How do scholars define fascism in contemporary democracies, and which criteria apply to US political actors?
Executive summary
Scholars treat “fascism” as a contested, family‑resemblance concept rather than a single checklist: many place it on the far‑right spectrum and emphasize authoritarian, ultra‑nationalist, and anti‑liberal cores, but disagree on whether any contemporary democratic movement qualifies as outright fascist [1] [2] [3]. Applying these scholarly criteria to U.S. political actors requires nuance: some behaviors and rhetorical elements map onto classical fascist traits, others do not, and leading scholars warn against both casual labeling and analytic denialism [4] [5] [6].
1. What scholars broadly agree on: authoritarian nationalism and mobilizing myths
A scholarly consensus identifies recurring elements—authoritarianism, militant or exclusionary nationalism, mass mobilization, contempt for pluralism, and often a mythic promise of national rebirth—that together form the “fascist minimum” used to compare movements across contexts [3] [7] [2]. Roger Griffin’s influential formulation centers the “palingenetic ultranationalism” or national rebirth narrative as the defining ideological core, a concept echoed in contemporary syntheses that treat fascism as a species of radical right‑wing populist mobilization [5] [7].
2. The checklist problem: cluster concepts, not binary labels
Many scholars reject simplistic checklists because fascism is a clustered or family‑resemblance concept: traits cohere differently across Italy, Germany, and later movements, so debates persist over how many traits must be present to qualify a regime or party as fascist [4] [2]. Some historians treat fascism as primarily a set of mobilizing passions rather than a rigid ideology, while others insist on institutional features—one‑party rule, paramilitaries, systematic repression—to distinguish true fascisms from authoritarian or illiberal currents [2] [7].
3. Where definitions diverge: ideology, economics, and racism
Authorities differ on whether fascism must include a specific economic program or explicit biological racism: classical accounts stress corporatism and elite rule, while others note Nazism’s racial centrality and argue U.S. variants might manifest different combinations of those elements [1] [3] [2]. Revisionist and skeptical voices caution that stretching the term dilutes its analytic value and can become politically performative, a critique especially amplified in debates over labeling contemporary U.S. figures [6] [4].
4. Applying the criteria to U.S. political actors: overlaps and limits
Empirical application focuses on behaviors—attacks on institutions, delegitimizing opponents, conspiratorial rhetoric, appeals to nativism, and tolerance or encouragement of political violence—that map onto fascist tendencies even absent full institutional seizure of power [8] [9]. Scholars who study “American fascism” argue the phenomenon should be treated as a sociopolitical process that can take national forms—meaning elements of fascism can appear in U.S. politics without reproducing interwar European fascist regimes in full [10] [8].
5. Counterarguments and analytic caution: why many stop short of the label
Prominent critics insist that labeling contemporary U.S. actors “fascist” risks both overreach and partisan weaponization; they underline that fascism as a generic analytic category may lack precision and that American institutions—courts, legislatures, independent agencies, civil society—have so far prevented full consolidation of totalitarian control [6] [9]. At the same time, scholars and public intellectuals warn that normalizing exclusionary, delegitimizing politics and preparatory moves toward undermining democratic norms deserve serious study even if they fall short of classical fascism [8] [10].
6. Bottom line: a hybrid, evidence‑based approach
The responsible scholarly posture is conditional: use the term when a constellation of defining features—palingenetic ultranationalism, systematic suppression of pluralism, organized mass mobilization toward revolutionary national change, and institutional dismantling—are demonstrably present, while documenting partial symptoms (authoritarian rhetoric, anti‑pluralist organizing, violence) as warning signs; both overuse and reflexive denial impede democratic self‑defense and clear research [5] [2] [4]. Current U.S. actors display some fascism‑adjacent traits by many academic metrics, but most scholars stop short of declaring a fully fascist regime absent the full pattern of ideological core plus institutional consolidation documented in 20th‑century fascist states [3] [10].