A longish and quixotic thread on the misuse of "fascism."
Why does it matter what we call things? Because labels tend to guide choices and allocation of attention and political resources. So I'm going to give this a try.
/1
Fascist regimes, as we knew them in the 20th century, have some things in common with the current American right: cult of personality, vicious nostalgia, and anti-intellectualism. But that describes *many* authoritarian regimes. Why is "fascism" different and more dangerous? /2
Because fascist regimes had articulated ideologies, highly disciplined cadres, well-developed party structures, and bureaucratized chains of command. This made them more resilient and highly dangerous because they were focused and effective. /3
Their leaders, even strutting roosters like Mussolini, were not stupid; indeed, they were tough and smart and even personally brave. They were hyperfocused, on running movements on the principle of one Leader, one Party, one State.
Perhaps you see where I'm about to go. /4
Many of you are seeing a weak, scared man hiding in Florida, and seeing "fascism." This is inane. There is no party, no program, no ideology. It's just a rich guy using donations from rubes to abuse the legal process and save himself. The GOP has zero ideology or discipline. /5
Many of you see DeSantis as a fascist. DeSantis is a smarmy and authoritarian opportunist, to be sure. But again, fascism is not donor-service, poll-tested hot buttons, look-at-me stunts. (Look how fast he backtracked on Ukraine.) He's too timid even to criticize Trump. /6
Now, I will grant that the rightists who want to institute crackpot "common good" legal theories are a lot scarier, but they're also very comfortable in the universities and right-wing punditry. Ironically, they're part of a soft intelligentsia that real fascists would hate. /7
None of these legal theorists or oped guys are going to give up tenure or resign their editorial positions to salute Trump or DeSantis and then lead the masses in the streets. That's way too much work.
And in truth, most of them hate those masses more than anyone. /8
Speaking of the masses, where are they? There is no party organization, no overriding ideology, no mass meetings, nothing. Jerks yelling at teachers and posting racist memes from mom's basement are not gonna put the cheetohs down for Kim and Don Jr. or, now, even for Trump. /9
Also, there's a disconnect here about government itself.
Fascists love The State. They don't do "don't tread on me" anti-statism. They want to capture and run the State in all its glory. /10
That kind of hyperstatism requires smarts and organizational skill. The GOP isn't nearly that organized. I suppose with the right leader, they could be, but so far, they can't organize a piss-up in a brewery. Look at the House right now: Not exactly a Reichstag in waiting. /11
I also will grant that the federal and state courts have some crank judges who will do whatever they think Dear Leader wants, but again, without any real ideological guidance. That ideological issue matters, more than you realize.
And here's where federalism saves us: /12
There is no single judiciary, and even the *federal* judiciary is a mix of political views and will be for years. State and local government is strong. (A solid fascist would have targeted that on Day 1 in 2017, as the Nazis did. But Trump just fired a lot of appointees.) /13
Yes, Trump has put some doozies on the bench. SCOTUS is going to roll back more rights by 6-3 margins. But fascism's natural milieu is among *weak* institutions, not deep ones. We can still fight repressive ideas in the US with a free press, voting, and legislation. /14
Also, fascists don't "run" for office. They don't do polling. They don't try to win court cases. They don't try for "earned media." They use discipline, ideology, and violence to build a mass movement that terrorizes those weak institutions into paralysis and collapse. /15
That's not happening in the US now. The GOP is so up its own ass that the leader of its party was shuttling around in the same hotel between Mike Pence's speech and meeting Trump. If you think that's fascism, there's 100 years of fascists who are insulted at the comparison :) /16
The bottom line is: if you we are fighting fascism, then the logic is to give up on politics, to give up on voting, on laws, on court cases. Don't!
(Btw: Three cheers for lawyers, who have been doing the heavy lifting of defending democracy in court.)
/17
Yes, I know, some ppl love the idea of duking it out in the streets with "fascists." Resorting to violence, imo, is how you *create* fascism; defending the rule of law is how you avert it. "Fascists" didn't win on J6; they're going to jail and staying home when Trump calls now.
Are there fascists in the GOP? Absolutely.
