Category Archives: Populism

Why do Countries that Know Fascism Slip Back into Fascism?

 

 

During the entire time I was cruising through the Balkans along the Danube River I kept coming back to a question that was haunting me:  Why do so many countries that experienced fascism and know how awful it is, slip back into it?  You would think they know better and would avoid it, but so often they don’t.  Perhaps the best example of this is Hungary.  It was a long-time vassal state of the Soviet Union. Then for a very short time it was a genuine democracy. Yet it seems to be sliding back into fascism and some even suggest it has already gone all the way back. What happened and why?

 

After I got back to Canada without solving the problem on the trip, I heard an interview by Fareed Zakaria with a very interesting Bulgarian born political scientist, Ivan Krastev. Zakaria was interested in the same question as I was.  He put the question this way: “One of the biggest threats to liberal democracy these days comes from a region that was once considered its brightest horizon, Eastern Europe.” He, like me, was particularly interested in Hungary because of its sharp turn towards autocracy after Viktor Orbán was re-elected after losing his Parliamentary majority after the first election.

 

Krastev started said this:

 

“This is very interesting about the liberal revolutions. After every revolution, people were leaving the country. But normally this is the defeated party. This is the white Russians who left after the Bolshevik Revolution. After the liberal revolution of 1989, the first to leave with the liberals because they went immediately to study, to work, to live abroad. And suddenly the idea was that what they should do is to imitate the West.

 

Every expected them to follow the west. The people who were left in Poland after Communism collapsed, just as in Hungary as well, were resentful that they were told by the political elites that were left, that they ought to copy the west. They were left out, just like non-college educated people in the United States, have felt left out by the liberal elites. And, as Friedrich Nietzsche knew, resentment is a very powerful emotion. Resentment is dynamite.

 

If they were expected to be like Germany, for example, then why not rather just go to Germany. No one likes to slavish follow someone else. They felt like losers. And as the American Democrats have learned the hard way, no one likes that.

 

Added to that, if the west won the war so conclusively, as it seemed, why did the “winners,” from the west leave the country? That is highly unusual, yet in so many of the former satellite countries, the liberals left the country, leaving a mess behind.

 

According to Krastev, after the fall of communism when the liberals were gone, the people were expected to imitate the west who won the cold war, but none of them wanted to do that. As Krastev said,

“But you know what? Imitation is not a fun business. If I’m imitating you, it means that I recognize that you are better than me. And then, if I’m imitating you, what about me? So, this resentment against imitation, in my view, was the reason why in eastern Europe, much earlier than in other parts, you have this kind of populist resentment saying, OK, you are not better than us.

 

The pride of the people left out was hurt. Many of the people felt like they were looked down upon by the west and very much resented that.

Added to that, as Krastev  Orbán was a “very gifted politician”  who  could manipulate the system in Hungary so that the rules of the game would be rigged to ensure his election. For example, he made sure all of the media supported him. If they didn’t’ they lost their licences.  Trump has been threatening the same thing in the US and the threats have worked. As a result of all of this, the former Russian satellites became  more like Russia and eastern Europe than America, even though Russia lost the Cold War. And they are transforming the west to be more like Russia! And as if that is not weird enough, the American right-wing is making America more like Russia too. The world is topsy-turvy. Led in part—a large part—by Donald Trump.

 

Orbán could cleverly navigate that world so his victory would be ensured. That was more important to him than democracy. Trump was pretty good at that too

 

+2 + 2 = 5

 

I had a surreal experience yesterday. First, I went for a walk in our new Events Centre in Steinbach. While I walked on the track, I listened to a podcast  on the topic of George Orwell and a film made about him by Raol Peck. who was interviewed on the podcast.

The podcast was very interesting, because George Orwell was very interesting. Orwell was a brilliant thinker and critic of totalitarianisms of both the left and the right. Peck had recently made a film about George Orwell and he called it 2 + 2 = 5. The title of the podcast is based on a scene where Winston was asked questions by his interrogator.  He was asked ‘what is 2 + 2 equal to?”  Winston replied, ‘4.”  The interrogator then asked what if the Big Boss says 2 + 2 =5? What would say? I would say ‘2 +2=4.’ Then he was promptly zapped with an electric shock. He was zapped often enough that he begged to say, 2 + 2 = 5.  That is how totalitarianism works. You believe what you are told to believe. At least, you profess to believe. The more absurd the belief you are persuaded to believe, the better. The Bigger the lie the better, as Adolf Hitler pointed out.

