These days, the term “fascists” is thrown around quite a bit. It’s somewhat ironic—its original meaning seems lost, becoming a tool to attack conservatives, particularly figures like President Trump and Stephen Miller, among others. Democrats and their allies in the media often label conservatives as extremists following the “fascist playbook.”
President Biden has notably used this language too. Back in September 2022, he made a divisive statement in Philadelphia, suggesting that “Maga Republicans” were a threat to democracy.
“They embrace anger,” Biden asserted. “They thrive in chaos. They dwell in lies instead of reality.” Recently, at a fundraiser in Maryland, he even called the MAGA movement “semi-fascist.”
This kind of rhetoric does little to clarify who conservatives really are, while revealing an authoritarian streak in leftist philosophy.
One can argue that, whatever sharp edges Trump might have in his political style, he hasn’t attacked American voters as enemies of the state. Biden, however, has—leading to continuous smear campaigns. The real concern is the impact of a leader labeling countless citizens as “fascists.”
The goals of the MAGA movement are straightforward: safeguard natural rights, boost prosperity, improve energy access, secure borders, tackle crime, ensure domestic peace, and adopt a pragmatic foreign policy. These aims hardly resemble fascism. Yet, there seems to be a growing perception equating defenders of freedom with authoritarianism.
To understand why this assertion is so off-base, it’s useful to look back at what fascism genuinely means.
A brief history of fascism
The concept of fascism can be traced back to Giovanni Gentile, an Italian philosopher born in 1875. He was influenced by Hegel, positing that a rational state represents the ultimate phase of history. His idea of “true democracy” revolved around an individual’s voluntary submission to the state.
For Gentile, the public interest and private interest were indistinguishable. Serving society was synonymous with serving the nation. His student, Benito Mussolini, would later translate this ideology into a doctrine, famously stating that “all is in the state; nothing human or spiritual exists outside the state.”
Contrary to popular narratives today, fascism did not originate from the right. Mussolini himself began as a Marxist and, although he faced defeat during the Russian Revolution, he retained key elements of socialist collectivism. Fascism was rooted in nationalism, a sense of racial uniqueness, and an overarching state authority encapsulated in the phrase “blood and soil.” The term originates from “Fasces,” a bundle of rods in ancient Rome symbolizing unity and strength.
The rise of fascism was significantly fueled by the economic chaos of the 1920s and 1930s. In both Italy and Germany, extensive public works programs were launched, financed by taxes, loans, and printing money. Like communism, fascism viewed its citizens as employees of an all-powerful party state. Coercion and the enforcement of loyalty were critical. Mussolini bluntly stated that individuals in fascist states could not have “anti-social rights” to resist collective laws.
In his autobiography from 1928, he wrote:
Citizens of fascist states are no longer selfish individuals with antisocial rights to resist the laws of collectivism. In fascist states, corporate involvement integrates individuals and their potential into productive work and defines their obligations.
Fascism and the New Deal
The American response to the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, is often seen as a democratic counter to authoritarianism. Yet, many contemporaries noted significant similarities between Roosevelt’s initiatives and those of Mussolini and Hitler.
Conservative author John T. Flynn, in his 1944 work “As We Go Go Go,” remarked that the New Deal resembled “good fascism.” He pointed out the growing centralization of power, home regulations, military expeditions abroad, and the erosion of lines between civic service and governmental mandates.
Wolfgang Schivelbusch’s insightful book “Three New Deals” compares the governments of that era. While he didn’t directly equate Roosevelt with Mussolini or Hitler, he acknowledged many similarities: monumental projects, direct appeals to the populace, and frequent use of wartime imagery. Roosevelt also warned those who opposed his policies.
However, the key difference lies in the fact that the U.S. retained constitutional checks that were absent in Europe. Still, the tendencies toward centralization and the allure of granting leaders extraordinary power were indeed present.
Progressive Roots
It’s no surprise that these similarities exist. European fascism and America’s New Deal indeed sprang from shared intellectual traditions. The philosophical foundations of America were influenced greatly by thinkers like John Locke, who wrote that humanity is governed by a law of nature bestowing rights that cannot be taken by the government.
In contrast, European thought took a different trajectory, elevating the state as a source of order and authority. By the late 19th century, American progressives had adopted this perspective, with leaders like Woodrow Wilson, who studied at German universities and veered away from the founders’ philosophy toward a more empirical and statist viewpoint.
Progressives, akin to their European counterparts, positioned the nation at the core of political engagement. They advocated that rights flowed from government instead of divine origin, effectively redistributing power through bureaucratic means. Over the past century, figures from Wilson to FDR, Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Obama have constructed a state that permeates almost every aspect of American life.
The Real Irony
Given this background, it’s essential for 21st-century progressives to reconsider their frequent use of “fascism” as an insult. Their intellectual heritage aligns much more closely with Mussolini and Gentile than with the MAGA movement.
Supporters of Trump are focused on securing freedoms, restoring prosperity, and defending sovereignty. Progressives, on the other hand, seem to elevate the state above all. Such insults reveal little about conservatives but rather cast a light on the authoritarian undertones inherent in leftist ideology.
