Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Donald Trump: National Socialist
In his classic 1944 work, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, then living in exile in England, shocked readers with his diagnosis of Nazism. National socialism, he argued, was not the opposite of social democracy, but its evolutionary extension. All Hitler had done, said Hayek, was to grasp that racism is required for socialism, because to mobilize the passion necessary to achieve the full collectivist agenda, it is necessary to invoke the tribal instinct. Thus — contrary to Marx — the ultimate development of socialism is not stateless international brotherhood, but various forms of rabid tribal nationalism.
Donald Trump has confounded many analysts with his peculiar combination of political positions. While claiming to be a conservative, Trump has nevertheless advocated extreme statism. For example, Trump has — as recently as last December — supported nationalized single payer health care, a system that would put the lives of Americans in the hands of government bureaucrats. And just last month in a town hall with CNN, Trump said that he thought health care and education were two of the three primary responsibilities of the federal government. He is a practitioner and advocate of eminent domain, supporting a system that enriches insiders who can arrange for government action to dispossess ordinary Americans of their homes if that should be required to reap the oligarch’s profit. Trump is also radical trade protectionist, who would destroy the global economic foundation of American prosperity since World War II in order to impose a system that, again, enriches insiders who can arrange for government action to block foreign competition. If that were not enough, Trump has stated his intention to implement laws that would facilitate government officials suing critics, thereby chilling the freedom of the press that has been fundamental to American liberty since colonial times.
In addition, Trump openly embraces Nietzschean ethics, in direct opposition to the Judeo-Christian morality treasured by conservatives. He flaunts his practice of corruption of government through payoffs to elected officials, who, under the Constitution, are supposed to be representing some combination of their constituents and their conscience. He shows open contempt for such essential patriotic classical virtues as courage, building his own career through the promotion of greed and lust. He spews lies fluently and, when confronted with a request for facts to back up his assertions, brushes it off as if truth does not matter. His general methodology is that of a demagogue, a mobilizer of passion against reason, of the mob against the individual, an exemplar of liberty’s worst enemy.
Yet Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration might seem to make him a conservative, at least on that one issue. There is a conservative case against illegal immigration on the basis of support for rule of law. But Trump is not a supporter of rule of law. He is a supporter of abuse and corruption of the law, and through his casinos and related enterprises, has been a major player in an industry notorious for its links to organized crime. He has urged his supporters to commit acts of violence, and has threatened riots to disrupt the Republican National Convention if he is not given his way. He personally has scammed thousands of Americans out of their life savings, a practice that, under a more equitable legal system, would more likely make him a candidate for the penitentiary than the presidency. So, for Trump, the illegal immigration question can hardly be about the sacred rule the law.
The primary case advanced by most immigration restrictionists, labor protectionism, is anti-free enterprise, and thus not a conservative argument. Even so, the pragmatic side of immigration policy is an area in which reasonable people can differ. While adding more people with additional skills to the country is clearly a constructive act, there are practical limits to the rate at which such people can be assimilated, and what those levels are is a matter for rational debate. But it is apparent that, for Trump, the immigration issue is not about any practical policy. Rather, as demonstrated by his blood libel claiming that New Jersey’s Muslim Americans stood on rooftops cheering as their fellow citizens in the Twin Towers burned alive, it is fodder for xenophobic demagoguery.
So, is Trump an inconsistent combination of “left-wing” policies on most issues with “right-wing” racist politics? No. On the contrary, Trump is a completely consistent collectivist. Not to put too fine a point on the matter, racism – or tribalism, if you will – is not a conservative ideology; it is collectivist ideology. It is the oldest, most powerful, and most lethal collectivist ideology, because it is based on primeval animal instinct. By using xenophobic agitation to mobilize mob support for a program of socialist policy, unlimited government, and strongman rule, Trump has embraced a political methodology clearly identified seven decades ago in The Road to Serfdom.
In short, Trump is a national socialist. To be sure, he is not a Nazi, although he is attracting Nazis, “white nationalists,” and other Alt-Right “identarians” in considerable numbers to his banner. Nor is he a national socialist in the vein of the current North Korean tyranny, although he has offered praise for that regime. He is a different type of national socialist. Perhaps the closest foreign analogy would be that of the Putin regime, which uses extreme nationalism to secure mob support for an unlimited government that serves the interests of those who control it, or those who can pay enough to influence it.
In the Putinite world, there are no laws that effectively restrain the strong or protect the weak. The government is all powerful, and its bias is available for rent. It’s not about whether your case is just or unjust; it’s about who you can buy. It’s not that the system is corrupt. Corruption is the system, and everyone knows it.
Sound familiar?
