Skip to main content

Call It By Its Name

I hesitate to label anything “fascist,” a word so overused and misunderstood it’s been leeched of all meaning. But it’s a hard word to avoid these days.

I no longer want to hear of Trump’s “authoritarian tendencies.” They’re no longer tendencies, they’re naked power grabs, and Trump is grabbing as much as he can before Election Day, possibly for use afterwards.

That’s classic fascism, so let’s call it by its name.

Fascism, we’re taught, is the concentration of all levers of power in the hands of an oligarchy of wealthy and corporate interests, headed by an absolute leader.

We’ve long speculated about whether it could truly take hold in this country, and if it did, what it would look like.

Well, this is what it looks like. Minus some of the bells and whistles, which could be on the way.

So far, the concentration camps are still largely on the southern border — at least the ones we know about. So far, the police haven’t quite descended to Gestapo level — but the protests aren’t over, and Trump is encouraging their worst impulses. So far, the mass execution of undesirable ethnics is still, apparently, on the back burner — but would it surprise us?

So let’s look at those levers of power and consider, briefly, what we are now up against.

The Executive Branch is largely in the hands of the industries it’s supposed to regulate. The inspectors general — the watchdogs in the federal agencies — are being systematically purged and replaced with copy-and-paste Trump loyalists. Unqualified hacks occupy all the leadership roles, and it shows. Their catastrophic response to the pandemic, leaving 100,000 dead, is a fitting testament to their incompetence. And to fascism in action.

Half the Legislative Branch — the House — has been effectively neutered, mostly by Bill Barr. As long as he’s in charge, oversight is a non-starter and subpoenas might as well be toilet paper. In a way, he’s the scariest of them all, because he’s a true believer — a rarity in an administration that’s mostly in it for the grift — and he’s been working toward this moment his whole life. He truly believes in the “unitary executive” — a cute euphemism for dictator — though I’m guessing Trump wouldn’t have been his first choice. Fascist dictators really need an attention span.

The Senate, for its part, is still a rubber stamp for Trump. Mitch McConnell is the only senator who matters, and he could end this madness tomorrow. He alone has the clout — and the votes — to remove Trump from office if he so chooses. But we know he can’t take the chance. His connections to China, through his wife’s family, are suspicious enough to warrant investigation by a new administration. And there are still plenty of questions about Oleg Deripaska’s business interests in Kentucky. Other skeletons shouldn’t be hard to find, which has to make McConnell queasy. But for now, he’s content to undermine the recovery, withholding desperately needed relief funding, all in lockstep with the unitary executive. A pliable legislature is one of fascism’s greatest hits.

The Judicial branch also has McConnell’s fingerprints all over it. If another Supreme Court seat opens between now and next January — right up to midnight of the Inauguration — he will effectively put SCOTUS out of reach for 30 years. But that’s not nearly the extent of his damage. His only mission these days, besides obstructing legislation, is stocking the federal court system with as many unqualified, far-right judges as he can ram through the confirmation process.

As for the current line-up of SCOTUS, let’s just say we’re placing a lot of faith in the sanity and humanity of John Roberts, even as we totally write off the other four nuts to his right. Does this fill you with confidence? If ever there was a Supreme Court built for fascism, this is it.

So yes, we’re all set up for a fascist state. The only piece missing is the military. If they get aboard, it’s game over.

But I don’t think Trump controls the military, at least not yet. He’d love to, but he’s burned a lot of those bridges, from the generals on down. You don’t win them over by pardoning war criminals, abandoning the Kurds, blackmailing Ukraine, or firing the captain of a Covid-ridden ship. And most of them were fans of John McCain.

Even the top brass, authoritarian by nature, can’t be comfortable with what’s going on. The thought of turning their own troops on their own countrymen — which Trump would gleefully have them do — has got to keep them up at night.

Even so, you have to wonder what they’re saying to themselves. Are they expecting Trump to declare martial law? Have they thought through which orders they’re prepared to carry out? If he tells them to shoot peaceful protesters on Fifth Avenue, will they give that order?

And let’s not forget that the virus gets a say. The most ruthless fascist of all, it lives to punish those who break the rules, especially the rules of social distancing. The one thing the rallies have in common — protesters and police alike — is a visible disregard for masks and the six-foot rule. The virus will no doubt weigh in on this in the next week or two.

I hope I’m wrong about all of this. I hope this infection, this rash on the body politic, will go away by itself. I hope our system has enough antibodies to fight it off. I hope it isn’t fascism at all.

But if it looks, walks, and quacks like fascism, what else would you call it?


Berkley MI

Friday, 06/05/20

Comments

  1. Only time will tell. Everything rides on November. If the current situation doesn't get the Democratic vote to defeat this situation, it is game over.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andrea Mitchel interviewed Bill Cohen, former defense secretary under Clinton, today. He seems to think Trump is already escalating the military to the next level. Gulp.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Superb. I tweeted about it.
    https://twitter.com/Shoq/status/1269660328750694400

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...

Can the Abortion Issue Slip Any Further Under the Radar?

  One of the many chilling ironies of the war on abortion is that the states most insistent on women having babies, no matter what, are also the ones with the least to offer those babies once they’ve had the bad luck to be born there. And it’s important to understand that these states are getting increasingly insistent on women having babies, no matter what. Goaded and guided by abortion abolitionists in legislatures, law firms, and courtrooms, Republican governments are, one way or another, actively blocking off any avenue that doesn’t lead to a woman of any age getting pregnant, giving birth, then getting pregnant again. Rinse and repeat. If the woman dies in the process, she’s easily replaced. The idea seems to be that women are a sort of production line, whose purpose is to generate usable babies. The way they get pregnant is irrelevant to the discussion. If they were impregnated by, say, an uncle, or a rapist, or a clergyman, the laws of these states ca...

Anybody See Any Bright Sides?

  I feel a little silly using italics to introduce italics, but I need to repeat myself this week, so I had to find a piece that seemed worthy of a retrospective look. I found this one, from five days after the election, and while I wrote it quite recently, it feels like several years ago. I am most struck by how angry I sound, which is the part I like best. If you’d rather not relive that time, I can hardly blame you — I went there only reluctantly myself. Nonetheless I do feel it’s worth another read, even if just for the opening quote from a really good writer — a Canadian journalist who was going through the same holy-shit moment we all were. Nothing mattered, in the end. Not the probable dementia, the unfathomable ignorance, the emotional incontinence; not, certainly, the shambling, hate-filled campaign, or the ludicrously unworkable anti-policies. The candidate out on bail in four jurisdictions, the convicted fraud artist, the adjudicated rapist and seri...