The most popular narratives of the current political moment from liberals and Leftists alike is that there was a decisive political rupture between November and January where the liberal order was replaced by a fascist one; perhaps in the election, perhaps in the inauguration. As winter has shifted into spring, spring into summer, and summer into autumn, however, this narrative does not seem to hold up. In particular, though open fascists have gained a larger audience, defenders from the liberal press, and greater boldness, the policies of the new administration seem largely a continuation of, rather than a rupture with, long-standing trends, something which is either omitted or occluded in most liberal narratives. This does not mean its policies are nice and soft, but rather that the policies of the new administration frequently cited as ‘fascist’ have clear antecedents in existing policies (the previous president, for instance, had deserved his nickname of “deporter-in-chief” and had bombed 7 countries; in addition, the militarization of police and the growth of the prison-industrial complex did not slow down in the previous administration, nor did the use of torture cease), some of which were written and defended by people now celebrated as “leaders” of the so-called “resistance”, such as David Frum. Additionally, the new administration has proved remarkably incompetent at taking hold of the state apparatus–its primary way of doing so appears to be through the judicial branch, not the executive branch–and despite controlling both houses of congress, the new administration appears to feud almost as often with congress as the previous administration did.
Either, then, we have “fascists without fascism”, or America has been fascist for far longer than we are willing to admit. In order to decide which is the case, we must have a clearer understanding of what fascism is and what it is not.
Yash's Blog 