This is when the masses are going to need to see democratic governors pushing back and saying, Nope. Soft Secession through refusing/slowing down tax revenue transfers to Washington, making engagement with Washington very hard and painful for the Regime. It will make Blue States suffer but the line is crossed when Stephen Sadist incites violence against everyone non-MAGA 2d in a row on Fox, Trump says the same, Brian Killmeade floats killing the homeless by lethal injection and doesn’t get fired while Moran and Dowd got fired for stating facts. The Regime is backpedaling on Chicago bc they see the consolidated push back they are getting. So they pivot to Blue Dot cities in Red Southern States with black residents; Red Governors open the doors to beat up in the locals. It’s the Jim Crow Jesus Show. Bull Connor is back! We are officially entering the Reign of Terror. Kirk was a great excuse to accelerate this. Gonna say it again: SECESSION.
Full secession would immediately trigger a civil war, IMHO. Soft secession might do the same. It's hard to say. The Red states cannot afford to let the Blue states go because they are supported by Blue state's taxes. In addition, the regime would never let them go peacefully because they would (rightly) sees it as repudiation of their system.
Perhaps? Folks have to decide where the Proper Level of Desperation is to counteract forcefully. For liberals and moderates, we CLEARLY are not there yet. Other Europeans would’ve shut a country like ours down some time ago - French strikes? They mean business. Without free and fair elections in 2026, whatever the landscape looks like when we get there, we are stuck with this autocratic regime indefinitely. And if that’s what Americans choose to live with, it’s their decision, even if a poor one in my opinion. And if that’s the case, I’ll move. You can only beat your head against a wall for so long.
All I ask for is free and fair elections untainted by shenanigans. If a majority choose authoritarianism, I may choose to move to a free country if they'll have me.
I have been following you for a while and love everything you write. The only thing I'm not sure I agree with you about is the left's use of the words "fascist" and "fascism" in speaking about Trump and his radical followers. While the words are technically accurate, they cause a lot of Trump voters to be defensive and angry and to dig their heels in even more. As a 78 year old retired psychotherapist, I have seen how people react to putting labels on them, and for all of my adult life I have resented Republicans calling we liberals "communists" and "socialists." I agree we have to know what we are dealing with in order to combat it, but I think a lot of us jumped on the words used by prominent historians and journalists who compare the Trump administration to other authoritarian ones past and present. I don't know if using other language might have been better, but I worry that both sides are now engaged in attacks, name calling and verbal warfare and I don't think that leads to anywhere good. I think we need to find new ways to engage, smarter ways where we can call out rationalizations and double messages on the right, while at the same time trying to find a way to talk to each other, at least the voters who are still open to discussion, without putting them immediately on the defensive.
I deeply appreciate this thoughtful response, and I've grappled with exactly this question. You're right that language matters enormously, and that defensive reactions can shut down the very conversations democracy requires.
I try to be precise in my use of these terms. I don't call everyone on the right fascist—I call specific figures fascist when their behavior fits the definition: Stephen Miller calling for criminalizing opposition parties, Trump claiming unlimited authority to execute people without trial, the systematic elimination of constitutional constraints while claiming constitutional authority.
But here's my dilemma: when someone is engaging in fascist methodology, what do you call it? 'Authoritarian' feels insufficient when describing systematic constitutional destruction. "Undemocratic" understates the deliberate nature of democratic elimination. At what point does accuracy matter more than palatability?
I agree that defensive reactions shut down dialogue, but I also worry that euphemistic language makes people underestimate the severity of what's happening. When the Supreme Court eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for entire populations, when federal agents operate like secret police, when assassination gets used to silence criticism—these aren't normal political disagreements requiring diplomatic language.
Your point about Republicans calling liberals "communists" is well-taken, except that those accusations were generally false while the fascist descriptions are documentably accurate. But you're right that accuracy alone doesn't determine effectiveness.
I'm genuinely conflicted about this. How do you maintain analytical precision about systematic threats while preserving the possibility of democratic conversation? How do you call authoritarianism what it is without making democratic persuasion impossible?
What language would you suggest for describing systematic constitutional destruction by people who threaten critics with death?
Thank you for responding to my comment. You are absolutely correct. We have a dilemma. Do we call it what it is or do we find another way to get our point across? Let me use an example from the marriage counseling I did for over thirty years. When I first began to work with couples, I was stumped as to how to help them get over the anger they felt, especially when there had been an affair or some other betrayal. What never worked was when one used a negative label to characterize the other. Say one had had an affair, and the other said "He (or she) is a lying cheater" or something worse. That never set the stage for effective discussion of the problems in the marriage. I had to teach the betrayed spouse to forgo using a label, however true it might be, and instead talk about what the partner had done, to describe the actions and the probable consequences if they couldn't reconcile - consequences to themselves, the marriage, their standard of living, the children, etc.
When we use a label like "fascist" or "authoritarian" or "autocrat" - in anything other than our private conversations with each other - we just invite contempt and a desire to fight back. I'm not sure I have a perfect answer here, but why couldn't we simply call out the behavior and the probable consequences? For example "Donald Trump is sending the military into cities with Democratic and often Black mayors on the pretext he is fighting crime. This is a clear violation of the Constitution and will only make matters worse. This is not what we do in a democracy, especially if we believe in a balance of powers between federal and state governments. If we want to protect our Constitution, and if we want to remain free and not under military occupation, we have to reject that as a people and work towards other solutions for crime." (Yes, we know that isn't the real reason he is sending in the military, but we don't have to call him a liar, just show how his excuse is dangerous. Challenge his rationale, however false it is.)
I know this isn't a perfect answer, but if we are going to have some success and avoid a civil war, we need to lower the temperature in tense situations and help people be less defensive and combative. And one tool is to be careful with our language. And yes, the right's characterization of liberals as socialists and communists was dead wrong, but it worked for a subset of people who want to believe the worst of people they see as enemies. I don't think we had a good answer to their decades long campaign to label us and that is on us. But if we do the same to them, where does it lead? Like I said, I don't have the answers, but I always remember what a supervisor once told me to say to the couples I worked with who each felt they were justified in their anger and neither of whom would acknowledge the perspective of the other. "Would you rather be right or would you rather be loved?
