TrumpRepubloFascism and Project 2025

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)

"A vote for ABHB (Any Body But) Harris, is a vote for Trump"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do virtually all Republicans, even most of those who denounced (or at least criticized) Trump post-Jan.6, from McCarthy to McConnell, with Graham in between, now support him? Because they are closely entwined with the segment of the Ruling Class that supports Trump, and most especially his policies for a second term.

(Do go to see Project 2025. The cited commentary provides an excellent summary of it from the progressive perspective.)

In my view, as my regular readers know, what should now be called the Trumpublican Party (it used to be called the Grand Old Party [which is where "GOP" comes from] representing the traditional U.S. capitalist class), has become a party, under Trump's leadership, that is promoting the imposition of a form of fascism on the United States. And of course, it is doing that not just on a whim, but because the segment of the capitalist class that it represents wants it to move in that direction, because, in turn, it holds to the view that doing so is the only way that it can hold onto its political and economic power. A variety of names suit this party now. The one that I now use much of the time is: TrumpRepubloFascist.

Let me begin here with the definition of "fascism" that I use:

"There is a single, all-powerful executive branch of government, in service of a capitalist ruling class that controls, for the most part, the functions of production, distribution, finance, and exchange. There is no separation of the principal governmental powers: executive, legislative, and judicial. There are no independent media. There is a single national ideology, based on some combination of racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. There is a single political party supporting the movement. There is a state propaganda machine using the big and little lie techniques. There may be a full-blown dictatorship, a charismatic leader, engagement in foreign wars, and the use of the mob/private armies to enforce governmental control."

The Heritage Foundation creators of "Project 2025" would probably not agree that what they are promoting represents a U.S. form of fascism, but that denial would/could be stated for only one (or both) of two reasons. Either they do not know what fascism has been since its beginnings (first in post-World-War-post-Austro-Hungarian-Empire Hungary, in 1920, under Admiral Miklos Horthy), or they do know that to call their program "fascist" is a bad idea politically (and of course they do know that).

Trump doesn't know much history, but he does know that much. As is well known, the plan was developed by numbers of former and present Trump staffers. But public reactions have been widely negative. So, Trump is running away from it as fast as he can (as is his head-ideological-honcho Stephen Miller, heard doing the reverse 100-yard ideological dash on Ari Melber's MSNBC show "The Beat" of 8/7/24). That is, even though if Trump does manage to get back to the White House, he would start implementing The Plan as fast as he could.

And then, just to take a couple of examples of how P2025 falls under the definition of "fascism," the Heritage Foundation's head, one Kevin Roberts, famously announced that what they are proposing is a "Second American Revolution," that would be bloodless, "if the Left allows it to be." But gee, Kevin, what are the conditions, in your mind, that would call for a Revolution in our great nation at the present time? Other than the proposal/installation of a set of policies that would overthrow Constitutional government in the United Sates, without going through the bother of amending the Constitution. Yes, indeed. That might well bring about some sort of violent response (starting with at least some form of secession).

And, Kevin, you may not know this, but historically revolutions have had a broad base of popular support, rather than arising from some 925-page document that is a compendium of historically right-wing formulations/policies, written in major part by members of TeamTrump. That is if you do manage to win power peacefully (or semi-peacefully), without running explicitly on what you are proposing in P2025 (so you cannot marshal "popular support" for your proposals/doctrine), what you are proposing is indeed revolutionary, like throwing out, without the benefit of legislation, whole sections of U.S. law, such as the Civil Service Act of 1883, and enforcing other sections of it, like the Comstock Act of 1873 that haven't been used in decades. Just like that.

