Washington Post: Donald Trump Only “Semi-Fascist”
Who says there’s a liberal media conspiracy against Republicans and Donald Trump?
Why, look at last Friday’s Washington Post column, written by Georgetown University professor John McNeill. It’s the epitome of fair, unbiased reporting. In the article, McNeill uses a “formula” to answer the question on all WaPo readers’ minds: “How fascist is Donald Trump?”
As it turns out, the Republican nominee is only “semi-fascist.”
“As a political ideology, fascism has eight main traits,” McNeill explains. “As a political movement, it has three more. So: Just how fascist is Trump? On the fascist meter, we can award him zero to four ‘Benitos.'”
McNeill patiently takes us through the ideological features of fascism, providing a quick overview of the traits: Hyper-nationalism, militarism, glorification of violence, fetishization of youth, fetishization of masculinity, leader cult, a call to return to the glory days, self-definition by opposition, mass mobilization, hierarchal party structure, and theatricality. On each trait, McNeill awards Trump “Benitos” based on how much or how little he embodies the definition.
In the final tally, McNeill gives Trump “26 out of a possible 44 Benitos.”
“In the fascist derby, Trump is a loser,” he writes. “He is semi-fascist: more fascist than any successful American politician yet, and the most dangerous threat to pluralist democracy in this country in more than a century, but — thank our stars — an amateurish imitation of the real thing.”
Who can argue with a scientific analysis like that?
Oh, and it’s cute how McNeill manages to insult Trump for not living up to the truly horrific fascists of the 20th century, as though it would be preferable. Concluding the article in that way actually gives away the game: This was written to attract links and troll conservatives. No way does McNeill or anyone else at the Washington Post actually believe Trump is America’s answer to Mussolini.
Interestingly, McNeill’s conclusion – that Trump is a “semi-fascist” – would seem to suggest that any score other than zero on the fascism scale is a problem. But is that really true?
What’s wrong with being a “hyper-nationalist”? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who is proud to be on Team USA? Shouldn’t every leader of every country put their own citizens first? Seems obvious.
McNeill gives Trump two Benitos for “militarism,” which is odd. Trump is the most anti-war candidate the Republican Party has had in decades. He supports the troops and the veterans, though, so that apparently makes him half as bad as Hitler.
And then there’s the really hilarious part.
On “fetishization of masculinity,” McNeill gives Trump the full four Benitos:
Fascists trumpeted what they saw as masculine virtues and supported male authority within family and society, urging women to confine their sphere to home and children (the more of which the better). Trump shares much of this outlook, lauding his own stamina and accusing his female rival, Hillary Clinton, of lacking it. He mocks men whom he deems deficient in virility. But whereas Mussolini liked to hold up his own mother, devoted to home and hearth, as the feminine ideal, Trump’s vision of the proper woman seems to be a supermodel, more in line with Hugh Hefner’s ideology than Mussolini’s. Nonetheless, on swaggering machismo he gets full marks.
So…any presidential candidate who likes beautiful women is probably on their way to instituting a dictatorship. Got it.
Now we finally understand why no one ever raised the alarm on Obama.