BERLIN — Making a contemporary comparison to fascism, American historian Robert O. Paxton wrote in 2016, usually generates more heat than light — more outrage than insight, more uproar than understanding. Indeed, the rhetoric surrounding a would-be “fascist” Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential election campaign sparked unprecedented heat. It didn’t help.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Now that Trump has, as he claims, led “the biggest movement in U.S. history” to the finish line and is putting together a cabinet of hardliners, conspiracy ideologues and loyal followers, the question is how much light the historical analogy sheds on the present and the near future.
Will a fascist elected to office by a clear majority move into the White House in January?
If one understands fascism as an ultranationalist, racist ideology that seeks to violently suppress opposition, glorifies social Darwinism, demands unconditional loyalty from a party and masses to a charismatic leader, then Trump seems to fit the definition of a fascist perfectly.
The problem is: There are many books on fascism. Few political terms are as catchy yet simultaneously as vague as this one. So who better to shed light on this matter than historians from both sides of the Atlantic?
Fascism vs National Socialism
The concept of fascism has been problematic from the outset, says Andreas Wirsching, who heads the Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) in Munich.
Originally self-designated by Italian “Fascists” after their symbol, the fasci (or fasces in Latin, a bundle of sticks), it served primarily as a political battle cry for communists during the interwar period. They directed it against social democracy, which “blurred the categorical distinction between democracy and dictatorship,” Wirsching explains.
In Western leftist circles, theories of fascism experienced a boom in the 1960s and 1970s.
This continued during the Cold War. “The accusation of fascism was the harshest charge in East German propaganda,” says contemporary historian Norbert Frei. “In the 1950s, for example, there were references to the ‘clerical-fascist Adenauer regime.'”
In Western leftist circles, theories of fascism experienced a boom in the 1960s and 1970s, revealing analytical vagueness once again as they largely overlooked one crucial aspect: the Holocaust. Historians therefore rarely apply the term fascism to National Socialism in Germany — because it obscures foundational elements essential to it.
Fascism vs. Trumpism
Those who now apply a generic definition of fascism on the Trump phenomenon are in a similar danger.
After decades of ideological exploitation, the term has become worn out and stretched thin. It can easily be applied to anyone: Germany’s AfD party, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump, Hamas — all are labeled as fascists!
But what does that really say, beyond representing somewhat of a warning?
Trumpism and fascism “are about as similar as a horse and a zebra,” says Heidelberg-based historian Manfred Berg, who focuses on American history and recently published a book about the polarization of U.S. society. Analytically speaking, little to nothing is gained from such comparisons.
What is Trumpism then in 2024?
But a productive critical comparison can be made: The question needs to shift from whether Trump is a fascist to what exactly about him can be labeled as fascistic.
“Many play a sort of fascism bingo in this debate,” complains U.S. expert Torben Lütjen, who teaches political science in Flensburg. “You check off some criteria; if enough points are met, then Trump is indeed a fascist.”
Fascism bingo
One could certainly attempt this exercise.
Racism? “Yes.”
Cult of masculinity? “Yes.”
Nationalism? “Yes, but not expansively outward; rather isolationistically inward.”
Paramilitary groups at the core of the movement? “Despite justified concerns about militias like the Proud Boys, they do not form the power center of Trumpism. And they cannot be equated with Mussolini’s blackshirts or Hitler’s brownshirts, which were literal civil war armies.”
Celebration of violence? “In fascism, violence is not merely a means to an end; it is constitutive in creating a ‘new man.’ In this sense, violence plays no role for Trump.”
Anti-democratic thinking? “Modern right-wing populists like to present themselves as saviors of democracy. That is precisely where the danger lies. But it is something different than openly appearing anti-democratic.”
Cult of death and sacrifice? “No. Just look at the audience at a Trump rally. Fascism also involves self-externalization — the desire to merge into something greater than oneself — while despising hedonistic bourgeois consumer culture. The highly hedonistic individualistic Trump fans do not fit that image.”
