To the degree possible, without engaging in excessive political correctness, I have believed that it’s best to allow politically active people to describe their own views. You could go too far with it, of course, if someone is clearly lying about positions he or she has taken or refusing to acknowledge words and labels that apply to their views.
But I long noted that, for obvious and dishonest purposes, actors on the political right have seen an advantage in labeling progressive/liberal players in the U.S. political drama as “socialists.”
There are some, a very few like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who embrace the s-term. But most Democrats don’t. They call themselves “liberals” or “progressives,” meaning that they generally favor more, rather than less, government action, especially action to help the needy.
The exact spot on the spectrum where “liberalism” crosses the line into “socialism” is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. But, to the degree possible, and leaving room for discussion over just where the line is, I would say it’s best to err on the side of allowing people to choose their labels unless they abuse the courtesy.
The same might be said of the terms “conservative” and “fascist.” Conservatives are right of center on the ideological spectrum, and fascists are farther right. But the precise border-line is hard to specify. I suppose fascists are also known for a tendency to admire radical, even violent leaders who are often not respectful of democratic norms. You know: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco.
For what seems like many years, Americans on the right have arrogated to themselves the power to define the line between liberals and socialists or, to put it more bluntly, have started calling liberals “socialists” and their liberal policy proposals “socialism,” even though the authors and promoters of those programs do not generally embrace the “s-word” for themselves or their policies.
Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer was particularly obnoxious in this regard in his role as leader of the National Republican Congressional Committee, referring in the committee’s communications to dozens and dozens of liberal Democrats, who do not call themselves socialists, as “socialists.”
Emmer’s motives were obvious. Swing voters, and Americans in general, are leery of the s-word and will tend to balk at any policy proposal that can be successfully labeled as “socialism.”
As a lifelong liberal myself, the motives behind this rhetorical strategy were obvious, and obnoxious. Instead of arguing the merits of a proposal, just label it with a politically toxic term, specifically the s-word.
It has long occurred to me that if liberals adopted the same strategy, they would start labeling conservative policy ideas as “fascist” and our public policy argument could devolve into an insipid you’re-a-socialist; yeah-well-you’re-a-fascist idiocy, roughly the opposite of a constructive discussion of policy differences across left-right lines.
But, strangely, I suppose, at least pre-Trump and even in the early days of Trump, the name-calling came mostly from one side.
Republicans and conservatives have taken to labeling as “socialists” many liberal political figures who do not call themselves by that term. And Republicans have done so with ever-increasing frequency over recent years. But, for whatever reason (feel free to speculate on the reason), left-leaning American political figures have not replied to the repetition of “socialist-socialist-socialist” with chants against right-leaning political figures as “fascists-fascists-fascists.”
Maybe, after the long grotesque incivility of the Trump era, that’s changing. I still don’t want to go there, but since the dawn of the Trump period I certainly felt the impulse.
I would gladly argue that Trump and his enablers were closer to being “fascists” than many liberals were to being “socialists.”
So I perked up when longtime liberal (and former Secretary of Labor) Robert Reich decided that, turnabout being fair play and all, he would drop an f-bomb (the f-word in this case being the word “fascist”) on a leading Republican and see what happened.
Reich, referring to some recent far-right rhetoric coming from Florida’s Republican Gov. (and likely 2024 presidential candidate) Ron DeSantis, put out a tweet that read:
Just wondering if “DeSantis” is now officially a synonym for “fascist.”
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) August 23, 2022
I don’t mean to condone Reich’s little experiment in turnabout-equals-fair-play play. But it resonated with that old thought of mine that if Republicans could decide which Democrats could be labeled with the s-word, maybe Democrats will decide which Republicans can be labeled with the f-word. (Fascist, that is, not the other f-word.)
Reich got, I suppose, the reaction he expected from conservative publications like The Washington Examiner, for example, which huffed:
“Ultra left-wing elitist and former secretary of labor during the Clinton administration Robert Reich tweeted earlier this week, “Just wondering if ‘DeSantis’ is now officially a synonym for ‘fascist.’” This insulting slur has no basis, of course.