 

When I got home after my walk, I sat down and watched CNN news on TV  about a male  nurse being shot and killed in Minneapolis.  I was pooped and thought I was not hearing things right. I was hearing things right.

 

I.C.E. officers in Minneapolis in search presumably of dangerous illegal immigrants,  shot and killed a young man who was an American citizen and not an illegal immigrant. He was not the worst of the worst as Trump said they were after. He was a nurse in a Vet’s hospital.

 

The  male nurse had watched as I.C.E. officers were assaulting a woman and he, unwisely, but bravely, stepped in to help the woman. There were a large number of witnesses watching what happened. Many taped in on their phones. The I.C.E. agents repeatedly pushed the woman  and man back and then down to the ground. Presumably they were interfering with the officers arresting someone. Perhaps they just did not like being taped at work.

When the nurse, by the name of Pretti, stepped in the I.C.E. officers immediately transferred their attention to Pretti. Pretti was repeatedly shoved to the ground. The officers were extremely rough and belligerent. The men piled on top of Pretti. Really there was nothing that he could do. The agents were on top of him and he was pinned down. One of the agents then could be seen leaving the edge of the melee with what was clearly a gun in his hand. They had relieved Pretti of his gun.

 

Later I.C.E. officials claimed he had walked towards the agents with a gun. technically, that was true. He did have a loaded gun in his back pocket or pants but he never pulled it out. The only thing he waved around was his phone/camera.  Later we learned Pretti had a permit for the gun so was carrying it legally, and, as members of the American right-wing constantly remind us it is lawful for citizens to do so, even to protect themselves from government law enforcement official such as the I.C.E agents.

 

There was no sign of belligerence on the part of Pretti; only on the part of the officers.  About  one second later, after the gun was removed by the agent, a shot could be heard. It turned out one of the agents  shot Pretti while he was unarmed and pinned to the ground surrounded by burly masked I.C.E. agents. Pretti was already disarmed of his lawful weapon, when someone shot him.

As if that was not enough, within seconds there was a barrage of more shots by I.C.E. agents. CNN counted 9 further shots. All 10 shots were fired  after I.C.E. agents  had removed Pretti’s gun and there was no risk of harm to them. There was no need to shoot him once. Let alone 10 times. He was already totally disarmed.

 

All of this was highly disconcerting, but what happened next was even more disconcerting. Within hours Kristi Noem, the Secretary of  Homeland Security, the top position in the department, made a rushed statement saying Pretti had walked up to the agents aggressively with a gun.  In no time at all she figured out it was all his fault. Shortly after that, a few other senior members of the department quickly made other statements assuring us that Pretti was a “domestic terrorist” who intended to harm the I.C.E. agents. No evidence of this was offered. We were told by department officials that he was a terrorist and the I.C.E agents who shot Pretti did so as a “defensive shooting.

 

In other words, just as George Orwell had predicted 75 years ago, we were being told that “2 + 2 = 5”.

 

Here is what people learn when they are not allowed to believe that 2 + 2 =4: “War is Peace.”  “Freedom is slavery.” “Ignorance is strength.”

 

Orwell taught us about it 75 years ago and we did not listen. We did not think it was possible. Well now we know. It is not just possible. It is here and now.

As Orwell also said,

 

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful. And murder respectable

We don’t have to fear it. It is here staring us in the face Right now. From the TV set you and I have been watching. Here and Now. 2 + 2 = 5.