We need to identify our goal. Is it to shame the other side or find a bridge to them, at least to the ones who are the tiniest bit open to a new perspective - The ones who are beginning to see they have been conned? Is it to be right or to reach out and persuade? We don't need to convince all of them. Just enough to gum up the works and give we democracy loving people a chance to prevail.
This response was very helpful to me. I'm just not sure I can be as emotionally detached as a professional counselor. I'll try though, because what you're saying makes total sense.
I'd love to figure out a good strategy, too, but unfortunately individual 'A' in the couple's scenario wakes up in the morning, turns on Newsmax while eating breakfast, listens to Ingraham while driving to your office and, once through your office door, is convinced that 'B' is deserving of every hateful rant that 'A' will direct at 'B' during the therapy session.
Then, after YOU spend an hour explaining better ways to communicate, 'A' leaves the session, listens to Kirk on the way into work, at lunchtime chats with 'Z' at the water cooler about the latest vaccine updates by renowned brain surgeon RFK Jr., and four hours later finishes the day at work.
'A' drives back home while listening to Jones, pulls dinner out of the microwave and, with feet propped up and remote in hand -- and with the goal of consuming a variety of news sources -- turns on Fox's "The Five." 'A' bites into the lentil loaf, curses after losing the top layer of skin from the roof of the mouth, avoids teeth-brushing that evening, but uses those extra few minutes of time to scroll through the depths of hell known as Twitter.
Right, but my point is that so many of the individuals with whom we want to dialogue, are pissed not because we call them fascist, but because for decades (and to this day) they are taught, through a massive campaign of vitriol and misinformation, to hate us, not trust us, and not trust facts.
Now when you hate someone, and you don't trust them, and your mind has been so warped as to not be able to grasp facts anymore, then how on earth is it possible to properly communicate?
I think calling a fascist a fascist is the least of our problems.
I am going to side with Mike on this. In marriage counseling, there is a goal of dialogue. In fascist regimes, this is not often possible. Did Mussolini or Hitler want to rationally discuss their agenda or simply ram it down their citizens' throats? Violence is a form of dialogue, and the left needs to become fluent.
We have to remember we are a nation born in a violent revolution, and the art of democracy and debate is essentially a low level of assertion and jousting. We have to love freedom enough to fight for it. If we don't, the bullies will take advantage of our hesitancy.
No, the "good guys" don't always win. Sometimes we have to stop the dialogue and simply stand our ground. The key is in the timing. I will leave with a bit of intergalactic wisdom... "Spock... I've found that evil usually triumphs -- unless good is very, very careful." ~ Dr. Leonard McCoy, "Star Trek"
“… calling it fascism would shut down dialogue with Republican friends.” WHAT dialogue?! And if there were dialogue, what good would dialogue do in opposing Maga?
I am starting to think you have a point. My mother escaped Nazi Germany, and I see today so much similarity to the Nazi-like rhetoric and takeover of democratic norms, and the label is justified in warning people of the danger. But the down side is as you say…. It sets up Us vs. Them positions and gets some moderates feeling defensive and accused…. So I am going to resist the satisfaction of saying Fascism and use less incendiary words. It’s not as precise to say ‘the daily attacks on democratic norms and rule of law are leading us in the wrong direction and it is urgent that we understand and resist’.
Whether or not we use the term fascist is debatable. I do believe it is accurate for all reasons Mike describes. Robert Reich is another who pinpoints exactly the reasons it is fascism and not just authoritarianism. One difference with Mussolini is that he called himself fascist and wore the badge proudly. The MAGA right while approving of similar policies are ashamed of the label. This fits for me in their denial of the reality of several basic truths in the current time. They deny climate change and its causes. They deny any problems with January 6th. They deny that Trump lost the 2020 election. They deny the reality that vaccinations save lives and deaths from COVID. They deny that illegal immigrants initiate less crimes than citizens. So of course they will deny their leader is fascist. I am also unclear it helps us on the left to rub their noses in it even when we know it to be true.
The allowance of racial profiling by ICE agents (untrained masked white men) is fascist. it’s not name calling to refer to it that way. The comparison to other authoritarian regimes is based on facts. If we’re not going to hold the administration to account we may as well burn the Constitution.
Ellen. It seems to me that those Trump voters still open to discussion should only need to look to their own moral compass to recognise their error and stop supporting him. The fascist label is a valid statement of fact, I think, not an insult.
I agree that the term is accurate but I question how helpful it is to use it in any conversations or debates (if it is even possible to debate them) with Trump voters. I suspect most of them do not understand the term as they have not studied it as we have. They have never understand the words communism or socialism either or they would not use them inaccurately against Democrats and progressives. So I think it is better to actually describe in a few simple words what we observe and oppose in the Trump administration. Name-calling, no matter how accurate, always shuts down discussion and accelerates the anger. Sticking to observable behavior and provable facts works better, in my opinion. Of course, it is just my opinion, and I respect your points.
First, fascism is what is happening. No, it is not absolutely identical to the Fascism of Mussolini or that of Hitler. However, one can experience fascism at any time. Here are the pros favoring Trump's regime being fascist:
Pros of Calling the Trump Administration “Fascist”
Feature Example Observation
Centralized leadership Strong personal leadership tone
Nationalist rhetoric “America First” focus
Demonizing opponents Harsh rhetoric toward political rivals and media
Narrative control Heavy use of social media and friendly outlets (Fox)
Cons of Calling the Trump Administration “Fascist”
Reason Key Point
Historical specificity Fascism is tied to early 20th-century regimes
No state militia No official paramilitary arm like in historical examples
Checks and balances intact Courts, Congress, states resisted executive overreach
Media pluralism Independent and critical media still operated
Economic policy mismatch Focus on free markets, not corporatist control
Semantic precision Risk of diluting the term “fascism”
I did not create this table. It is a non-partisan, AI (UPDF AI) generated table (much nicer in formatting per the AI). I think the "cons" are somewhat "lame" or weak cons.
