Is Trump a fascist? If the shoe fits, wear it.

Update 10/5/23  

Did Trump really say immigrants are poisoning our blood? That is not just fascism, it is 1930's Nazi speak. From the Maddow Blog

The Meidas Touch Network published this report, accompanied by a striking video, highlighting a Trump interview that generated less attention. In reference to migrants entering the United States, the former president said on camera, to an outlet called the National Pulse:

“Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions and insane asylums. We know they’re terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It’s poisoning the blood of our country.”

This was not just a dog whistle to Trump's white nationalist supporters, it was a bullhorn. Nothing subtle here.

To be sure, there’s nothing new about Trump attacking those seeking a better life in the United States. But “poisoning the blood of our country” is new.

Laura Barrón-López, White House correspondent for PBS, told viewers last night, “I checked with a historian, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, and she said that language that he’s using ... echoes language used in Nazi propaganda by Adolf Hitler when Adolf Hitler actually said that Jewish people and migrants were ‘causing a blood poisoning’ of Germany.”

Is Trump a fascist?  If the shoe fits, wear it.In 2020, I came to the conclusion Trump fit the classic description of a fascist.  It just is not a good strategy to brand him with it because there is so much baggage in the word that has been used and abused and is inflammatory. An update of 7/22/20 and revised 7/25/2020 and updated October 2020 and Nov. 2, 2020 and Nov 16,2020 and 12/12/2020. (reproduced below) I found one that came close: In an op ed from the Beast, a writer hit some true notes. " Here are five essential ones, though there are others: blind loyalty to a leader who’s really more of a national father figure; belief that the leader is the state; belief that opposition to the leader is opposition to the state, and thus treason; conviction (instilled or ignited by the leader) that the source of the problems facing the good wholesome ethnic majority is some Other or collection of Others who must be ostracized if not banished; agreement that the rules and constraints of democratic order are sometimes useful and should be obeyed as long as one can obey them and win, because doing so confers a certain legitimacy, but if they have to be cast aside to hold power, then cast aside they must be. These principles animate every fascist regime in human history. They are at the heart of Trumpism, and they have drawn many more adherents than I’d have thought possible in this country." Trump Just Broke Through the Last Level of Neo-Fascism (yahoo.com)

Trumpists take fascism a step further and seem to mimic the particular German brand with anti-Semitism (blame Soros for everything), and the use of violence.  They summon the violent militias to act out and terrorize and plan to call on the military to put down protests by force because protests are considered insurrections, per the text of an one of the indictments, should the "fake elector" scheme succeed and create a domestic angry reaction.  After the Lafayette Square fiasco, Joint Chief Gen. Milley made it clear he refused to get the active military involved in putting down demonstrations, but if Trump were re-elected, Gen. Milley would be replaced by a Trump loyalist. Trump's foot fits even the 1930s shoe. 

A much more in depth view of whether Trump was a fascist was contained in a June 2020 blog: https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2020/06/why-i-have-changed-my-views-on-whether.html

Strange as it may seem, Trump's followers try to hijack the brand name of fascism and stick it on the libs. It is a defensive strategy.https://time.com/6306945/donald-trump-democrats-fascists/  The TIME piece only gets at the rationale the Trumpists use. It does not define what it is. However, this hijack of the word echoes Trump's technique of projecting criticism of him using the same words to describe his critics. Trump tries to steal the election with fake electors but calls out the libs for stealing the election by voting dead people and a list of other techniques. He may have been indicted or sued for corrupt business practices, and his son-in-law is set financially for life by the Saudis, but "the real crooks are the Biden crime family". Never mind facts, evidence, or proof. It is the accusation itself that counts. It deflects, gaslights, confuses, toxifies words, and neutralizes criticism effectively. Loyal followers will take what Trump says is the truth at face value, even if juries and judges find no evidence the libs stole it or Trump loyalists have failed to find any connection between Hunter and his father. False equivalencies be hanged. The message is, "if our guy is a crook, the other one is a crook, too.. Everyone is a crook except our crook is on our side . All crooked dealings are equal, and no travesty is worse than the other."  This false equivalency stuff is hard to swallow when one side is indicted four times for crimes, and the other has never been indicted, or one side or their media supporters lose millions of dollars when they are found liable in civil suits and the other side does not begin by even a fraction of an approach.

