One possible reason why we think that some people do not have ideology is that it’s the same as ours. And since it is ours, it cannot be ideology, just normal, rational thinking.
There is much with which to agree with in BM's take on who/what Trump is. A few comments:
Pavkovic - above - is correct that Trump knows next to nothing about the Founding Fathers or what they thought. Our host is a bit off on what they thought: They did not wish to avoid foreign entanglements because they thought the new USA was strong and self-sufficient. (Among other things, at the time it extended only as far west as the Mississippi. It wasn't until Jefferson picked up the greatest bargain of the 19th Century from Napoleonic France that dreams of "from the Atlantic to the Pacific" rose to the fore.) On the contrary, they knew the new USA was small and weak, and getting involved in European great power conflicts might just lead to the early extinction of this small new nation. (They soon found that avoiding foreign involvements was not so easy, in their conflict with the North African privateers -- usually styled in our mytho-history as "the Babary Pirates." And fending off Britain in 1812-1815 improved their confidence.)
There is another element of Trump's ideological equipment that BM overlooks, which is is autocracy. Yes, he is not an actual fascist; for example, he has no actual affection at all for the Republican party. He didn't build it, and at first it was hostile to him. He has just learned to manipulate it to his own benefit. But he does believe greatly in executive power, as long as he is the on exercising it. He thinks, and every so often attempts to act on it, that what he says should go - with Constitution and laws an obsolete irrelevancy when he is in the seat of power.
Agree on both points (more or less). Yes, US was not very strong when Washington warned against "entanglements" but it was already by then rich (in terms of real wages) and everyone who thought about it realized US vast potential. Adam Smith in the WoN published in 1776, before the outcome of the American revolution was clear, saw the Colonies as a future Empire In fact, the WoN ends on that note. On the executive power, yes. He believes that the executive power of a president is the same as that of a company owner.
Perhaps the important thing in some people’s minds is that they believed they had indeed fended off British power. Anyone who understood what was going on realised they had largely maintained the status quo and done well to avoid a worse beating at the hands of a largely unwilling but stronger power.
Branko -- agree, sorta. If Trump has any principles at all they are transactional and adversarial. Any relationship is based on what he can get out of it and what he has to give up. It's a religion of beggar-thy-neighbor. Above all he lacks empathy, even with his own children.
He's by no means a free marketeer. He's happy to use the instruments of the state for his own benefit, and he admires others who have done that as well. Musk and Ramaswamy have both profited from the fraudulent manipulation of market institutions.
His lack of empathy and imagination means that he will choose short-run expediency over longer-term,... growth, among other things. Sell state secrets now, 'cause we're all dead in the long run and -- to slightly mis-quote a famous first lady -- I really don't care about my grandchildren; do you?.
Is Trump a fascist? Yeah. He'll arrogate authority where it suits him, manipulate public institutions for his own benefit, and violently suppress opposition. Is this the manifestation of some long-held philosophy? No. It just happens to be, conveniently, the combination of behaviors that he believes yields the greatest return.
Hope all is well, in spite of this and other unbelievable horrors.
I agree that Trump is transactional in his manner of obtaining what he wants - in his action strategy. But this doesn't mean that he has no ideology, that would be a terrible mistake. He definitely is a white supremacist nationalist. Second, he also believes in capable and less capable people, he's an elitist, and he has made a point about believing in "genetics". Third, he is sexist. Those are all elements of his ideology. I actually think his ideology resembles the law of evolution, survival of the strongest. He had no problem letting people die during Covid.
Something about this term "fascist" is difficult to come to terms with. I am 69 years old. I remember trying to use it and giving it up. Hopeless. A fascist ideology divides into "our side," who are the ones worthy of consideration, and the "others" who are not worthy of any consideration whatsoever. The friend vs. enemy consideration is thus the primary feature of it, in my view. Any person of the enemy side is not worthy of consideration--they are in a dark, "other" zone. That is clear. But somehow there is a problem that arises when one tries to paint and individual or a specific policy as "fascist." It is more of a seeping ideology that gets in the room, or that infects a country, than a quality one may attribute to a specific agent. It's not whether Trump is a fascist or not but whether we are. The U. S. isn't, even with all our problems. Makes sense?