“This is just what left-wing ideologues do when they discuss Republican politicians who pose any threat to the existence of their political ideology.
“It’s not grounded in any reality and is a sham. Yet, it never stops any of them from repeating the lie. Anyone the Democrats don’t like or disagree with is a fascist. … Any person using such hyperbolic, unhinged name-calling is not a serious person, and anything they say should not be deemed credible.”
Reich noted that “Fox News’s digital outlet took umbrage as did many others, with rightwing rage at my tweet ricocheting through the echo-chambers of Republican social media.”
Maybe I hang out in the wrong circles, but the idea that liberals are constantly calling conservative “fascists” did not resonate with my experience.
And I don’t really want to see liberals start throwing around the f-word (fascist) too loosely when talking about conservatives. Mostly, I was just amused at the outrage of the right, which uses the s-word to describe liberal policies roughly a million times (or do I mean a billion, who cares when you’re having fun) more often than liberals call them by the f-word.
I’d be interested to know if Fox has ever taken any right-wing journal or personality to task for overusing the s-word (socialism) when denouncing any liberal Democrat who advocated policies that would tax rich people a bit more so the government could help poor people a bit more and other Bolshevik ideas like that.
What is going on here is a phenomenon I think of as “rabbit ears”. Democrats talk a lot, and some of it is nonsense, but Republicans hear more than we say. Even when we aren’t saying the word out loud, Republicans hear what we are thinking. And they know what we are thinking is that their party has gone in the direction of fascism.
Yeah, got some relation, that I sent the 14 points of fascism too, he claimed I called him a Nazi, all I said was if the shoe fits wear it! Best I can tell he has not read the article, but keeps claiming I called him a Nazi, and wonders how that is possible since he hasn’t killed any Jews. Just can’t get it that you don’t have to kill 6 M Jews to have Nazi tendencies.
https://www.bremertonschools.org/cms/lib/WA01001541/Centricity/Domain/222/Fourteen%20Defining%20Characteristics%20of%20Fascism%20slides.pdf
Eric has hit on a frustrating reality: until recently, the right has screamed “socialist” more often than the left has screamed”fascist.” It’s also frustrating that the “socialist” label is less defensible. Policies the right deems “socialist” are simply the norm in much of the western capitalist world–universal cheap (or free) health care; cheap (or free) education; and so on. (Even uber-capitalist Maggie Thatcher never touched Britain’s national health service, the lodestar of alleged “socialism.”) But policies that the left deems “fascist” really do resemble authoritarian regimes of the past–hyper nationalism and xenophobia (building walls, barring Muslims, etc.); devotion to a strongman leader in a cult-like fashion; manipulation of elections to maintain power; and so on. Plus, the right loses credibility by simultaneously calling things socialist and fascist. (Note to Scott Jenson: get your story straight–are COVID restrictions like Kristallnacht, or Stasi?)
But I also find it frustrating that both labels have no real meaning: they are not defined categories that can be observed and tested; and they both relate to political systems that were closely tied to historical circumstances from the distant past. In some ways, it’s like calling someone a Whig–kind of pointless since the term has no current point of reference. When we use these terms, we mean to underscore our position with a horrifying image. Which is emotionally satisfying to the one doing the name-calling, but hardly convinces anyone who doesn’t already share that view.
Maybe we need some new words to simply describe what our factions stand for. And eventually, the labels will attach themselves. But for now, perhaps it’s time to let go of 1917 in Leningrad, and 1933 in Berlin, and just make our case for bending the arc of history towards justice as we see fit.
I don’t know Eric. Choosing your own labels is nice and all, and for pronouns and deadnames, i’m all in, that is basic respect.
But for public figures who play at political science and wield power, I think it is important that words have agreed upon meanings.
