Last night, I hosted a Substack Live session focused on a topic that demands clarity rather than euphemism: fascism. I want to share the key points for those who couldn't attend or prefer a written summary before diving into the full recording.
Why “Fascism” Is the Right Word
I began by addressing the elephant in the room: the use of the word “fascism” itself. While many reasonable people—including those opposed to the current regime—have questioned my use of this term, I believe it's not just rhetorically appropriate but descriptively accurate.
The legitimate concerns about using this term generally fall into two categories:
The accusation of exaggeration or hysteria
The notion that using “fascism” outside its historical context (particularly Nazi Germany) somehow cheapens its connection to the Holocaust
On this second point, I noted the historical inaccuracy of limiting “fascism” only to regimes that committed genocide. Fascist movements have existed in many forms—from Salazar's Portugal to Ba'athist Iraq—with varying degrees of violence and repression. Not all fascist regimes built death camps, but all displayed common defining characteristics that we're witnessing today.
How Fascism Differs from Conservative Governance
I addressed the common criticism that liberals have overused “fascist” as a label for any right-wing politician. This criticism has merit—campus leftists have sometimes labeled everything from neoliberal economics to border enforcement as “fascist,” which is intellectually sloppy.
To illustrate the distinction, I pointed to Ronald Reagan. While I disagree with many of Reagan's policies, his administration operated within constitutional constraints. He wasn't a fascist—he was a conservative with liberal (in the classical sense) economic views and traditionalist social positions.
By contrast, the current regime displays specific hallmarks of fascism:
A cult of personality around a leader portrayed as above institutions
Using legal structures to undermine law while preserving its appearance
Profound disdain for pluralism as a value
A mythic narrative of national rebirth and restoration
Replacement of rational discourse with grievance and spectacle
Anti-intellectualism as a defining characteristic
The Constitutional Crisis Unfolding
I highlighted concrete examples of how this administration has exceeded normal political boundaries:
The president accepting a $400 million jet from Qatar (a violation of the Emoluments Clause)
Open defiance of Supreme Court orders
The rendition of what the Cato Institute identifies as at least 50 innocent people to the CECOT gulag in El Salvador, where they face what amounts to life sentences without due process
The arrest of opposition politicians, including a sitting governor and member of Congress
These aren't policy disagreements—they represent fundamental violations of constitutional governance.
The Troubling Role of Law Enforcement
One of the most concerning aspects I discussed was the overwhelming support for this regime among American police forces. Polling data shows that 70-80% of uniformed police officers support MAGA, which creates a dangerous dynamic: those sworn to uphold the law are backing a movement that systematically violates it.
When law enforcement officers willingly participate in unconstitutional actions—like rendering innocent people to foreign prisons without due process—we face a crisis of legal authority itself. I emphasized that “just following orders” is never an acceptable defense for carrying out illegal directives.
The Banality of Evil and Our Current Moment
I referenced Hannah Arendt's work on how fascism operates—not through dramatic villains but through ordinary people performing seemingly small parts of their jobs. The Holocaust wasn't carried out by monsters alone but by bureaucrats, administrators, and everyday citizens who processed papers, followed procedures, and gradually participated in atrocity.
This understanding helps us see how democratic breakdown happens incrementally rather than through a single dramatic event. Each small normalization of illegal behavior, each surrender of principle for expediency, contributes to the larger collapse.
Where We Go From Here
I concluded with some sobering thoughts about our trajectory:
A significant portion of Americans (perhaps one-fifth) have become so epistemically captured that they will believe any explanation their leader offers, regardless of contradictions or evidence
This capture isn't easily reversed—it will persist even if Democrats win future elections
The battle ahead isn't just about the next election cycle but about a decade-long struggle to restore democratic norms and institutions
Americans aren't taking this threat seriously enough—the fact that 50 innocent people are serving life sentences in a foreign gulag should provoke mass protests
A Call to Moral Clarity
Throughout the session, I emphasized that opposing fascism requires moral clarity in our personal lives. This means:
Not letting lies go unchallenged, even in family settings
Creating "friction" when false narratives are presented
Recognizing that small acts of truth-telling matter in the larger context
Understanding that some people are not reachable through rational argument alone
Share this post