Whilst not disagreeing with your thesis, there seems to be an underlying sentiment of you saying, “Hey folks, it might not be so bad.” This I would take issue with. My concern for Trumps policies has always been about his complete disregard for any suffering, both personal and global, that they will cause.
One possible reason why we believe that some people do not have ideology is that it’s the same as ours. And since it is ours, it cannot be ideology, just a normal rational thinking.
Well, back in the day I thought this one through as well (see other comment). I concluded that ideology is anything a step down from philosophy. I figured out that if you are super objective or a super good thinker, that is not ideology. You get the medal, in philosophy. And, as soon as you cut corners or simplify something for convenience then you subjective and you are in ideology. Are there any philosophies that are not ideology? Supposedly. I mean, maybe in the past. Not today. Well, I cannot think of anyone. Maybe Branko is but it's a very exclusive club.
'a full country: the number of people per square kilometer in the United States is 38 while it is 520 in the Netherlands'
Being from the NL i can inform you that the majority of liberal and progressive (as far as looking away from anti semitism, intimidation of women ((get used to it and shut up, or even better: just avoid those neighborhoods and pretend there's nothing going on)) and immigrant nationalism - the Turkish diaspora in the NL is so overwhelmingly pro Erdogan they should, and probably want to, be considered Erdogan loyalists first and Dutch second) are now in favor of curbing immigration.
While Muslim voters have voted in droves for...Wilders (and this was not the first election they did that) or they voted for DENK ('think'). A Muslim party started out a few years ago as a progressive split-off from the Labour party (Labour didn't serve the ambitions of the two leaders well enough). It was first led by two Turkish/Dutch consultants/managers. After they got embroiled and in the cross hairs of the legal system (fraud) new leadership took over and the party now serves the conservative segment of Dutch Muslims.
As Dutch Muslims may have voted labour in the past (if they voted) they never were progressive themselves - at all. They vote Wilders because of wage competition from newer immigrants and because the dominant lgbt culture of 'progressive' parties is absolutely not to their liking.
And since religious minorities can have their own schools subsidized in the NL, the by now well entrenched Muslim school system (don't forget to cover up girls) obviously has no appetite for the lgbt directives of the Ministry of Education.
To test our multi culti paradise just put on a scarf or a kippah, take a walk, and find out which protects you better.
During the wars in Yugoslavia which lasted (with interruption) for almost a decade I have never heard of a single instance of the people from different groups getting into a fight in Europe or America, and much less attacking domestic police. They spoke and thought of each other pretty bad things. But they were all afraid to annoy their hosts and went silent. his is not the case with Palestinians and many Arabs. They actually have much more of skin the game, stronger culture, or rather belief in own culture, and self-esteem.
"The second part is a million-dollar question because if we could piece together Donald J, Trump’s ideology, we would be able to forecast, or guess (the element of volatility is high), how his rule over the next four years might look like."
It's a very worthwhile and interesting enterprise to analyse Trump's ideology, but on the other hand, if Trump's recent appointees are anything to go by, it won't give us much of an ability to forecast future policy. It seems like the upcoming Trump administration will be as much Musk-ist, as well as bearing the stamp of other wealthy lobbyists and collaborators, as it will be Trumpist. Actually it might be interesting to compare the ideology of Trump with that of Elon Musk?