I am not sure I think Bernie is a real socialist, in spite of calling himself that. Sure, in a couple of limited cases, Bernie really would prefer to have the state take control of industries (health insurance primarily, and other collectivised risk abatement areas), but in general he wants well regulated capitalism and/or offsets for folks who don’t end up winners under poorly regulated capitalism. To borrow from another piece today from Professor Nimtz, Bernie is a ‘tweaker’. Not a real socialist/ collectivist/ communitarian.
DeSantis is, on the other hand, an actual Fascist. All 14 points of Eco’s rubric are satisfied:
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Its actually much worse than simple Fascism.
For decades now, our so called conservative friends have taken every opportunity to use the power of the state to bolster the organized groups we call corporations, through subsidies, bailouts, and the tax code structure, not to mention policy that has decimated the power of labor. Favored social organizations, too, are showered with gifts.
Fascism is a style of demagoguery. National socialism is a organizing principal for a society. Under national socialism, those who won already deserve the support of the state, because they are stronger, better, or just part of our group.
We have had national socialism since at least the 80s. Id say FDR’s socialism tried to include a national socialism aspect – if you didn’t shirk your responsibility, the new deal would hurt your interests if you were already a winner, but wouldn’t destroy you. Admittedly my source material for that assertion is the musical Annie.
The fascists are newish. I mean, David Duke and Pat Buchanan were maybe fascist but they were a fringe.
Fascist national socialism is Nazism.
It is coming and we are the only people who can stop it.
Not a new thing, remember Keith Ellison comparing George Bush and the Naxi party?
Wrong now wrong then
“Then” was 2007. I must say, you people have a gift for nursing grievances.
What about calling Democrats socialists, or, as many have recently, calling them Marxists? Do you disapprove of that talk, or is it more important to point out the wrongdoings of liberals?
Interesting that a Governor who said he would let the people of his state decide whether or not to get vaccinated, would be called a fascist. DeSantis also let businesses decide if they should shut down or stay open. He let parents decide on sending kids to school or not and DeSantis is a fascist? The Governor of Florida seems to believe in his citizens decision to control their own life, not very fascist like.
Sounds more like you prefer a state that does not look out for the health and welfare of its citizens, guess no speed limits, stop if you want intersections, yield if you feel like it, no regulations on drugs, let who you want into the bar, massage parlor, hey no interference with child labor or trafficking, etc. etc. etc. would all be good Governor moves as well?
When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The Governor of Florida has:
Suspended a prosecutor – an official elected by the people who are supposed to choose these things – because he dared disagree with the Governor’s policy on abortions (using an armed officer for maximum effect in removing him);
Stripped Disney of its long-standing tax status because the CEO disagreed with the “Don’t Say Gay” law;
Threatened academics whose teaching he doesn’t like with abolition of their programs;
Established an armed law enforcement unit to hunt down voter fraud, which unit has concentrated its efforts in areas with racial minorities; and
Dictated to private corporations what they may not discuss in training sessions.
Perhaps you like everything you see here. It’s all good because it goes after the people you disapprove of. Nonetheless, you cannot pretend that it is not inimical to democracy.
Not everything is about COVID, “Joe.”
I suppose that’s one metric; though not one associated as a key indicator of fascism, so far as I’m aware.
Fascism is strongly associated with…
Nationalism (check)
Authoritarianism (check)
Corporatism (check)
Voting suppression (check)
Illiberalism (small ‘l’) (check)
Intolerance (check)
I tend to agree with Eric’s premise at the outset, that people ought to be able to apply their own labels. Yet, I also believe that the rest of us ought to be able to point out when those labels don’t seem to apply. What DeSantis, Abbott, Trump, Carlson, and others are calling conservatism is nothing like what the Republican party used to be. It’s very heavy on authoritarian white nationalism, which is pretty much what fascism was in the 30s. Y’all might not like the label, and maybe that ought to make you step back and think for a minute.