Autocratic Leaders take advantage of our weaknesses

 

Populist, Machiavellian, and autocratic leaders have learned to take advantage of our natural (evolved) biases against us.  Goodman used the example of Andrew Tate in England to illustrate his point. I would use leaders with autocratic tendencies instead, like Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán. And of course, it seems to me, that the young people, being even more impressionable than the older people, seem to be most attracted to such strong man leaders.  Perhaps they are more impressionable, or perhaps, even more likely, they are the most unhappy with themselves.  In modern society, young people are starting to realize that their parent’s generation has screwed them by rigging the rules of society against them. It is no accident that this current generation, for the first time in history, is likely to live less well off than financially than their parents.

 

Strongmen, like Trump, are masters at using deceit and manipulation to create absurd trust in their abilities, against all evidence to the contrary, and then use that ability to propel themselves into positions of authority where they can use that authority to improve their own financial position at the expense of those who supported them. It’s a nasty trick if you can get away with it, and none is better at it than Donald Trump. Trump has done it many times and continues to do it as his supporters don’t seem to notice or don’t seem to care.

 

One of the techniques that strongmen in the past have used to gain influence over the populace include attacking science and knowledge. Hitler did it. Stalin did. And now Trump is doing it. When the Bolsheviks took power in Russia they quickly attacked the scientific community with claims that they were merely, “bourgeois” scientists who were acting on behalf of their financial supporters and then replaced them with more compliant and ideologically pure scientists. This is precisely what Trump has done by attacking woke scientists.

 

We must be careful to avoid allowing this to happen. As Jonathan Goodman said in his Guardian article,

 

“Where we see brute power combined with ignorance, we can throw our support behind knowledge, peaceful protest and education.

 

And finally, when reigns of terror end – and eventually, they always do – it is critical to learn and absorb the lessons. That way, we inoculate ourselves afresh against our natural tendency to trust the untrustworthy, carrying that wisdom forward into the future so that we’re better able to stymie the autocrats who seek to close our minds.

 

The best tool we can muster to defend ourselves from such attacks is our ability to think critically. We must cherish and protect that skill, as it is our most powerful weapon of self-defence. This is always our most powerful tool. When we give it up we submit to arbitrary and ruthless authority. That is why autocrats are so quick to attack it because that makes us defenceless to their attacks.

 

How did Hungary fall into Authoritarianism?

 

Retuning to my question of how was it possible for a country such as Hungary to move from democracy to autocracy, I want to look at Hungary as a prime example.

 

Guardian writer Danielle Renwick wrote about how people learn to live with a dictator. To look at this issue from the perspective of Hungary she interviewed  Stefania Kapronczay the former head of Hungarian Civil Liberties Union.

 

In comparing the United States to Hungary she made one very important point that surprised me. Kapronczay said what is happening in the US does in fact echo what happened in Hungary but with one big difference:

 

“It’s happening much faster, and it’s surprising for me that so many private companies and institutions just complied with the perceived or expressed will of president Trump. I didn’t expect so many people would be so risk-averse.”

 

 

Viktor Orbán was first elected to power in Hungary as a capitalistic liberal in 1998 when the people in Hungary were very unhappy with post-cold war politics. That was actually a common reaction among countries that were from the Communist bloc and then felt lost when that bloc collapsed after 1989. This is not entirely different than the recent collapse of support for democracy among large segments of American and Canadian societies. That is why Hungry is so important.

 

A lot of people in Hungary thought Democracy did not deliver what people expected after the fall of communism. They hated communism but thought they would do better with democracy than they got.  In 2002 Orbán’s party lost power as people were dissatisfied and voted out his party.

 

Then later Orbán returned to power as the head of government after the Hungarian democratic elections in 2010 and then he was a different leader. He was no longer the liberal, so he changed the rules in his own favor. First, he changed the voting rules so it would be easier to get his party elected the next time. Trump did this too and is doing it now. I know Democrats have done that too but during this time Republicans in the US controlled more states. I often think very few people in the US actually want democracy.  Each time one party is in power they change rules for their own benefit.

 

Orbán, again like Trump, also stacked the judicial system with people who supported him. He also attacked the liberal universities, like the one run by Canada’s former leader of the Liberal party, Michael Ignatieff. Trump has done the same thing in the US. Orbán also went after the press to toe the party line, just as Trump has been doing with vigor. Orbán also attack unfriendly NGOs and again Trump has followed suit.  Also, Orbán made some changes that that helped the poor in Hungary.  Trump has done a little of this, but much less.