"(iii) emphasis on the power of the state as opposed to private individuals and the private sector"
Also, I won't quibble too much with your definition of fascism as it's not the main focus of the post, but I do find this interesting. It's definitely an understanding I hear a lot, and it's widely accepted, but on the other hand a) Ishay Landa and others have documented how fascism was as much about the glorification of a particular category of individuals as against "the masses", and b) I think the state under fascism could be better described as a fusion between certain elements of the private sector and the state under the auspices of the fascist movement. It's a little similar to how in Roman history the idea of there being a "public sphere", in the enlightenment sense of a space defined in opposition to the private sphere, with the former emphasised over the latter, is a bit anachronistic. In reality Roman nobiles drew no fine distinction between public office and private dignity, and saw the city less as a distinct public space in our sense of the word, and more as being "theirs", a fusion of the private and the public. I know the distinction between capital/state fusion and state domination of capital is a very slight one, but I think it's important because it helps us to distinguish fascism from other social forms.
White nationalism is written into the US constitution and case law (Dred Scott); fascists target a scapegoat (immigrants) exactly as trump has done. In what way do mass deportations NOT fit into a fascist ideology?
Several academic analyses have pointed out that Trump’s ideology seems to have tenets of national rebirth under a militaristic strongman who appeals to racial supremacy and machismo, tradition, law and order, and violence as an ends in order to mobilize a cadre of revolutionary supporters against the liberal democratic order, the press, unions, certain immigrants, and allies, while making an uneasy but effective alliance with conservatives and the business class. It would certainly fit Griffin’s and Paxton’s definitions.
As for Trump’s foreign policy, he has said he would be willing to take Libya’s oil “on a humanitarian basis”, take ISIS’ oil after “bombing the excrement out of them”, and gotten in a military standoff with Iran. If there’s any indication of U.S. revanchism from him, it’s in the Middle East and North Africa
What is Fascism? I don't use this word as media slang. I derive my thinking on this subject from Marxian thinker Daniel Guerin and his fascinating book 'Fascism and big business' (first edition 1936, 2nd ed. 1973 is the best). And my conclusion is that Trump indeed is a Fascist or Fascistic, with several overlaps with Fascist ideology. The "ideology" of Fascism is defined by Guerin almost a century ago when this phenomenon emerged in Europe. Some of the elements of this phenomenon are also mentioned by Polanyi in his book 'The great transformation' which clearly overlaps with Trump & his MAGA movement of REACTION in modern day. This is a lengthy subject so i won't go into all details.
Fascism, among other things, is a Psychological phenomenon, like a religion. I would highly recommend book 'The dangerous case of Donald Trump' 2019 edition by Bandy Lee on this. Even before one gets into economic and foreign policy ideology of a politician, for a person like Trump, it's essential to look into his psychology and personality. You can't understand anything about Trump without first understanding his personality. I would strongly suggest book The dangerous case of Donald Trump for all scholars.
Psychology shapes perspectives, ideology and thinking of a leader which deserves much attention when understanding Trump.
I am making a bold prediction on Trump. A while back, Dr Milanovic made a comparison of Trump with Gorbachev in several ways. I would extend it further to some crucial commonality of the two. Gorbachev aspired idea of GLASNOST and PERESTROIKA, reshaping Soviet Union politically and economically. This exercise lead to dissolution of Soviet empire superpower. Trump wants to reshape America with MAGA movement, America first, De-Globalization and war against "deep state", the domestic political enemies. This worldview of Trump will liquidate American hegemony and global alliance system in the world. American superpower, or at least its position as unipolar hegemony will be dissolved under Trump.
Soviet Union deteriorated very fast under the policies of Gorbachev and Soviet giant disintegrated within a matter of years due to Gorbachev's policy. I think similar will happen under Trump's rule with American hegemony.