Um, other than healthcare workers, everyone in every state “decided whether or not to get vaccinated”. Most (sensible) governors, as well as the “distrusted” CDC, simply strongly recommended vaccination. Apparently DeSantis was stupid enough not to strongly recommend it. But it was up to the person to decide, everywhere. There was very little mandatory vaccination. So your first instance of DeSantis the Great falls flat.
As for the others, an important element of fascism is disdain for the recommendations of experts, as well as anti-intellectualism. So DeSantis’ decision to reject the advice of public health officials and take no meaningful steps to contain the pandemic fits the pattern of catering to rightist Know-Nothings. Forcing teachers to risk contracting a fatal disease while also exposing children is not a libertarian approach, it is authoritarian. And didn’t FL take steps to block municipalities from adopting more stringent pandemic protocols, like most Red States? I can’t remember. But if DeSantis did, that’s more authoritarianism, not “liberty”.
DeSantis seems to operate exactly like a rightwing populist demagogue. That was Trumpolini’s modus operandi as well. When a politician elects to take that path to power, they are definitely on the road to fascism, at the very least.
Funny that DeSantis is loved by his constituents, they enjoy making their own mind up as to their individual health….How it should be. Hilariously most here at Minnpost feel making your own decisions as to health, school choice and your business is deem “fascist “. My personal favorite is equating not wearing a mask with running stop signs and anarchy. Florida is having more people moving in daily, Blue states are hemorrhaging residents. I guess a lot of folks like making their own choices.
At least those whose vote he hasn’t suppressed.
Funny that “Joe” thinks that a fascist must necessarily be unpopular. Among those who aren’t hurt by what the fascist does, or whose grievances are catered to by the fascist (“I don’t WANNA wear a mask!!!”), yes, he will be popular. These are people who don’t care for fundamental principles, because they can’t look beyond their own interests or concerns.
Well, he doesn’t really understand the concept of “rightwing populism”, its attractions and dangers for a functioning democracy.
The equally “beloved” authoritarian fascist Trumpolini just promised that the crackpot he endorsed for guv in MA would “rule your state with an iron fist!” Can’t get much more explicit than that. And people “love” it, I guess!
Because they never think the iron fist will come down on them.
Labels are fine, so long as one knows what is “behind” the label. In other words, what does the word actually mean? This is where every conservative talker fails with their “socialist” claptrap. Under the view of a Repub like Emmer, FDR was a “socialist”, as was LBJ.
There are accepted definitions of “fascism”, and the Trump movement checks a very large number of the critical elements in every accepted definition, (always keeping in mind that every fascist regime had its own peculiar form). Trump, for example, did not undertake any actual wars of aggression (unlike Hitler), although he did accede to requests from other fascist leaders like his idol Putin the Terrible to conform our military posture to Putin’s wishes. I’m thinking specifically of Trumpolini’s betrayal of the Kurdish militias which had been supporting us.
In this respect Trumpolini was to Putin as Mussolini was to Hitler, a junior partner in the fascist movement. There can be no doubt that Trump would have submitted to Putin’s wishes over the invasion of Ukraine, and he never would have attempted to galvanize NATO against Putin’s aggression should he have retained power in 2020.
I don’t really follow rhe specifics of what is going on in the degraded state of FL under DeSantis. I do know that he is a rightwing populist demagogue that cynically attacks weaker and politically helpless groups that patriotic Christian “conservatives” across rhe nation love to hate on. I do know that FL (like so many Red States) is a heavily gerrymandered Repub-controlled “paradise”, which has taken additional steps to suppress urban turnout in 2022 and beyond.
In this sense it is not a democratic regime, and the FL Repub party under its leader has taken steps to entrench and maintain their control whatever the majority of FL voters might desire. In this sense DeSantis is certainly a fascist or at least betrays fascist sympathies. This is even more the case because that is the terrible nature of the Trumpite “base” that he now must pander to.
As a president he would be another anti-democratic white nationalist monster, who would rule by division and hate, just as Trumpolini did. That is now a feature of this movement which cannot be altered.
