Fascism is the result of a cumulative inability to think. This is how, in 1939, Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges discussed the success of Adolf Hitler. From his limited observation post in Buenos Aires, Borges stated that the predominance of an unreasonable reasoning was predictable in fascists who fanatically thought in the cult of their leaders. However what was stunning for Borges was that this irrationality was likewise present in anti-fascism. This was unexpected, and for Borges, inappropriate. Borges warned his readers not to participate in this form of escapism by way of creating alternative cults of the nation. Arguments that fascism could not take place here or that it might not be the result of national traditions due to the fact that the nation and individuals were inherently good mimic the magical thinking of the fascists. They change the fascist cult of the strongman with the uncritical cult of liberalism. Examining this scenario at the time of the Nazis, Borges stated that “exclamations have usurped the function of reasoned ideas.” Borges warned against the “liberal jihad against dictatorships” that fought them with the aid of nationalist stereotypes. He slammed those with “the viewpoint that the inevitable and insignificant fact of having actually been born in an offered country or coming from a provided race (or a provided excellent mixture of races) is … an adequate talisman.” Borges’s arguments apply today. Of the many attempts to discuss Trumpian attacks against democracy, the most irregular are those that invert Trump’s nationalism by declaring that he represents an abnormality located beyond American customs and history. Trump, it’s claimed, can not present affinities with fascism because there is no such thing as fascism in America; this is why Trumpism comes from a special historical pathway that separates the American caudillo from other global histories, particularly the history of fascism and postfascism. According to these views, Americans are either too good for fascism or they are too dumb. Trumpism can not be that bad or such a threat to democracy due to the fact that American democracy will withstand. In this view, instead of a by-product of worldwide and American racist, populist, and fascist traditions reformulated in postfascist anti-democratic methods, Trumpism can be easily bracketed and summarily dismissed.Two new books on strongmen and their fans supply powerful evidence versus these views. Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s Strongmen: Mussolini to today and Carl Hoffman’s Liar’s Circus: A Weird and Frightening Journey Into the Upside-Down World of Trump’s MAGA Rallies take a look at the nature of Trump’s authoritarianism, and present connections with other autocratic regimes, demonstrating how the past and present of strongmen are deeply linked. While Ben-Ghiat provides an effective historic reading of the ways of the leaders themselves, providing a history from above, Hoffman offers us a story from below, sharing his own “weird” journey among the Trumpistas. Whichever method you take a look at it, a distinct pattern emerges. Ben-Ghiat compares 3 primary durations in the history of strongmen: There is the fascism of the 1930 s, the dictatorships of the Cold War age, and the renewal of right-wing populists like Viktor Orbán, Rodrigo Duterte, and Trump, to name a few in today. The very first duration is defined by fascism, which included the damage of democracy and the affirmation of totalitarian guideline, with total war and genocide being the major outcomes.Trump, it’s declared, can not present affinities with fascism due to the fact that there is no such thing as fascism in America. Americans are either too helpful for fascism or they are too dumb. After 1945, strongmen had to reformulate their methods for a world in which fascism had actually lost its mass appeal. Whereas Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini are the primary examples of the fascist duration, Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet are perfect examples of totalitarians who might not be as fascist as they wanted to be. In order to mask his old fascism under the new situations of the Cold War, Franco even arranged phony elections in 1947 to confirm himself as leader for life. Strongmen like Franco, Pinochet, Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko, and Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi came to power via coup. They were often identified with a defense of the West (Franco, Pinochet), and they were usually supported by Western democracies, but at times, as when it comes to Qaddafi, they were highly opposed to them.The 3rd duration is really different from the others in the sense that strongmen like Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Viktor Orbán, and Rodrigo Duterte have actually not managed to completely destroy democracy (a minimum of so far). Pertaining