I would not say that trump is an anti-imperialist - rather he believes in running the empire in the immediate economic interests of the US and himself. The defence of East Asia and Europe are not obviously profitable, so he aims to downsize them or make them pay for themselves. But in the Middle East he has not been anti imperialist because he sees it as a region where it is possible to extract a lot of profit ("Take the oil"). Thus he maintained very strong relationships with the gulf states in exchange for personal benefits via Kushner, and he has acted very agressively towards Iran. the same might be observed with regards to Latin America, where he attempted regime change in Venezuela and Bolivia. The possible benefits for well connected Americans if regime change should succeed in either cases are obvious.
in other words, Trump does not believe in any of the human rights empire nonsense, nor in the "liberal international order". he believes in old fashioned openly self serving empire. clashing with strong nations like Russia and China is simply not beneficial to the economic interests of the US. Quick smash and grab expeditions in Latin America and the Middle East on the other hand can line many pockets.
Indeed, “fascist” and “populist” are used so often and indiscriminately to discredit an opponent’s political views that they have become all but meaningless. The latter in particular, assuming that a politician should express not popular views but a higher and more esoteric truth inaccessible to “simpletons.” I assume the sentence “It really stands for the leaders who win elections but do so on a platform that “we” do like.” should read in the end ‘“we” don’t like’?
I agree he's not a fascist in an academic or canonical sense, but he is authoritarian, anti-liberal, and he really is trying to dismantle the American political system. It looks like his to-do list has been literally copied from a history book on Hitler or Mussolini, what they did when they got to power. It's like he's following "How to be a dictator for dummies." If you compare one by one his executive orders with what those dictators did, you'll find a lot of resemblance. Mussolini pardoned some violent supporters called the Black Shirts, Hitler passed a law "cleaning" the civil service (from jews), etc. Trump pardoned those who participated in the attack to Capitol, he changed the status of federal employees so that he can fire them more easily, he suspended the White House DEI department...
This has happened before, so call it fascism or not, we need to take note if we don't want history to repeat itself.
One possible reason why we think that some people do not have ideology is that it’s the same as ours. And since it is ours, it cannot be ideology, just normal, rational thinking.
There is much with which to agree with in BM's take on who/what Trump is. A few comments:
Pavkovic - above - is correct that Trump knows next to nothing about the Founding Fathers or what they thought. Our host is a bit off on what they thought: They did not wish to avoid foreign entanglements because they thought the new USA was strong and self-sufficient. (Among other things, at the time it extended only as far west as the Mississippi. It wasn't until Jefferson picked up the greatest bargain of the 19th Century from Napoleonic France that dreams of "from the Atlantic to the Pacific" rose to the fore.) On the contrary, they knew the new USA was small and weak, and getting involved in European great power conflicts might just lead to the early extinction of this small new nation. (They soon found that avoiding foreign involvements was not so easy, in their conflict with the North African privateers -- usually styled in our mytho-history as "the Babary Pirates." And fending off Britain in 1812-1815 improved their confidence.)
There is another element of Trump's ideological equipment that BM overlooks, which is is autocracy. Yes, he is not an actual fascist; for example, he has no actual affection at all for the Republican party. He didn't build it, and at first it was hostile to him. He has just learned to manipulate it to his own benefit. But he does believe greatly in executive power, as long as he is the on exercising it. He thinks, and every so often attempts to act on it, that what he says should go - with Constitution and laws an obsolete irrelevancy when he is in the seat of power.
Agree on both points (more or less). Yes, US was not very strong when Washington warned against "entanglements" but it was already by then rich (in terms of real wages) and everyone who thought about it realized US vast potential. Adam Smith in the WoN published in 1776, before the outcome of the American revolution was clear, saw the Colonies as a future Empire In fact, the WoN ends on that note. On the executive power, yes. He believes that the executive power of a president is the same as that of a company owner.
Agreed
Fending off Britain in 1812-1815??? The US wanted Canada. Canada retained independence and remains independent for now. Who fended off whom?
Perhaps the important thing in some people’s minds is that they believed they had indeed fended off British power. Anyone who understood what was going on realised they had largely maintained the status quo and done well to avoid a worse beating at the hands of a largely unwilling but stronger power.
