The BDN Editorial Board operates independently from the newsroom, and does not set policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
Last week, one of Donald Trump’s past White House chiefs of staff, John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, said that the former president meets the definition of a fascist, and that he pined for “the kind of generals that Hitler had” in comments made while president.
The outrage and crocodile tears from Trump and his campaign were quick and forceful. Trump called Kelly a liar and a “lowlife.” Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, similarly framed Kelly as a disgruntled former employee and said he thinks “everything that John Kelly said is not true.”
Vance might not be the best arbiter of the truth, at this moment or on this issue. This is the same vice presidential candidate who acknowledges that he made things up about immigrants in Ohio recently in an attempt to generate more national attention on the issue. And, perhaps more tellingly, this is the same man who once privately worried that Trump might be “America’s Hitler” years ago before it was politically expedient for him to say otherwise.
We don’t need Vance, or even Kelly for that matter, to tell us if Trump meets the definition of a fascist. Merriam and Webster, combined with Trump’s own comments and actions, should be illuminating enough for anyone interested.
According to Merriam-Webster’s first definition of what is admittedly a complicated and much-debated word, fascism is “a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.”
Now let’s compare that to Trump and Trumpism. A populist political philosophy? Absolutely, though there is nothing wrong with that in itself. Populist movements often grow out of widespread and legitimate concerns of everyday people when existing systems have failed them. Our critique of Trump here is not a critique of everyone who supports him. Like many would-be strongmen before him ( based on his own words), Trump’s movement seizes on legitimate concerns of everyday people and purports to offer a solution through unity and strength. But in reality, it hijacks those popular concerns and exploits them for the gain of a small group.
Exalts nation and often race above the individual? That is Trump, to be sure. He has leaned into his aggressive and exclusionary form of nationalism, warning about immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country.” The list of his racist statements and attitudes is as long as it is shameful.
The U.S. thankfully does not have a “centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,” thanks to existing democratic checks and balances. But Trump has regularly shown disdain for those measures, refused to accept the results of an election he lost, helped break our tradition of a peaceful transfer of power with his role inspiring and failing to more quickly quell the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and instead heaped praise on autocrats around the globe while yearning for the role of a strongman. So on this count he fits more in the aspirational category.
As for severe economic and social regimentation? This is the most significant area where we think Trump falls short of the definition. Trump’s economic proposals may disproportionately favor the wealthy, and may be projected to fuel federal debt even more than Kamala Harris’ pricey plan, but that doesn’t make them a form of severe economic regimentation. At their core, even with a flavor of protectionism through tariffs, Trump’s economic policy is based around free markets rather than centralized economic control. And while some of his social policies and past actions may be exclusionary and restrictive, particularly around LGBTQ+ protections and women’s rights, that doesn’t seem to meet the bar of “severe social regimentation” that defines fascism. Bad policies don’t equate to fascist policies.
However, when it comes to the final element of the fascism definition, “forcible suppression of opposition,” Trump has told us himself that this could be part of his approach in a second term. He recently raised the specter of using the U.S. military against an “enemy from within.” It is hard to imagine an example that would better fit with this part of the definition, or would worse suit America and our pursuit of a free and peaceful society.
Political differences must be settled with words and votes, not violence. That is true for Trump, who never should have been targeted in two horrific recent assassination attempts, and it must be true for his political opponents as well.
There was some pearl clutching last week by observers over Kelly’s use of the term fascist, almost as if Trump himself doesn’t throw the word around to describe opponents and people he doesn’t like. Some commentators were similarly outraged when comparisons were drawn ahead of his Sunday rally at Madison Square Garden between that event and a pro-Nazi rally held there in 1939. If Trump and his campaign wanted to undercut that comparison, however, they probably shouldn’t have doubled down on the “enemy from within” claims and provided a stage for speakers to amplify hate and vitriol.
We encourage voters to tune out the spin, listen to what Trump himself has already told all of us publicly, and consider the definition of fascism for yourselves.
Is Trump a fascist? Some experts who study fascism think so, while others disa gree. There should be little doubt, however, that he has aspirations for an increasingly authoritarian government. A growing number of former Trump staffers and Republican security experts acknowledge this danger, Vance apparently used to recognize it before he became a politician, and we hope all Americans recognize it as they cast their votes.
