He’s not Hitler, as his wife recently said? Well, of course he isn’t. But then Hitler wasn’t Hitler—until he was. At each step of the way, the shock was tempered by acceptance. It depended on conservatives pretending he wasn’t so bad, compared with the Communists, while at the same time the militant left decided that their real enemies were the moderate leftists, who were really indistinguishable from the Nazis. The radical progressives decided that there was no difference between the democratic left and the totalitarian right and that an explosion of institutions was exactly the most thrilling thing imaginable.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dangerous-acceptance-of-donald-trumpFor those who take the long view, Umberto Eco’s essay defining “Ur-Fascism” is a useful look back. I learned of it from Jamelle Bouie’s piece. The point here is to get away from “fascism” as a cheap insult, and ask what were the common factors in the mid-20th-century in what one could call classical fascism.
Eco lists 14 criteria that may seem familiar to observers of the current scene. The criteria are interesting because they were laid out by him long ago, independently of any current events. It could be turned into a checklist, like the DSM-V has for mental illness: meet 5 or more criteria, and it’s time to get evaluated by a professional.
I see seven items that potentially match current events:
a cult of tradition
rejection of modernism
opposition to analytical criticism
appeal to a frustrated middle class
obsession with a plot
humiliation by the enemy
machismo
There may be more – see the list for yourself.
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/07/13/what-is-fascism/
= new reply since forum marked as read