We normally think of conservatism as the opposite of radicalism, but the conservative movement in America is actually quite radical. Tearing down Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would be pretty radical, don’t you agree?
The American conservative movement now openly embraces fascist leaders abroad, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban. It walks like a duck and talks like a duck.
So maybe the burden of proof should fall on self-described conservatives to distinguish their political philosophy from fascism. The way to get them to engage in that sort of honest reflection is just to call a spade a spade.
More on topic to EB’s point about media response to the tweet, did the Rightwing Noise Machine go apoplectic over Biden’s recent description of the “MAGA Republicans” as “quasi-fascist”? I assume so.
The problem for the Repub party now is “if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is…” etc.
Well, here’s an experiment:
A few years ago the democrats in Washington banned the use of incandescent light bulbs and decreed that all light bulbs henceforth would be LED. Is that socialism or fascism?
The school district in Washington DC recently announced that kids would not be able to enroll for the school year unless they had proof of Covid vaccination. Thousands of mostly Black kids will be denied their right to an education. Is that socialism or fascism?
The state of California recently announced that as of 2035, it would be illegal to buy or sell internal combustion engine powered automobiles. Is that socialism or fascism? Our Governor has signed on to mimic California’s emissions policies by the way.
Labels are meaningless unless you can define specific policies that fit that label. It’s amusing when fascists don’t realize when they are the fascists.
None of these instances can remotely be considered either socialist or fascist, so you need to do some extra reading on the subject(s).
Your 1. applied solely to US governmental facilities as I recall, and would save taxpayer money to boot. And why in the world should anyone even care about that? In any event, this is called “environmentalism”, a concept anathema to the American right but most certainly not fascism.
Your 2. was standard practice in the US for preventing communicable diseases (like polio!) among schoolchildren for decades upon decades, until the recent explosion of anti-scientific nonsense promulgated mostly by the American right.
Your 3. acts as though the planet isn’t on the verge of the irreversible destruction of the 11,000 year old stable climate, and that CA isn’t the largest auto market in the US. And of course California voters have the power to change the policy should they desire. In any event, the proper label for this policy is also “environmentalism”.
Everything you mentioned was done by elected officials who were acting pursuant to their legal powers.
And frankly, I’ve always thought light bulbs were a ridiculous hill to die on.
The problem with your examples is that socialism & fascism aren’t binary. A thing can be neither socialism nor fascism.
For example, requiring vaccinations to attend school. That’s not a new policy, and it’s not something that fits into the socialism or fascism bucket. It’s a logical public health policy. Because we believe having a populace with a basic education is good for our society, we have public schools. Because students send hours together every day, we require vaccinations against infectious deadly diseases. If that’s too big an ask, people are free to find alternatives.
Some basic points:
Bernie et.al. describe themselves as Social Democrats, not as Socialists.
A true Socialist believes in public ownership of the means of production; Social Democrats are committed to private ownership of property with more public support for individuals.
‘Nazi’ of course is short for National Socialist (National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). They didn’t stay socialist for long.
Saying that fascism and socialism are equally outrages is a failure to understand history and basic definitions.
“…left-leaning American political figures have not replied to the repetition of “socialist-socialist-socialist” with chants against right-leaning political figures as “fascists-fascists-fascists.”
The reason is “fascist” is not an equal opposite of Socialism.
Maybe “semi-fascist” will be acceptable to Mr. Black? How about those who believe in “free enterprise?”
I guess when the word “racists or white supremist” does not work, you must come up with something equally Junior high.
Always remember – the “name-calling” word “Nazi” is allowed on the pages of MinnPost and often in the sympathetic responses to articles by Mr. Black.
“The reason is “fascist” is not an equal opposite of Socialism.”
Exactly. Next: what are the characteristics of Fascism, and does Gov DeSantis exhibit them; or to what degree?