Fascistic traits
When comparisons to fascism flourished in the United States after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, British historian Richard J. Evans countered similar arguments in The New Statesman: the political and economic crises during the interwar period — Italy’s fragmentation, Germany’s humiliation by the Treaty of Versailles, and economic crises in 1923 and 1929 — were far more severe than today’s challenges.
He also argued that historical fascism aimed at forming war societies and creating a militarized community willing to make sacrifices through mass organizations and social programs. Trump — notoriously tactless during military ceremonies — is not exactly of fascist stature in this regard.
Trump’s similarities with Il Duce and the Führer quickly dissipate
But Wirsching from IfZ notes that Trump’s self-presentation carries fascistic traits: “His appearances resemble political liturgy. His unique intonation creates specific charisma; ritualized mass events become forums for nationalist self-affirmation.” By offering his supporters a radical friend-enemy dichotomy, Trump crosses into extremism.
Equally unmistakable is his largely enforced claim to absolute leadership within his party — similar to Hitler and Mussolini — coming from outside while significantly benefiting from “sympathetic mass media,” which he skillfully manipulates.
But Trump’s similarities with Il Duce and the Führer quickly dissipate when directly comparing Mussolini’s Italy or Hitler’s Germany with ultimately incomparable contexts.
Historical comparisons
Interestingly enough, prominent historians in U.S. debates have chosen other indirect references instead.
Yale historian Timothy Snyder recently illustrated how an American dictatorship might look in Vanity Fair: more like a system of clientelism where those close to power prosper while anyone opposing it must fear denunciation — a scenario modeled after Putin’s system, which Snyder clearly labels as fascistic.
In The New Yorker, he recently asked not whether but rather what it means that Trump is a fascist — and mentioned him alongside Putin.
Modern right-wing populists like to present themselves as saviors of democracy.
Paxton himself — who initially expressed doubts about labeling Trump after the Capitol riot — referenced not Mussolini’s March on Rome or Weimar’s end but Paris on Feb. 6, 1934: At that time, a right-wing mob attempted to storm the Chamber of Deputies at the Palais Bourbon; six years later, Vichy’s collaboration regime seized power.
Paxton chose this analogy not only because he is an established expert on this subject but also because democracy was more firmly anchored in France — the birthplace of revolution — than in Germany or Italy.
The subtext suggests that even where democracy is established, feelings of decline and loss can lead to fascistic temptations. The fact that this occurred in France under German occupation sharply limits parallels with today’s context.
No political idea
Other connections lie much closer at hand; for instance, right-wing extremist traditions — including fascist and Nazi-affiliated groups — have long roots in the United States.
Many observers noted this after the grim MAGA show at Madison Square Garden: On Feb. 20, 1939, the Nazi German American Bund held a “mass demonstration for true Americanism” at that very site — a formulation that Norbert Frei points out closely resembles Trump’s rhetoric.
The question remains: What is mere rhetoric and what expresses deeper ideology?
He is a pathologically narcissistic personality revolving around himself.
“Trump embodies no political idea,” Wirsching says. “He feeds his followers with an assortment of nostalgic-nationalist protectionist industrial policy fragments — all wrapped up in endless hatred against minorities, immigrants and political opponents.”
A mix of libertarian and authoritarian
“Trump is no ideologue,” Berg agrees; rather he is “a pathologically narcissistic personality revolving around himself.”
Historian Hans Heiss from South Tyrol describes it succinctly: “Trump’s gap-filled and deceitful world of ideas relies on constant repetition while following a practice characterized by volatility where digital media speed plays a decisive role.”
One might argue that this somewhat applies to both fascism and National Socialism — that they too did not follow any consistent “theory” but rather radicalized through internal contradictions. Nazism and narcissism are sometimes separated by just a few letters.
But these contradictions and tensions characteristic of Trump have yet to be fully captured.
“The Trump phenomenon,” Heiss says, “exhibits a libertarian tendency contrasting with National Socialism’s collectivism.”