▶︎ Of course this is not the fascism of Mussolini nor is the bible I may read the original bible.
This particular con is nonsense.
▶︎ Regarding no state militia, we just have not fully arrived. What we have now is Trump using ICE, the National Guard, and sometimes the military.
▶︎ Checks & Balances intact. We have a Republican Party that ignores the reality of what is happening and is acting in full support of the executive branch and its leader, Trump. We have a SCOTUS that is unethical, influenced by bribes relating to personal wealth, and definitely partisan.
▶︎ Media pluralism is still intact. Yes, true, but the AP was banned from the White House press pool. Trump will go after the media as he has announced. Wait, it will happen.
▶︎ Economic policy mismatch. I see more and more of government control occurring. Tariffs, for example, were enacted because the Republicans in Congress did not challenge Trump's decision to invoke these changes. Trump's focus on bitcoin and his wish to fire members of the Fed are all on par with a fascist takeover.
▶︎ Semantic precision. Risk of diluting the term fascism. I am not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean. I, instead, invoke the Duck Principle:
The Duck Principle: "But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks, I’m certainly going to assume that he IS a duck.” - Emil Mazey, Secretary-Treasurer, UAW Labor leader, 1946
If this is not the start of a play entitled Fascism Comes to America, then revoke my medical license, take away my books, and put me in a nursing home. As to the latter, please find a nursing home in another country.
Part of the problem with what has happened is the wishy-washy behavior/personality of many of the so-called liberals. I don't care about whether someone is gay or what gender they select. But I am damn unhappy with the many gays in Hollywood pushing this never-ending gayness in my face when I watch TV or go to the movies. I am not a homophobe, nor could I care if a restroom was for all sexes. In fact, decades ago, I had no problem taking a leak in an all-sex pissoir in Paris. But don't push this stuff on youngsters who, as I can easily remember, are often confused about much of what life is, or is supposed to be.
And as for immigrants, I want people sitting next to me to be vetted when they come to this country. I don't trust people's motivation when they are left to obtain citizenship on their own. When I was pursued to join the faculty at the U of Calgary, despite being pursued by the University, lecturing there, born in the USA, fully licensed with strong credentials, I was told that I could not be guaranteed citizenship until a year had passed, when Customs and Immigration had completed all the required vetting. That's absurd, too.
We should have had our feckless Republicans and Democrats, who sit on their duffs and get healthcare insurance privately and for life, do something substantial about a path to citizenship, instead of allocating billions to a defense budget to blow things up and kill people, spend a decent amount to allow those motivated persons to come to this country or seeking seeking asylum (verified), gain citizenship in a timely fashion. And if it means learning some basics of the language, passing tests, and being assessed regarding trash, then so be it. I saw much of Los Angeles literally trashed by the immigrant population in the 70 and 80s. Parts of Pico Blvd, with a very high Latino population, near downtown LA, had litter that was ankle-high. Shocking. On my way to work in Culver City, I stopped at a traffic light, and I witnessed a person in the car in front of me roll down their window and empty their ashtray. Yes, that person was of Middle Eastern heritage. That does not make me opposed to immigrants; hell, I married one, but she obtained citizenship, and her command of English is better than most American-born persons. But as anyone who has traveled knows, some cultures are fastidious about cleanliness, while others are dramatically opposite.
We citizens sat on our asses instead of ensuring that the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boubert, Louie Gohmert, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and others do not get elected. The same applies to the scatterbrained Democrats or those kept in office despite being non compos mentis, like Diane Feinstein. We did not tend to our garden. We did not honor the Earth nor the political forces that govern us. That's what has brought us to Trump and sickophants (sic).
The Trump et al snowball has reached a critical mass. Can the midterms turn this around? It will take a MASSIVE turnout of voters and the assurance that voting is not tampered with by the Trump and/or MAGA membership. I would not count on a clean election, assuming we have one. And the Gerrymandering we now see in full-mode explosive diarrheal magnitude is thoroughly disgusting. Our politicians brought this on, and we allowed it to happen.
We have met the enemy, and it is US. (credit to Pogo).
Rant, yeah, probably, but "rant" is analogous to a thermometer. Since 2016, I have been critical of DJT. First, I grew up not far from the Trump family. Second, I have known Queens, NY, since my father had a gas station in Richmond Hill (next to Jamaica, Queens), and both my grandmothers lived in Richmond Hill, a short distance from the Fairgrounds where the US Open is hosted. Early on, I read much of Wayne Barrett's writing. Barrett spent a lifetime documenting the fraud committed by Fred Trump & son, Donald. He wrote books on Trump and Giuliano, who were birds of a feather light years ago. Barrett also wrote for the Village Voice, which reminds me a lot of Politico. So this deep dive into the life of Trump has been long-standing, like an itch that has turned into a rash that is now "systemic." So, like the Mercury in a thermometer that rises with temperature, my temperature on Trump has been on the rise for at least ten years.
In 2016, before the national election, my son and I were getting close to completing a book on the psychopathy of Donald Trump. I had given it the preliminary title "Donald Trump: A Clear & Present Danger." I plugged that into a Google search one morning and found that someone else had already written a book with the same title. And then in 2017, while working on a medical documentation of Trump's malignant narcissism, along with his personality disorder and evidence of paranoia, I discovered Bandi Lee's book on Trump: The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.
I have sent hundreds of emails to large numbers of people, including my medical colleagues, neighbors, and family, for quite some time. My rant is indeed an example of what happens when a volcano finally decides it has had enough.