 

The key here is gradual steps of dismantling democracy.  It does not happen with a bang. It usually happens by small steps. innocuous, but ominous small steps.

 

Kapronczay warned us in the west that opposition parties must understand that it is not good enough to run on platforms defending democracy.  That is too esoteric for many electors. Opposition parties in the west must not fail to address basic pocket book issues or they will be turfed out of office or never get back in.

 

Kapronczay also pointed out one more important thing opponents of autocracy should do is to avoid extremism. Tas she said,: “Autocrats really want to polarize the society, so any kind of initiative that goes against it is really important.”  Politicians like Trump thrive on the extremes. The more the liberals rant and scream at him and his supporters the more Trump likes it and the more his supporters think he must be doing a great job.

Polarization and autocracy go together like love and marriage.

 

So how does a country slip into autocracy from a democracy? By small steps. No steps are more dangerous than baby steps.

 

Is Hungary a Fascist State?

 

 

Andrew Marantz is a writer from the New Yorker and in the last couple of years has been paying a lot of attention to Hungary. He has visited it a number of times and he is very concerned about it. Besides writing about it, he has appeared in a number of podcasts together with Tyler Foggatt as part of The New Yorker Political Scene Podcasts.

 

Like me Marantz and Foggatt wanted to know: How bad have things got? How close to an authoritarian state has the United Statement become? And they started by looking at Hungary.

 

First, Marantz said when you go to Hungary, “it’s not a police state. It’s not like Russia.” This made me feel a little better. I was at the time travelling there. I have now been there again. When I was there I worried a bit about whether or not I had to be careful of what I looked at or read or wrote about. To the extent that fear was justified, Hungary is no longer a democracy, but an authoritarian state.

 

I wondered when I was there whether or not I should worry about what I wrote on my computer? Could I criticize Hungary? Could I criticize their leader Orbán? I really didn’t  want to go to jail. But I also didn’t want to shut up either.

 

Marantz also said this about Hungary on the podcast:

 

“It’s not like, you know, North Korea.  It’s a beautiful European capital where you walk around and it’s nice and you sit by the river and sip an espresso. And I interviewed all kinds of dissidents, academics, journalists who are opposed to the regime. And they didn’t say okay, you know, we can’t talk here. We have to go somewhere where we’re not going to be, you know hauled off into a van or something. Like that’s not the vibe.”

 

That sounded pretty good. I know Christiane and I visited Budapest in 2004 and I never once, not once, felt uneasy about being in a former Soviet satellite country.  But that was then. This is now.  And thanks to Viktor Orbán things now in 2025 are very different. And Hungary is a very good example for the rest of us about what can happen to a functioning democracy. Democratic countries can slide into autocracy or illiberal democracy or even fascism and many believe Hungary has done so under the second presidency of Viktor Orbán. He changed.

 

I know this time I felt a little different. I don’t want to exaggerate the feeling, but I don’t want to deny it either. So, what happened in Hungary between our last visit in 2004 2025.

 

First, what happened in Hungary has happened in many places in varying degrees.  A lot of countries around the world have been flirting with autocracy?  I visited some of them on this trip? Romania. Bulgaria. Serbia. And above all, Hungary. Why did this happen? That is the question I would really like to answer.

 

Some have suggested that we have a natural inclination to autocracy and not democracy. Disturbing research has shown that in many countries the popularity of democracy as a political system is in serious decline. And most disturbing of all is that the decline is pronounced in the United States, the country long known as the leader of the free world. It often claims to be the first constitutional democracy. Is it possible that democracy is declining even there? There is actually a lot of evidence, particular in the reign of Trump 2.0 that it has moved sharply in that direction.  Can America and Canada learn something from what happened in Hungary? Those are things that interest me.

Brothers at Each Other’s Throats

 

The problem in the north of Yugoslavia was not so much resurfacing of ancient hatreds, or religious or linguistic differences, as it was economic nationalism. The northerners were producing most of the wealth of the country and felt that much of this wealth was being siphoned off by their poorer southern cousins. They were starting to believe in the north that they would all be better off as independent countries. Sounds a lot like Alberta doesn’t it? Resentment is often fuel of strife.

