How do political scientists and historians define fascism in the context of contemporary US politics?

1. How scholars summarize the heart of fascism — sharp, familiar features that matter now

Historians and political scientists most often define fascism as a synthesis of extreme nationalism, authoritarian leadership, rejection of liberal rights, and mobilization toward national rebirth, typically backed by organized violence or the threat of it; classic expositors invoked include Griffin, Paxton, and Gentile, whose themes recur across contemporary analyses ^{[1] [5]}. Modern lists and taxonomies extend these elements to include a cult of the leader, contempt for truth, and fixation on national decline; contemporary syntheses emphasize how economic anxiety and identity politics feed movements that scapegoat minorities and delegitimize institutions ^{[2] [6]}. Several sources treat fascism as a process—a sequence from radical movement to seizure of coercive power—rather than a single static doctrine, a framing that shapes how analysts measure present‑day risks in the U.S. ^[3].

2. Which contemporary U.S. features scholars highlight when invoking fascism — emphasis and evidence

Analysts who see fascist affinities in U.S. politics foreground stylistic and functional parallels: demagogic leadership, propaganda tactics, the celebration or instrumentalization of violence, and efforts to subvert electoral outcomes. Commentators point to the January 6 assault and rhetoric encouraging civic violence as a critical turning point for some scholars who had previously hesitated to apply the label ^{[4] [7]}. Other work maps a broader constellation of traits—what some call “fourteen” or “sixteen” features—linking contemporary actors to historic fascist patterns through rhetoric, institutional erosion, and alliances with violent extremist networks; proponents argue this captures an American variant rather than a carbon copy of 1930s Europe ^{[8] [6]}.

3. Why many scholars stop short — methodological and comparative cautions

A parallel body of scholarship warns against unnuanced analogies, stressing that the U.S. retains pluralistic institutions that differentiate current trends from classic fascist regimes. Critics emphasize contextual differences—constitutional checks, federalism, a plural party system, and the absence (so far) of a consolidated one‑party totalitarian state—arguing that labeling contemporary movements as fascist risks conceptual inflation and may obscure useful policy and legal distinctions ^{[5] [3]}. Some historians note that interwar European fascisms were singular in their combination of mass party structures, single‑party rule, and state‑sponsored totalitarianism; mapping those criteria onto present U.S. politics produces contested judgments and sustained academic debate ^[1].

4. Points of consensus and real disagreements — what to watch, and why definitions matter

There is consensus that authoritarian tendencies and politicized violence are red flags; disagreement centers on whether these tendencies constitute fascism now or are precursors that could evolve into fascism under particular trajectories. Proponents of applying the term argue that processual markers—mobilization, delegitimization of opponents, and encouragement of violence—already functionally align with fascist dynamics. Opponents argue for precision: terms like “authoritarian populism,” “illiberalism,” or “democratic backsliding” better capture the present constellation without collapsing distinct historical phenomena ^{[3] [7] [4]}.

5. Practical takeaways for readers and civic actors — implications beyond semantics

The scholarly dispute over the label does not negate shared practical concerns: institutional weakening, normalized political violence, and rhetorical delegitimization of rivals are common focal points across sources and political perspectives, and they have measurable consequences for democratic resilience. Whether analysts call these developments “fascism” or “authoritarian drift,” the literature sampled urges attention to stages of escalation, the role of organized violence, and preservation of civic norms; recognizing both the similarities to historical fascisms and the crucial contextual differences in the U.S. sharpens policy responses and civic mobilization strategies ^{[2] [6] [8]}.