In this context, the praise of Vladimir Putin and totalitarian ideologist Aleksandr Dugin for Trump, Trump’s open expression of admiration for Putin, his hiring of Kremlin-allied advisors, including Carter Page and Paul Manafort, and support for Moscow’s military moves globally, should come as no surprise.
However, the endorsement of Trump by Dugin is more significant than merely signaling the Kremlin’s appreciation of a useful idiot. Dugin is one of the principle philosophical theoreticians of the international Alt-Right, and his publications are regularly featured in such American identarian outlets as Radix. While he greatly admires Nazism, Dugin’s “Fourth Political Theory” seeks to transcend traditional Nordic racism’s self-limited market appeal by proposing multi-centered tribal fascism as a counter to the “liberal” (i.e. Western) ideas of individualism, intrinsic rights, and universal human dignity. It is the raising of “blood and soil” over “all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;” of animal instinct over human reason; of the id over the superego; of greed and lust over justice and love. This is the metaphysics of national socialism. It is also clearly recognizable as the metaphysics of Trump.
National socialism is not conservatism. It is the most extreme form of socialism, and thus the very opposite of conservatism. Trump is not a Republican, and he is certainly not a conservative. He has been able to impersonate a conservative only because some conservatives have sacrificed their own principles to go along with elements of his nativism themselves. This needs to end. Trump is a threat not just to the Republican Party, but to the republic. True patriots need to rally to defeat his cause, and all that it represents.
Published in General
Now that’s what you call a red state!
(…although I am personally very much opposed to calling conservatives Reds or the red state party.)
Let’s try to have a Trump conversations where we assume our fellow members good faith. We don’t need rancor and do need some thoughtful debate.
Thanks.
What a great OP! I was curious whether anyone would try to mount a rational defense of Trump, in light of the OP’s unimpeachable case that Trump is [insert your word – fascist, national socialist, statist strongman]. Call it what you want, Trump is the antithesis of American values. He is more socialist than Bernie. More dishonest than Hillary. More unbalanced than, well, anyone.
We are only up to page two on the comments, but so far there has been no reasoned response to the charges made (and proven, in my opinion) in the OP. Just the usual [redacted name] ad hominem attacks and calls for censorship. I will await, with interest, an actual response. I don’t think we will see one.
I apply a rebuttable presumption that comments are posted in good faith. But I don’t turn off my brain. Choosing to participate in Ricochet discussions is a good indicator that someone is interested in serious conversation about culture and politics. But $5/month is not a sufficiently high bar to guarantee that no trolls will find their way in.
The criticisms leveled at Trump here have merit. I think several of them also have merit directed at the majority of the Republican party and thus the limited ability to sustain valid criticism of Trump.
TKC1101
You asked me if I consider Hillary to be preferable to Trump.
I will write an article explaining my answer to this important question in depth next week.
That’s a promise. Stay tuned.
Action for action’s sake is a very seductive concept. Perhaps we have reached the point that the division of spoils has become the overriding concern of voters, rather than recognizing the fact that any society that promotes tribal divisions to loot the treasury will destroy itself in short order.
It is not a choice between Donald or Hillary. They are cut from the same cloth. They both appeal to the perpetually aggrieved.
Isn’t Nazi a shortened way to say National Socialist? In what way do they differ?
from Wikipedia:
National Socialism, more commonly known as Nazism is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi state as well as other far-right groups.
There is a pretty good book that deals with this topic. It’s called Liberal Fascism. I highly recommend it.
Thanks for staying engaged on the thread.
As do the majority of both parties.
OK, I’m aware of Goldberg’s book but have not read it. In the meantime, can you give me a basic explanation? I’m not being snarky, I am curious what the distinction is.
Mike, you must be feeling better, or at least I hope and pray so.
You have your sense of humor back, that is a good sign!
Well written. Agree with every word.
Fascism is socialism in one country (National Socialism) with some private activity allowed (the private activity aspect being similar to the NEP programs in the Soviet Union in the 20s). At the time, the idea of having socialism in once country contrasted with conventional Marxism and Leninism which held that socialism must be global. Fascism also differs from conventional Marxism on militarism. Mussolini split from Marxism over the issue of involvement in WWI (Mussolini for it, Marxists against it). Mussolini saw that the average worker wanted to fight out of national pride, another aspect of the word “National” in National Socialism.
Naziism is one incarnation of national socialism. One key difference is that Italian Fascism had no anti-antisemitism element. In the book (which I’ve been re-reading in light of recent events), Goldberg says that several scholars even question whether Naziism is fascist. But if you accept that Naziism is fascist, saying all Nazis are fascist is not the same logical thing as saying all fascists are Nazis.