 

The Communist leader, Tito, had managed to suppress such serious criticisms during his life time, but as soon as he was gone such critiques flourished.

The economy of Yugoslavia had seriously unraveled during the 1980s.  The country moved into hyperinflation.  By 1989 the inflation rate was 1,240 % and rising.  These were conditions in which tensions were incubated into vigorously nasty animosities. As Tony Judt another brilliant historian said, in his book about Europe after the Second World War, “the growing distaste for feckless southerners was ethnically indiscriminate and based not on nationality but on economics.”

 

The ruling centres of former communist enclaves in Belgrade, Serbia, were also spectacularly corrupt. When these led to financial ruin, the people were ready to revolt.  These feelings were intensified by fears that a small group of former Communist apparatchiks coalescing around the brute Slobodan Milošević were planning to make a bid for power in the political vacuum that followed Tito’s death.  That is exactly what happened. He gained power by arousing and manipulating Serb national emotions.  Like Trump decades later, he was a master of that. Many Communist leaders had tried similar tactics in other countries.  As Judt said, “In the era of Gorbachev, with the ideological legitimacy of Communism and its ruling party waning fast, patriotism offered an alternative way of securing a hold on power.” Or as Samuel Johnson said, “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

 

In Yugoslavia however, Milošević and his cronies encouraged nationalist meetings at which the insignia of wartime Chetniks were on public display and this aroused deep disquiet among those groups that had been abused by the Chetniks during the war. The Chetniks were the Serbs who had fought on the side of Hitler during the war, using that opportunity to commit mayhem and destruction. Riding a wave of Serbian nationalism, Milošević was confirmed in power as the President of the Serbian republic in 1989.

Milošević wanted to forge a more unitary Serbian state. No more wimpy federalism. Like so many autocrats before and after him, he used nationalism as an instrument to cement his power. After all, he told his fellow Serbs, we are just taking what is rightly ours.  He could have said, I just want to make Serbia great again.

Naturally the other 4 republics were not so keen on Serbian domination. In Slovenia and Croatia, they saw only one way out from such domination, secession. Unlike other Communist countries where the former powerful Communists had no internal ethnic divisions on which to prey when their political power waned, in Serbia those divisions were exploited for the personal gain of the former Communist power brokers. As Judt said, “The country offered fertile opportunities for demagogues like Milošević, or Franjo Tudjman, his Croat counterpart.”  The problem as Judt saw it was that, “in Yugoslavia, the break-up of the federation into its constituent republics would in every case except Slovenia leave a significant minority or group of minorities stranded in someone else’s country.”  Then when one republic declared itself independent its neighbours quickly fell like dominoes.

 

Milošević was the first Yugoslav politician to break Tito’s ban on the mobilization of ethnic consciousness.’  He liked to portray himself as the defender of Yugoslavia against the secessionist longings of Croatia and Slovenia, and, ominously, as the avenger of old wrongs done to Serbs. He wanted to build a greater Serbia on the ruins of old Yugoslavia, but with Serb domination. Milošević was quite capable of inciting Serb minorities in Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and Kosovo to rise up and demand Serb protection.  In fact, that was his favoured technique.  The Serbs in these other republics to a large extent merely served as Milošević’s pretext for his expansionary designs.

 

Although most Serbs at the time displayed little nationalistic paranoia, and even less interest in distant Serbs, Milošević transformed their vague memories into rabid fears and paranoia that Serbs spread around the old Yugoslavia were about to be annihilated by the majority in their republics. Milošević, in other words, used these fears to further his demagogic purposes. He used the oldest trick in the playbook of wanna be autocrats–manufactured fear. Trump does it all the time.

 

Milošević did not invent the fears.  They grew up naturally when Yugoslavia disintegrated, as every national group feared they were endangered as a minority in some republic. So, for example, the Serbs, as the largest minority group in Croatia, they felt particularly vulnerable. He did not make up the fears, but he sure knew how to exploit them.