The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism:
https://rense.com/general37/char.htm
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
It’s important to remember a few facts here when we refer to some Americans as Fascists. First, we don’t expect an American Fascist to look like Hitler or Mussolini, we would expect a different flavor or expression of Fascism in the US, in the late 20th early 21st century. For instance contemporary Fascist affiliation with evangelical Christianity is slightly different- hence wrapped in a flag and waving a bible. So the issue isn’t settled by similarity to European Fascist in the 20’s and 30’s, it’s a question of alignment with basic practices and anti-democratic objectives.
The second fact, the one that Eric is most woefully ignoring, is the inherent dishonesty and subterfuge associated with Fascism. Modern Fascists are acutely aware of their historical lineage, and a s matter of propaganda and public relations they would expected to obscure their agenda and objectives (As they did in the 20s and 30s) by avoiding references to a movement we already fought war against. Much the same way racist will deny being racists, we would expect Fascists to deny being Fascists. That doesn’t mean however that we can’t recognize them for what they are, or call them what they are. On the contrary, our very survival may indeed depend upon our recognition and confrontation.
One might read Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here”.
Or Philip Roth’s “The Plot Against America.”
I read “It Can’t Happen Here” about three or four years ago. My thought at the time was that if it had been published then, I would have dismissed it as too on the money.
The right has been harping on- waving the bloody flag as some have called it- about liberals being “pinkos”, Socialists or “Commies” as long as I’ve been alive. From what I’ve read about what was going before I was alive, that was kind a thing too. It was harder to accuse Democrats in general of being any of these things because Eastland, Dies and other rabid anti-Communists were anti-Communists even if they were reliably racist too (favoring civil rights for African-Americans was also a sign of “Communist sympathies” in those days).
When I was in college in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, I used to hear occasional references to fascists but my impression was that no one took that very seriously. Even Nixon was never seen as a Hitler or Mussolini or even anything like their then surviving fascist, Francisco Franco. (Some people did call him and almost any authority figures “fascists” just because they had power and authority, which is why it was never taken seriously, I believe).
What’s happened since 2000 has been different. The right wing has gone further right and become nastier. I’d attribute this to Newt Gingrich but many on the right have emulated him in using slurs and negativity to attack their opponents. Policy differences and proposals are not addressed on their merits but whether they seem to far “left.” Even respectable health measures like birth control, abortion and, for Heaven’s sake, vaccination and mask wearing, are labeled and attacked as “Leftist” and therefore objects of derision, fear, hatred and division.
I agree with Justin Adams’s comment above. But here’s what I found Robert Reich said about why he thinks DeSantis is a fascist:
“Authoritarianism implies the absence of democracy, a dictatorship,” Reich writes. “Fascism — from the Latin fasces, denoting a tightly bound bundle of wooden rods typically including a protruding axe blade, adopted by Benito Mussolini in the 1930s to symbolize his total power — is different. Fascism also includes hatred of ‘them’ — people considered different by race or religion, or outside the mainstream, or who were born abroad; control over what people learn and what books they are allowed to read, control over what had been independent government units…. control over women and the most intimate and difficult decisions they’ll ever make, and demands that the private sector support the regime.”
I’d only add that “hatred of them” includes “liberals” or anyone or group labeled as liberal of increasingly “Left”. Reich points out that DeSantis is among the leading Republicans supporting the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen. He’s supporting the election of “Big Lie supporters” for critical election positions in Florida and around the country. DeSantis is a fascist and I think if he continues to hold office, we ain’t seen nothing to what he and the Republican Party are capable of.
I am not a big label guy myself. One problem with that is being fascist is not the same as being like fascists, and lots of really good people resonate to themes shared and exploited by fascists. The same can be said, I would argue at the other end of the political spectrum. Both fascists and communists stand for things, and very often, those in the middle of the political spectrum stand for nothing at all.