Branko -- agree, sorta. If Trump has any principles at all they are transactional and adversarial. Any relationship is based on what he can get out of it and what he has to give up. It's a religion of beggar-thy-neighbor. Above all he lacks empathy, even with his own children.
He's by no means a free marketeer. He's happy to use the instruments of the state for his own benefit, and he admires others who have done that as well. Musk and Ramaswamy have both profited from the fraudulent manipulation of market institutions.
His lack of empathy and imagination means that he will choose short-run expediency over longer-term,... growth, among other things. Sell state secrets now, 'cause we're all dead in the long run and -- to slightly mis-quote a famous first lady -- I really don't care about my grandchildren; do you?.
Is Trump a fascist? Yeah. He'll arrogate authority where it suits him, manipulate public institutions for his own benefit, and violently suppress opposition. Is this the manifestation of some long-held philosophy? No. It just happens to be, conveniently, the combination of behaviors that he believes yields the greatest return.
Hope all is well, in spite of this and other unbelievable horrors.
I agree that Trump is transactional in his manner of obtaining what he wants - in his action strategy. But this doesn't mean that he has no ideology, that would be a terrible mistake. He definitely is a white supremacist nationalist. Second, he also believes in capable and less capable people, he's an elitist, and he has made a point about believing in "genetics". Third, he is sexist. Those are all elements of his ideology. I actually think his ideology resembles the law of evolution, survival of the strongest. He had no problem letting people die during Covid.
Something about this term "fascist" is difficult to come to terms with. I am 69 years old. I remember trying to use it and giving it up. Hopeless. A fascist ideology divides into "our side," who are the ones worthy of consideration, and the "others" who are not worthy of any consideration whatsoever. The friend vs. enemy consideration is thus the primary feature of it, in my view. Any person of the enemy side is not worthy of consideration--they are in a dark, "other" zone. That is clear. But somehow there is a problem that arises when one tries to paint and individual or a specific policy as "fascist." It is more of a seeping ideology that gets in the room, or that infects a country, than a quality one may attribute to a specific agent. It's not whether Trump is a fascist or not but whether we are. The U. S. isn't, even with all our problems. Makes sense?
Whilst not disagreeing with your thesis, there seems to be an underlying sentiment of you saying, “Hey folks, it might not be so bad.” This I would take issue with. My concern for Trumps policies has always been about his complete disregard for any suffering, both personal and global, that they will cause.
Eh?
The state of play right now with ICBM's launching all over seems to suggest that you have a touch of the ol' TDS.
One possible reason why we believe that some people do not have ideology is that it’s the same as ours. And since it is ours, it cannot be ideology, just a normal rational thinking.
Yes, we do not see what we share.
Well, back in the day I thought this one through as well (see other comment). I concluded that ideology is anything a step down from philosophy. I figured out that if you are super objective or a super good thinker, that is not ideology. You get the medal, in philosophy. And, as soon as you cut corners or simplify something for convenience then you subjective and you are in ideology. Are there any philosophies that are not ideology? Supposedly. I mean, maybe in the past. Not today. Well, I cannot think of anyone. Maybe Branko is but it's a very exclusive club.
'a full country: the number of people per square kilometer in the United States is 38 while it is 520 in the Netherlands'
Being from the NL i can inform you that the majority of liberal and progressive (as far as looking away from anti semitism, intimidation of women ((get used to it and shut up, or even better: just avoid those neighborhoods and pretend there's nothing going on)) and immigrant nationalism - the Turkish diaspora in the NL is so overwhelmingly pro Erdogan they should, and probably want to, be considered Erdogan loyalists first and Dutch second) are now in favor of curbing immigration.
While Muslim voters have voted in droves for...Wilders (and this was not the first election they did that) or they voted for DENK ('think'). A Muslim party started out a few years ago as a progressive split-off from the Labour party (Labour didn't serve the ambitions of the two leaders well enough). It was first led by two Turkish/Dutch consultants/managers. After they got embroiled and in the cross hairs of the legal system (fraud) new leadership took over and the party now serves the conservative segment of Dutch Muslims.
