On Tuesday, the New York Times published a long interview with Donald Trump’s former chief of staff John Kelly, who Googled an online definition of fascism before saying of his former boss:
Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators—he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.
Also on Tuesday, the Atlantic published a report that Trump allegedly said, “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had.”
The revelations have dominated discussions on Fox News, and prompted two-dozen GOP senators to call for Tr—haha, just kidding.
Instead, Democrats and their supporters once again contend with a muted reaction from the media, the public, and politicians, who seem unmoved by Trump’s association with the F-word, no matter how many times Kamala Harris says “January sixth.”
One exception was Matt Drudge, the archconservative linkmonger who has been hard on Trump, who ran a photo of the Führer himself. This proved the rule, argued Times (and former Slate) columnist Jamelle Bouie: “genuinely wild world where, on trump at least, matt drudge has better news judgment than most of the mainstream media.”
Debates about Trump and fascism have been underway for a decade now, and applying the label seems unlikely to convince or motivate anyone. But the lack of alarm underlines a deeper question that doesn’t require a dictionary to engage in: Why do so few Americans, including many on the left, seem to take seriously the idea that Trump would use a second presidency to abuse the law to hurt his enemies?
Maybe it’s because Democrats have studiously avoided confronting Trump about some of the most controversial, damning policy choices of his first term, or the most radical campaign promise for his second. You simply can’t make the full case against Trump—or a compelling illustration of his fascist tendencies—without talking about immigration. Immigration was the key to Trump’s rise and the source of two of his most notorious presidential debacles, the Muslim ban and the child separation policy. Blaming immigrants for national decline is a classic trope of fascist rhetoric; rounding our neighbors up by the millions for expulsion is a proposal with few historical precedents, and none of them are good...
I just don't understand how these people move through the world. Yes, it's exhausting to be plugged in, and it's totally possible to consume too much "news", but how do people just not think about the wider world? I mean, I've got a job and a family, and I somehow manage to also be concerned about current events and global affairs.
I dunno. Maybe I'm the problem. Maybe I am crazy.🤷
The optimist in me thinks that maybe they're more plugged into municipal politics or their local charities or whatever. The realist in me says some people are just broken, exhausted, working multiple jobs and struggling to keep food on the table. The cynic in me says it's the same as well off people who think of themselves as good people while wearing sweatshop clothes; it's a lot easier to not think about the wider world too carefully.
I mean, listen, I put my sweatshop pants on one leg at a time like everyone else, and I still manage to pay attention. I don't always have the deepest understanding of stuff, but how deep do you have to dig before you understand "I'll be a dictator on day one" is not ok?
I think most independent voters watched that and laughed. Most dictators don't say they'll be one.
Frankly, I think that comment is one of the more clever things trump has done. It got huge play on the Left with everyone else going "come on, no dictator would say that." But because Left leaning media treated it with the same breathless urgency with which they treat his actual scary dictator-esque musings, it waters it all down.
I think this is part of why people tune out coverage of this stuff, it's hard to separate what we should actually be concerned about from the silliness.