to power in a duration marked by the end of the Cold War and a subsequent crisis of liberalism, they are postfascist leaders who make democracy more illiberal, reducing it to the limit however without reaching (up until now) the dictatorial phase of the previous periods.Across all three durations, the strongman counts on the same set of tools– severe nationalism, propaganda, corruption, an extremist suitable of masculinity and violence– although each of these aspects appears with variations over time. Severe nationalism penetrates a fond memories for a better past that never really existed. In fascist Italy, Benito Mussolini presented his routine as a go back to the times of the Roman Empire. In Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler promoted a racist fantasy of a Germany without Jews. In the United States, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” propaganda idealizes and looks for a go back to the segregationist period prior to the gains of the civil liberties movement.Propaganda is verified through the cult of the leader and violent repression. In the name of the leader, who is presented as the embodiment of individuals and the country, and as its ultimate protector, violence ends up being legitimate and even preferred. Violence and repression are presented as the way to create transcendental modifications in the history of mankind. Hitler got rid of millions of European Jews due to the fact that he believed it would cause a brand-new historic era for the Aryan race. Pinochet tortured, sent to prison, and killed countless his opponents in Chile, arguing that these acts of extreme repression were at the service of saving civilization.Both propaganda and repression have altered in our new century, ending up being less conspicuous and more obvious. If raw violence was the mark of dictators in the eras of fascism and the Cold War, the new-era strongmen like Bolsonaro and Trump have adopted more selective types of repression and violence. Violence ends up being more targeted, and less organized, than in the past (no mass killings or summary executions in the thousands). Deeply repressive acts such as the operation of detention camps in the U.S., the policy of kid separation, and the allowing and commemorating of authorities cruelty end up being structural dimensions of strongman rule. Although state violence is more difficult in a country with a free press, in the new media landscape populist leaders can bypass journalism and communicate directly with their fans without examination. In this sense, media and context modification however not the patterns of strongman habits. As Ben-Ghiat observes, “Twitter is for Trump what newsreels were for the fascists: a direct channel to individuals that keep him constantly in the news.” Especially, the strongman’s ultranationalist concept of the past constantly involves what Ben-Ghiat defines as a “state-assisted maker of libidinal satisfaction.” The strongman requires to control bodies, and sexual violence and the denigration of ladies are central to his guideline. Machismo is a “method of political legitimation and a central component of authoritarian guideline.” Strongman routines advanced a reactionary model of masculinity that starts with the misogynistic beasts at the top. Mussolini was a sex addict who produced a “state-assisted maker” to make love with countless females, a lot of whom had actually just attended his rallies. After these sexual encounters– of which, Ben-Ghiat tells us, there were on average 15 to 20 per week– the ladies became persons of interest to the state security apparatus: His fixers and secret authorities stood all set to require an abortion, pay for silence, or make life tough for the ladies’s partners and hubbies. One thing was particular: once Mussolini entered your life and your vagina, you were never ever free of him again.Qaddafi utilized the state security apparatus to create a system of sexual violence where young women were abducted and locked up as sexual servants of the leader. Trump’s design of masculinity– his talk of getting women by the pussy– replicates the fascinations and tendencies of his dictatorial predecessors, though in a different form.None of them could see that an order built on lies and propaganda around their messianic leadership was not destined to last. Finally amongst the tools of the strongman is corruption. Mussolini, Qaddafi, Mobutu, and Pinochet used their power to develop or keep their fortunes afloat. Mussolini set the design template for corruption, closing down investigations of war profiteering to please conservatives and industrialists who had actually supported him. As in Nazi Germany, racial persecution created big chances for his supporters and pals, in addition to for state enrichment. Hitler’s funds were exempt from any accounting as “he ordered the Gestapo to damage his records to hide evidence that he never paid taxes.” Mobutu and Qaddafi created