What role does rhetoric versus policy play in scholarly definitions of fascism and authoritarianism?

1. Rhetoric as the mobilizing hallmark: why words matter

A rhetorical approach to fascism studies treats it less as a fixed party program and more as a repertoire of persuasive devices—mythic appeals to nation, scapegoating, claims of existential threat, and calls for total commitment—that mobilize broad audiences by speaking the culture’s language ^{[1] [3]}. Scholars emphasize rhetoric because fascism historically succeeded by fusing emotional, populist storytelling with ultra-nationalist myths: these devices create the “us versus them” dynamic and prepare populations to accept violence and authoritarian leadership ^{[2] [4]}. Rhetoric thus functions as both diagnosis and toolkit: it helps scholars identify fascist tendencies before or alongside concrete policy shifts ^[1].

2. Policy and institutions: the litmus test of regime type

Definitions anchored in policy and institutional outcomes insist on demonstrable features—centralized autocracy, suppression of pluralism, paramilitary violence, militarization of police, and economic or legal architectures that entrench a single-party or leader’s dominance—as the core of authoritarian or fascist classification ^{[2] [5]}. Historians like Kershaw and Payne highlight that fascism’s distinguishing features include not merely rhetoric but revolutionary aims to reshape society and institutions for total commitment, often expressed in concrete anti-liberal, anti-communist policies and state violence ^{[6] [2]}. In short, policy transforms rhetorical performance into regime reality.

3. Scholarly synthesis: cluster concepts, checklists, and the balance of evidence

Because fascism is a “cluster concept” with contested boundaries, many scholars use multi-dimensional checklists—combining rhetoric, style, goals, and negations—to avoid equating rhetorical flair with full-blown fascism ^{[2] [7]}. This reconciliatory method accepts that rhetoric can be necessary but not sufficient: repeated use of fascist-style rhetoric raises alarms, but classification typically depends on whether rhetorical themes are institutionalized into coercive policy and structural change ^{[2] [1]}. Some scholars warn against typological zeal—fixating on novelty or single traits—urging instead a careful, comparative assessment of both discourse and state practice ^[8].

4. Contemporary disputes: politicized labels and rhetorical inflation

The modern political landscape complicates scholarly clarity because “fascism” and “authoritarianism” are also potent rhetorical weapons in partisan debate, used to delegitimize opponents or to portray diverse threats as a monolith ^[7]. Academic commentators note the term’s overapplication—labeling vastly different phenomena from Soviet communism to contemporary populisms—which risks blurring analytical precision and obscuring the real differences between conserving authoritarianism and revolutionary fascism ^{[7] [6]}. Critics of rhetorical inflation say it benefits actors who seek to stoke fear or moral equivalence rather than advance empirical understanding ^[7].

5. Practical implications: what to watch for and what scholars recommend

Scholars advise tracking both the content and trajectory of rhetoric—its consistency, audiences, and attendant organizational networks—and the parallel institutional changes in law, security forces, and party-state relations; only the convergence of fascist-style rhetoric with coercive policy and institutional capture reliably indicates a shift toward fascism or entrenched authoritarianism ^{[1] [2]}. This dual lens preserves analytic rigor: rhetoric signals vulnerability and intent, policy confirms capability and direction, and together they form the evidence base for scholarly definitions and early warning ^{[3] [8]}. Sources diverge on emphasis, but consensus holds that neither rhetoric nor policy alone suffices to classify a regime; both must be weighed in context ^{[2] [7]}.