The GOP president is both a dire threat to democratic governance and a clownish mob boss.
- The administration’s actions raise questions about its adherence to democratic norms and the rule of law.
- Critics argue that labeling the regime as “fascist” grants undue dignity to its perceived lack of ideological coherence.
- The term “tyranny” is suggested as a more fitting descriptor for the administration’s arbitrary and self-serving rule.
- Historical precedents and philosophical definitions of tyranny are invoked to analyze the current political landscape.
As the anniversary of the 2024 election approaches, a pressing question arises: Can the second Trump administration be meaningfully categorized as a fascist regime? For many, the answer seems obvious. Consider masked federal police appearing at an opposition politician’s rally, the president declaring what amounts to martial law in the capital city, or executive efforts to enforce cultural policy on universities and museums. These actions, coupled with attempts to manipulate unemployment figures to mask economic struggles and discussions about suspending habeas corpus, paint a disturbing picture. The deportation of individuals without due process to camps where torture is alleged further fuels this alarm. While some pedants may quibble over historical specifics, the alarms raised seem increasingly justified.
Jamelle Bouie notes in The New York Times that the president frequently utilizes manufactured states of exception and emergency to expand power. This echoes the theories of Carl Schmitt, who posited that sovereignty lies in the ability to define and act upon exceptions to the rule of law. Schmitt also advocated for the identification and persecution of internal enemies, a tactic mirrored in veiled depictions of immigrants and nonwhite city dwellers as threats.
However, the regime’s perceived cheapness and farcical nature make labels like “fascism” or even “dictatorship” seem undeserved. While authoritarian in its aims, it doesn’t appear truly totalitarian, with political life and pluralism still evident. Gravity still holds, and poll numbers are reportedly declining. The administration seems to crave being seen as formidable, but its attempts to intimidate cities have fizzled. It resembles less a world-historical drama and more a collection of rackets led by a racketeer, akin to Al Capone rather than Il Duce.
Why is “tyranny” a more fitting term? Tyranny, as defined by Plato and Aristotle, suggests irrationality and arbitrary rule driven by self-interest, fitting the administration’s perceived behavior.
Perhaps older terms like “tyrant” and “tyranny” are more appropriate. Tyranny, as first articulated by Plato, signifies fundamental disorder and irrationality. Unlike totalitarian regimes with their ideological consistency, a tyrant is arbitrary, driven by unruly passions. Aristotle described tyrants as ruling solely for their own interests, treating the republic as an extension of their household. This aligns with accusations of Trump establishing a “patrimonial” system, operating in a “zero-sum” world where others are used instrumentally. Such tyrants cannot have true friends, only pawns and rivals. Their selfishness corrodes communal life, fostering an environment where people become isolated, concerned only with private needs and fears, incapable of acting politically.
How do tyrannies end? Often badly, for both rulers and subjects. The tyrant’s constant maneuvering—exploiting, bribing, intimidating—breeds hatred that can lead to downfall through conspiracy or uprising. One can only hope for a simpler end, perhaps when the unfit ruler simply dies.
Don’t let JD Vance silence our independent journalism
On September 15, Vice President JD Vance attacked a news organization while hosting a show.
In a clip seen millions of times, Vance singled out the publication in a dog whistle to his far-right followers. Predictably, a torrent of abuse followed.
Throughout 160 years of publishing fierce, independent journalism, the organization has operated with the belief that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. It has faced criticism from both Democratic and Republican officeholders. As long as Vance is free to criticize and be criticized, the American experiment continues.
To correct the record on false claims about funding: The organization is proudly reader-supported by those who value independent journalism and won’t be intimidated by those in power.
Vance and administration officials also laid out plans for widespread repression against progressive groups, using a recent death as pretext for a concerted attack on perceived enemies.
Now, it is clear the publication is front and center on their minds.
Support today will make critical work possible. If you believe in the First Amendment right to maintain a free and independent press, please consider donating.
With gratitude,
Bhaskar Sunkara
President