a kleptocracy where it was hard to compare the leader’s personal financial resources and those of the state. From military coups to the “new authoritarian climbs,” these leaders never consider the possibility of an ending to their guideline. The “authoritarian playbook,” Ben-Ghiat observes, “has no chapter on failure.” This does not indicate strongmen don’t fail: The leader’s persistence on his instinct and personal genius over proficiency frequently results in crisis, mismanagement, and ultimately disenchantment even among a few of the most fanatical followers. Hitler trusted his gut to win what eventually became an unwinnable war that ruined his country and led to his suicide. The exact same applies to Mussolini. Trump and Bolsonaro reduced a global pandemic, appealing wonder cures and ignoring the guidance of scientists. None could see that an order constructed on lies and propaganda around their messianic leadership was not destined to last. If Ben-Ghiat teaches us about the leaders, what about their fans? Who are the people who preserve a deep faith in such flawed people to the very end? Why do so lots of people follow the lies of the strongmen? Why do they think in the cult of the leader in spite of anguish, crisis, and disease? Simply put, why are they replacing believed with political faith? Ben-Ghiat cogently states that the secret of the strongman is that he needs the crowds much more than they require him. In this sense, both Hitler’s and Trump’s rallies had the same function: feeding not only the propaganda maker but likewise the leaders’ egos. Carl Hoffman’s new book, Liar’s Circus: A Strange and Terrifying Journey Into the Upside-Down World of Trump’s MAGA Rallies, dives into the Trumpista maelstrom, dealing with the so-called “Front Row Joes,” the most faithful pilgrims of the Trump cult. Traveling 5,000 miles and spending 170 hours in line in the arenas and the car park of MAGA rallies, Hoffman talks with people who believe that Trump is “Paradise sent” which “Trump Tweets Matter” above anything and anybody else. Among this crowd, conspiracy theories such as QAnon, antisemitic paranoia about George Soros, and racist and homophobic theories about Barack and Michelle Obama are conflated with basically “hellish stuff” and an exceptionally authoritarian follow-your-leader mentality.There is blissful dancing and singing prior to the leader appears. Village People hits such as “YMCA” and “Macho Man” play prior to Trump reaches the stage.The people Hoffman meets regard Trump as divine, a hero of legendary proportions. These beliefs are part of the misconception of the American leader that is extensively shared amongst people who agree with him on everything, including his distinct connection to God. In this particular sense of being a fanatic cult, Trumpism shares crucial affinities with the fascist history of crowd adjustment and propaganda through shared dreams and redemptive expectations. “A Trump rally,” Hoffman writes, “is a sensual assault that pirates your soul.” Going to one of these occasions is the experience of coming from a group of individuals who look and believe and consume and hate in the very same way. There is blissful dancing and singing prior to the leader appears. Village Individuals strikes such as “YMCA” and “Macho Male” play before Trump reaches the phase. The hype relies on fury when the leader himself informs the crowd how he is constantly maltreated. He shows them an alternative world without complexity, where “all of their hopes, and dreams and resentment” are dealt with. Within this echo chamber, the blending of traditions of racism and misogyny with a profound anti-democratic ethos in some way translates into the deep experience of a transcendental moment, the seeing of the passion of Trump. The narrative is that of a leader who has actually experienced vilification at the hands of enemies who are both nonreligious (and therefore profane) and extremely demonic. Within this story, they are concerned not just as opponents of individuals but also enemies of God. Hoffman’s crucial insight is that Trump speaks in a revivalist millenarian language that his followers clearly comprehend. The Trumpist political religion works from the top since it includes feedback from below.This measurement of Trumpism is not distinct. Strongmen, and the fans who faithfully believe in their lies, are neither exceptional nor simple dots in the history of injustice. The U.S. is similar to other locations: a country with an intolerant political tradition that considers itself as emanating from the divine. The history of authoritarian guideline shows that democracy can not be taken for approved; it needs to be constantly protected and shored up. Even if the U.S. can rid itself of Trump, we need to continue to look out. The people who made his reign possible will remain in the photo and, as Ben-Ghiat and Hoffman inform us, we can not pay for to neglect them.
Learn More