Mr. Black apparently accesses few left-of-center news and opinion outlets and reads even fewer reader comments in those outlets. If I had a dollar for every time over the last 12 months a Republican public figure was labeled a fascist in those outlets and reader comments my net worth would exceed the combined wealth of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett. The term “racist” is the only label thrown around more promiscuously than the term “fascist”. See other comments in this thread for cases in point regarding “fascist”. It is also true that many conservatives label their opponents as socialists in far too many cases where that label is not justified.
Specific references?
This strikes me as similar to arguments about freedom vs. tyranny, as if there were only two choices, one or the other, when in fact there are no historical examples of societies that fall entirely into one camp or the other. Most societies, and most individuals, are typically a combination of both. Even the most authoritarian regimes allow for some individual freedom, and I’m not aware of any human societies that literally have no rules, and grant complete and total personal autonomy. In similar fashion, most individuals tend to dispute policies with which they disagree, for whatever reason, and support policies with which they agree, regardless of where the policy in question might fall on a political spectrum. I know people who are politically liberal while being personally conservative, and I know people who, for practical purposes, are the reverse. Most political philosophy doesn’t fit neatly into the sort of dichotomy that some have expressed here.
I find Mr. DeSantis personally and politically loathsome, but he was elected by the voters of Florida, so obviously a lot of people don’t agree with my view. Fortunately, his authority as Governor of Florida doesn’t extend to Minnesota, so my concern can, for the time being at least, be largely academic. He’s not affecting my life personally.
Just a little nudge here Ray… when you say DeSantis isn’t affecting your life… I would point out the fact that a lot of your fellow Minnesotan’s spend their winters living with Mr. DeSantis, and his pandemic management over the last two years exposed a lot of people who travel back and forth to COVID. Those travels were the source of more than a few COVID 19 outbreaks and transmissions here in MN. Just one example how we may not be as isolated from some other governor as we assume.
Governor DeSantis is using his authoritarian cosplay (an Estado Novo theme park?) as a stepping stone to a presidential candidacy. If he succeeds, yes, he will have a great effect on all of our lives.
The defining characteristic of fascist regimes is in the organized violence.
The economics of fascist regimes is an alliance with the ruling class and corporate presence in elections, policies and priorities.
WWII gave power to the corporate industrialists that grew and prospered under the Nazis– collaborators in the Holocaust that exist today. Think “Shindlers List”.
examples here: https://allthatsinteresting.com/major-brands-nazi-collaborators
Socialism is defined by public systems of health, education and welfare that seek to provide a governing structure that serves middle class (working class) families through a Mixed economy.
The economics of socialism seeks to allocate resources in the most efficient manner possible. Karl Marx (and Hegel, Engels, Adam Smith and others) all sought to solve the problem of economics through an analysis of production and wealth, and sociology.
Adam Smith was definitely no Socialist — in today’s terms he was definitely a Capitalist.
Thank you for your response. Actually, Karl Marx and Adam Smith agreed on one important economic principle. They both thought workers were the source of value creation and wealth.
These pioneering theoreticians agreed on the most basic point of a study of economics: owners/bosses don’t create surplus value, workers do.
http://cadtm.org/Adam-Smith-is-closer-to-Karl-Marx
“I have believed that it’s best to allow politically active people to describe their own views.”
This principle has cropped up in Eric’s columns before, and frankly it’s ridiculous. Language is a collective and public exercise, words, concepts, and phrases derive their meaning and definitions from collective and public recognition. The critical factor with any phrase or word that’s being deployed in language is not WHO uses it for whatever reason, but wither or not that use conforms to the definition within the language. If I were to call myself a Jew for instance, that would not actually make me Jewish, nor would it create an obligation for everyone to consider me Jewish.
