VOX: I asked 5 fascism experts whether Donald Trump is a fascist. Here's what they said.

[Sgent]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886152/donald-trump-fascism

To be blunt: Donald Trump is not a fascist. "Fascism" has been an all-purpose insult for many years now, but it has a real definition, and according to scholars of historical fascism, Trump doesn't qualify. Rather, he's a right-wing populist, or perhaps an "apartheid liberal" in the words of Roger Griffin, author of The Nature of Fascism. He doesn't want to overthrow the existing democratic system. He doesn't want to scrap the Constitution. He doesn't romanticize violence itself as a vital cleansing agent of society. He's simply a racist who wants to keep the current system but deny its benefits to groups he's interested in oppressing.

Griffin, who is a professor of history and political theory at Oxford Brookes University, puts it best: "You can be a total xenophobic racist male chauvinist bastard and still not be a fascist."

Defining fascism is a notoriously difficult scholarly task. There are enough differences between the relevant fascist regimes — Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, perhaps Francoist Spain — that identifying commonalities that do not in turn implicate plenty of clearly non-fascist regimes is tricky. But there is general agreement about some requirements.

Every expert I spoke to identified support for the revolutionary overthrow — ideally through violence — of the state's entire system of government as a necessary characteristic of fascism. Griffin's preferred definition of fascism is:

[abakan]

1. So if this is the case...

Could the tea party and what they espouse be considered fascism? One of their big ideas is to overturn many parts of our government.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Yes, let's make it all about the word and not about the danger

That'll keep us all safe and free!

[leveymg]

3. "You can be a total xenophobic racist male chauvinist bastard and still not be a fascist."

A keeper!

[Javaman]

4. sure, he doesn't want to over throw or change anything now, but if he's in office, he will try

and he will probably get much of it.

as I have been saying for a long time, tRump doesn't want to be prez of the US, he want's to be it's CEO. then rule by edict.

[Maeve]

5. He doesn't want to scrap the Constitution, he just wants to re-define it

He doesn't romance violence, he just thinks protestors "deserve to be roughed-up".
From the article:
When the original fascist regimes emerged, "the existing governments seemed to be incapable of providing leadership, providing what was needed for this wounded country," Paxton tells me, "and so fascists were in favor of totally overthrowing the existing constitution, which was usually democratic and perceived as weak. This was wildly popular. We are not in that position today."

What's the name of Il Donald's new book again? "Crippled America", yeah.

[pnwmom]

6. Hitler came to power through an election, not through a revolutionary overthrow

of the government. So I guess he wasn't a fascist either.

And we don't know what Trump's plans would be for our democratic system if he ever came to power.

[ryan_cats]

7. Hitler

Hitler was not elected when he became Chancellor.

[Glassunion]

8. Wasn't he appointed?

[hifiguy]

15. He was, by the head of state, Reichspresident Paul von Hindenburg,

who had been a noted general in WW I.

But the Nazis had a plurality in the Reichstag and AH was the party leader.

[Glassunion]

16. IIRC the Nazi party was elected with the largest percentage of Reichstag (but no majority).

[hifiguy]

17. You are correct.

They entered into a coalition with the "regular" right wing conservatives led by Franz von Papen in order to obtain a governing majority. The conventional right-wingers thought they could "control" the Austrian Corporal by being a part of the coalition. That worked out well.

Under the Weimar Constitution, the Chancellor was a fairly weak figure, serving as little more than a chairman. Moreover, Cabinet decisions were made by majority vote. With this in mind, Papen anticipated "boxing Hitler in," believing that his conservative friends' majority in the Cabinet and his closeness to Hindenburg would keep Hitler in check. Papen boasted to intimates that "Within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he'll squeak." To the warning that he was placing himself in Hitler's hands, Papen replied, "You are mistaken. We've hired him." [12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Papen

[pnwmom]

9. He didn't become Chancellor through a revolutionary overthrow of the government.

He participated in a multi-party election and got enough votes to be appointed.

[Bucky]

12. and then shut down all future fair elections

Anyway, I think Trump's going a long way toward proving you can win elections and still do fascisty things

[ryan_cats]

18. No

No, there were a lot of machinations that ended up with Hitler getting appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg on January 30, 1933.

[pnwmom]

19. "machinations" doesn't equal "revolutionary overthrow."

[ryan_cats]

20. Neither does it mean this: He participated in a multi-party election

Neither does it mean this: He participated in a multi-party election.

He did have elections over his policies but I think they used Diebold machines because concentration camp inmates voted over 95% in his favor.

[pnwmom]

21. What is not accurate about that? I didn't say he won or he got a majority.

But after running in that multi-party election, he had the biggest minority vote -- kind of like Trump's in the GOP -- and he parlayed that into power.

[Shandris]

10. While this is true, allow me to point out one thing of extreme importance...

...regarding your second comment.

We don't know anyone's plans for our 'democratic' (and really, at this point we should quit pretending we have one of these, but for sake of argument) system ever are, as there's no repercussions to not telling everyone your plans when running for office.

That's a serious, serious problem. Even if this idiot doesn't make it, how long until someone who means us ill will DOES make it? There's literally no remedy in such a case so long as he doesn't directly do impeachable offenses. It's a weakness that's always been there, but at this point it's becoming obvious that it's a weakness that can't be afforded any longer imo.

[pnwmom]

13. You're right. I used to think our system was strong enough to withstand someone like him

but I'm starting to lose confidence. If he came into power on a Tea party wave, anything could happen.

[Initech]

22. Well he's already calling for a full repeal of the 1st amendment.

That alone should tell you everything you need to know. Not to mention that he's the candidate of choice for America's white supremacists. That's frightening when you think about it.

[Bucky]

11. He's not a fascist till he does something fascist. So far he's only ejected dissidents from rallies

That said, his policy proposals are definitely pointing in a very fascisty direction. He's a small-d democrat as long as he works to get elected, sure. Given that definition, then he won't get a chance to be a fascist until he works to overturn an election he's lost 11 months from now.

I'd really appreciate the Republicans fucking waking up and not getting the country quite that close to finding out just how fascist he is.

[pnwmom]

14. One of the "experts" used the word "liberal" to refer to Trump. So everything else

he said we can take with a grain of salt.