Golberg makes a persuasive (to me) case that the Woodrow Wilson and FDR were fascists, but no one would call them Nazis.
Ovens, and invading Czechoslovakia. Otherwise, not much.
Maybe some of the attributes, some of the time. Does he cohere as such, no. When the campaign first was underway and Trump was making his unscripted public statements, I referenced his style of response as a continuous stream of consciousness and noted that he rarely finished a thought without, in fact, changing the subject. Now, I like the thought appearing in a link in another comment, don’t remember which, that when he gives an answer to a serious complex issue it’s like getting an information dump from an autistic child. But I do not think his bundle of inclinations is anything but raw, gut, more or less street-level reactions to overwhelmingly corrupt existing government. He has always just played the game as it has presented itself and now has entered an arena where the action is related to actually changing the game.
I think the OP goes way too far in attributing ideological context to the amalgam of positions emanating from Mr. Trump. He gathered some impressive individual endorsements over the last few months, none of which would strengthen the views in the OP and he has brought on some campaign managers more recently who might raise some eyebrows.
I’m not excited by the suggestions in the post. I don’t view Mr. Trump as a domestic enemy as I do Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders.
I did pull this quote from Goldberg’s book.
An objective assessment would reveal why some people think Trump embodies much of that definition.
Thank you, that is helpful. I was going by the origin of the term Nazi:
by shortening & alteration from Nationalsozialist, from national national + Sozialist socialist
I guess your point is that Nazi is only the German form of national socialism, and that fascist is the more broad term for national socialism outside Germany, did I get that right?
Yes.
Kind of like how calling someone “Der Fuhrer” is very different from calling someone “Il Duce” or “El Jeffe” even they all mean “The Leader”
On that level I have no disagreement. I fully agree that modern liberalism fits that description, and that Trump trends that way as well. But, in the overall assessment, I would put the Democrat party as it exists today farther in the National Socialist camp than I do Trump, so is that comparison really useful? Give the choice between unabashed liberal fascism from the Democrat candidate, and inferred liberal fascism ‘lite’ from Trump, isn’t the lessor of evils still Trump?
As sad as that observation may be, it may well be what we are left with…
Agreed. That is why conservatives are so bothered by Trump’s desire to turn the GOP into the second fascist party. I still don’t know why Trump didn’t run as a Democrat. He naturally belongs in that party. Even his anger belongs in that party.
Thank you. that is how I see it.
The Democrat party wasn’t as ripe for plucking. They haven’t really strayed from their base and ideology, while the Republican party has been ‘moderating’ so long that most really don’t know what the difference is. It would be short sighted to claim the Republican party is a conservative party. They are just the ‘not Democrat’ party.
You might be right.
That’s why I keep saying it’s time to blow up the GOP. We don’t need two fascist parties in this country, we already have the Democrats, and I don’t see how Trump strongest supporters can stay in any party that claims to be conservative.
I don’t understand your argument here. Are you saying you can predict the consequences of abandoning our allies and letting non-nuclear countries obtain nuclear weapons, as a stated policy? The Democrats policies against proliferation among our enemies don’t in fact, prevent that proliferation (as Bill Clinton and North Korea and Barack Obama in Iran demonstrate). They are however at least nominally opposed to proliferation and therefore are more likely to act to deter the use of nuclear weapons by our enemies – this is demonstrated by our commitment to defending South Korea and our readiness to act swiftly against North Korea should they become more than provocative.
My concern is, if we have the stated policy of backing away from protecting our allies, and our allies protect themselves, why would they remain our allies? What if, to use a Trump phrase, another country (China, Russia) offered our current allies a “better deal?” This is why I fear a Trump foreign policy – I fear he will align the U.S. with countries that do not share our interests, and abandon countries that do.
I appreciate the snark though, because internet.
Avoiding post titles like “Donald Trump: National Socialist” and “If You Live in a Blue State…” would be a good start.
Objective? I think such an assessment is the textbook definition of subjective. This has been the problem with anti-Trump argument from the beginning: it takes valid criticisms to absurd levels and then claims for itself a level of certainty that is unwarranted.
I disagree. Objectively, Trump’s entire campaign is that he represents the will of the people and believes that government should take responsibility for everything. Trump believes the primary roles of government include housing, health care, and education.
It’s fine to say that Trump opponents are not being objective, but you have to concede there is nothing approaching objectivity among his supporters. Most Trump supporters now acknowledge they have absolutely no idea what Trump would do as President, and somehow that is a positive in their mind.
Please point to the flaws in fact and logic in the original post. It would be more instructive than general bromides about the anti-Trump movement being absurd in its criticism.