In my field of medical oncology, it was common for other doctors to refer patients to me whom they considered no longer suitable for treatment. My deep dives into research often came up with a treatment that would allow the patient additional years of quality life, with some patients free of cancer to this day. This led to a reputation as the Hail Mary Cancer Doc. But in the case of Donald Trump vs America, I believe the patient is indeed in dire straits, and it will take some form of miracle to exorcise this creature and his coterie of miscreants from the historical downfall of America.
You're right, of course, in much of what you say, and as someone else wrote, I very much respect and agree with what you write.
Know that, and this may sound bizarre here, that many people like me, living outside the United States, are praying for the US right now. Just like we're praying for Gaza (and Israel).
2+2=4. Truth Matters. If folks agree with me, it’s a start. I find out real fast if beliefs and tribalism get in the way of saying yes to those statements, I know to move on.
Harry Turtledove's "The Last Article" explores an alternate 1947 in which Germany defeated the United Kingdom and has taken control of India after defeating the forces of the Raj: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Article
I wonder what you think of the methods of defensive democracy such as are used in Germany to outright ban or severely hamper political organisations found to be threatening the basic values of liberal democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
Do you think such responses justified or would you fear that it would become too open to abuse?
I think they might ultimately backfire. People forget that the Nazi Party was banned, and Hitler was thrown in jail in Weimar Germany, only for them to end up in power and then ban their opposition. "Late you come, but still you come" — Hitler says to Otto Wells, who begs Hitler not to repress his opposition, implying "You did it to me. Now I do it to you".
We see a similar reaction with cancel culture. The right is now reveling in cancelling their opposition, and the left can only call them hypocrites. But can claim no higher ground.
The liberal argument is that the state should never have the tools to ban political opposition, so even if the state if seized by those who would, they can't—or can't be seen to be legitimately doing so. Many on the left would like to weaken the First Amendment to allow hate speech to be criminalized for instance. But then one might wonder what Trump and Miller would be designating as "hate speech" right now if they had that power.
Granted Germany has its own constitutional norms and rules surrounding things like judicial appointments that may render this procedure less vulnerable to political manipulation than it might be elsewhere. The procedure for banning parties was in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany as originally promulgated in 1949 and is part of the basic fabric of German democracy. (A German acquaintance of mine claims that the procedure was included at the insistence of the United States.)
I'm actually somewhat familiar with it. And yet, the far right is continuing to gain steam in Germany. Another example that I am worried about, is when the far-right won parliamentary elections last year, they invalidated the election results. Which just gives the far-right ammunition to claim that the democrats don't believe in democracy. I think it's a dangerous game.
Are you referring to the annulment of the first round of the 2024 Romanian presidential election? I freely concede that I'm not familiar with Romanian law on the matter, but constitutions and electoral laws exist to safeguard democracy against its own worst excesses (though as another acquaintance of mine likes to put it, the river of democracy slowly erodes the republican institutions meant to check its flow). As you yourself have written, arguably a large part of why the US is in the situation it's in is because those safeguards weren't properly enforced in 2024. The defense is not of pure democracy ("Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." Federalist No. 55) but rather of the constitutional and legal order within which democratic governance and debate occur.
I am surprised at how many of Trump’s actions I research only to find the first EO doing this or that (not law) was during Obama’s administration. I have a friend who worked for our district’s Republican congressman who has told me things Obama did I never heard. I dismissed it at the time, but now, maybe she wasn’t just being partisan. I have often wondered if people had a legitimate gripe that was ignored until we got Trump. Ain’t nobody ignoring now.
I have come to the sad conclusion that this is actually what the majority of Americans want. After all, they voted for the man - even after the Capitol riots. On top of his belligerent, almost unintelligible rhetoric, here was clear evidence that he trades on division, loves to turn people against each other to achieve his authoritarian agenda, and is quite happy to incite violence via his militia or now the armed forces. Even on the left, people seem to revel in it. The Charlie Kirk assassination has everybody wading in. The right blames the left. The left are quick to say it's not them, it's an attack against democracy and free speech, and nobody should die for their beliefs, etc etc. But what's consistent is the glee with which podcasters and journalists and blog writers and Democrats and Republicans alike, leap into battle at the slightest whiff of blood in the water. From an outsider's point of view, it just seems Americans in general want a fight. The left love a good protest with placards and tear gas. The right are itching to dust off their AR15s and shoot something other than cans. The US seems to have this survivalist fantasy, their sense of self is inextricably linked to fighting - the British, the Indians, the North, the South... that's why zombie movies are so popular. Americans, sadly like many other nations it seems, are itching for a fight. And in the absence of a living dead apocalypse, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps not, Americans voted for a guy who's doing his level best to deliver.
Please don’t confuse Civilization with the American experiment. They are two different things. It’s especially the second one that seems at a turning point. And to some extent, it’s in the very nature of experiments that they sometimes fail, otherwise they would not be called like that. In the grand scheme of things, failed experiments might be not what one hopes for but they are OK, as long as we learn from them. Though I acknowledge that should the American experiment fail there will be a ton of suffering and civilization will take a bad turn at least in the short-medium term. But then again the best thing we can hope for is understanding why, so that maybe our descendants can have a better try.
Right now, as you correctly noted, we need all Dem governors and AGs to b leaders and visibly push back, like Pritzker. If you have them and they're not doing that, let them know how important it is.
This is when the masses are going to need to see democratic governors pushing back and saying, Nope. Soft Secession through refusing/slowing down tax revenue transfers to Washington, making engagement with Washington very hard and painful for the Regime. It will make Blue States suffer but the line is crossed when Stephen Sadist incites violence against everyone non-MAGA 2d in a row on Fox, Trump says the same, Brian Killmeade floats killing the homeless by lethal injection and doesn’t get fired while Moran and Dowd got fired for stating facts. The Regime is backpedaling on Chicago bc they see the consolidated push back they are getting. So they pivot to Blue Dot cities in Red Southern States with black residents; Red Governors open the doors to beat up in the locals. It’s the Jim Crow Jesus Show. Bull Connor is back! We are officially entering the Reign of Terror. Kirk was a great excuse to accelerate this. Gonna say it again: SECESSION.
