As a fan of Roman History, I would compare Trump to Tiberius Gracchus. Very different political goals, but Gracchus did destabilize the political process of the Republic that had worked relatively well for centuries, he broke precedent by running for a second term as Tribune, he had little hesitation in breaking political norms and traditions; for example deposing a tribune who vetoed his legislation using intimidation and violence in the process, he had a cult like following with segments of the population, and the political process did descend into violence between his supporters and the Senate.
Ofcourse he came no where close to toppling the Republic, the allegations made by his enemies of him wanting to be king were obviously false.
But ominously he set in process the motion of political decay, the decline of institutions, leading to decades of competition between political strongmen and generals, eventually leading to rule by the Emperors about a century later.
Isn’t it just a political smoke and mirrors, a type of projection(I know that’s not quite the right word)?… “if we call him Hittler enough times the useful idiots will start to believe us, because anyone advocating for mutilation of confused minors obviously can’t think for themselves, and…. they’ll miss noticing we’re going for the title of modern day Stalin(you know, trying to jail our political opponents)”
Politicians have always been pretty much lowly scum, then about a hundred years ago Hillary & Pelosi entered stage left to sink it to new levels
Wonderful article and key point. One of my college professors used to call this phenomenon "flogging the nazis" and he also argued it arose more often than it should.
I agree that better comparisons would serve us better. Perhaps this is a reflection of the US having a relatively short history as a nation -- in comparison to say younger countries that can also claim to have a history (or at least a recorded history).
This smacks of being obfuscatory. Of course the point isn't to compare individual to individual. Of course individuals like Trump and Hitler are going to vastly different making comparisons meaningless. The real point is to compare MAGA with the NASDAP and other historical fascist movements. I would argue that MAGA is the most "classically" fascist political movement in the wealthy, industrialized Western world since the fall of the Third Reich.
You've got the contempt for democratic society and political pluralism, the cult of the leader, authoritarianism, cronyism, stochastic political violence and paramilitary brawlers, scapegoating and dehumanization of internal enemies (the rhetoric used against immigrants is *literally the same* as those used against Jews), eliminationism (in the case of trans people), appeals to lost national greatness, celebration of "masculine virtues" and alarm at the so-called "feminization" of society, fetishization of violence, ultranationalism, natalism, xenophobia, a highly-disciplined propaganda apparatus (FOX, Truth Social, Newsmax, Daily Wire, Tucker Carlson, X, etc.), an obsession with "decadence" and decline, reactionary political views, a parallel intellectual apparatus, Social Darwinism and scientific racism, outdoor rallies, traditionalism, virulent anti-Communism, and even a fetishization of Classical art and architecture! I mean, I could go on forever here. And if we look at Putinism we can add in revanchism. I would question either the historical qualifications or political beliefs of anyone who ignores these obvious parallels.
As a fan of Roman History, I would compare Trump to Tiberius Gracchus. Very different political goals, but Gracchus did destabilize the political process of the Republic that had worked relatively well for centuries, he broke precedent by running for a second term as Tribune, he had little hesitation in breaking political norms and traditions; for example deposing a tribune who vetoed his legislation using intimidation and violence in the process, he had a cult like following with segments of the population, and the political process did descend into violence between his supporters and the Senate.
Ofcourse he came no where close to toppling the Republic, the allegations made by his enemies of him wanting to be king were obviously false.
But ominously he set in process the motion of political decay, the decline of institutions, leading to decades of competition between political strongmen and generals, eventually leading to rule by the Emperors about a century later.
Orban was a Hitler for a while there, because he wasn’t fully onboard with all the western agenda.
Boris Freaking Johnson was Hitler for a while too. It's a game with no end.
Isn’t it just a political smoke and mirrors, a type of projection(I know that’s not quite the right word)?… “if we call him Hittler enough times the useful idiots will start to believe us, because anyone advocating for mutilation of confused minors obviously can’t think for themselves, and…. they’ll miss noticing we’re going for the title of modern day Stalin(you know, trying to jail our political opponents)”
Politicians have always been pretty much lowly scum, then about a hundred years ago Hillary & Pelosi entered stage left to sink it to new levels
Wonderful article and key point. One of my college professors used to call this phenomenon "flogging the nazis" and he also argued it arose more often than it should.
I agree that better comparisons would serve us better. Perhaps this is a reflection of the US having a relatively short history as a nation -- in comparison to say younger countries that can also claim to have a history (or at least a recorded history).
It also ignores the origin of hitler, the cult that trained him, the support networks, the connection to zionism and the international finance scene.
Many imagine that if someone went back in time and killed him that it would avert the war, but in reality someone else would have been in his place.
This smacks of being obfuscatory. Of course the point isn't to compare individual to individual. Of course individuals like Trump and Hitler are going to vastly different making comparisons meaningless. The real point is to compare MAGA with the NASDAP and other historical fascist movements. I would argue that MAGA is the most "classically" fascist political movement in the wealthy, industrialized Western world since the fall of the Third Reich.
You've got the contempt for democratic society and political pluralism, the cult of the leader, authoritarianism, cronyism, stochastic political violence and paramilitary brawlers, scapegoating and dehumanization of internal enemies (the rhetoric used against immigrants is *literally the same* as those used against Jews), eliminationism (in the case of trans people), appeals to lost national greatness, celebration of "masculine virtues" and alarm at the so-called "feminization" of society, fetishization of violence, ultranationalism, natalism, xenophobia, a highly-disciplined propaganda apparatus (FOX, Truth Social, Newsmax, Daily Wire, Tucker Carlson, X, etc.), an obsession with "decadence" and decline, reactionary political views, a parallel intellectual apparatus, Social Darwinism and scientific racism, outdoor rallies, traditionalism, virulent anti-Communism, and even a fetishization of Classical art and architecture! I mean, I could go on forever here. And if we look at Putinism we can add in revanchism. I would question either the historical qualifications or political beliefs of anyone who ignores these obvious parallels.
The better comparison is to Stalin, anyway.