A Second Trump Term, MAGA, and Fascism

 

So, I have previously discussed Trump and fascism before and after his first term.  What about a second term?  And, again, to be clear, by fascism I do not mean anything that threatens to undermine democracy.  Clearly by that standard, Trump qualifies.  But what about real fascism.  And the only honest answer I can give is that it is hard to say, but there are some elements of MAGA that are decidedly alarming.  

So, what about Trump and fascism this time around?

A middle class populist movement that both punches up and kicks down, but mostly kicks down. Well, during his campaign Trump demonized both immigrants and "elites."  Since winning, he gives all signs of handing the country over to the plutocrats.  But then again, classical fascism followed a similar trajectory, joining forces with traditional elites when it could not take power on its own.  Mussolini, unable to draw adherents to a party that was both left wing and nationalist, instead became an enforcer for large land owners.  Hitler's alliance with old elites was much more on his own terms -- but he still destroyed the Storm Troopers when his business and military allies demanded it.  

Driven by fear and ambition, but fear predominates. Donald Trump certainly knows how to fear monger!  His talk about Hannibal Lecter and the like was completely insane.  How many people believed it and how many were just upset about inflation or thought the border was being overwhelmed I could not say.

A psychology of lizard brain machismo.  Again, duh!

An ideology of palingenetic populist hypernationalism.  Palingenetic means a rebirth.  In other words, palingenetic hypernationalism is the belief that one's nation has fallen from its former glory and must be reborn.  That definitely sounds like Trump!  As does the populism and nationalism.  I suppose there is room for debate about hyper-nationalism, but the basic attitude of hostility toward the rest of the world is hard to miss.

A paramilitary party that has taken over the state (or aspires to take over the state) and claims (or aspires to claim) an effective monopoly of political activity.  I commented before that the Republican Party in general appears to believe it is entitled to political power, but not to political activity.  It is willing to tolerate the existence of the Democrats, so long as they will agree not to hold meaningful power.  Trump, in seeking to overturn any election for President that Democrats won (as he would certainly have done if he had lost in 2024) takes it farther than any other Republican, but no farther than its logical conclusion.  Whether the Republicans will allow any Presidential election that Democrats win to stand remains to be seen.  So far, they are allowing Democrats to win election to any other office.

But it is the potential paramilitary aspect that is really scary.  Already it is not just the threat of a primary challenge that keeps Republicans in line, but actual physical threats as well.  There has not been widespread paramilitary activity by the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and the like so far this time, largely because the ones who tried to overturn the election got stiff prison sentences.  But Trump has made quite clear that he intends to pardon the January 6 defendants.  It seems safe assumption that during a second Trump term, paramilitaries will be safe from federal prosecution -- and probably from prosecution by any Republican state or local officials as well.  How far Trump will go into turning the Proud Boys into the paramilitary arm of his party is anyone's guess.  

And now the old standbys.

From Stanley Payne, in Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980):

The fascist negations:

Anti-radical:  The radical left is really  not much of a factor in the US today, pro-Hamas protesters notwithstanding.  But Trump is good at fear mongering about non-existent threats.

Anti-liberal: Very much so.

Anti-conservative:  Trump seems to be following the classical fascist trajectory of adopting a rabble-rousing style that scares conservatives and then selling out to them, at least to judge by his chumminess with plutocrats.

Ideology and goals:

Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models. Well, Trump clearly wants to deploy the power of the state against political opponents and immigrants, and against an ill-defined "wokeness."  I still don't think he is planning anything as sweeping as true fascists.

Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist.  I don't see it.

The goal of empire or a radical change in the nation’s relationship with other powers. Well he is threatening to annex Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland.  I don't think anyone seriously expect him to do any of this, but it sounds a lot more like a fascist foreign policy than he pursued last time. 

Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture.  Huh?

Style and Organization:

Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political choreography, stressing romantic and mystical aspects. To some degree.  

Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia. See discussion of a paramilitary party above.  

Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence.  I am again going to refer back to the paramilitary part.  Clearly Trump is willing to resort to violence rather than accept defeat.  I just don't know to what extent he will deploy it once in power.

Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing the organic view of society. Well, duh.  

Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation.  This is one of the most alarming parts of the new Trump movement.  In is first term, it was mostly a movement of the old.  This time, it is increasingly a movement of the young, with the conviction that it is the movement of the future. That makes it a whole lot scarier than last time.

Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective. Duh!

In short, it is really going to depend on whether Trump starts using the Proud Boys as his private militia or not.  If he does, he will have some disturbingly fascistic tendencies.

Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, and the "nine mobilizing passions":

-- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions:  Yes, and in defiance of the facts.

-- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it:  I don't really think so.  Definite dehumanization of out-groups (often poorly defined), but not real desire to subordinate the in-group.

-- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external:  To a considerable extent, yes.  We will see how far this goes.

-- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences:  Except for the individualistic part, yes.

-- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary:  Among the MAGA faithful, definitely.  We will see about the tech bros.

-- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny: Well, duh!

-- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason:  Again, duh!

-- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success: Same comment as above about paramilitary.

-- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle:  There are at least tendencies in this direction.

In short, Trump and the MAGA faithful sound a lot like fascists and have the potential to move in a fascistic direction.  We will see how far it goes.

Authoritarians Would Rather Be Ruled by a Tyrant Than Laws

Although, as I have said before, this is actually four propositions:

1. The law protects our in-group
2. The law does not bind our in-group
3. The law binds out-groups
4. The law does not protect out-groups

The first and third propositions are not controversial.  The fourth only comes up sporadically, although I expect to see a lot of it under a Trump administration.* But man, oh man, do you see a lot of the second proposition out there!

That is what is meant, after all, when right-wingers talk about "weaponization of government."  They are outraged at any attempt to bind them by law.

And maybe "law" should be broadened to "rules."  That is, to all appearances, the real issue on Twitter/X.  In pre-Musk times, Twitter had certain terms of service banning certain types of lies.  Terms of service do not carry the force of law,** but they are rules.  Right wingers lied, quite regularly.  Russian bots and troll farms also circulated lies, mostly calculated to advance right-wing causes.  Twitter made some attempts to enforce its rules against lies.

Naturally right wingers were outraged.  How dare social media enforce rules against them!  If right wing posts got taken down more often than left wing posts, it couldn't be because right wingers lied more often.  It could only be an active attempt to persecute conservatives.  And if Twitter went so far as to ban, say, Alex Jones, it couldn't possibly be because his lies were hurting people.  It could only be persecution of conservatives.

Conservatives demanded an end to all terms of service, and even to algorithms.  Social media should be required to post everything not expressly illegal, an probably do it in a first-come-first-serve basis.  If there was any blocking or favoring to be done, users could do it.  Then Elon Musk bought Twitter and right wingers said that he was a free speech absolutist and all was well.

Naturally, right wingers never questioned Musk's "free speech absolutism" when he used algorithms to manipulate results, banned speech he disliked, and let right wing lies manipulate his banning decisions.  At best, Musk supporters might justify their championship by saying if anyone felt unfairly treated, that was the other person's problem.  But often right wingers even wanted to require all social media to adopt Musk's content moderation policies.

And now that Musk is applying his rules to them, right wingers are once again outraged.  They are also learning the hard was just how arbitrary Musk's "rules" are, seeming to consist of one rule only -- never say anything that Elon Musk dislikes.  And, indeed, at least one commenter (no, not going to hunt the comment down and link) said that given the choice, he would prefer a tyrant enforcing arbitrary decisions to a team of bureaucrats because it was easier to evade notice by a single tyrant.  This does raise interesting questions about the role of bureaucracy in maintaining the rule of law, or at least the rule of rules.  But in any event, tyrants do not act alone.  They employ minions, and give their minions considerable leeway to be petty tyrants in their own domain.  Alternately, a tyrant like Musk who has fired most of the minions can rely on vigilantes.

Either way, I find it most revealing that these authoritarians, if they cannot obtain an exemption from following rules altogether, would rather be governed by an arbitrary tyrant than by the rule of law -- or rules.

_______________________________________________

*Specifically, the idea that procedural safeguards to not protect outsiders.

**Except in the sense that all contractual terms carry the force of law.

Leopards Eating Each Other's Faces

Well, well.  That didn't hold up so well.  It appears that MAGA faithful and the tech bro plutocrats have their differences after all.  Over immigration, of course.  Tech bros want to expand the H-1B visa program to admit high-skilled immigrants to work in tech.  The MAGA faithful was to cut back or eliminate the program, saying it steals jobs from Americans and lets in too many people from India.

