I don’t think I’ve heard the word fascism thrown around as much as I have recently. It has been applied to both President-elect Trump and Secretary Hillary Clinton, and the funny thing is (although not so funny) that most of the people that are throwing around the word really do not have any idea what fascism is, where the word originated from, or if it even applies to a representative democracy like ours. So, here is a short primer on that so often misused term.
Merriam-Webster says that fascism is: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
If we take this definition as the standard, we have to pull it apart to discover if this applies to the current President-elect as so many pundits and hyper partisans want their readers to believe. The first portion, a political philosophy immediately disqualifies the entire argument as we already have a political philosophy in this nation, that being representative democracy. We are not a fascist regime. Now, through the election process our system can change, say, electing true blue members of the Communist Party for example. It is conceivable that fascisti can also be elected, but if one understands the history of the fascist party in both Italy and Germany, this is almost certainly not going to happen here, although the current violent demonstrations do seem to indicate otherwise (see Mussolini and Hitler along with violent demonstrations and beatings). In addition, since our elections are free elections, it is conceivable that the population could be bullied, as they were in Italy and Germany, to vote for those of a fascist bent. Again, this would mean street violence, beatings, and rioting…sound familiar? Finally, the conditions in this nation are not remotely like the conditions in Germany before or after the Great War that provoked the Fascist movement in Germany or Italy. By the way, Hitler was NOT elected, nor do we have the Enabling Act in our constitution! Ok, let’s move on to the next portion of the definition.
…that exalts nation and often race above the individual…
Certainly, both Secretary Clinton and President-elect Trump are partisans of the United States, so that first portion fits both. Why would anyone run for the presidency of a nation if they do not want to exalt said nation? The second part is where, again, the argument breaks down. Neither Secretary Clinton or President-elect Trump has fostered the idea of race above the individual. Both are strong on border control to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the nation, from any nation. It just so happens that the southern border is more porous than the northern one and certainly more accessible for anyone as well. President-elect Trump wants to build a wall to regulate the flow and document those that enter. Secretary Clinton, while not in favor of a wall (although she did vote in favor of a border fence), has repeatedly said that she would like more border patrol agents, drone observation and greater technological implementation to secure the border. Does that qualify for support of the second part of the definition? Certainly not. In no instance did either support race above the individual. Nation above illegal entry, but not race. There is not one instance in which either person said anything remotely of the bent of Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini postulating the superiority of any race in this nation over others. There was never a superior race mentioned…ever. Hence, second portion of the definition is lost. Let us move on to the third portion…
…and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government…
Once again, this is not even remotely in the realm of possibility. Our system of government, as outlined and created by the United States Constitution, expressly forbids anything of the sort. Yes, the federal government of the United States is a centralized seat of power, but that power is also delegated to the states as well. Anyone remember the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution? Those are the most often forgotten ones, but maybe the most important ones (although the Court has determined that the First Amendment is of paramount importance). Both the Ninth and Tenth delineate the powers of the federal and state governments…expressly…so there is no chance, none, that the President-elect or Secretary of State will or could have made this portion happen. Interestingly enough, the growth of social programs and federal monies tied to state compliance does, by proxy, consolidate power to the federal government. “If you want the money, then follow our rules” is the mantra here. Bigger government, by definition, is part of the Democratic platform so maybe those that are crying fascist might want to look in a different direction. Finally, let’s look at the last phrase,
…headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition…
Again, our system of government will not allow the first portion of the statement. There is a reason why our government is a three pronged government. Read about the origins of the idea by accessing the Baron de Montesquieu and his seminal work on this idea entitled The Spirit of the Laws. The founding fathers understood the problem and dangers of an all powerful leader, so our system was created in order to make sure that this does not happen. Now, through appointments and control of both houses does give the party in power more leverage, there are a couple of items to consider. First, history proves, if one were to study it, that when one party controls both the congress and the presidency, it is less efficient than when power is properly split between the congress and the presidency. Second, there is still the matter of a veto proof majority, which the current makeup of Congress does not have. Yes, the Vice-President can break ties, but again, there is not enough to ensure total rule by one party. Finally, there is the issue of the Supreme Court. There will be a conservative majority, but that in no way guarantees that decisions will always be of the conservative bent. Indeed, “conservative” Justices have voted the other way numerous time. The real question is why political affiliation is involved in Supreme Court decisions in the first place. Is not the job of the Supreme Court to be impartial in its decisions and solely based on whether or not a case falls within constitutional bounds? Yes there are other cases, such as original jurisdiction cases, but that does not apply here, so why does the Court tow the political party line? Elena Kagen will certainly be a “liberal” vote while Clarence Thomas will certainly be a “conservative” vote. This is NOT right, but that is another story and another article.
The fact is that those espousing the rise of a fascist dictatorship under President-elect Trump are misusing the word, its connotation and the history associated with it. As a result, they should not use that word or all that it entails, including the history of its origin. The conditions simply don’t warrant how they are thrusting its context and its connotation on our current President-elect or Hillary Clinton. The conditions in the nation are not remotely similar to the ones that predated the rise of real fascism, so before anyone believes the hyperbole of misinformed journalists or supporters of Mrs. Clinton, please know that of what you speak and investigate history.