Further, in the view of many of us, leftists and liberals alike, what you propose would indeed be revolutionary, without you having to lay out, specifically, why the times require revolution and why you think, for example, that a President, on his own authority, could just choose to ignore a major piece of legislation that has been in place (with amendments) for about 140 years, just so that he could stack the Federal Civil Service with his political loyalists. (Actually, the Civil Service Act was passed in 1883 precisely to prevent the kind of ideological takeover of the civil service that you are proposing.) Suppose a leftist government were elected and then began to make changes, without the benefit of legislation, that would begin to install elements of socialism into the political economy. Don't you think that the Right would react with violence, as happened, for example in Chile in the 1970s, Brazil in the 1960s, and Spain in the 1930s (and in those three examples, the legislative process had been put to use)?

If one looks at the history of Fascist nations, from Horthy's Hungary, through Mussolini's Italy, through Nazi Germany, through Peron's Argentina, through Pinochet's Chile, through Franco's Spain, through Salazar's Portugal, through "The
Generals' " Brazil, through "The Colonels' " Argentina, one sees exactly the same pattern: the imposition by force and violence of a regime of one kind or another designed to benefit the interests of the economic ruling class of the period (and if not all of it, then a significant segment of it at time). In fact, fascism has rarely (if ever) been installed in a nation without the use of violence at one level or another. At least in this instance you folks would be attempting to do it peacefully, just by Presidential fiat (as did happen in Hungary, Italy, and Germany, of course).

And so, given Trump's authoritarianism and his open proclamation that he would, for example, a) destroy the traditional U.S. Civil Service and b) the traditional U.S. separation of the Justice Department from the Office of the Presidency, without the benefit of legislation, how is that not fascist, by definition? Further, if he gets back in, such actions (and many other anti-Democratic ones to be sure) would be strongly backed up by the Supreme Court's "Immunity Decision," which amended Article II of the Constitution without the bother of going through the amendment process.

Further on the latter, indeed that decision was an "amendment-in-practice:" nothing anything like granting Presidents immunity from prosecution for criminal acts of whatever kind appears anywhere in Article II of the Constitution, nor is there any language in it that would open the door for such an amendment. To repeat, the Supreme Court majority created that one out of whole cloth. In practice, they added a clause to Article II (which defines the Presidency) that cannot b y any stretch be seen to belong there, to repeat: "immunity from being charged for crime-commission while on the job." Back in office, Trump would use this "amendment" to the Constitution to a fare-thee-well. But, according to Heritage's Roberts, the Left shouldn't get upset.

Addendum: Anti-Semitism is creeping into modern Republican politics.

When I was a youngster the core word for "International Jew," a simple object of scorn for some, a symbol of outright anti-Semitism by many others, was the word "Rothschild." The modern symbol for anti-Semitism of the "there is a secret international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world" type is "George Soros." (Mr. Soros is a very wealthy, left-wing, philanthropist, who not-too-long-ago had to leave his native Hungary because of the arrival-to-power of the great friend to Trump and Tucker Carlson, the authoritarian Viktor Orban.)

Trump has been using that code, on occasion to be sure, since the 2016 Presidential campaign. Now, for the first time, I have seen another prominent Republican using it. Here's a text from Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, that I received the other day (and yes, I am on several Republican fund-raising-text lists so that I keep up with their ground-game).

Monday July 29, 2024. Text message: " 'We need to talk about George Soros. Will you read my plan to DEMOLISH the Soros agenda?' {Here 'tis}: Allred24.info/SME2hH. 'He is a radical left-wing billionaire who's hellbent on DESTROYING the Conservative Movement.' [and he is] 'The man behind Trump's conviction.' "

No further comment needed. This developing campaign is just one reason why the Vice-President did not (wisely in my view) choose Pennsylvania's Gov. Shapiro as her running-mate. In part it's his position on Israel/Gaza to sure. But even without that issue, just imagine the torrent of traditional anti-Semitism that would have been pouring out from the Republican side, regardless of what the Governor's position on Israel/Gaza was or would be.

(Article changed on Aug 08, 2024 at 4:55 PM EDT)

(Article changed on Aug 08, 2024 at 9:55 PM EDT)

(Article changed on Aug 09, 2024 at 9:30 AM EDT)