Full secession would immediately trigger a civil war, IMHO. Soft secession might do the same. It's hard to say. The Red states cannot afford to let the Blue states go because they are supported by Blue state's taxes. In addition, the regime would never let them go peacefully because they would (rightly) sees it as repudiation of their system.
Perhaps? Folks have to decide where the Proper Level of Desperation is to counteract forcefully. For liberals and moderates, we CLEARLY are not there yet. Other Europeans would’ve shut a country like ours down some time ago - French strikes? They mean business. Without free and fair elections in 2026, whatever the landscape looks like when we get there, we are stuck with this autocratic regime indefinitely. And if that’s what Americans choose to live with, it’s their decision, even if a poor one in my opinion. And if that’s the case, I’ll move. You can only beat your head against a wall for so long.
All I ask for is free and fair elections untainted by shenanigans. If a majority choose authoritarianism, I may choose to move to a free country if they'll have me.
I have been following you for a while and love everything you write. The only thing I'm not sure I agree with you about is the left's use of the words "fascist" and "fascism" in speaking about Trump and his radical followers. While the words are technically accurate, they cause a lot of Trump voters to be defensive and angry and to dig their heels in even more. As a 78 year old retired psychotherapist, I have seen how people react to putting labels on them, and for all of my adult life I have resented Republicans calling we liberals "communists" and "socialists." I agree we have to know what we are dealing with in order to combat it, but I think a lot of us jumped on the words used by prominent historians and journalists who compare the Trump administration to other authoritarian ones past and present. I don't know if using other language might have been better, but I worry that both sides are now engaged in attacks, name calling and verbal warfare and I don't think that leads to anywhere good. I think we need to find new ways to engage, smarter ways where we can call out rationalizations and double messages on the right, while at the same time trying to find a way to talk to each other, at least the voters who are still open to discussion, without putting them immediately on the defensive.
I deeply appreciate this thoughtful response, and I've grappled with exactly this question. You're right that language matters enormously, and that defensive reactions can shut down the very conversations democracy requires.
I try to be precise in my use of these terms. I don't call everyone on the right fascist—I call specific figures fascist when their behavior fits the definition: Stephen Miller calling for criminalizing opposition parties, Trump claiming unlimited authority to execute people without trial, the systematic elimination of constitutional constraints while claiming constitutional authority.
But here's my dilemma: when someone is engaging in fascist methodology, what do you call it? 'Authoritarian' feels insufficient when describing systematic constitutional destruction. "Undemocratic" understates the deliberate nature of democratic elimination. At what point does accuracy matter more than palatability?
I agree that defensive reactions shut down dialogue, but I also worry that euphemistic language makes people underestimate the severity of what's happening. When the Supreme Court eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for entire populations, when federal agents operate like secret police, when assassination gets used to silence criticism—these aren't normal political disagreements requiring diplomatic language.
Your point about Republicans calling liberals "communists" is well-taken, except that those accusations were generally false while the fascist descriptions are documentably accurate. But you're right that accuracy alone doesn't determine effectiveness.
I'm genuinely conflicted about this. How do you maintain analytical precision about systematic threats while preserving the possibility of democratic conversation? How do you call authoritarianism what it is without making democratic persuasion impossible?
What language would you suggest for describing systematic constitutional destruction by people who threaten critics with death?
Thank you for responding to my comment. You are absolutely correct. We have a dilemma. Do we call it what it is or do we find another way to get our point across? Let me use an example from the marriage counseling I did for over thirty years. When I first began to work with couples, I was stumped as to how to help them get over the anger they felt, especially when there had been an affair or some other betrayal. What never worked was when one used a negative label to characterize the other. Say one had had an affair, and the other said "He (or she) is a lying cheater" or something worse. That never set the stage for effective discussion of the problems in the marriage. I had to teach the betrayed spouse to forgo using a label, however true it might be, and instead talk about what the partner had done, to describe the actions and the probable consequences if they couldn't reconcile - consequences to themselves, the marriage, their standard of living, the children, etc.
When we use a label like "fascist" or "authoritarian" or "autocrat" - in anything other than our private conversations with each other - we just invite contempt and a desire to fight back. I'm not sure I have a perfect answer here, but why couldn't we simply call out the behavior and the probable consequences? For example "Donald Trump is sending the military into cities with Democratic and often Black mayors on the pretext he is fighting crime. This is a clear violation of the Constitution and will only make matters worse. This is not what we do in a democracy, especially if we believe in a balance of powers between federal and state governments. If we want to protect our Constitution, and if we want to remain free and not under military occupation, we have to reject that as a people and work towards other solutions for crime." (Yes, we know that isn't the real reason he is sending in the military, but we don't have to call him a liar, just show how his excuse is dangerous. Challenge his rationale, however false it is.)
I know this isn't a perfect answer, but if we are going to have some success and avoid a civil war, we need to lower the temperature in tense situations and help people be less defensive and combative. And one tool is to be careful with our language. And yes, the right's characterization of liberals as socialists and communists was dead wrong, but it worked for a subset of people who want to believe the worst of people they see as enemies. I don't think we had a good answer to their decades long campaign to label us and that is on us. But if we do the same to them, where does it lead? Like I said, I don't have the answers, but I always remember what a supervisor once told me to say to the couples I worked with who each felt they were justified in their anger and neither of whom would acknowledge the perspective of the other. "Would you rather be right or would you rather be loved?
We need to identify our goal. Is it to shame the other side or find a bridge to them, at least to the ones who are the tiniest bit open to a new perspective - The ones who are beginning to see they have been conned? Is it to be right or to reach out and persuade? We don't need to convince all of them. Just enough to gum up the works and give we democracy loving people a chance to prevail.
This response was very helpful to me. I'm just not sure I can be as emotionally detached as a professional counselor. I'll try though, because what you're saying makes total sense.