 

In the Slovene election in April of 1990 a government was elected that was still pro-Yugoslavia, but also highly critical of the Serbian government in Belgrade. In the following month of May a new nationalist party under its leader Tudjman came to power in Croatia. In December of that year Milošević seized, without authorization, 50% of the entire drawing rights of the Yugoslav federation in order to pay back pay and bonuses for federal employees. Again economics, as always, was a crucial factor in developments that often wore an ethnic or religious disguise. In January of 1991 the Slovenia government declared independence.   Within a month the Croats did the same thing. Soon the Parliament of Macedonia did the same thing.

 

The hasty recognition of the independent states by Europe, especially, Germany, perhaps were not helpful. When an independent Croatia was formed, political leaders in the Serbian capital of Belgrade began to play on the fears of Serbians with outrageous propaganda on radio and television.  This helped to invoke in the Serbs memories of massacres in World War II and prompted those Serbs to rise up in revolt against their ‘Ustache’ neighbours. The Ustache had been seen as traitors in the Second World War who supported the Nazis and did their best to exterminate the Serbs, so now the Serb minorities feared, a repeat, not entirely without  justification.

The Serb minorities in these states were deeply worried.  Clashes with authorities followed. They called upon Belgrade to help them against their ‘Ustache’ oppressors.

When Serbs were dismissed from their positions in the police force, judiciary, and military, many thought the Croats might be setting the table for another massacre. They believed they might be seeing the return of a an ethnic state with a genocidal past. Croats denied that this was the case, but there were some reasons for this angst. When Serb police were fired, Serbs armed themselves as militia. When the Croats were unable to maintain order, the Yugoslav national army, under the direction of Serbs from Belgrade stepped in at first to restore order, and later to obliterate Croatian independence. As Michael Ignatieff said, , “War was the result of an interacting spiral of Serbian expansionism, Croat independence, and Serbian ethnic paranoia in Croatia.”

 

Even though the Americans claimed to support a democratic and unified Yugoslavia, as Judt said, by then “a ‘democratic and unified Yugoslavia was an oxymoron.’” There really was no room for democracy.  Slovenia and Croatia took active measures to implement their independence by actually unilaterally seceding from the federation.  They enjoyed the tacit support of a number of European leaders.  The Serbs responded by moving the national Yugoslav army to the borders.

Although the Serbs and their army, the Yugoslav National Army bear the primary responsibility for what happened, since they hurled 150,000 shells into Croatia from the surrounding hills, but Croats were not without blame. They dynamited parts of the great city as they left so there would be nothing left for their Serb brothers. These are the type of things you can expect when all sides seem to be represented by their loudest and most extreme voices.

Unfortunately, all around us today this seems to be happening.  We had best be alert.

 

Conclave: An Explosive Ending          

 

For those of you who have not seen the film Conclave and expect to, perhaps you should consider reading this post after you have seen.  The scene is quite shocking.

 

In the film  Brother Tedesco is the favorite of the conservative Cardinals who believed that the most recent Pope was much too liberal. They believe the Pope risked shaking the Church to its foundation. It would be shook to its foundation if any one of a number of candidates for the Papacy were elected.

 

The actual voting procedure in the film is quite interesting. At the exact moment that Brother Thomas Lawrence is delivering a vote in his own favor, because he seems to be the only candidate that might be able to stop Tedesco, like a bolt of lightning from God, there is an explosion and part of the ceiling of the huge hall collapses onto him and injuring him. It appears a terrorist suicide detonated a bomb that killed himself and also killed 52 people. Hundreds lie injured. There were also reports of attacks in Louvain and Munich. Perhaps it was a bolt of lightning from the God or the devil?

Brother Tedesco is quick to rise with a shaking finger:

 

“Here at last we see the result of the doctrine of relativism so beloved by our liberal brothers! A relativism that sees all faiths and passing fancies accorded equal weight. So that now, when we look around us, we see we see the homeland of the Holy Roman Catholic church dotted with mosques and minarets of the prophet Mohammed.”

