If Trump is permitted to spout any kind of nonsense about
others that comes into the chamber supporting the orange substance on his head,
then everyone can say anything they want about him.
For the past three months, Trump has been the front-runner in
the primary contest of one of the two major parties in the world’s leading
economic and military power, a party that holds sizeable majorities in both
Houses of Congress. American political pundits like to point out that the
actual primaries are still three and a half months away and that much of the
attention has been focusing on Trump because of the entertainment value of his
appearances and Twitter feed. He’s a carnival barker and a buffoon, they assure
us. A recent Suffolk University/USA Today poll found that 10% of likely
Republican voters consider him “an idiot” – and a far larger percentage of
Democrats and independents likely do.
And, with Trump spouting obvious lies, who is going to fall for
them?
People who have followed Russian politics over the past two
years would beg to differ. We have seen the Russian population not only fall
for the most outrageous lies but, in a way that seemed a grotesque parody when
described by George Orwell in 1984,
switch overnight to believing the exact opposite outrageous lie from one they
believed only the day before.
It would be presumption to suppose that the average American is
a lot more intelligent or less gullible than the average Russian.
As to a buffoon leading a nuclear state, there is nothing new
about that, either. Putin may have more money than Trump and sleep with more
beautiful women, but he remains an overgrown minor thug from the Leningrad back
streets. He knew nothing about modern economics, politics and technology when
he became Russian president, and in nearly two decades in power he has proven
himself incapable of learning. He appears to do no work, just busy himself with
his athletic routine, tricycle rides, dives to the bottom of the sea and
similar narcissistic pursuits.
Likewise, even though Trump is supposedly “serious” about his
presidential run, he has not bothered himself with the tedious task of learning
about the issues involved or even paying the minimum of attention to current
events. His narcissistic pastimes seem to be limited to tweeting nonstop,
watching himself on TV and putting down his detractors.
Watching Trump rise in Republic opinion polls it’s easy to
imagine German intellectuals, cultural figures, artists, business leaders and
other normal people watching – initially with disdain and then with growing
alarm and dismay – the rise of a world-class buffoon named Adolf Hitler.
Even the fact that narcissistic nonentities like Trump and
Putin are becoming popular leaders in the world’s largest military powers at
the same time may be symptomatic. Such periods of popular madness seem to come
in cycles. The decades between the two world wars were known as the Age of
Dictators, when strongmen seemed to be taking control of one leading nation
after another. Back then, their rise was facilitated by the new media, the
radio and film, which spread their message to the adoring crowds. Now, we have
social media, which not only does the same thing but, being interactive, allows
the adoring masses to organize themselves into powerful social forces.
German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss did a
disservice to his successors when he came up with the term Reductio ad Hitlerum
– the tendency in political arguments to invoke the Nazi leader. It makes any
discussion of the revival of fascism in the modern context almost impossible,
since any such argument can be dismissed as Reductio ad Hitlerum.
And yet, actual fascism has nothing to do with Germany’s search for
liebestraum, anti-Semitism or goose stepping. Other forms of fascism that have
arisen over the past one hundred years have had none of these characteristics.
Rather, fascism is a popular rebellion against the complexities of modern
world, which takes the form of pining away for some mythical national Golden
Age. The messy, complex realities of modern life are typically dismissed as the
fault of the enemy – either nasty foreigners abroad or the insidious Others at
home. Fascism promises a return to that Golden Age of uniformity, fraternity
and simplicity. A charismatic leader is crucial to fascism since it proposes to
recreate society as a traditional family, in which citizens are obedient kids
and the leader is the Father – and Father knows best, of course.
Militarism is not even an integral part of fascism, except
inasmuch as the military is an ideal form of organization for that mythical
fascist Eldorado. Still, some fascist regimes never attacked their neighbors.
However, a foreign war is a great way to deflect the kids’ attention from
Father’s domestic failures.
These basic characteristics are found in every fascist regime.
Variations are the result of individual quirks of the Father figure, national
differences and policy requirements.
Many political analysts believe that Putin’s Russia is will on
its way to building a quintessentially fascist state. In the United States,
Trump has stirred up racial prejudice among his followers and energized white
supremacists – the actual American fascists. Ugly racial incidents, complete
with violent attacks on the Untermenschen, are becoming a staple of his
campaign.
It’s a shame that the two nations that have done the most to
defeat fascism in Europe 70 years ago are embarking on the fascist path themselves.
Putin, with his inimitable cynicism, has put it best when in his speech before
the United Nations General Assembly he called on the Obama Administration to
form a new anti-Hitler coalition with his fascist regime. On the part of
Trump’s supporter, on the other hand, it is a despicable betrayal of what their
fathers and grandfathers in what Americans piously call “The Greatest
Generation” fought and died for.
Concern about this new wave of fascism rising in the world’s
leading nations is not new either. The Swedes and Norwegians who choose Nobel
Prize laureates have been worried about the United States for a while – ever
since George W. Bush announced his Global War on Terror in the aftermath of the
September 11, 2001 terror attacks. The list of recipients of various Nobel
Awards over the ensuing years speaks for itself. The Prize in economics was
awarded to Joseph Stiglitz in 2001 and to Paul Krugman in 2008. The Peace Prize
going to Jimmy Carter (2002) and Al Gore (2007) were trying to convey the same
message and express the same concern on the part of America’s democratic allies
and friends in Europe.
The Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama in 2009 was the most
misunderstood choice in the history of the Nobel Prize. Many people, including
the recipient himself, believed that the Norwegians were recognizing the newly
elected president’s peaceful intentions. Obama’s detractors are still poking
fun at him recalling that apparently premature award. Instead, the prize was
given to American voters for rejecting the right wing the Republican party and
choosing liberal democracy over a drift toward fascism.
Without diminishing the achievements of writer Svetlana
Alexievich, her literary award this year is indicative of the same urgency that
many people concerned with the future of liberal democracy now feel. Don’t be
surprised if next year’s Nobel Peace Prize goes to a Russian or a Ukrainian
person or organization – not necessarily an open opponent of Putin but one that
is affirming democratic, humanitarian, anti-fascist ideals.