But are you facing a disciplined, organized, ideological party led by a charismatic and tough leader? Not by a longshot.
So don't pysch yourselves out with fear. VOTE. Donate. Organize. Speak. /18
Don't keep devaluing "fascist." Don't wear out the ability of your fellow citizens to hear that word and be alarmed. (That's already happening. It's like "woke," it's becoming meaningless.) The day may come - and soon - when we'll *need* that word. Conserve it. /19x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm going to comment here because this is an interesting "death of expertise" problem. This gent checked on me at Google Scholar, and says, pshaw, these are all commercial publications.
But...Google Scholar doesn't list stuff like that. These are all academic pub citations. /1
The reason this is a problem is that when laypeople say "I want to check your credentials as an expert," often they have no idea what they're looking at.
This is why instititutions mediate such questions. You might not know who I am, but you know what Oxford is. /2
I ran into this when trying to explain to my military colleagues why an academic CV is like a fitrep: You have to be in that profession to understand what you're looking at. If you assume that you can reach those judgments on your own, without reference to institutions...well. /3
Some of you keep sending this to me and I think you should all treat this more skeptically. A lot of what he was talking about was projection about what was really happening inside the Soviet Union in the 1970s when he was defecting. /1
I mean, this is almost 40 years ago, 1984, when the Soviet Union is imploding, is about six years from a complete collapse, and America is approaching the zenith of its power. Bezmenov was not a psychic. /2
Remember, the KGB wasn’t all that good at destabilizing democracies. One reason Putin has always been so angry is that he bought into all this bullshit, and then had to stand there and watch the entire Soviet empire collapse in a matter of months. /3
Okay, so at the risk of more fury from DS9 and TNG and VOY fans, I don't like long, drawn-out story arcs with moody, troubled characters. Those series, imo, lost the sense of fun and wonder that made ST: TOS the great show it was. The show that's recaptured that? SNW.
But-
/1
In my view, the third best series in the franchise after TOS and SNW is... ENT. Yes, it went off the rails eventually. (The temporal war, something something, hurr durr) but when it began, it had the same sense of danger and fun and unpredictability that TOS had. /2
I don't need soap operas in space. And holodecks, and androids with cats, and holo-doctors, and yadda yadda...yikes. Come on. Boring. Get in a ship, and boldly go places while developing interesting characters- and sure, dealing with the human condition. /3
Talking with my Naval War College colleague and friend @FPRI_Orbis, and we are hard-pressed to think of any war we've studied or taught that matches the level of pure incompetence on the part of the Russians in this Ukraine war.
It's staggeringly stupid.
/1
@FPRI_Orbis There is no rhyme or reason to most Russian operations other than "go out and walk around until you make contact with the UKR forces and get waxed." It's as if they're being sent to go get killed at random grid markers by officers who have no idea what the objectives are. /2
I suppose you could draw a parallel here to search/destroy missions in Vietnam, but those missions attrited the enemy, not us. This is like search/destroy in reverse: "Go find the enemy, make contact, and let them kill you in 4-1 or 5-1 ratios." That's just insane.
/3
I'm going to defend academic presses here for books - I have worked with three fine presses who got out my stuff in a timely way - and note that journals are trying to be faster. But there are real problems with the journals. /1
I mostly avoided the journals after a few bad experiences and went the book route, but two things I know (as a regular peer reviewer back in the day): There are too many articles because of the pressure to publish, and reviewers tend to be, shall we say, a tad louche. /2
I tried very hard when asked to review to turn things around fast, but I am astonished at how long things can sit in an academic's in-box. Reviews just shouldn't take that long. So stipulated. But my God, the stuff people send in, because of the need to tenure and promotion. /3
I teach this every year at @HarvardSummer but for @mehdirhasan I'm going to put up these slides and ask how, on God's earth, Iraq 2003 and Ukraine 2022 are even remotely alike. /1
Putin told another nation: "Be part of Russia or we'll murder you all." The US and UK went to the UN and got a resolution in the UNSC: /2
The French and the Russians waffled on "serious consequences," but Powell and the UK said "it means war" and the French doubled back and said "we know we agreed, but we don't agree." Russia was determined to say no, no matter what. /3