Disagreements on policy are normal even within a party coalition, to be worked out by negotiations and compromise.  On the one hand, this does not seem like an issue that admits compromise.  If one faction of the party wants to expand the program and the other wants to massively shrink, or even eliminate, it, that seems like the sort of difference that can only end with one side winning and the other losing, or else with deadlock and nothing happening.

On the other hand, if one takes a few steps back and looks at the larger picture, H-1B visas are only a small part of the total immigration story.  Compromise is certainly possible.  There are an estimated 11 million people in the country without legal authorization.*  Trump has claimed the number is as high as 20 million.  By contrast, there are about 3 million H1-B visa holders in the US -- all present legally and not subject to deportation except for misconduct.  An obvious compromise is to focus on illegal immigration and leave legal immigration for a later date.  Or, Trump could cut back on other forms of legal immigration but grant an exception to the tech industry.  Others have suggested that if the tech lords had just had the sense to keep quiet, they could probably have whispered in Trump's ear and gotten their way without the MAGA faithful even noticing.

Look, let me be plain and say that I do not know enough about the H-1B visa program or labor conditions in the tech industry to have an opinion on the merits.  Nor do I care enough to do extensive research.  What is clear is that hardcore anti-immigration activists have thrown off the mask and revealed their racism.  

The MAGA faithful at least sometimes pretended only to oppose illegal immigration and said that they were fine with people who comply with all requirements to come here legally.  They even pretended to distinguish between Temporary Protected Status -- people who entered the country without legal authorization* but are granted legal status due to an emergency situation at home -- and people who indisputably applied for and received legal status before entering the US.  If your only objection is to illegal immigration, then even if you consider people with Temporary Protected Status as illegal immigrants granted retroactive recognition, that leaves no valid grounds to object to entry on an H-1B visa, which is indisputably legal.  People who oppose the H-1B visa program are admitting that what they really oppose is all immigration, legal or illegal, or at least all immigration by people who are not white.  So I understand why some people see MAGA as the leopard eating tech's face.

But in then end I think if this was just a dispute over H-1B visas, I still think it could be dismissed as a "spat" that would blow over.  What turns this into a serious breach, and a real example of leopards eating faces, is that Musk penalized members of the MAGA faithful for their posts.  

After all, Musk proclaimed himself to be a "free speech absolutist."  And, of course, by "free speech absolutist" he meant that he would not take down any right-wing speech, no matter how false, defamatory, or harmful, Russian bots and professional trolls included.  In fact, he aggressively promoted lies about FEMA's response to hurricanes in order to benefit the Trump campaign.  Needless to say, Musk's "free speech absolutism" did not extend to people he disagreed with.  It was compatible with banning leftwing posters at the behest of rightwing campaigns. and manipulating algorhithms to his advantage.  

Naturally, none of this bothered the right wing any.  Brendan Carr, Trump's nominee to lead the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has held up Elon Musk as a model of the free speech policies all social media companies should adopt, or face anti-trust actions.  Carr also approves of denying licenses to stations that run news stories that displease Donald Trump.  And Trump at a recent Turning Point USA rally proclaimed to thunderous applause that under a Trump presidency  there would be freedom of the press -- at the same time he is using dubious libel suits to shut down any outlet that criticizes him.  Clearly on the right wing, "free speech" and "freedom of the press" mean non-stop right wing propaganda, with no form of excluded on the feeble grounds that it is false.

And now, lo and behold! after right wing posters applauded Elon Musk for suppressing left-wing posts while protecting them, it turns out he is just as willing to suppress right-wing posts he disagrees with. Recently he cancelled verification, demonitized, or suspended some 14 right-wing accounts, including Laura Loomer.  And I have to believe that a lot of right wingers who might have forgiven Musk for a disagreement on immigration will not be so quick to defend him when it turns out that Musk's exceptions to "free speech absolutism" extend to THEM!  

______________________________________________
*Without legal authorization does not necessarily mean illegally.  Asylum seekers can enter the country without legal authorization, but are not entering illegally so long as they turn themselves in and apply for asylum.

 

Donald Trump: Facts Don't Matter

One of the most notable things about Donald Trump is his realization that facts don't really matter to the claims he makes.  

