What are the defining features of fascism and how do they apply to modern US parties?
Executive summary
Scholars define fascism as a set of political behaviors—obsessive nationalism, scapegoating, violent mobilization, destruction of democratic norms, and centralization of state power—distinct from but overlapping with authoritarianism [1]. Contemporary U.S. debate divides experts: some say Trump-era practices and Project 2025 show “fascist tactics” and a push to centralize power and target scapegoated groups [1] [2] [3], while other analysts and scholars warn the term is being stretched and that the U.S. has institutional scale and civic resiliencies that complicate a straight fascism label [4] [1].
1. What scholars mean by “defining features” of fascism
Fascism is treated by many scholars as an identifiable repertoire of political practices rather than a fixed ideology: obsessive preoccupation with national rebirth and unity, a politics of “us vs. them” that scapegoats minorities, paramilitary or mobilized violence, destruction or hollowing of constitutional checks, and a leader demanding personal fidelity—features distinct from but related to authoritarianism [1] [5]. Robert Paxton and others emphasize behavior—particularly the use of violence and the dismantling of institutions—while contemporary theorists like Jason Stanley focus on rhetorical and cultural tactics that normalize exclusion [1] [6].
2. How modern U.S. actors map onto those features — points of agreement
Multiple commentaries and researchers identify clear overlaps between these fascist practices and elements in recent U.S. politics: heavy nativist rhetoric and scapegoating of migrants and trans people, efforts to retool executive agencies and law enforcement to target opponents, pardons or soft treatment for political violence, and proposals like Project 2025 that critics say would centralize power and remake the administrative state [3] [2] [1]. Reporting and NGO analysis argue the Trump administration and allied networks have promoted policies and personnel that accelerate authoritarian tendencies and create “a 21st-century US variant of fascism” rooted in white nationalist ideas [3] [2].
3. Where experts push back — why many scholars stop short of “fascist”
Major scholars and historical experts often caution against bluntly applying “fascism” to the U.S. Several respondents in a scholarly survey said Trump’s conduct was authoritarian and used fascist tactics, but most did not label him a fascist; Robert Paxton warned Trump was “getting close” because of endorsement of violence but stopped short of a full diagnosis [1]. Commentators like those in the New Statesman argue the United States’ size, federal fragmentation, and civic capacities make a wholesale transition to classic European-style fascism less straightforward [4]. Academic debate centers on whether current developments are an erosion toward authoritarianism or a full fascist project [1] [4].
4. Political parties and institutional drivers — both parties get mentioned
Analysts note that blame is not limited to one party: some scholars and books argue that policy shifts in the Democratic Party and failures of mainstream institutions helped create the political conditions that allowed a neofascistic movement to grow, while many left and civil-society critics place primary responsibility on right-wing movements and Project 2025 as a blueprint for consolidation [7] [8] [9]. This contested terrain means assessments of “which party is fascist” differ by both disciplinary lens and political stakes in the sources [7] [9].
5. Practical signs to watch and contested diagnoses
Observers point to concrete indicators to track: normalization of political violence, executive purges of civil servants, legal restructuring of the justice system, mass deportations framed as national purification, and creation of agencies that black-box targeting—each flagged as red flags by critics [3] [2] [10]. But leading scholars caution that naming a moment “fascist” can be politically mobilizing but analytically imprecise; they urge measuring behavior against historical criteria and institutional resilience rather than rhetorical alarm alone [1] [4].
6. Bottom line for readers
The literature and reporting supplied here show a sharp division: many analysts document fascist-consistent practices and warn of a US variant centered on nativism and centralized power [3] [2], while multiple historians and commentators advise careful distinction between authoritarianism and full-fledged fascism because of historical, institutional, and social differences [1] [4]. Available sources do not mention a single, universally accepted verdict on whether contemporary U.S. parties are “fascist”; instead the evidence is read differently by different experts depending on which features—rhetoric, violence, institutional capture—they prioritize [1] [3].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the provided reporting and scholarship; it summarizes competing expert perspectives and does not adjudicate claims beyond those sources [1] [2].