What evidence do political scientists use to assess fascist tendencies in contemporary US politics?
Executive summary
Political scientists assess “fascist tendencies” by comparing contemporary behavior and institutions to patterns identified in historical fascisms—using variables like mass mobilization, leader-centric cults, paramilitary violence, dismantling of democratic norms, and targeted exclusion of defined out‑groups—while acknowledging deep conceptual disputes about how broadly to apply the label [1] [2]. Scholars deploy both checklist-style analogies and historically rooted typologies (e.g., Paxton’s family‑resemblance approach), debate the utility of terms like “fascist” versus “proto‑fascist,” and stress careful empirical indicators rather than rhetorical name‑calling [1] [3] [2].
1. What scholars treat as the core evidence: institutions, violence, and mass mobilization
Political scientists commonly prioritize evidence that shows coordinated attacks on democratic institutions, the organized use or encouragement of political violence, and mass political mobilization behind a charismatic leader; for example, historians emphasize militias and leader‑directed violence as characteristic of classical fascisms and warn that similar organized paramilitary nods matter in contemporary assessments [4] [1]. Scholarship argues these features—when combined—signal more than merely illiberal politics because they reflect an effort to replace pluralist procedures with a leader‑centered, movementized power structure [1] [5].
2. Measuring democratic erosion and legal change: the “legal phase” argument
Analysts track changes in law, electoral administration, and institutional norms as measurable indicators: efforts to restrict voting, reconfigure electoral rules, co‑opt or delegitimize courts and independent agencies, and normalize propaganda are treated as concrete steps toward authoritarian consolidation, described by some commentators as a “legal phase” of fascist or proto‑fascist consolidation [6] [5]. These legal and bureaucratic shifts are taken seriously because they accumulate over time and can be documented through statutes, executive orders, and institutional appointments [5] [6].
3. Rhetoric, cults of personality, and punitive threats as observable signals
Explicit rhetorical patterns—repeated delegitimization of opponents, promises to punish rivals, claims of existential national crisis, and leader‑glorification—are used as evidence when accompanied by organizational changes or coercive measures; reporting has cataloged frequent threats against perceived opponents and symbolic displays that scholars and journalists cite as suggestive of monarchist or authoritarian ambition [7] [8]. Yet scholars caution rhetoric alone is insufficient without corresponding institutional capture or sustained paramilitary enforcement [1] [2].
4. Targeting of out‑groups, exclusionary nationalism, and historical analogies
Experts look for systematic exclusion or scapegoating of minorities, immigration‑focused nativism, or state policies that institutionalize hierarchy—phenomena historically central to European fascisms and invoked in contemporary comparisons when present [9] [8]. At the same time, many scholars note national specificity matters: American “fascistic” patterns may differ in outward form from 1930s Italy or Germany and thus require tailored analysis rather than simple replication of European templates [1].
5. Methodological debates and the danger of over‑extension
There is a robust methodological dispute over whether “fascism” remains analytically useful or has become a rhetorical smear; critics urge caution and demand rigorous thresholds, while others endorse modifiers like “proto‑fascism” to signal incipient but incomplete affinities—this debate appears across panels, academic articles, and opinion pieces [10] [3] [2]. Scholars explicitly warn that checklist analogies can be both over‑inclusive and under‑sensitive, and urge triangulating rhetoric, behavior, and institutional change [2] [1].
6. How this plays out in contemporary US debates: evidence and counterarguments
Applied to recent U.S. politics, analysts cite episodes such as post‑2020 efforts to overturn election results, the January 6 attack, and documented threats against opponents as empirical inputs into fascism‑tendency assessments, while many historians stop short of declaring an imminent fascist takeover and highlight critical differences with interwar Europe [8] [7] [4]. Commentators across the spectrum acknowledge both troubling parallels and meaningful limits, producing a contested but evidence‑driven conversation rather than unanimous verdict [4] [7] [10].