyone make that make sense?
I saw your attempted conversation with Cenk where he started yelling. The term nobody is talking about but should be, is "political extremism". Political extremism isn't just about committing violence. When Fox News smears democrats as communists, and when MSNBC and CNN accuse republicans of being fascists, they are engaging in political extremism as a smear campaign. I think the majority of the political extremism is coming from corporate media, intentionally using political extremism to use fear as a campaign strategy, but there are some smaller intellectual circles who write pseudo-histories, or revisionist histories, as a means of smearing their political enemies. Political extremism has always existed in America, but the rules of debate usually win historically. We need logic and debate rules to call out political extremism, because sometimes it actually does turn into violence.
January 6th,and the fake elector scheme,while pressuring SOS of Georgia and Mike Pence not to certify the 2020 election,seem pretty fascist.. Also,there is never going to be any substantial policy like FDR. America is already too rich of a country for any reasonably policy to move the needle on QOL to make any political impact, even the average African American is richer than the average person that lives in Europe.
Uh what? For one averages are a really bad way to measure wealth. The people in this country with net worths over 10 billion dollars can greatly bring up the average. An average says nothing about the inequality of the wealth in this country. I’m not sure how you’re living to be in a position to say that a policy wouldn’t move the needle on QoL, but speak for yourself. There’s a massive list of policies that would benefit so many Americans if passed today.
Look at Biden industrial policy,he built manufacturing plants all in red states,they are voting for Trump anyway,even though they admit the plants are good. Most Americans are well off,and even if some policies would improve QOL,it would not be enough to move the needle politically. There are people on medicaid and Obamacare,who are still going to vote for Trump.
Even if you concede that Trump, the man, is not a "studied" fascist, you must admit that the people who influence him (Steven Miller being the worst) believe in fascist ideas, right?
Love to watch your journey, Ana! Your chat with Chris Williamson drew me to subscribe to your substack. I’ve spent a lifetime unaligned and independent.
The basic premise of Bessner’s assessment of Trump is false. He describes him as “obviously xenophobic and racist”, which Ana, you readily accepted. This is false.
There is broad evidence of Trump throughout his private life supporting minorities and providing a world of opportunities for the disadvantaged, including legal immigrants. His opposition to a world view of open borders is no different than Clinton’s and Obama’s positions and policies in decades gone by.
Trump’s hyperbolic communication style certainly sounds over the top, highlighting egregious effects of uncontrolled immigration. He is a showman. So go ahead, call Clinton, Obama, Trump, and every president before Biden xenophobic. That has absolutely nothing to do with fascism. The only thing religious, or “fascist”, about Trump is his firm belief in America being the best, albeit imperfect, system and society on earth and his commitment to defend it.
Congress needs to do its job and legislate immigration policy that represents the values of all Americans, and whoever holds the Executive Branch needs to do their job and enforce those policies.
And the voting public needs to refocus on policies, not personalities or identity politics in this election. If you believe the Democrat Machine — with Biden and Kamala façades — has the country on the right track, go ahead and vote for them. If not, join Tulsi and RFK in what is shaping up to be a Unity Administration that can rid itself of the corruption on both Left and Right. Those are the policies that I’m voting for. Frankly, that’s how everyone who’s unaligned should vote in this election.
Yeah, Trump's not a Fascist, and the word is erroneously used for fear-mongering. (Unsuccessfully, I might add, unless you prescribe to the preaching to the choir gospel of rhetoric.) In the US, we don't need to look abroad for genocidal, sadistic, and bigoted politics and political leaders with oppressive leanings. The Nazis directly learned their horrific ways from our playbook but turned it down a notch at first because they thought we were too extreme. My dislike for Trump stems from his complete lack of respect for women, which is common among rapists, and what he says and allows to be said in his presence regarding Black and Brown people, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQIA2S+ people, people with disabilities, etc. While he may flip-flop and speak out of both sides of his mouth to get votes like most politicians, these aspects of his personality have been ever-present and make him, by my estimation, dangerous both personally and politically. If I wouldn't trust you alone with my kid, you're not getting my vote. I enjoyed this podcast and the attached article, thank you.
I have no interest in contributing to this discussion in any way. The only reason I’m posting this is your comment on the Nazis modeling their ways on activities in the US is intriguing and I was wondering if you have any more information on that. I have often thought that some of the atrocities committed during the Jim Crow era were as bad or worse than things I had heard about from the Holocaust.
I'm sorry it took me so long to respond! I gathered some links that you might be interested in. Also, Rachel Maddow has a podcast called Ultra and a book called Prequel with a ton of great information.
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/what-america-taught-the-nazis/540630/
https://www.aaihs.org/how-american-racism-shaped-nazism/
https://wagingnonviolence.org/2020/10/hitler-found-blueprint-german-empire-in-the-american-west/
https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/yale-law-professor-james-whitman-discusses-how-the-us-influenced-the-creation-of-nazi-race-laws-under-hitler
Thank you very much. It is very nice of you to do that. I will take a look at these. Cheers.
You're welcome. ☺️
I’ve been on the fence about subscribing to your new Substack Ana, but you’ve pushed me over the top and I just signed up. I just can’t imagine having the courage that you’ve displayed in the last year. There is so much pressure to tow the political party line and for you to reject that premise and speak out regardless of the fallout is really special. I definitely don’t agree with you on a lot of things, but dammit you’ve won my heart.
Amen!!
An interesting discussion! The nuances of terminology, especially concerning a 'fascist' isn't something I've delved into before, so I very much enjoyed this discussion. I think the hate levelled at Ana for not wanting to describe Trump as fascist stems from the overuse of the term in modern discourse, and the strange notion that somehow this means she's supporting him ('cause he's still a terrible person and a bad candidate regardless of how his politics are categorized).