In today’s political landscape, terms like “fascist” are thrown around with striking frequency, most often aimed at conservative figures and supporters of Donald Trump. But the term “fascism” has a serious, historically loaded meaning. It conjures images of regimes that trampled individual freedoms, censored dissent, and used the machinery of the state to persecute anyone who dared to oppose them.
In this post I will examine the tactics used by historical fascist regimes and compare them to the actions of the Democratic establishment in the U.S. over recent decades. The aim is to explore whether those calling Trump supporters “fascists” are overlooking certain parallels that may actually apply closer to home.
Silencing Opposition Voices
Historical Fascism:
One of the first steps taken by historical fascist leaders like Mussolini and Hitler was to silence the opposition voices. Independent media was either banned or strictly controlled, and those who criticized the regime faced severe consequences. In Germany, journalists, political opponents, and intellectuals were silenced through arrests, intimidation, and even forced exile. Public discourse was regulated to ensure that only the regime’s narrative was promoted, creating an environment where dissent was dangerous and often fatal.
Modern Parallels in the U.S.:
In recent years, conservative voices have often argued that they face systematic silencing from mainstream media, tech platforms, and government institutions. Conservative speakers on college campuses, for example, have often been “de-platformed” or uninvited due to pressure from students and faculty who disagree with their views. Prominent voices on social media have reported account suspensions or even permanent bans for sharing viewpoints that are unpopular or controversial.
Additionally, mainstream media outlets frequently echo the same talking points on major issues, sometimes verbatim, creating an impression of coordinated messaging. Conservatives often argue that this repetition of identical or nearly identical language across networks and publications suggests that many outlets operate under a shared ideological framework. When nearly every major network pushes the same phrases and perspectives, it can feel to conservatives as if these networks are receiving talking points from a central authority rather than offering independent journalism. This uniformity echoes the state-driven propaganda tactics used by historical fascist regimes to maintain a unified message and discourage dissent.
In addition, some Democratic politicians have openly advocated for restrictions on certain media outlets and tech platforms that share conservative perspectives. The calls for censorship, often framed as fighting “misinformation,” echo the spirit of historical fascist regimes that justified silencing opposition voices for the sake of “national stability” or “public safety.”
Persecution of Opposition Leaders and Activists
Historical Fascism:
In fascist regimes, persecuting political opponents was common. Leaders like Mussolini and Hitler actively targeted anyone they perceived as a threat, ranging from political leaders to academics to everyday citizens who opposed their policies. Mussolini’s Italy saw the arrest and imprisonment of dissenting journalists and political opponents, while Nazi Germany ruthlessly pursued anyone, even within their own ranks, who showed signs of dissent. Fascist regimes sought to eliminate threats to their power by using the state’s full prosecutorial power against critics and opposition leaders.
Modern Parallels in the U.S.:
In the U.S., recent years have seen notable examples of conservative leaders, activists, and supporters facing investigations or legal challenges that some feel are politically motivated. For instance, Donald Trump’s multiple indictments have been viewed by some as an attempt to discredit and marginalize the former president and his supporters. Several Republican leaders and activists have argued that the frequency and intensity of legal scrutiny facing them is more about silencing opposition than about justice, especially when compared to the treatment of political figures on the left.
These examples, while subject to varying interpretations, have led many to feel that Democratic administrations have been using their influence to suppress conservative leaders in a manner reminiscent of fascist regimes’ treatment of dissenting voices.
Manipulation of Electoral Systems
Historical Fascism:
Fascist leaders throughout history manipulated electoral systems to ensure their continued control. Mussolini’s Italy, for instance, used violence and intimidation to prevent opposition candidates from gaining power. Hitler, after rising to power, eliminated any democratic obstacles by changing the rules and instituting laws that left him as the sole authority, manipulating the system to maintain complete control.
Modern Parallels in the U.S.:
In the U.S., election integrity has become a contentious issue. Conservatives have accused some Democratic leaders of manipulating electoral processes, through mechanisms such as redistricting and changes to voting laws, to tip the scales in their favor. Efforts to challenge electoral results have also been characterized by conservatives as political power plays intended to silence Republican voters.
Some have claimed that certain voting law changes, including the loosening of voter ID requirements and adjustments to mail-in voting procedures, are intended to skew the electorate in a way that benefits the Democratic Party. While this topic remains divisive and opinions vary widely, these accusations highlight a common sentiment among some conservatives that the electoral system is being manipulated to suppress their influence, echoing the ways fascist regimes historically tilted electoral processes to maintain control.
Propaganda to Demonize the Opposition
Historical Fascism:
Fascist regimes were notorious for their use of propaganda to portray opposition voices as threats to national stability, security, and moral values. Hitler’s government labeled dissenting voices as threats to the German “Volk” and used state-controlled media to push this narrative, rallying the public against enemies of the state. This was not merely suppression but a demonization campaign designed to make opposition seem inherently dangerous.
Modern Parallels in the U.S.:
In today’s political climate, some conservatives argue that mainstream media, along with some government officials, have actively worked to paint Republicans and Trump supporters as existential threats to American democracy. Media coverage often highlights the most extreme elements of the conservative movement, portraying them as representative of all Republicans. Labeling millions of conservative Americans as “threats to democracy,” “domestic terrorists,” or even “Nazis” is, according to many conservatives, a deliberate tactic to delegitimize their perspectives.
The mainstream media’s approach to covering conservative views, alongside statements from Democratic leaders characterizing Trump supporters as “deplorables” or “threats to our country,” can feel disturbingly close to the propaganda campaigns waged by fascist regimes against opposition voices.
Conclusion
While the term “fascism” has been wielded liberally in recent years, particularly against conservatives, it is essential to take a closer look at the tactics historically associated with fascist regimes. Silencing opposition voices, persecuting leaders, manipulating electoral systems, and deploying propaganda to demonize political opponents are hallmarks of fascist governance. Ironically, when examined closely, it becomes clear that many of these tactics are being employed against conservatives in America today.
Instead of hastily labeling opposition voices as “fascists,” it may be time to revisit the true principles of democracy — open debate, respect for diverse viewpoints, and a commitment to liberty for all citizens. The term “fascism” should be used sparingly, only when it genuinely applies, so as not to dilute its significance. For the sake of the republic, Americans should resist efforts to demonize political opponents and seek a return to civil discourse.