 

Brother  Bellini says Brother Tedesco  should be ashamed. Father Tedesco replies,

“we should all be ashamed. We tolerate Islam in our land, but they revile us in theirs. We nourish them in our homeland. But they exterminate us. How long will we persist in this weakness.? They are literally at our walls right now. What we need now is a leader who understands that we are facing a true religious war…We need a leader who will put a stop to the drift that has gone on almost ceaselessly for the past 50 years. How long will we persist in this weakness? We need a leader who fights these animals,”

 

as he points to the crumbled ceiling.  Like so many political leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump, he tries to take advantage of an emergency to grab absolute power for himself. Demagogic leaders love to take advantage of emergencies.

Sometimes, when people are fearful it is difficult to resist the authoritarian leader. Fear is a very poor guide for human conduct.

 

 

 

Immigrants: the traditional scapegoat of the Fascist

 

 

Just like Hitler, Orban, and so many other fascists, Donald Trump has been scapegoating immigrants, both legal and illegal. I was shocked to see how popular such language was in the 2024 Republican Convention where Trump was endorsed as their candidate. I shuddered when I saw posters held high and proud which specifically demanded “Mass Deportation Now.” This reminded me of the fervour of ordinary Germans in the 1930 calling for abuse of Jews.

 

Very similar words were heard demonizing immigrants in Madison Square Gardens in the 1930s at a rally that could only be called a Nazi rally. That’s what it looked and sounded like.  The rally in Madison Square Garden again in 2024 was eerily similar.

As Anne Applebaum the author and journalist for The Atlantic said this about Trump (near the end of the campaign):

 “His talk of mass deportation is equally calculating. When he suggests that he would target both legal and illegal immigrants, or use the military arbitrarily against U.S. citizens, he does so knowing that past dictatorships have used public displays of violence to build popular support. By calling for mass violence, he hints at his admiration for these dictatorships but also demonstrates disdain for the rule of law and prepares his followers to accept the idea that his regime could, like its predecessors, break the law with impunity.

 

These are not jokes, and Trump is not laughing. Nor are the people around him. Delegates at the Republican National Convention held prefabricated sign: Mass Deportation Now. Just this week, when Trump was swaying to music at a surreal rally, he did so in front of a huge slogan: Trump Was Right About Everything. This is language borrowed directly from Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist. Soon after the rally, the scholar Ruth Ben-Ghiat posted a photograph of a building in Mussolini’s Italy displaying his slogan: Mussolini Is Always Right.

 

These similarities are deeply disturbing. The support of ordinary Americans for such words and policies is shocking. It is so much like the support of ordinary Germans for Hitler, or ordinary Italians for Mussolini. In both highly advanced countries there was stunning support for the fascist policies. It seems to me this is exactly what is now happening in the United States.  I hope I am wrong; I fear I am right.

It is really shocking to me that Americans continue to support Trump’s fascist policies. This is the really scary part.  Trump is Trump. We all know that. He does not hide his fascist tendencies. Why then do so many Americans support him?  I think the answer is also deeply disturbing.

This is what Anne Applebaum had to say:

“These phrases have not been put on posters and banners at random in the final weeks of an American election season. With less than three weeks left to go, most candidates would be fighting for the middle ground, for the swing voters. Trump is doing the exact opposite. Why? There can be only one answer: because he and his campaign team believe that by using the tactics of the 1930s, they can win. The deliberate dehumanization of whole groups of people; the references to police, to violence, to the “bloodbath” that Trump has said will unfold if he doesn’t win; the cultivation of hatred not only against immigrants but also against political opponents—none of this has been used successfully in modern American politics.

 

But neither has this rhetoric been tried in modern American politics. Several generations of American politicians have assumed that American voters, most of whom learned to pledge allegiance to the flag in school, grew up with the rule of law, and have never experienced occupation or invasion, would be resistant to this kind of language and imagery. Trump is gambling—knowingly and cynically—that we are not.”

 

Trump was clearly betting that he knows the American people will support him.  He hears a lot of applause at his rallies. It turns out he was right. More than half the Americans who voted in the recent election of president voted for him.   Were they voting for fascism?