As Dutch Muslims may have voted labour in the past (if they voted) they never were progressive themselves - at all. They vote Wilders because of wage competition from newer immigrants and because the dominant lgbt culture of 'progressive' parties is absolutely not to their liking.
And since religious minorities can have their own schools subsidized in the NL, the by now well entrenched Muslim school system (don't forget to cover up girls) obviously has no appetite for the lgbt directives of the Ministry of Education.
To test our multi culti paradise just put on a scarf or a kippah, take a walk, and find out which protects you better.
During the wars in Yugoslavia which lasted (with interruption) for almost a decade I have never heard of a single instance of the people from different groups getting into a fight in Europe or America, and much less attacking domestic police. They spoke and thought of each other pretty bad things. But they were all afraid to annoy their hosts and went silent. his is not the case with Palestinians and many Arabs. They actually have much more of skin the game, stronger culture, or rather belief in own culture, and self-esteem.
"The second part is a million-dollar question because if we could piece together Donald J, Trump’s ideology, we would be able to forecast, or guess (the element of volatility is high), how his rule over the next four years might look like."
It's a very worthwhile and interesting enterprise to analyse Trump's ideology, but on the other hand, if Trump's recent appointees are anything to go by, it won't give us much of an ability to forecast future policy. It seems like the upcoming Trump administration will be as much Musk-ist, as well as bearing the stamp of other wealthy lobbyists and collaborators, as it will be Trumpist. Actually it might be interesting to compare the ideology of Trump with that of Elon Musk?
"(iii) emphasis on the power of the state as opposed to private individuals and the private sector"
Also, I won't quibble too much with your definition of fascism as it's not the main focus of the post, but I do find this interesting. It's definitely an understanding I hear a lot, and it's widely accepted, but on the other hand a) Ishay Landa and others have documented how fascism was as much about the glorification of a particular category of individuals as against "the masses", and b) I think the state under fascism could be better described as a fusion between certain elements of the private sector and the state under the auspices of the fascist movement. It's a little similar to how in Roman history the idea of there being a "public sphere", in the enlightenment sense of a space defined in opposition to the private sphere, with the former emphasised over the latter, is a bit anachronistic. In reality Roman nobiles drew no fine distinction between public office and private dignity, and saw the city less as a distinct public space in our sense of the word, and more as being "theirs", a fusion of the private and the public. I know the distinction between capital/state fusion and state domination of capital is a very slight one, but I think it's important because it helps us to distinguish fascism from other social forms.
White nationalism is written into the US constitution and case law (Dred Scott); fascists target a scapegoat (immigrants) exactly as trump has done. In what way do mass deportations NOT fit into a fascist ideology?
Several academic analyses have pointed out that Trump’s ideology seems to have tenets of national rebirth under a militaristic strongman who appeals to racial supremacy and machismo, tradition, law and order, and violence as an ends in order to mobilize a cadre of revolutionary supporters against the liberal democratic order, the press, unions, certain immigrants, and allies, while making an uneasy but effective alliance with conservatives and the business class. It would certainly fit Griffin’s and Paxton’s definitions.
As for Trump’s foreign policy, he has said he would be willing to take Libya’s oil “on a humanitarian basis”, take ISIS’ oil after “bombing the excrement out of them”, and gotten in a military standoff with Iran. If there’s any indication of U.S. revanchism from him, it’s in the Middle East and North Africa
What is Fascism? I don't use this word as media slang. I derive my thinking on this subject from Marxian thinker Daniel Guerin and his fascinating book 'Fascism and big business' (first edition 1936, 2nd ed. 1973 is the best). And my conclusion is that Trump indeed is a Fascist or Fascistic, with several overlaps with Fascist ideology. The "ideology" of Fascism is defined by Guerin almost a century ago when this phenomenon emerged in Europe. Some of the elements of this phenomenon are also mentioned by Polanyi in his book 'The great transformation' which clearly overlaps with Trump & his MAGA movement of REACTION in modern day. This is a lengthy subject so i won't go into all details.
