Reading time: 6 minutes
Punditman says…
Since this is the anniversary of D-Day, it feels fitting to reflect upon the titanic struggle against fascism and how those who stormed the beaches of Normandy seventy-nine years ago might assess our confusing and distorted era.
First, a confession. Long before Godwin’s Law (aka Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) — which states that as an online discussion continues, the probability of a reference or comparison of some person or group to Hitler or Nazis draws nearer — some of us used to toss around the term "fascist" rather loosely and abundantly.
At least I did. Nixon for sure was a fascist pig; so I’d learned from those Billy Jack movies, a core pillar of my teeny bopper zeitgest. He promised to end an illegal and immoral war only to needlessly expand it through savage aerial bombings, wasting countless lives; there was his domestic spying and wiretapping and disinformation operations against his “enemies”; there was Watergate. What details did I know back then? Barely enough to confidently crib the following slogan in my Grade 7 diary: “Nixon’s guilty.” Kids don’t do details; they swagger.
Ronald “Ray-gun” was a fascist because he supported fascist forces in Central America (I once saw his head turn into Hitler’s after some strong pot, a sure sign from the cosmos).
Come to think of it, so too were those yellow-shirted bouncers who for some reason wanted us to leave the hall right after the concert ended — the fascist bastards!
I’m sure some campus know-it-all who worshipped Albanian leader, Enver Hoxha, called Pierre Trudeau a fascist for testing US cruise missiles in Alberta. And Brian Mulroney was one for kowtowing to the evil US empire with that fascist free trade deal. Bush 1 and 2 were fascists for their Iraq attacks, amongst other grievous sins. And don't get me started on former Ontario Premier Mike Harris.
Unless you were Mother Theresa you could easily land on the fascist hit list — but even she took money from fascist devils like Haiti's Duvallier regime, as reported by the late Christopher Hitchens.
As for the USA’s fascist friends, a friend once gifted me a set of these Friendly Dictator Trading Cards: Featuring 36 of America’s Most Embarrassing Allies:
You could say the subject was on my mind.
The neo-fascist-clown-menace emerges
By the time Trump the Raging Bullshitter hit the scene, I was somewhat jaded by fascistic phenomenon. On the one hand, I thought, how could such an incompetent buffoon imperil the American Imperium? And yet his demagogic stirring up of racist and nativist exclusions and his promise to restore "American greatness" were several steps beyond the pale even for this US-weary cynic. Anyone with a pulse could sense the clear and present danger.
Thus my past fascist classifying seemed juvenile and hyperbolic. Who could seriously compare garden variety war mongers, bozos and corruptocrats with Darth Hater?
Yet experts remain divided over whether or not the Orange Goblin and his MAGA cult embody true fascism. Some characterize the Trump juggernaut as merely authoritarian, pointing out that it never established a consolidated political-economic regime like fascist Italy or Nazi Germany, nor did it espouse a systematic ideology or plan. Meanwhile others make the case for the uniquely twenty-first century fascist tag; and if Trump manages to slither through his ongoing legal issues and gain another term in office, some warn all bets are off.
But whatever semantics we choose — “nationalist authoritarianism,” “white nationalist,” “crypto,” “proto” or- “neo-fascism” — Trumpism and similar right-populist movements didn’t appear out of nowhere.
Liberal Totalitarianism
A forty-year assault of neoliberal capitalism on the general population meant the damage was well underway. This has been in the form of lower taxes on the rich, deregulation, privatization, austerity, financialization and globalization. One ground rule has remained fairly stable throughout the collective West: upward mobility for transnational elites and downward mobility for most everyone else. This systematic reorganization of the economy helped set the stage for incendiary manipulation.
Still, there is more to the picture. What Yanis Varoufakis calls "Liberal Totalitarianism" has not only cultivated inequality, it has also stealthily encroached on most aspects of our lives due to a symbiotic relationship with "Surveillance Capitalism."
For Varoufakis, while traditional liberalism meant “inalienable self-ownership,” the realm of our personal boundaries, once vital for fostering independent growth and autonomy, has been hollowed out due to “unfettered commodification.” The result is that millions of people now feel relentlessly compelled to continually transform themselves into marketable entities:
Consider young people striking out in the world today. For the most part, those without a trust fund or generous unearned income end up in one of two categories. The many are condemned to labour under zero-hour contracts and wages so low that they must work all available hours to make ends meet, rendering offensive any talk of personal time, space, or freedom.
The rest are told that, to avoid falling into this soul-destroying “precariat", they must invest in their own brand every waking hour of every day. As if in a Panopticon, they cannot hide from the attention of those who might give them a break (or know others who might). Before posting any tweet, watching any movie, sharing any photograph or chat message, they must remain mindful of the networks they please or alienate.
A population busy inside their own bubbles is too exhausted to address the democratic decay and economic disintegration hiding in plain sight. Meanwhile, the dual imprint of liberal totalitarianism and surveillance capitalism has fueled the growth of brash populist rebellions that feed off the chaos it produces, against which it subsequently battles (with January 6 representing the peak of this phenomenon so far). These are the twisted times in which we’re ensnared.
Always check the labelling
Overuse of the term “fascism” only devalues its impact; this includes my sometimes past labelling of “the powers that be” as fascist (even if only half serious). Yet the emergence of Trumpian-style right-populist blocs around the world has prompted serious re-evaluations of these ideological classifications.
In the end, such “isms” are malleable. And so I will add another supple layer into the mix: Traditional liberalism held up free speech not only as a virtue, but as a foundational value to be protected, one that sets democracy apart from authoritarianism. (Recall the now ‘quaint’ old maxim “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?). Alas, such sentiments appear out of vogue, replaced instead by notions like “cancel culture,” “shadow banning” and “de-platforming.”
With press freedom compromised by concentrated ownership and the entanglement of the national security state with social media platforms (as revealed in the scandalous Twitter files investigation), freedom of speech itself is in a state of alarming disrepair.
Question the dominant narrative on pandemic lockdowns or the risk-benefit calculation of vaccinations for specific cohorts? You must be an anti-vaxxer! Have a nuanced opinion on the accepted storyline on Ukraine? You must be a Putin puppet! Query the enforced groupthink on any hot button issue? You must be a conspiracy theorist!
Disagree with Punditman? You must be a fascist!
Thank goodness for Substack.
Thank you so much for reading! If you enjoyed this article and want to encourage Punditman to keep going, you can buy me a coffee below. Every little bit helps!