If Trump actually believes in what he says, he is dangerous and effective in sabotaging democracy. However, if he is a cynical demagogue, he is also dangerous.  Or if he is deranged and self-delusion, he is even more dangerous.  Some are coming late to these realizations as they are now facing criminal prosecution because they followed him down his primrose path.  Jenna Ellis, indicted in the Georgia case,  is just now realizing that Trump is a malicious narcissist in an all-embracing diagnosis of his danger. Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis turns on ‘malignant narcissist’ ex-president | Donald Trump | The Guardian    The term "malicious narcissist" is probably going to stick since it is relevant to whatever is attributed to his behavior of doing what is in his interest, not in the interest of his followers or anyone else and what damage and harm he is doing to the continuation of democracy as we have known it.  He intends, and advocates hate, retribution, and the use of fear to get power and stay in power.  He has no scruples in pursuing that self-interest. He will lie and say whatever will help him, whether he believes it or not or reverses past positions. 

 Trump has been upfront about one thing: he always looks for the best deal. The next time you hear a candidate say that wise up and fear the beneficiary of the best deal might not mean you.: The next time you hear a political candidate is "transactional". seeking the best deal possible, as Trump claimed in "The Art of the Deal.", do not ask a proven liar who he thinks benefits from the transaction, but be aware that narcissists will look after their own interests first, and then if what they advocate is violence, putting the fear of retribution, and revenge, that is by definition "malicious". another word for hurting others. malicious definition - Search (bing.com)

What transactional meant to Trump is not what we first thought

After four years we now know what being a "transactional president" really means. It came into even sharper focus in the days between November 3 and the vote of the Electoral College. It was also an element in impeachment. Being transactional was not what many first thought. We now know from experience Trump meant being transactional was his modus operandi to get his way in everything, not just in trade deals, and doing it with corrupt intent or not.

Like many, I initially thought Trump meant that he, as a great businessman, knew how to drive a hard bargain with the Chinese or other trade deals because he had mastered the art of the deal. Horse trading, dealing, and self-interest are also the stuff of which politics and compromises are often made. There were no high minded values, national security, and general national welfare that were the primary concerns involved in many of the kinds of deals Donald Trump negotiated, implied, or in which he anticipated paybacks. It can also be a fundamental definition of corruption if there are abuses by public officials with intentions to pad their personal purse or add to political personal advantage, bribery, to induce others to break the law, or for the initiating dealer to break the law himself and ignoring the Constitutional constraints while doing it.

It was much more than just an '"I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine". For Trump, it was he expected "favors returned for favors given." It also became to mean " if my favors are not returned, I'll ruin you via tweet and try to get you prosecuted via the Department of Justice or primaried and have your political future destroyed". It meant he expects those to whom he gave a job or position or helped them achieve their goals to put loyalty to him over anything else, including violating the oath of office to which they swore to honor.

There are several "transactional deals" Trump put forth either implied or overtly that are the poster children examples of what "transactional" meant to him.. One was Trump's attempt to use federal dollars and weapons to force the Ukraine president to find dirt on the Bidens."I have a favor to ask though" as in the next sentence or two he implied there were those military weapons Ukraine wanted. He did not express the deal so crassly, but the context and the sequence were all he needed. That got him impeached, though partisan loyalty and fear of retribution got him acquitted in the Senate, even when some GOP senators admitted quietly the House impeachment managers made their case but still voted to acquit him.

The other was his expecting loyalty from his appointees to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court. It was overtly expressed by Trump that was the reason he wanted Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court rushed before the election .Per the election, fearing a tie vote, he said, “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. We need nine justices.” He must have expected judges and justices in the court system, lower and higher, to put aside the law, and instead vote to support his expressed goal to throw out votes against him in a close election.

It meant that GOP public officials in charge of managing the presidential vote were expected to "overturn" the popular vote because mail-in ballots and African American votes were defacto fraudulent, even though there was no evidence. .That is the way it works in autocracies so why should it not work for him? He had the power and immunity from criminal prosecution. He made telephone calls, tweets, and held meetings to pressure his beneficiaries. December 8 that transaction bore no fruit as the Supreme Court without dissent of any justice, including his three appointees, rejected an appeal to overturn the Pennsylvania vote. Before that, his attempt to upend the public vote in lower courts went down in flames as 35 plus lawsuits were decided against his attempt to get the will of the people reversed on any pretext of cases brought before the courts. Judges who were appointed by Democrats and Republicans, including those who were put in place by Trump and the GOP in the past four years by Senate action, ruled against Trump's expressed desire to overturn the vote. The single case his lawyers won did not affect the vote outcome.

Trump forgot one basic fact In any transaction. It takes two parties to agree to a transaction. So far, the justices and judges were loyal to the letter of the law, not to the deal of Trump.

Like

Comment

Share