Fascism, among other things, is a Psychological phenomenon, like a religion. I would highly recommend book 'The dangerous case of Donald Trump' 2019 edition by Bandy Lee on this. Even before one gets into economic and foreign policy ideology of a politician, for a person like Trump, it's essential to look into his psychology and personality. You can't understand anything about Trump without first understanding his personality. I would strongly suggest book The dangerous case of Donald Trump for all scholars.
Psychology shapes perspectives, ideology and thinking of a leader which deserves much attention when understanding Trump.
I am making a bold prediction on Trump. A while back, Dr Milanovic made a comparison of Trump with Gorbachev in several ways. I would extend it further to some crucial commonality of the two. Gorbachev aspired idea of GLASNOST and PERESTROIKA, reshaping Soviet Union politically and economically. This exercise lead to dissolution of Soviet empire superpower. Trump wants to reshape America with MAGA movement, America first, De-Globalization and war against "deep state", the domestic political enemies. This worldview of Trump will liquidate American hegemony and global alliance system in the world. American superpower, or at least its position as unipolar hegemony will be dissolved under Trump.
Soviet Union deteriorated very fast under the policies of Gorbachev and Soviet giant disintegrated within a matter of years due to Gorbachev's policy. I think similar will happen under Trump's rule with American hegemony.
What an interesting comparison, thanks.
I would not say that trump is an anti-imperialist - rather he believes in running the empire in the immediate economic interests of the US and himself. The defence of East Asia and Europe are not obviously profitable, so he aims to downsize them or make them pay for themselves. But in the Middle East he has not been anti imperialist because he sees it as a region where it is possible to extract a lot of profit ("Take the oil"). Thus he maintained very strong relationships with the gulf states in exchange for personal benefits via Kushner, and he has acted very agressively towards Iran. the same might be observed with regards to Latin America, where he attempted regime change in Venezuela and Bolivia. The possible benefits for well connected Americans if regime change should succeed in either cases are obvious.
in other words, Trump does not believe in any of the human rights empire nonsense, nor in the "liberal international order". he believes in old fashioned openly self serving empire. clashing with strong nations like Russia and China is simply not beneficial to the economic interests of the US. Quick smash and grab expeditions in Latin America and the Middle East on the other hand can line many pockets.
Yes, it's past time the "fascist" tag was buried. He is primarily, as you say, a mercantilist and profit-taker.
Indeed, “fascist” and “populist” are used so often and indiscriminately to discredit an opponent’s political views that they have become all but meaningless. The latter in particular, assuming that a politician should express not popular views but a higher and more esoteric truth inaccessible to “simpletons.” I assume the sentence “It really stands for the leaders who win elections but do so on a platform that “we” do like.” should read in the end ‘“we” don’t like’?
Thanks for pointing out the mistake. I corrected it.
There’s at least one major imperial enterprise that this article ignores, that Trump favors
True. I could not discuss all. Ukraine & Gaza are absent.
I agree he's not a fascist in an academic or canonical sense, but he is authoritarian, anti-liberal, and he really is trying to dismantle the American political system. It looks like his to-do list has been literally copied from a history book on Hitler or Mussolini, what they did when they got to power. It's like he's following "How to be a dictator for dummies." If you compare one by one his executive orders with what those dictators did, you'll find a lot of resemblance. Mussolini pardoned some violent supporters called the Black Shirts, Hitler passed a law "cleaning" the civil service (from jews), etc. Trump pardoned those who participated in the attack to Capitol, he changed the status of federal employees so that he can fire them more easily, he suspended the White House DEI department...
This has happened before, so call it fascism or not, we need to take note if we don't want history to repeat itself.