I'd love to figure out a good strategy, too, but unfortunately individual 'A' in the couple's scenario wakes up in the morning, turns on Newsmax while eating breakfast, listens to Ingraham while driving to your office and, once through your office door, is convinced that 'B' is deserving of every hateful rant that 'A' will direct at 'B' during the therapy session.
Then, after YOU spend an hour explaining better ways to communicate, 'A' leaves the session, listens to Kirk on the way into work, at lunchtime chats with 'Z' at the water cooler about the latest vaccine updates by renowned brain surgeon RFK Jr., and four hours later finishes the day at work.
'A' drives back home while listening to Jones, pulls dinner out of the microwave and, with feet propped up and remote in hand -- and with the goal of consuming a variety of news sources -- turns on Fox's "The Five." 'A' bites into the lentil loaf, curses after losing the top layer of skin from the roof of the mouth, avoids teeth-brushing that evening, but uses those extra few minutes of time to scroll through the depths of hell known as Twitter.
Of course, in marriage counseling, we understand that some marriages are beyond saving.
Right, but my point is that so many of the individuals with whom we want to dialogue, are pissed not because we call them fascist, but because for decades (and to this day) they are taught, through a massive campaign of vitriol and misinformation, to hate us, not trust us, and not trust facts.
Now when you hate someone, and you don't trust them, and your mind has been so warped as to not be able to grasp facts anymore, then how on earth is it possible to properly communicate?
I think calling a fascist a fascist is the least of our problems.
I am going to side with Mike on this. In marriage counseling, there is a goal of dialogue. In fascist regimes, this is not often possible. Did Mussolini or Hitler want to rationally discuss their agenda or simply ram it down their citizens' throats? Violence is a form of dialogue, and the left needs to become fluent.
We have to remember we are a nation born in a violent revolution, and the art of democracy and debate is essentially a low level of assertion and jousting. We have to love freedom enough to fight for it. If we don't, the bullies will take advantage of our hesitancy.
No, the "good guys" don't always win. Sometimes we have to stop the dialogue and simply stand our ground. The key is in the timing. I will leave with a bit of intergalactic wisdom... "Spock... I've found that evil usually triumphs -- unless good is very, very careful." ~ Dr. Leonard McCoy, "Star Trek"
“… calling it fascism would shut down dialogue with Republican friends.” WHAT dialogue?! And if there were dialogue, what good would dialogue do in opposing Maga?
I am starting to think you have a point. My mother escaped Nazi Germany, and I see today so much similarity to the Nazi-like rhetoric and takeover of democratic norms, and the label is justified in warning people of the danger. But the down side is as you say…. It sets up Us vs. Them positions and gets some moderates feeling defensive and accused…. So I am going to resist the satisfaction of saying Fascism and use less incendiary words. It’s not as precise to say ‘the daily attacks on democratic norms and rule of law are leading us in the wrong direction and it is urgent that we understand and resist’.
But is is definitely a tough call.
Whether or not we use the term fascist is debatable. I do believe it is accurate for all reasons Mike describes. Robert Reich is another who pinpoints exactly the reasons it is fascism and not just authoritarianism. One difference with Mussolini is that he called himself fascist and wore the badge proudly. The MAGA right while approving of similar policies are ashamed of the label. This fits for me in their denial of the reality of several basic truths in the current time. They deny climate change and its causes. They deny any problems with January 6th. They deny that Trump lost the 2020 election. They deny the reality that vaccinations save lives and deaths from COVID. They deny that illegal immigrants initiate less crimes than citizens. So of course they will deny their leader is fascist. I am also unclear it helps us on the left to rub their noses in it even when we know it to be true.
The allowance of racial profiling by ICE agents (untrained masked white men) is fascist. it’s not name calling to refer to it that way. The comparison to other authoritarian regimes is based on facts. If we’re not going to hold the administration to account we may as well burn the Constitution.
Ellen. It seems to me that those Trump voters still open to discussion should only need to look to their own moral compass to recognise their error and stop supporting him. The fascist label is a valid statement of fact, I think, not an insult.
I agree that the term is accurate but I question how helpful it is to use it in any conversations or debates (if it is even possible to debate them) with Trump voters. I suspect most of them do not understand the term as they have not studied it as we have. They have never understand the words communism or socialism either or they would not use them inaccurately against Democrats and progressives. So I think it is better to actually describe in a few simple words what we observe and oppose in the Trump administration. Name-calling, no matter how accurate, always shuts down discussion and accelerates the anger. Sticking to observable behavior and provable facts works better, in my opinion. Of course, it is just my opinion, and I respect your points.
‘You are a better man than I, Gunga Din. ‘ But you have inspired me to do better. Thank you.
Laurie
First, fascism is what is happening. No, it is not absolutely identical to the Fascism of Mussolini or that of Hitler. However, one can experience fascism at any time. Here are the pros favoring Trump's regime being fascist:
Pros of Calling the Trump Administration “Fascist”
Feature Example Observation
Centralized leadership Strong personal leadership tone
Nationalist rhetoric “America First” focus
Demonizing opponents Harsh rhetoric toward political rivals and media
Mass rallies Frequent campaign-style events
Challenging democratic norms Questioning election legitimacy
Narrative control Heavy use of social media and friendly outlets (Fox)
Cons of Calling the Trump Administration “Fascist”
Reason Key Point
Historical specificity Fascism is tied to early 20th-century regimes
No state militia No official paramilitary arm like in historical examples
Checks and balances intact Courts, Congress, states resisted executive overreach
Media pluralism Independent and critical media still operated
Economic policy mismatch Focus on free markets, not corporatist control
Semantic precision Risk of diluting the term “fascism”
I did not create this table. It is a non-partisan, AI (UPDF AI) generated table (much nicer in formatting per the AI). I think the "cons" are somewhat "lame" or weak cons.
▶︎ Of course this is not the fascism of Mussolini nor is the bible I may read the original bible.
