I noticed that both left wing and right wing populist dictatorships were focused on the idea of restrictions for the benefit of a larger cause. Left wing dictatorships in particular focused more on social cohesion through personal restrictions as Right wing dictatorships focused on social cohesion through exclusion and hierarchy. It seems like right wing dictatorships seem to approve of the existence of letting dissenters exist because dissenters were often those who were naturally excluded from their proposed hierarchy. The dissenters need to exist to ally the people against an enemy and to be in servitude for the “superior” peoples such as followers and model citizens. To my knowledge, left wing dictatorships simply killed dissenters.
It’s been widely understood that 21st century right wing parties in the United States are at risk of falling into complete anarchy after the death of Donald Trump because of how little they have in common among each other. They are merely united against a vague enemy that truly does not exist outside of immaterial propaganda campaigns. Some republicans want to kill dissenters and those who do not fit within the “superior” peoples, others want to let them exist within a lower caste and in a position of servitude, others just want them deported. In order to garner influence, wealth, and power, political influencers have accumulated a grab-bag of demographics that cannot ally among each other outside of a vague common enemy.
Under fascism, the product being sold was equality of the people under a single aggressive ideology promising a nostalgic cultural revival perpetuated through state vanity projects. But these right-wing demographics don’t want mass equality under a single state ideology, they want a hierarchy where they are the sole benefactors. There are no vanity projects for the state because America is not a culture where architectural vanity projects were key to garner nostalgia. Political influencers need to attach themselves to a specific aesthetic that is uniquely American that provides imagery of a great past with communities that worked together for a single state. But many republicans don’t want tight-knit communities, they want seclusion and the state’s ability to leave them alone.
Any comparisons to Trump and authoritarian leaders of the 20th century I believe are made under false pretenses. Those leaders were from working class backgrounds, where their scope of harm was a side effect of the real-time teaching of power’s influence. Trump, to some degree, was formally taught power and its influence from a younger age due to being born in a position of wealth. There is a kind of slow push done by the Trump administration that slowly desensitizes and weakens the people to their worsening quality of life without any true breakouts that could lead to mass revolution.
The administration takes advantage of the American political system, as American politics are set up in a way where people are inclined to wait for reform than make matters messy by taking it in their own hands. By waiting to vote in midterms, waiting 8 more years for a new presidency, advocating for new local representatives, etc; The more the people realize how little they lose by revolting the likelier the chance a revolt would occur. The decision of the Trump administration to re-provide food stamp privileges to half of the group that lost it was done intentionally so there would not be enough hungry people to revolt. Those who both supported the presidency while also being at risk to their legislation are fed the illusion that the false enemy created by the cabinet was the one starving, and not them.
What we are seeing is something new, as any 20th century authoritarian influences have been given its own All-American spin. The taste in aesthetics are gaudy and uneducated mainly because Trump is coming from a gaudy luxury era. The grand past he is attempting to emulate only seems to be catering to the 1% of the population (within Mar-a-Largo). His use of dogwhistles provide room for doubt when directly confronted, but I’m unsure if these dogwhistles are a real reflection of his beliefs or simply another tool to capture the loyalty of a racist voterbase. Trump’s approach of garnering power seems to be an extension of capitalist hunger rather than genuine concern over a population and finding a real revolutionary movement for the people.
Comparisons
Notes & information taken from this youtube video
- Both attempt to recall a lost grand culture that is promised to revive: 20th century fascism initially relied on a futurist aesthetic that promised aggressive power, technology, and energy.
- Both attempt to frame political life in a functionally religious manner.
- 20th century fascist states promote a physical ideal. This cannot work in the US because right-wing voters often aren’t in an economic position to care for looks, health, and many of them are disabled relying on state aid.
Within the US, there are no architecture plans that intend to reflect a larger power and influence, there is no desire to transcend time as an ideology of a prevailing state long after a political figurehead. It seems 21st century authoritarianism is only focused on a single population and a grand celebration of a capitalist victory, where the proletariat are not involved. There are no buildings to meant crush individualism (Mainly because capitalism relies of individualism as a buyable identity to profit off of), there is no push for a sea of conformity and equality among those in the in-group, there is no push for ideology to trample over religion as a last-ditch escape.
This 21st century authoritarianism weaponizes religion and tries to blend it with its ideology. There is an in-group but the in-group is vague for what it stands for, in comparison to its security in what it stands against. Both movements have people connected to something bigger, with theatrical acts of state worship and a single figurehead. Through participation and being there for political rallies and worship, it reflected an understanding of who was in power and who everyone was there for. Political rallies would give the feeling of participation of something greater without actual political agency. Both rely on building a mythos to give people the feeling of revolution or glory without the burden of actual change. There is no better world that was promised, but merely a sold fantasy, a spectacle to celebrate instead of personal prosperity or empowerment.