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
I don’t think either Trump or his supporters believe that there is an “organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people.” I think they believe instead that America used to be great and increasingly isn’t. I also think they think that our leadership has been dismal and that Trump could be an improvement.
I don’t think either Trump or his supporters believe that everything is political or that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. I think they believe instead that there is such a thing as the common good and that it hasn’t been served well for quite some time. I think, for Trump, this common good consists mostly of prosperity.
I don’t think either Trump or his supporters want to take “responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seek[s] to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure.”
A2, there is literally almost nothing objective about this.
I don’t have to acknowledge any such thing. Certainly there are some people like this in any population, but I don’t have to accept it as a defining characteristic of this particular segment.
Ummm, that’s exactly what they believe. They might not use those words but they talk constantly of “We the People” and demanding a leader that “fights” for them. Trump himself extols the fact that the only thing missing from government is a great leader/negotiator/whatever like him that can make government work.
Ah, so Trump supporters are objective and Trump detractors are subjective.
Are you kidding me?
Trump detractors are objective. Trump supporters are deluded.
This begs the question – what do Trump supporters say was great, and why isn’t it now? As Ted Cruz commonly points out – you can’t make America great again if you don’t know what made it great in the first place.
First, Trump is not advocating for prosperity, he is advocating for “great deals” and “winning.” In other words, he is advocating for the ability to claim credit for, for example, building a wall and making Mexico pay for it. He is advocating for shutting down free trade and the prosperity that flows along with it. We beat Mexico, we beat China, but we lose our standard of living. This is not “prosperity.” This is us – Americans – vs. them – China and Mexico.
Second, Trump is advocating that health, education, and housing be the primary roles of the federal government. Based on his unwavering support, I think we must assume his supporters either agree with his goals of providing health, education, and housing through the federal government, or we must assume his supporters don’t listen to what he is saying.
Third, go to a Trump rally. Vocalize a different opinion than Trump’s opinion. See what happens.
Jamie, I’m assuming you’re primarily referring to paragraph 2 of the OP as the location of fact and logic you mention. If so, then these have been discussed and I don’t have any interest in opening those veins yet again. It’s Friday and tax season is over: I’m looking for something a bit more relaxing and edifying. I’ll settle for entertaining.
I’m not painting with any of the broad brushes you’re trying to impose on me. However, Trump as National Socialist is certainly a subjective assessment.
I’ve deposited my two cents and nothing good will come from sticking around, so have a nice weekend everybody.
Agree to disagree.
Actually the entire piece is peppered with things that point towards the conclusion reached by the OP – I guess you just subjectively chose to ignore them.
Someone else with a sense of humor.
Striving to maintain humorlessness – cracks a smile – recovers. #NeverTrump.
When you start out calling Trump a National Socialist in the main feed title, it’s a little late for good faith. It’s like walking up and punching someone in the face and then telling the punch-ee “Now now, don’t get too worked up, it’s just a friendly conversation”.
The original post is not “in bad faith.” The original post is trying to understand what, exactly, Donald Trump represents. He argues that Donald Trump is a national socialist. And he backs it up with examples. So we can cry “not fair” or “name calling,” but that’s not what is happening here. People are trying to understand what, exactly Donald Trump is. He is certainly not a conservative, he must be something else. The question is, what is he? Zubrin argues – a national socialist.
The correct response, if you disagree, would be to explain why you disagree, instead of crying foul.
It is also important to note the the Fascism in Germany had a racial (and genocidal) component to it. Many Jews who were citizens of Germany, and undoubtedly loved their county. Even so, the Nazis did not consider these Jews to be German. So, they set out to exterminate them.
One of the most frustrating things about these discussions is that those new to the topic often think that when the term Nazi comes up, we are calling someone a genocidal maniac. I don’t think Trump is that. I often say (and I’m simply paraphrasing Jonah when I do) “Strip away the genocide and militarism of the Nazis and what is left will look a lot like the American progressive movement.” In order for Trump to fit that mold, you only need strip away the genocide.
I think the healthy bi-partisan rejection of Trump reflects a strong impulse against granting one person too much power. Freedom still has a lot of fans, even from unlikely places.
While I understand the case being made that what little ideology can be discerned in the Trump platform could be portrayed as a form of national socialism, there is little doubt that the label is a loaded, and overtly inflammatory declaration.
I accept A-Squared’s description of why National Socialist does not directly translate to Nazi, but of course, when someone sees a headline of “Donald Trump : National Socialist” they see little difference in that from calling him a Nazi. The difference is a very slight one indeed.
Even if you are convinced that National Socialism perfectly describes Trump’s ideology ( and I think that takes a certain level of confirmation bias) it is not possible to claim that statement is not name calling and intentionally inflammatory, unless you first have concluded that Trump supporters consider themselves willing, conscious supporters of National Socialism…
In other words, even if it is to some degree defensible as true, it is also an insult and inflammatory.
And as we all know, nobody was ever dissuaded from their position by being called a Nazi, or any other form of fascist. So this post, like most of the #NeverTrump posts, is not intended to convince anyone, it is just virtue signaling, isn’t it?
I tried to make this point back in post #45
This assumes one cannot in good faith conclude Trump is a national socialist. As the OP lays out the case for his conclusion, I believe that assumption is false.
This is called rhetoric. Get over it.
This raises the question then of how to describe someone whose ideology is best described as national socialist in a manner that is not insulting and inflammatory?
To a certain extent, that was the project of Goldberg’s book.
Being objective, the term “national socialism” should be a kinder gentler way of saying fascism without all of its Stalinist baggage. But, apparently, it does not work. The problem is, whatever you want to call it, national socialism is the predominant political belief in America today (as we are now a center-left country), so we need to come up with an acceptable term to describe it.
Just trying to explain why I disagree,as you requested- and you nailed it. Calling Trump a National Socialist is rhetoric, and as such, an exaggeration of the truth. It will only serve to further polarize the pro Trump and anti Trump sides.
There has been plenty enough of that already, no? I mean, the last few months has mostly been Trump vs NeverTrump clawing each others eyes out. Somehow, somewhere, we have to find a way to make peace and defeat the true National Socialists, the Democrats…
Step one? Stop the fascist rhetoric… Maybe it isn’t me who should get over it?
Yeah, that didn’t really work when Goldberg tried it, as I remember. Look, I get the parallel, but any attempt to call someone ‘like a Nazi but not quite as bad’ will fall flat…
I prefer big government liberal. And I think that quite fairly describes Trump. I’m sure the Trump supporters disagree, but I doubt they take it as anywhere near the insult calling them National Socialist does, and really, isn’t that why that rhetoric is chosen- to insult and vilify?
This exchange absolutely made my day. Too funny and only on Ricochet!
I don’t think it was chosen to insult and vilify in the OP, but the author will likely come back and tell us.
I don’t think “big government liberal” adequately captures the Trump phenomenon, but I agree it is a good deal closer than the word “conservative”.
Big government liberal fails to capture the nationalist component of the philosophy. Trump and his supporters are distinct from Democrat style big gov’t liberals in their claim to want to make the country rather than world a better place.