This particular con is nonsense.
▶︎ Regarding no state militia, we just have not fully arrived. What we have now is Trump using ICE, the National Guard, and sometimes the military.
▶︎ Checks & Balances intact. We have a Republican Party that ignores the reality of what is happening and is acting in full support of the executive branch and its leader, Trump. We have a SCOTUS that is unethical, influenced by bribes relating to personal wealth, and definitely partisan.
▶︎ Media pluralism is still intact. Yes, true, but the AP was banned from the White House press pool. Trump will go after the media as he has announced. Wait, it will happen.
▶︎ Economic policy mismatch. I see more and more of government control occurring. Tariffs, for example, were enacted because the Republicans in Congress did not challenge Trump's decision to invoke these changes. Trump's focus on bitcoin and his wish to fire members of the Fed are all on par with a fascist takeover.
▶︎ Semantic precision. Risk of diluting the term fascism. I am not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean. I, instead, invoke the Duck Principle:
The Duck Principle: "But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks, I’m certainly going to assume that he IS a duck.” - Emil Mazey, Secretary-Treasurer, UAW Labor leader, 1946
If this is not the start of a play entitled Fascism Comes to America, then revoke my medical license, take away my books, and put me in a nursing home. As to the latter, please find a nursing home in another country.
Part of the problem with what has happened is the wishy-washy behavior/personality of many of the so-called liberals. I don't care about whether someone is gay or what gender they select. But I am damn unhappy with the many gays in Hollywood pushing this never-ending gayness in my face when I watch TV or go to the movies. I am not a homophobe, nor could I care if a restroom was for all sexes. In fact, decades ago, I had no problem taking a leak in an all-sex pissoir in Paris. But don't push this stuff on youngsters who, as I can easily remember, are often confused about much of what life is, or is supposed to be.
And as for immigrants, I want people sitting next to me to be vetted when they come to this country. I don't trust people's motivation when they are left to obtain citizenship on their own. When I was pursued to join the faculty at the U of Calgary, despite being pursued by the University, lecturing there, born in the USA, fully licensed with strong credentials, I was told that I could not be guaranteed citizenship until a year had passed, when Customs and Immigration had completed all the required vetting. That's absurd, too.
We should have had our feckless Republicans and Democrats, who sit on their duffs and get healthcare insurance privately and for life, do something substantial about a path to citizenship, instead of allocating billions to a defense budget to blow things up and kill people, spend a decent amount to allow those motivated persons to come to this country or seeking seeking asylum (verified), gain citizenship in a timely fashion. And if it means learning some basics of the language, passing tests, and being assessed regarding trash, then so be it. I saw much of Los Angeles literally trashed by the immigrant population in the 70 and 80s. Parts of Pico Blvd, with a very high Latino population, near downtown LA, had litter that was ankle-high. Shocking. On my way to work in Culver City, I stopped at a traffic light, and I witnessed a person in the car in front of me roll down their window and empty their ashtray. Yes, that person was of Middle Eastern heritage. That does not make me opposed to immigrants; hell, I married one, but she obtained citizenship, and her command of English is better than most American-born persons. But as anyone who has traveled knows, some cultures are fastidious about cleanliness, while others are dramatically opposite.
We citizens sat on our asses instead of ensuring that the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boubert, Louie Gohmert, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and others do not get elected. The same applies to the scatterbrained Democrats or those kept in office despite being non compos mentis, like Diane Feinstein. We did not tend to our garden. We did not honor the Earth nor the political forces that govern us. That's what has brought us to Trump and sickophants (sic).
The Trump et al snowball has reached a critical mass. Can the midterms turn this around? It will take a MASSIVE turnout of voters and the assurance that voting is not tampered with by the Trump and/or MAGA membership. I would not count on a clean election, assuming we have one. And the Gerrymandering we now see in full-mode explosive diarrheal magnitude is thoroughly disgusting. Our politicians brought this on, and we allowed it to happen.
We have met the enemy, and it is US. (credit to Pogo).
Great rant. I agree with most of it, probably all, but I don’t want to box myself in. I subscribed. I like your style.
Rant, yeah, probably, but "rant" is analogous to a thermometer. Since 2016, I have been critical of DJT. First, I grew up not far from the Trump family. Second, I have known Queens, NY, since my father had a gas station in Richmond Hill (next to Jamaica, Queens), and both my grandmothers lived in Richmond Hill, a short distance from the Fairgrounds where the US Open is hosted. Early on, I read much of Wayne Barrett's writing. Barrett spent a lifetime documenting the fraud committed by Fred Trump & son, Donald. He wrote books on Trump and Giuliano, who were birds of a feather light years ago. Barrett also wrote for the Village Voice, which reminds me a lot of Politico. So this deep dive into the life of Trump has been long-standing, like an itch that has turned into a rash that is now "systemic." So, like the Mercury in a thermometer that rises with temperature, my temperature on Trump has been on the rise for at least ten years.
In 2016, before the national election, my son and I were getting close to completing a book on the psychopathy of Donald Trump. I had given it the preliminary title "Donald Trump: A Clear & Present Danger." I plugged that into a Google search one morning and found that someone else had already written a book with the same title. And then in 2017, while working on a medical documentation of Trump's malignant narcissism, along with his personality disorder and evidence of paranoia, I discovered Bandi Lee's book on Trump: The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.
I have sent hundreds of emails to large numbers of people, including my medical colleagues, neighbors, and family, for quite some time. My rant is indeed an example of what happens when a volcano finally decides it has had enough.
In my field of medical oncology, it was common for other doctors to refer patients to me whom they considered no longer suitable for treatment. My deep dives into research often came up with a treatment that would allow the patient additional years of quality life, with some patients free of cancer to this day. This led to a reputation as the Hail Mary Cancer Doc. But in the case of Donald Trump vs America, I believe the patient is indeed in dire straits, and it will take some form of miracle to exorcise this creature and his coterie of miscreants from the historical downfall of America.