Eric’s principle here is an old “balanced” media dodge designed to moderate reporting language and discourage challenges to status quo-language. The question is whether or not DeSantis IS a Fascist, and that question cannot be resolved by simply observing who uses the term. While DeSantis may not be a Fascist simply because someone calls him a Fascist, he cannot deny his Fascism by simply calling himself something else. Those of us who’ve been called “socialists” over the years don’t complain that someone someone is calling us something we don’t call ourselves, we respond by discussing the nature of socialism and discussing our association with the term. The idea that you can’t be a Fascist, a bank robber, a rapist, or whatever… simply because you call yourself something else renders language and discourse incoherent. If DeSantis were to describe himself as a Democrat tomorrow, would we obligated to call him a Democrat? Would the issue of his political party affiliation be settled by his own proclamation or would it be defined by actual Party identity?
Fascism isn’t a personal pronoun, it’s an movement/ideology that seeks to hijack government and institutions in order to dictate compliance. If you want to talk about whether or not Trump, or DeSantis are Fascists we can have that conversation, but you don’t get to silence the discussion simply because the language is outside your personal comfort level.
Correct. DeSantis and his supporters are welcome to tell us how they distinguish between fascism and their own political philosophy. The press is under no obligation to to give DeSantis a free pass on the question.
“Governor, you seem to walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, so how would you distinguish between yourself and a duck?”
Meanwhile, the “moderate/centrist” bipartisan regime has spent decades ignoring the Republican drift into Fascism and moderating terminology in the service of it’s own comfort zones. The irony is that despite the ostensive impulse towards “moderation” this bipartisan fantasy has actually exaggerated divisions and hostility. The more these guys worry about the language we’re using, the more right wing extremism has grown in influence and power. This idea that if we balance the language, we’ll balance the extremism, is obviously facile. You confront inequity and injustice by naming it and calling it out… you refuse to confront it at your own peril.
I think it’s hilarious how put out our MAGA contingent here is about labels. You would think the poor souls are followed around day and night by people pointing at them and chanting “Fascist, fascist, fascist!” or “Racist, racist, racist!” Their grievances and persecution knows no limits. Mr. Black is an acknowledged liberal; MinnPost tilts to the left most of the time, but they whine because it is biased. If any Democrat had done one-tenth of the stuff their great leader has done some would have died from having massive strokes. Or how about the news today that the wife of a Supreme Court justice not only urged the throwing out of election results in Arizona, but also in our neighbors to the east? Seems a bit fascist like behavior to me. All based on the desires of a serial con man with the emotional maturation of a five year old. “No, you can’t have those secret documents I’ve got laying around. They’re mine.” And they get bent out of shape because some of us consider some of them wanna be fascists. Sheesh!
Not a single word in the article, or the tweet, or the comments, as to what DeSantis actually did or has done to apparently be deserved to be called a Fascist.
A very persuasive counter-argument!
Actually it completely misses the point. Eric isn’t writing about whether or not DeSantis IS a Fascist, he’s writing about terminology. If we want to talk about what actually makes DeSantis a Fascist, that’s a different article. Pointing out the fact that article doesn’t discuss a subject that the article doesn’t discuss… isn’t an “argument” or counter-argument. Eric isn’t actually making an argument of any kind, he’s just commenting the vocabulary that’s being/been deployed.
By the way, why is calling DeSantis a Fascist somehow more “experimental” than continuing to call him a Republican? This actually reflects an inherent impulse to marginalize liberalism and progressives; it’s not about balance and objectivity, its about containing discourse within certain parameters. This actually reveals a basic aversion to liberalism within the journalistic community rather than the “liberal” lean they’re so frequently accused of. You see his with instinctive skepticism of almost any liberal agenda from MFA to rent control or living wages… all likewise classified as “experimental”.
I apologize for not be more concise earlier, but I guess my problem with Eric’s narrative here, and this is a frequent narrative- is that it pretends these terms, like: “Fascist” can only be “labels”; we don’t need to consider them as legitimate adjectives. THAT narrative is all about pushing the language and discourse back into a more comfortable zone of previous status quo terminology. It’s a way of avoiding the discussion of Fascism by dismissing it as an experimental label. People using that term are not simply labeling, they’re sounding alarms and calling out a legitimate threat.