With Donald Trump's recent victory at the polls, the political arena has experienced yet another seismic shift, sparking renewed debates on topics ranging from populism to fascism. Trump's win, celebrated by many of his supporters, has simultaneously raised eyebrows and hackles, with substantial portions of the political sphere now leaning forward to reassess what his continued role means for the future of the United States.
Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins, author and historian, recently pointed out how Trump's election will reopen longstanding questions about the nature of his governance and its various comparisons to historical fascism. His victory on November 5, 2024, marks not merely another term for the former president but seems to act as a catalyst for the “fascism debate”—a contentious discourse fueled by intense partisan divides.
The ‘fascism debate’ has positioned Trump as either the solution to America's social and economic instability or as the leading figure of right-wing authoritarianism. An examination of Trump's rhetoric and populist appeal reveals how he has managed to galvanize support from diverse demographic groups, including increasingly significant portions of Black and Latino voters. This lift on the electoral front for Trump denotes his complex relationship with America's political, cultural, and social constructs.
At the heart of this chaos is the notion of fascism itself. While historians often look back to interwar Europe to measure contemporary movements, some researchers argue for the applicability of the fascism label within the American socio-political framework. “Is fascism as American as apple pie?” is among the provocative questions posed by scholars attempting to trace root similarities between America’s political climate and historical fascist regimes.
Supporters of this outdated label suggest the KKK and other paramilitary groups echo elements found within early 20th-century fascism, such as violence, authoritarianism, and intense nationalism. Comparisons are frequently drawn between Trump’s rallies and the fervor seen at the early 20th-century events led by figures like Mussolini. The argument flows with claims about Trump's flirtations with militarized rhetoric and the support of certain militia groups, which, for some, reinforces the valid correlation between past fascist behaviors and Trump's recent acts.
Despite the arguments for retrofitting fascism onto Trump's modus operandi, dissenting views caution against oversimplifying the comparison and warn about the pitfalls of conflation. Many suggest instead focusing on the distinctive characteristics of contemporary American political extremism rather than anchoring the present to historical analogies fraught with complications. Instead, Steinmetz-Jenkins highlights the need for clarity: recognizing authoritarianism without necessarily positioning it as fascism.
On the other side of the political coin, GOP leaders have rallied behind Trump and voiced their disdain for those labeling him with the f-word. Kamala Harris faced backlash after explicitly stating during a CNN town hall her belief]that Trump embodies fascism. This statement, made after remarks from former Trump chief of staff John F. Kelly, ignited fresh political discourse, with prominent Republican figures calling it “irresponsible rhetoric.”
The irony of this political tussle lies squarely with the GOP’s own rhetoric; Trump himself has labeled Harris and other Democrats as “fascists,” underscoring the contentious back-and-forth between the parties. If Harris's comments are seen as incitement, Trump's responses echo equally charged sentiments. Mike Johnson and Mitch McConnell, key Republican leaders, urged Harris to exercise restraint, arguing her language raises tensions and invites potential violence against Trump.
Meanwhile, on the international front, discussions swirl around how Trump's election impacts foreign policy, particularly concerning Israel. Joel Rosenberg points out the overwhelmingly positive sentiment among Israelis for Trump's approach during his first term, particularly his pro-Israel stance. Rosenberg noted polling data indicating approximately 66% of Israelis preferred Trump over Harris, viewing his leadership as favorable toward their interests.
Such sentiments reinforce the characteristic divide between the two parties. The Biden administration's nuanced position on support for Israel drew ire from opponents who viewed it as being insufficiently supportive. Rosenberg emphasized the perceived dichotomy between Trump’s actions and the Democrats’ rhetoric, with many Israelis favoring the former's more overt support.
The incoming Trump administration could reshape counter-terrorism protocols significantly. Following the deadly Hamas attack on October 7, outcry from various corners of the political spectrum has highlighted fears of potential terror agendas arising during Trump’s renewed presidency. The Department of Homeland Security cautions against the way political violence and incendiary rhetoric can be misinterpreted by extremist groups, potentially leading to violence against citizens and infrastructures.
The incoming administration also must contend with the threat of violent extremism within the United States, particularly through the lens of far-left opposition. There are concerns over how groups might mobilize following Trump's re-election, creating potentially explosive scenarios. If Trump designates ANTIFA as a terrorist organization due to increasing political violence, other movements such as Black Lives Matter may also come under scrutiny.
Yet the handling and perception of this violence and extremism could vary greatly based on the narrative constructed by Trump's administration. A playing field where rhetoric about ‘fascism’ pits Democrats against Republicans will likely create fertile ground for misinformation and violence, as political rivalries continue to escalate.
Instead, Trump seems set to attract attention to his assembly of one of the most pro-Israel teams the U.S. has ever seen, alongside heightened counter-terrorism efforts which may unearth several new threats looming on the horizon. Some suggest ISIS's resurgence or the radicalization fueled by images of war could condense tensions—a dangerous vortex inviting disaster from multiple angles.
All these moving parts—a renewed focus on foreign policy, political labeling as either fascistic or democratic, and the explosion of violence—paint a complex picture of what lies ahead as America and the world brace for the following chapters. How Trump’s presidency will carve its place within the annals of history—either heralded or reviled—remains to be seen as debates around fascism, extremism, and foreign policy continue to evoke passion, fear, and urgency across the political spectrum.