Individualism first
The state’s monopoly on violence — which stood at its center less so in Nazism but prominently in Fascism — ranks behind individual rights concerning personal violence under Trump: “The almost religious belief in Trump as a charismatic leader accompanies his followers’ right to personal arbitrariness.”
This aggressive individualism was unimaginable under Hitler or Mussolini. It stems from an inherently American tradition: rights concerning self-armament coupled with distrust toward central government and Washington elites.
Trump crosses into extremism.
“The blend of libertarian and authoritarian tendencies within Trump’s ideology is quite unique,” Lütjen says.
He vividly describes it through Oliver Nachtwey and Carolin Amlinger’s concept of “libertarian authoritarianism,” which itself has historical roots — from neoliberal shock therapy tested by economists inspired by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman under Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile to visions held by Peter Thiel, Elon Musk among others dreaming of an absence of state oversight.
A U.S. version of Viktor Orbán
Trump’s self-presentation is exceptionally colorful. While Adorno and other thinkers from the Frankfurt School say authoritarian leaders embody a longing for strict father figures, Trump prefers portraying himself as “the buddy-dad encouraging spoiled kids not to let anyone dictate their actions.”
Especially when he can literally afford it. “In Trump’s milieu of wealthy elites,” Wirsching says, “it becomes fashionable to handle morality and law according to one’s whims for self-aggrandizement.”
Trump’s ideal embodies strongman leadership within weak states. And while this connects with seemingly fascistic leader cults and far-right positions — the label ‘fascism’ would likely obscure rather than highlight critical aspects of this governing technique.
A model for Trump’s envisioned future may well lie less within Italy during the 1920s or Germany during the ’30s than present-day Hungary where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has legally unleashed his power constitutionally.
Evans’ 2021 article provides an unsettling yet unintended point: does the Jan. 6 Capitol riot mark an end to the Trump era or does it mark a beginning, like Hitler’s failed Beer Hall Putsch of Nov. 9, 1923?
Evans concluded with dramatic misjudgment: The Republican Party may split; not all will follow Trump’s radical course. And while Hitler had time to draw the necessary conclusions from his coup debacle in order to successfully take power ten years later, time is working against Trump, Evans wrote.
The Nazi movement was young and could afford to wait and see: “Trump is in his seventies and can’t afford to.”
What will Trump embody now?
Now he has managed to come back. And he will have learned something new.
“We should not worry about which tradition Trump stands within but rather what tradition he might establish,” Lütjen warns.
With majorities in both Senate and House of Representatives along with an obedient party backing him, Trump could inflict significant damage — from his announced revenge campaign against “the enemy within” through dismantling democratic institutions down to mass deportations of immigrants.
Populism a thin ideology, which perhaps fits Trump quite well.
The appointments he’s made so far clearly point toward these directions. But all historians consulted by Die Zeit believe it is unlikely that Trump could succeed in transforming the United States into a centralist dictatorship. The federal and liberal tradition and the anti-centralist affect are too firmly anchored.
What is Trumpism then in 2024?
Fascistic in some practices along with parts of its propaganda and programmatic core, but fundamentally libertarian authoritarian with narcissistic traits allowing aggressive individualism. That could be one answer.
The term populism also has a lot going for it, Berg says, as it “ties in with a traditional American political style, with a protest movement that goes back to the 19th century.”
The Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde called populism a thin ideology, which perhaps fits Trump quite well. Even a thin ideology can be devastating. Especially when it popularizes the same political proposals in so many countries at the same time.
“Worldwide, we are seeing a sharp turn towards friend-foe ideologies and national protectionist recipes,” Wirsching says. It is therefore particularly important to “issue a warning to conservative forces and parties.”
Under no circumstances should they join forces with the extremists or try to instrumentalize them: “The history of Italian Fascism speaks just as clear a language here as that of National Socialism. The conservative allies were deceived, disavowed and disempowered. Some were persecuted themselves in the end. Others, on the other hand, who participated until the end, became accomplices to the crime.”
