The first time I heard a U. S. president referred to as fascist was when Richard Nixon was president. The same charge has been leveled more recently against the current U. S. president, Donald Trump. This week Pete Hegseth, Secretary of the Department of Defense (newly-named Department of War) summoned more than 800 generals and admirals to a military base in Virginia. The contents of that speech were startling to some, and the charge of fascism was once again leveled. Since Trump endorsed that speech, and indeed was at the event and gave his own speech, he can rightly be assigned responsibility for what Hegseth said.
Benito Mussolini
credit: German Historical Museum. Public domain
To accuse someone of advancing fascism is a powerful charge. However, make the charge too often and the word loses its power. Who among the world's leaders, past and present, has called himself/herself a fascist? Only one, Benito Mussolini. And yet, many leaders have been charged with being fascist. How do we sort out the idle charges from those that have merit, that truly reflect a fascist orientation?
I look to Mussolini for guidance. He was the founder of fascism. Mussolini and his intellectual supporters defined clearly what they meant when they called themselves Fascisti.
In 1932 Mussolini published an essay, "What Is Fascism?" that gave a concise definition of this political philosophy/ideology. How does the theory formulated in that essay align with the actions and words of the Trump Administration?
War
I'll start with Hegseth's speech. In his position as head of the newly-named Department of War he has special significance, because of the importance accorded to war in fascist ideology.
Here is a quote from Mussolini's 1932 essay:
Fascism... believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy...
And from Hesgeth's speech:
From this moment forward, the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is this: warfighting, preparing for war and preparing to win, unrelenting and uncompromising in that pursuit.
and
That’s why pacifism is so naïve and dangerous. It ignores human nature and it ignores human history...
John Locke
Hermitage. Public domain
The Rights of the People and the Rights of the State
The first part of Mussolini's 1932 essay was written by Giovanni Gentile, who could be described as the John Locke of fascism. Locke, the inspiration behind the U. S. Declaration of Independence and the country's Constitution, emphasized the natural rights of the individual. It was Locke's view that the state existed to protect those individual rights.
According to Locke, people have inalienable rights to things like life, liberty, and property that existed before the state was created. According to Locke, the power of the state stems from its obligation to defend these natural rights because they are fundamental liberties ingrained in human nature.
Gentile, the fascist philosopher, offered a completely different view of the state and its relation to the individual (in his own words):
The politic of Fascism revolves wholly about the concept of the national State; and accordingly it has points of contact with nationalist doctrines, along with distinctions from the latter which it is important to bear in mind. Both Fascism and nationalism regard the State as the foundation of all rights and the source of all values in the individual composing it.
Mussolini echoes this philosophy in his essay on fascism:
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State.
When Trump says, as he did recently, "I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the President", he is asserting that his power is inherent in his office, and therefore in himself. He does not acknowledge in his statement a higher or even another authority, such as the inalienable rights of the people, which might constrain his actions.
Trump's statement offers a theory of government a lot closer to Gentile's (fascism: power is inherent in the state, not the rights of the people) than to Locke's (Democracy: The state derives is power from the people and is answerable to the people).
It's interesting that after Nixon left office he asserted a similar perspective in an interview with David Frost. Nixon declared that "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
This statement implies (states) that there is no law, no authority that can check the president's power. This also sounds more like Gentile's philosophy than Locke's.
Religion
John Locke and Thomas Jefferson both argued for religious tolerance and for the state to stay out of religion. Both men had a role in the creation of the Declaration of Independence: Locke as its inspiration and Jefferson as its author.
Locke's position was that "One’s religious concerns with salvation, however, are not within the domain of civil interests, and so lie outside of the legitimate concern of the magistrate or the civil government." Jefferson's position was that," religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in.
In Mussolini's fascist Italy, the Catholic Church played a strong role: "the Catholic Church was the state religion of Italy, and Mussolini’s regime supported Catholic religious practices. The Catholic Church, in turn, gained a degree of influence in shaping certain aspects of Italian law and education."
Where does Trump fall in this spectrum between no involvement of religion with the state and the establishment of a state religion? On the White House website one can find the following statements:
In a powerful address at the Museum of the Bible, President Donald J. Trump emphasized the enduring role of faith in America’s identity, highlighted his Administration’s unwavering defense of faith-based values...
The President also launched the America Prays initiative — a call for Americans to unite in prayer for the nation’s strength, peace, and prosperity.
The president has vowed to protect public prayer in schools and encourages Americans to gather in groups of 10 to hold weekly prayers.
In a public address Trump declared:
“They said, really there’s separation. I don’t know. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I’m not sure, but whether there’s separation or not, you guys are in the White House where you should be, and you’re representing our country, and we’re bringing religion back to our country, and it’s a big deal.
Trump has established a Faith Office. Paula White, who heads the Faith Office asserted: "Prayer is not a religious act. It is a national necessity.
Does Trump's view of the relationship between religion and the state resemble more that of Locke/Jefferson, or Mussolini's fascist government? It is clear that for Trump government does have a role in religion--or, rather, religion does have a role in government. While Trump has not established a state religion, he has established a faith office, in the White House, which promotes the interest of religion.
Separation of Powers
As is suggested by the discussion (above), with regard to presidential authority, that the contrast between fascism and democracy centers most essentially on the extent and origin of the executive's/government's power.
Gentile on the Duce (in this case, Mussolini): The Duce controls the will and the consciousness of the people:
"...the need of the party and all the instruments of propaganda and education which fascism uses to make the thought and will of the Duce to thought and will of the masses." Hence fascism sets for itself the task of bringing "...the whole mass of the people, including little children, into the fold of the party".
Thus, in the view of Gentile, the leader's power over the people is absolute. It includes not only action, but the will of the people.
This fascist absolute model can be contrasted with Locke, who envisioned a government where the executive's power is 'checked' by other branches of government. And, the power of those branches is checked by the executive. Locke envisioned a structure of government where authority did not rest in one branch, or one individual but was preserved for the people by the branches 'checking' each other. This is the system of checks and balances which is at the heart of the design for government in the U. S. Constitution.
The evolution of the concept of separation of powers came to full expression in the writings of John Locke (who, remember, was the philosophical inspiration for both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). "Separation of powers became the complete doctrine of Locke's political system. He clarified the idea of separation of powers in terms of the essential aspects, the basis and some principles of the division of power into three branches: legislative, executive and Federative Power of the Commonwealth. Although Locke has not mentioned judicial power as a third branch of state power, his outlines have really created a separation of powers in the organization and operation of the state apparatus." (source: Universidade Católica de Petrópolis, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brasi)
What is Donald Trump's view on the power of the two branches that are supposed to check him, as the executive?
He has declared emergencies in order to justify usurping the power of Congress. These congressional powers include the ability to impose tariffs. While Congress may delegate this power to the president under certain circumstances, the authority originates with Congress. Below is a video in which Trump imposes tariffs, and the argument against his authority to do that.
Trump has chaffed against the power of the judiciary to check his authority. In one instance, he sued the whole judiciary of a state:
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374896948112
Summary
Obviously, this topic is far too broad to handle in a simple blog. I can't possibly justify or disprove charges of fascism leveled at the current administration. I attempt here to clarify why some may see in the current president an inclination to wield power in a way that suggests fascism, or fascist tendencies.
I have to stop here because I won't have any readers left at all if I continue. However, writing about this has been enlightening for me. Discovering the words of Giovanni Gentile was certainly an interesting intellectual exercise. Also, reading more carefully about the political philosophy of John Locke was a bit of an adventure.
I will certainly continue to explore.
Thank you for reading my blog. Hive on!
