Politics After the Fascism Debate

By Max B. Sawicky

Here is a sample from my Substack.

The key antagonists on Trump and fascism, the ones I have noticed, include Corey Robin, John Ganz, Timothy Snyder, Samuel Moyn, and Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins. Except for Ganz, they are all credentialed professors at well-regarded universities. No disrespect for Ganz; I tend to agree with him the most. I have high regard for all of them.

In another sense, however, the entire debate seems off. It is focused on relating, or distinguishing, Trump and the MAGA movement to or from historical analogs in Germany and Italy. To me it reads like a pissing contest for academics. I respect the scholarly activity, but the implied politics leaves me cold.

There is no lack of fascism-mongering among some Democratic Party voices, not to mention MSNBC, but their alternative, per Billie Holiday, is as cold as yesterday’s mashed potatoes.

What matters the most? I would say the combined threats of the U.S. government fomenting massively destructive wars around the world and an authoritarian regime trampling over U.S. law to violate the basic rights of people here at home. A friend likes to distinguish authoritarianism from fascism by suggesting the latter entails a mass mobilization of non-governmental forces to extend its own myriad oppressions. I’d take that as a useful amendment. Any heightened activation of the viciousness we can already see among heavily-armed U.S. citizens obviously makes everything worse.

We can see hints of all this in the coming order. As I’ve said before, if we were at the point where all the horrors were fully in play, it could be too late to do anything about it.

What matters the most is whether and to what extent this all comes to pass, not on whether anybody wins an academic prize for the best analysis of the fascist roots of the MAGA movement. The incentives facing scholars are not conducive to vigorous politics.

“He who has not learned from history is doomed to repeat it.” O.K., but he who becomes absorbed in history is doomed to political paralysis, or doomed to a guest appearance on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow.

The power of the U.S. presidency is greatest in the field of foreign policy, especially in the use of massively lethal military force. That is why I say a peace movement is the top priority now. To work for peace, we will also need to defend our civil liberties.

The lead item on the peace agenda is cutting off aid to Israel, which would matter more for the implied political signal than for its material impact. We have been here before. Way back in the mid-1960s, the apparent constituency for peace was invisible. Students for a Democratic Society and a few other groups began their efforts mostly in isolation, not least under continual harassment from the Federal government and its lawless enforcement bodies. We are in a better position now because U.S. Muslim communities, importantly including Jewish allies, are natural advocates for peace, but we face the new obstacle of a pro-war Zionist lobby that squashes dissent on college campuses and tends to curb Palestine-sympathetic messages everywhere else.

The Democratic Party is hopelessly compromised for this cause. At the same time, third party projects are hopeless and facilitate Republican Party rule. The reason for the latter is simple: the electoral rules for national office (the presidency and Congress) render such efforts counter-productive. We are about to find out exactly how much worse the Trump Administration will be for Palestine and for Muslims everywhere.

I’ve thought there is more space for 3rd parties in state and local elections. The dilemma there is that failure to hold onto state government power now imperils reproductive rights, a big deal in my book. In some places with very narrow legislative majorities, such as my own state of Virginia, this will matter.

Otherwise, my current thinking is the Working Families Party is the way to go. A separate ballot line in general elections, following vigorous primary campaigns, allows the peace vote to be fully manifested without sabotaging efforts to block the Right. But prior to that, organizing without much concern for party politics is the near-term priority. When the anti-war movement gets big, the establishment politicians will pay attention and the movement can begin to swing its electoral weight.

Before its slide towards irrelevance, Democratic Socialists of America was a natural vehicle for this sort of work. But its current leadership cannot bring itself to stand up an intelligent posture regarding national elections. What we get instead are moralistic, abstentionist messages in super-Left guise.

Where I live, in Loudoun County, VA, our Democratic member of Congress was forced to retire due to illness. Her replacement is one Suhas Subramanyam, a Democratic state senator. Here are all of the Democratic candidates to replace Suhas in the Virginia state senate:

1. Hurunnessa Fariad

2. Ibraheem Samirah

3. Puja Khanna

4. Buta Biberaj

5. Kannan Srinivasan

6. Sreedhar NagiReddi

Do you get the picture? It tells me that right here at home in Loudoun is a place to start. To the best of my knowledge, Samirah is the most progressive of the group, though not necessarily one who can win.