Several weeks prior, I found myself at a convention in the northern regions of New York, where accomplished author and film creator Sebastian Junger, renowned for his works The Perfect Storm and Restrepo, shared the tale of his father’s escape from the Nazi regime. His journey initiated from Dresden, extending to Spain, then to France, and Portugal thereafter. Ultimately, he succeeded in securing his abode in America in 1941 based on his belief that “fascism would never pursue him to this place”.
Junger didn’t need to exagerate his statement, as the assurance of an America free from fascism seems to be on shaky ground. There exists an even probability that a fascist might be returning to the Oval Office seven days from the present. The America that served as a sanctuary for Junger’s father was significantly deficient in democratic completeness, with a substantial number of its Black inhabitants experiencing systematic deprivations of their civil rights, and white supremist factions having solid political clout and long-standing influence.
Nonetheless, the US was robust in democratic institutions, customs and public initiatives, and had invested a significant amount of resources and human life to aid in freeing Europe from the Nazi oppression. It wasn’t an illogical presumption that in this place fascism wouldn’t find a foothold.
However, such a presumption seems imprudent currently. In my writings about Donald Trump’s presidency in 2017, I adopted the term “pre-fascist”. It aimed at highlighting how he hadn’t arrived at outright fascism yet, but the trajectory was evident. The prefix “pre-” however seems extraneous at this juncture.
Not too long ago, Kamala Harris utilised the term “fascist” in relation to Trump. At the same time, John Kelly, previous Marine General and the longest-serving chief of staff under Trump, asserted, “There’s no doubt that he meets the basic criteria of a fascist”. Another retired general familiar with Trump, Mark Milley, the preceding head of the joint chiefs of staff leaked to Bob Woodward for his latest book War, “Now, I’m fully aware, he’s an absolute fascist”.
Certain historians oppose this portrayal due to the dissimilarity between Trumpism and the fascism witnessed in the 1920s and 1930s. Yet, it must be noted that fascism has never been anything but diverse. For instance, while antisemitism was not fundamental to Benito Mussolini’s initial model of Fascism – considering it a “German flaw”, it was, by contrast, integral to Hitler’s Nazi scheme.
Secondly, it’s evident that its present incarnation, in a period dominated by social media and postmodern theatrics in politics, would hardly align perfectly with its state 100 years ago. A valid counter-argument, however, is that fascist governments are often inclined towards warfare, a direction that Donald Trump does not take. Strikingly, he is the inaugural American president to publicly show disregard for the nation’s military heroes – whom he views as “failure and fools”. Yet according to Kelly, Trump was displeased in office because his military executors did not pledge unquestioning allegiance to him.
“Why”, he questioned Kelly, “isn’t your loyalty akin to the German generals?” Kelly recounts his response, “You surely aren’t referring to Hitler’s generals?” And Trump confirmed, “‘Yes, of course, Hitler’s generals'”. Trump’s perception of war is internal. He suggests employing the army against what he now candidly identifies as “the internal adversary” and requires generals who will obey his commands unconditionally. Trump, who reportedly told Kelly that Hitler carried out “some commendable actions”, has openly espoused the Führer’s words.
His entire campaign is rooted in castigating a specific outgroup (dark-skinned immigrants instead of Jews) as “pests”, backed by a eugenics claim that they are “infecting the bloodstream of our nation”. This reverberates with the sentiments in Mein Kampf: “All great civilisations of the past became extinct solely because the initially creative breed succumbed to blood contamination”. However, what are his extents? His favored supreme court, let’s remember, has already facilitated his approach by asserting his immunity from the law for any executive actions he may enact as president. Thus, the law does not stand as a roadblock for him.
The original text outlines a variety of actions allegedly taken by Trump, including threats to revoke broadcasting licences of uncooperative TV stations, encouraging the incarceration and mistreatment of journalists who protect their sources, and promoting violence against what he terms as ‘radical left lunatics’, covering mainstream liberals and Democrats. He has reportedly shown support for the use of National Guard and military against them, as well as endorsing the idea of prosecuting political adversaries and benefactors of the Democratic party. Trump also allegedly affirms show trials and openly approves of televised military tribunals targeting those he deems ‘traitors’, such as Republican dissident Lynne Cheney. Among other actions, the text suggests Trump is partial to arresting vote counters who do not provide satisfying election outcomes and authorises the military to suppress protests and gain control over Democratic-led cities.
Some actions like manipulating the justice department are feasible, allowing Trump to instigate cases against his critics. This can result in people stuck in legal battles, inhibiting their employment and scaring off others who may dissent. Other tasks like leveraging the military to establish concentration camps and execute large-scale sweeps in American cities seems more arduous. However, it is noted that it’s typically retired generals who publicize Trump’s controversial measures – as the army is uninterested in becoming his personal militia. The suggestion is that this will mainly be a war fought in the media, designed to induce terror and chaos amongst communities.
Despite this, the text characterises Trump as being lazy and incapable, favouring leisure activities like golfing over governmental duties, as well as progressively unstable in his later years. It also implies that two main distractions for Trump are the potential for widespread corruption, facilitated by the Supreme Court, and succession planning. Trump is believed to favour his son Don jnr over JD Vance to succeed him. Therefore, Trump’s second term could be marked by a fusion of autocracy, decaying mental faculties, greed, and favouritism.