An obvious application was his claim that US forces going into the Middle East should have "taken the oil."  What does it mean to "take the oil."  Well, when anyone other than Donald Trump sends forces into the Middle East, it presumably means seizing control of all oil production in the country and using it to US benefit, with no regard to anyone else.  And, by that standard, none of Trump's rivals ever "took the oil" because such a thing is just about impossible.  But when Trump is in power, he can just send a few troops to guard a few oil wells and claim that he "took the oil."  How can you possibly disprove that?  You might point to other oil facilities outside of his control, but how many Americans will actually go to the Middle East and see for themselves.

Only slightly less extreme was his claim that he would build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.  There was no need to actually do such a thing, just put in a few miles of wall and announce that it is built.  How many people are going to traverse the entire 2000 miles of border to fact check that?  Granted, there are people who live by the border who can point out that no wall has gone up where they live.  But just say that most of the wall has gone up and that their area is one of the last to receive it.  Again, how many people who notice that the wall has not gone up in their area are going to traverse the entire 2000 miles to see how much of it has been built.  And as for making Mexico pay for it -- look if Donald Trump says Mexico has paid for the wall, how can you possibly disprove him?

So I do agree with the people who say that the best response to Trump's latest nutty pronouncements is to say, "Sure, dude.  I'll believe you when you show me, no sooner."
 

Donald Trump: Affect versus Effect

 

Donald Trump as admitted that when prices go up, it is just about impossible to bring them down.  Given that he campaigned on a promise to do just that, will it hurt his popularity?

My guess is no, not really.  Last time around he campaigned on bringing back all those good-paying manufacturing jobs that went overseas.  He did not, in fact, bring back all those good paying manufacturing jobs, and that didn't hurt him in the least with the party faithful

My guess is that what is happening here is that people are taking Trump "seriously, but not literally."  Or, stated otherwise, they are judging him by his affect, rather than his effect.  In other words, voters may very well understand that the good-paying manufacturing jobs are not coming back, that when prices go up they are probably not coming down and, in general, that Trump is promising a lot of things that he cannot deliver on.  His supporters do not really blame him for these things because they know that at least he shares their aspirations.  

After years and years of hearing Republicans saying that anyone who does not at least aspire to own a business is a moocher and loser, and Democrats urging everyone to get a good education so they don't get stuck in a dead-end blue collar job, it must be good to hear someone who understands that you don't want to own a business, or to have a degree and desk job, you just want a job that pays a good wage and that is perfectly fine.  Even if Trump could not realistically bring back all those good-paying blue collar jobs, it must be good to hear a politician says that there is nothing wrong with your aspirations, and that you do not need either to own a business or to have a degree to be a valuable member of society.

The same applies this time to inflation.  When you are angry about increased prices, the last thing you want is someone to explain why it really is not as bad as it seems.  You want a leader who is also angry about increased prices.  Even if there is nothing that can realistically be done to lower prices, you still want a leader who shares your anger.

So does this mean that nothing can dent Trump's popularity?  No, I don't think that at all.  I do think that it won't hurt his popularity if nothing really gets better because things are actually pretty good as they are.  What will hurt his popularity is if things get worse.  Such as if high tariffs, large-scale deportations, or budget busting tax cuts cause inflation to go back up again.

Donald Trump is Creating a Plutocracy and So Far That Seems Popular

Remember when it seemed possible that Republicans were abandoning economic royalism?  Remember when they made the discovery that actually corporations can do wrong and can oppress.  Not by selling unsafe products, of course, or by having unsafe work conditions or ruining the environment, of course, but maybe Bud Lite seeking endorsement of a trans influencer.  Of course, Republican deviation from economic royalism was not a serious deviation, just an expression of anger at "woke capital."  An ideology of corporations can do no wrong was simply giving way to an ideology of corporations can do no wrong -- unless they say something "woke."

Fast forward to today when, probably unsurprisingly, Donald Trump appears to be going all-out economic royalist and is turning his administration into an open plutocracy.  He has cut a deal with big money interests -- cut the wokeness, and I will give you everything else you want.  They are eagerly taking him up on it.  Trump his stocking his administration with billionaires and letting oil companies set energy policy in exchange for campaign contributions.  And don't be so foolish as to think this will hurt his populist street cred.  Part of Trump's true stroke of genius is to turn economic royalism into a populist ideology.

