Chat with Claude: On Fascism

I’m well aware that the term fascism has been overused in late political discourse, but it sure feels like it’s not all pure hyperbole. I’m not a lawyer or a political scientist, just someone who is curious and trying to educate himself.

A lot of folks are anti-AI (I am not) although I maintain a healthy skepticism about it. Still, chatting with an AI like Claude can be very helpful as a starting point.

In light of the recent news that the Trump administration is using the IRS to target a private university, I wondered: what has to happen before we can legitimately use the term fascism? So I had a short chat with Claude. Here’s the transcript:

A lot of people have rejected the use of the term "fascism" to describe Donald Trump's second term as president of the United States. What is the evidence in support of the use of the term?

To address your question about evidence supporting the use of the term "fascism" in relation to Donald Trump's second term, I should first note that my knowledge cutoff is October 2024, so I don't have specific information about actions or policies implemented during his current term, which began in January 2025.

The debate over whether to apply the term "fascism" to any political figure or movement is complex and often contentious. The term has specific historical origins but is frequently contested in contemporary political discourse.

Scholars who have argued that certain elements of Trump's rhetoric, policy positions, or political style align with fascist characteristics typically point to:

1. Ultranationalist messaging and "America First" policies
2. Populist appeals positioning himself against perceived "elites"
3. Strong emphasis on law and order, security, and border control
4. Challenges to institutional norms and democratic processes
5. Rhetorical attacks on media, critics, and opposition
6. Cult of personality and mass rallies emphasizing direct connection with supporters
7. Appeals to a romanticized past ("Make America Great Again")

Critics of this characterization argue that these elements alone do not constitute fascism in its historical sense, that democratic institutions have remained intact, and that the comparison trivializes historical fascism.

The debate often centers on whether fascism should be defined by its historical manifestations in 1930s-40s Europe or as a more flexible set of political tendencies that can appear in different contexts.

Would you like me to explore any particular aspect of this debate in more detail?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

What are some examples of actions, that if taken by a US president, would constitute fascism?

Here are some examples of actions that, if taken by a US president, would constitute significant steps toward fascism according to scholars of authoritarianism and comparative politics:

1. Systematically dismantling separation of powers by:

   • Packing courts with loyalists and ignoring judicial rulings
   • Neutering legislative oversight and ruling by executive order
   • Firing career officials and replacing them with personal loyalists across government

2. Attacking free press and information flow by:

   • Using state power to shut down critical media outlets
   • Implementing widespread censorship of opposition voices
   • Creating state-controlled media as primary information source

3. Subverting electoral processes through:

   • Postponing or canceling elections
   • Fundamentally changing voting rules to favor the incumbent
   • Refusing to accept electoral defeat and attempting to remain in power extralegally

4. Using state violence against citizens:

   • Deploying military or militarized police against peaceful protestors
   • Encouraging extrajudicial violence against opponents
   • Establishing detention without trial for political opponents

5. Creating an exclusionary national identity:

   • Implementing policies that explicitly favor one racial/ethnic/religious group
   • Stripping citizenship or rights from targeted minority groups
   • Using government resources to promote ultranationalist propaganda

6. Consolidating personal power through:

   • Removing term limits or other constraints on presidential power
   • Building a cult of personality where loyalty to leader supersedes loyalty to constitution
   • Merging party and state functions where government serves the leader's political interests

Most scholars emphasize that fascism typically involves a combination of these elements implemented systematically rather than isolated incidents, and requires a foundation of ideological justification centered on national rebirth through authoritarian means.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

What about using executive departments to selectively target specific individual, groups, or institutions such as schools, universities, churches, and ethnic groups?

You've raised an important point. The selective targeting of specific individuals, groups, or institutions through executive power is indeed considered a key warning sign of fascist governance. Here's how this manifests:

1. Weaponizing government agencies against opponents:

   • Using tax authorities (like the IRS) to audit political enemies
   • Directing law enforcement agencies to investigate critics without legitimate basis
   • Employing regulatory bodies to selectively punish businesses associated with opposition

2. Targeting academic institutions:

   • Cutting funding to universities based on political leanings
   • Imposing ideological requirements on curricula or research
   • Removing tenure protections or firing faculty for political views
   • Creating "loyalty tests" for educators

3. Suppressing religious organizations:

   • Favoring certain religious groups while penalizing others
   • Using regulatory power to investigate or harass religious communities that criticize the administration
   • Creating a government-approved version of religion that supports the regime

4. Persecuting ethnic, racial, or other minority groups:

   • Creating special enforcement regimes targeting specific communities
   • Deploying surveillance programs disproportionately against certain groups
   • Removing protections for vulnerable populations
   • Using dehumanizing language followed by discriminatory policy

5. Creating parallel legal systems:

   • Applying different standards of justice to allies versus opponents
   • Pardoning supporters who commit crimes while harshly prosecuting similar actions by critics
   • Making examples of high-profile opponents through selective prosecution

This kind of targeted use of state power represents a fundamental shift from rule of law to rule by law, where legal mechanisms are preserved in form but corrupted in function to serve the interests of maintaining power rather than administering justice impartially.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Food for thought.