Until fairly recently calling Trump a ‘fascist’ was widely considered to be an exaggeration at best, or a typical left-wing slur at worst. It’s sometimes called the Reductio ad Hitlerum, or ‘Godwin’s Law: ‘as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches One’. No serious commentator wants to fall into that trap. I’ve always avoided the unadorned word for this reason, generally modifying it with the prefix ‘proto-‘, which is supposed to indicate that Trump might be preparing the ground for something that could resemble ‘classical’ fascism more closely, but isn’t quite there yet. I still prefer that formulation, partly because, as an (ex-)academic historian, I feel I need to be careful with historically-loaded words.
So I’m struck currently by the way the word has suddenly emerged into ‘respectable’ discourse about Trump, without bringing almost universal derision on to the heads of those who use it. Now even Kamala Harris has used it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/23/harris-trump-fascist-hitler-comments-election; and – more remarkably – JD Vance, albeit a few years before he became Trump’s vice-presidential candidate: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jd-vance-once-compared-trump-hitler-now-they-are-running-mates-2024-07-15/. I think this means that the word has broadened its definition over the past few years, loosening its ties with the specific philosophies and policies of Mussolini and Hitler, and now covering more general Right-wing views that can be considered ‘extreme’.
By that definition, there can surely be little doubt that Trump qualifies. Among the most characteristic elements of fascism thus understood are illiberalism, crude nationalism, racism, anti-immigration, authoritarianism, dictatorship, the cult of the individual, masculinism, anti-intellectualism, lying propaganda, control of the media, and popular rallies. Trump exhibits most of these traits, or would like to; in a political environment that in some respects is reminiscent of 1930s Germany. It really doesn’t matter what we call it. The situation of America currently is proto-Fascistic, at least. Whether it goes any further than this we’re waiting – nervously – to learn on November 5th.
Porter’s Pensées 
Trump certainly seems to have the temperament and instincts of a fascist, even though he hasn’t yet demonstrated that he meets all the relevant criteria. There was an interesting article about this by David Runciman in The Guardian a while back.
To me, the amazing thing is that he’s still in contention to make us worry about this. How on earth can it be that after trying to subvert the 2020 election result, he is at liberty to stand again? It seems to me that time was wasted on a congressional hearing rather than on a prosecution, and that the US legal system is unpardonably slow. Four years should surely be enough to bring and prosecute a case, yet incredibly, he could get re-elected in time to fire the special prosecutor investigating him for what he did wrong the last time in office.
There is a real danger that the election result will be disputed whoever wins. If Trump won narrowly amid controversy, how would his opponents react, if they really believe the word “fascist”? I’m sure that some would call for Americans to take to the streets to forestall fascism. Would that play into his hands, and give him the justification he would need to deploy the military?
Despite the legal lethargy it’s shown, I still think the US system is resilient enough to resist any authoritarian tendencies in Trump. But I’m less confident than I was, and I don’t really know what he will do.
LikeLike
When I was a young man in the late seventies, it was trendy to call any landlord who wouldn’t serve us for being under age a fascist – but not without good will, if I remember correctly (I like to think I wouldn’t have if it had genuinely caused offence, but who knows – we were young, and we were agro). Of course the police were also fascists, and Thatcher and the Tories, and some faceless bureaucrats, all with much less good will. I regret now using the word at all for the reasons you give, plus that it diluted the word until it meant not much more than “bastard”. Luckily it fell out of use in the mid-80s and its historical potency returned. Provided Harris doesn’t overuse it I think it will help her.
Now, where’s my Tom Robinson collection?
LikeLike