I should add, just for the record, that this is entirely consistent with general Republican ideology for a long time.  People on our side of the aisle have been complaining for a long time the Republicans dismiss knowledge, expertise, and meritocracy.  Republicans, I would guess, would dispute this.  Their formulation, instead is plutocracy = meritocracy.  They simply see the true measure of people who know most in a field, not as degrees or credentials, or study, but as how much money one makes at it.  Thus whoever makes the most money in any given field clearly knows the most about it and is best qualified to set policy.  Letting oil companies set energy policy is popular in the assumption that oil companies want to maximize production, which will reduce prices.  

And the same in any other field.  The general assumption is that whatever maximizes corporate profits necessarily maximizes the public good.  Government of the richest, by the richest, and for the richest is naturally government to the benefit of all.  The whole idea that our plutocrats might have interests that differ from the broad general public (or, for that matter, from each other) is dismissed as Communism. Thus not only plutocracy = meritocracy, but plutocracy = the public good and therefore, ultimately, plutocracy = democracy.

And, following the same logic, since Elon Musk is the world's richest man, he must also be the smartest, most competent, and best qualified to run things.  Musk likes saying, "Vox populi, vox Dei" (the voice of the people is the voice of God).  Unstated in this assumption -- "Vox Musk, vox populi."  And, after all, since Musk is the world's richest, and therefore worthiest, person, who would presume to disagree with him?

Still, with all that being said, it is not so clear to me whether plutocracy would be so popular if anyone other than Donald Trump were promoting it.

What to Make of the Latest Flap

 

So, now that we have averted a government shutdown, what are we to make of the latest flap?

I would say, first and foremost, it appears that not even Trump can control the Freedom Caucus or, as Devin Nunes once called them, the lemmings with suicide vests caucus.  Maybe they will become more compliant once he is actually sworn in, but as of right now, they remain lemmings with suicide vests.

Second and relatedly, although Donald Trump and Elon Musk are spinning this as a win, neither man actually got what he wanted.  Musk called for a government shutdown and a halt to all legislation until Trump is inaugurated.  Trump called for abolition, or at least suspension, of the debt ceiling.  Neither of these happened.  In fact, the final bill was not all that different from the one Musk scuttled, but they did scuttle the first bill, so both men are trying to spin this as a win.

Third, and intriguingly, this may be the first disagreement between Trump and Musk.  At least, Musk called for a government shutdown.  Trump did not.  Trump called for an end to the debt ceiling.  Musk did not.  Maybe nothing will come of this.  But it is interesting.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly in the long run, it confirms my suspicion about a second Trump Administration.  My guess is that there actually will be grownups in the room during this administration.  The bad news is that, instead of being mavens of the Deep State (see above) as in the first Trump Administration, this time they will be the plutocrats.  Deep State mavens were primarily interested in keeping Trump from subverting the rule of law.  The plutocrats are primarily interested in keeping Trump from blowing up the economy.

Clearly one or more of the plutocrats (we have no way of knowing which one(s)) have impressed on Trump just how disastrous a debt ceiling breach would be.  Trump is therefore heavily invested in abolishing the debt ceiling, or at least kicking the can as far down the road as possible.  And he is absolutely right about that.  Stopped clock and all. 

But this is also troubling.  Let me be clear about my order of preferences.  They are as follows:

1. Trump does not subvert the rule of law or blow up the economy.
2. Trump blows up the economy, but does not subvert the rule of law.
3. Trump both subverts the rule of law and blows up the economy.
4. Trump subverts the rule of law but does not blow up the economy.

The reason for this set of preferences is simple.  Our country can recover from economic damage.  It has done so many time.  But it cannot survive as a true democratic republic if the rule of law is subverted.  

Thus the importance of rule number one in any smart authoritarian's playbook.  Don't do anything unpopular until after you have consolidated complete power into your hands.  Taking unpopular actions before you consolidate power will generate pushback and risks thwarting the attempt.  But if you truly manage to consolidate power, then you are free to take unpopular actions if you want because it will be too late to stop you.  Hugo Chavez and Erdogan Recep and classic examples of smart authoritarians who followed this rule.  

Trump, certainly, is not smart, but the grownups in the room just might turn out to be smart authoritarians who understand this rule.  

Then again, the lemmings with suicide vests caucus just might thwart them.