You're right, of course, in much of what you say, and as someone else wrote, I very much respect and agree with what you write.
Know that, and this may sound bizarre here, that many people like me, living outside the United States, are praying for the US right now. Just like we're praying for Gaza (and Israel).
Blessings.
😊 I am grateful for 'Brock's Bibliotherapy'.
Still reeling here from the horrible remarks made on Fox News about unhoused human beings.
May their viewers change the channel.
May their advertisers leave the network in their dust and destroy the network's revenue streams.
May their employees quit.
2+2=4. Truth Matters. If folks agree with me, it’s a start. I find out real fast if beliefs and tribalism get in the way of saying yes to those statements, I know to move on.
Glad you delayed him!!🇺🇸
I remember people debating how Gandhi would have fared in the Weimar Republic during the raise of fascism.
The idea of Satyagraha relying on the force of truth, and the brand of fascism that the Nazis adhered to rejecting moral and democratic ideals.
Harry Turtledove's "The Last Article" explores an alternate 1947 in which Germany defeated the United Kingdom and has taken control of India after defeating the forces of the Raj: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Article
I wonder what you think of the methods of defensive democracy such as are used in Germany to outright ban or severely hamper political organisations found to be threatening the basic values of liberal democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
Do you think such responses justified or would you fear that it would become too open to abuse?
I think they might ultimately backfire. People forget that the Nazi Party was banned, and Hitler was thrown in jail in Weimar Germany, only for them to end up in power and then ban their opposition. "Late you come, but still you come" — Hitler says to Otto Wells, who begs Hitler not to repress his opposition, implying "You did it to me. Now I do it to you".
We see a similar reaction with cancel culture. The right is now reveling in cancelling their opposition, and the left can only call them hypocrites. But can claim no higher ground.
The liberal argument is that the state should never have the tools to ban political opposition, so even if the state if seized by those who would, they can't—or can't be seen to be legitimately doing so. Many on the left would like to weaken the First Amendment to allow hate speech to be criminalized for instance. But then one might wonder what Trump and Miller would be designating as "hate speech" right now if they had that power.
Here's a further, if summarised, explanation of how the process works in Germany: https://infosec.exchange/@celeste_42bit/114448567433279595
Granted Germany has its own constitutional norms and rules surrounding things like judicial appointments that may render this procedure less vulnerable to political manipulation than it might be elsewhere. The procedure for banning parties was in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany as originally promulgated in 1949 and is part of the basic fabric of German democracy. (A German acquaintance of mine claims that the procedure was included at the insistence of the United States.)
I'm actually somewhat familiar with it. And yet, the far right is continuing to gain steam in Germany. Another example that I am worried about, is when the far-right won parliamentary elections last year, they invalidated the election results. Which just gives the far-right ammunition to claim that the democrats don't believe in democracy. I think it's a dangerous game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%932025_Romanian_election_annulment_protests
Are you referring to the annulment of the first round of the 2024 Romanian presidential election? I freely concede that I'm not familiar with Romanian law on the matter, but constitutions and electoral laws exist to safeguard democracy against its own worst excesses (though as another acquaintance of mine likes to put it, the river of democracy slowly erodes the republican institutions meant to check its flow). As you yourself have written, arguably a large part of why the US is in the situation it's in is because those safeguards weren't properly enforced in 2024. The defense is not of pure democracy ("Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." Federalist No. 55) but rather of the constitutional and legal order within which democratic governance and debate occur.
I am surprised at how many of Trump’s actions I research only to find the first EO doing this or that (not law) was during Obama’s administration. I have a friend who worked for our district’s Republican congressman who has told me things Obama did I never heard. I dismissed it at the time, but now, maybe she wasn’t just being partisan. I have often wondered if people had a legitimate gripe that was ignored until we got Trump. Ain’t nobody ignoring now.
But what action can be taken? If the midterms happen it’ll be a miracle, but if they’re messed with - then what?
I have come to the sad conclusion that this is actually what the majority of Americans want. After all, they voted for the man - even after the Capitol riots. On top of his belligerent, almost unintelligible rhetoric, here was clear evidence that he trades on division, loves to turn people against each other to achieve his authoritarian agenda, and is quite happy to incite violence via his militia or now the armed forces. Even on the left, people seem to revel in it. The Charlie Kirk assassination has everybody wading in. The right blames the left. The left are quick to say it's not them, it's an attack against democracy and free speech, and nobody should die for their beliefs, etc etc. But what's consistent is the glee with which podcasters and journalists and blog writers and Democrats and Republicans alike, leap into battle at the slightest whiff of blood in the water. From an outsider's point of view, it just seems Americans in general want a fight. The left love a good protest with placards and tear gas. The right are itching to dust off their AR15s and shoot something other than cans. The US seems to have this survivalist fantasy, their sense of self is inextricably linked to fighting - the British, the Indians, the North, the South... that's why zombie movies are so popular. Americans, sadly like many other nations it seems, are itching for a fight. And in the absence of a living dead apocalypse, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps not, Americans voted for a guy who's doing his level best to deliver.
Please don’t confuse Civilization with the American experiment. They are two different things. It’s especially the second one that seems at a turning point. And to some extent, it’s in the very nature of experiments that they sometimes fail, otherwise they would not be called like that. In the grand scheme of things, failed experiments might be not what one hopes for but they are OK, as long as we learn from them. Though I acknowledge that should the American experiment fail there will be a ton of suffering and civilization will take a bad turn at least in the short-medium term. But then again the best thing we can hope for is understanding why, so that maybe our descendants can have a better try.
Right now, as you correctly noted, we need all Dem governors and AGs to b leaders and visibly push back, like Pritzker. If you have them and they're not doing that, let them know how important it is.
Some hope and strategy? https://peacefulreturn.substack.com/p/we-need-a-peaceful-global-strike
It takes a lot to scare me. It’s my children and grand children for whom I worry.