Republicans are no longer conservative--they're fascist

If you want to criticize MAGA, it would be more accurate to call it nationalist or populist. Populism can be loud, messy, and polarizing, but it still functions within democracy. Fascism destroys democracy entirely. MAGA has not done that.

Calling millions of Americans “fascist” really deepens division and shuts down meaningful conversation. It erases the long standing philosophical roots of American conservatism and, even worse than that, it trivializes what actual fascism is. If anything, it makes having a real dialogue about politics that much harder.

American Conservatism, even in its current MAGA form, is still centered on limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and the Constitution. You might not like the style or tone, and that is fair, but populism and aggression are just literally not the same thing as fascism. MAGA supporters still operate within a constitutional multi party system. They advocate for competition and private ownership, and that, as you know, is the exact opposite of the state run economy that fascists demand.

I think I should also point out that every single modern president, including Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, has used executive powers in ways that their critics have called overreach. That is not unique to Trump and it is not proof of fascism. Despite the fiery tone, MAGA Republicans consistently call for deregulation, tax cuts, and for shifting more power from the federal government to the states. Those are all really traditional conservative principles.

Your pointt about free speech is also off target. Criticizing the press is not the same thing at all as suppressing it. Trump’s comments about the media are often harsh, but no media outlets were censored, or shut down, or taken over by the government. In fact, opposition media has grown even stronger during his presidency. Fascist regimes just shut down all dissent. In the US, dissenting voices continue to thrive and even to dominate. Many conservatives are also pushing for less government control over speech online, which also aligns with classical liberal and conservative traditions.

The January 6 United States Capitol attack was absolutely chaotic and wrong, but it was not a coup and it does not just simply define all conservatives. Tens of millions of people voted for Trump, and only a few thousand entered the Capitol. Legal challenges to elections are not something that is unusual, and both parties have done it. Courts rejected Trump’s claims and power transferred peacefully. That is what a democracy looks like when it is tested. A real fascist regime would have simply ignored the courts and stayed in power by force.

When people say Trump ignored the Constitution, they totally overlook the fact that the courts regularly blocked his policies and he complied. That literally shows the constitutional system still worked. In an actual fascist system, the courts themselves become the tools of the regime. That did not happen here. MAGA operates within the same checks and balances as everyone else.

As for law and order, MAGA supporters actually emphasize it more than most groups. They push for strong borders, and strong policing, and tough on crime policies. You might not like those policies, but disliking them is not the same as proving that they are lawless. On the question of morality, there have been many accusations against Donald Trump, but accusations are not the same thing as convictions. Believing that someone is innocent until they are proven to be guilty is not hypocrisy. It is literally a core American principle.

As a conservative, I also want to be very clear that even if we strongly disagree and even if I have not changed your mind here, I fully support your right to hold and express your views. That freedom to disagree is part of what makes America worth defending.

As a starting point, you failed to define conservatism. The you committed the fallacy of equating conservatism with Trump/MAGA, which would be like me equating liberalism with Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety.

Here are some more specific points:

1. “Limited, small government.” Are you sure you mean it when you say “small?” There isn’t anything small about the government the liberals like, so if that’s the litmus test for fascism, well then does either party escape the claim? With respect to “limited,” what exactly is this “overuse” of “executive powers and the military?” You’re going to have to spell that out to make your case. Do you mean too many executive orders? Well, that’s every modern President. Do you mean firing a bunch of federal employees? How in the world is that “fascist,” which you have also failed to define.
2. “Freedom of speech.” I assume you’re referring to the First Amendment. Is that correct or are you referring to a greater libertarian principle? If the latter, well then if that’s a litmus test for fascism, we’ve never had a government that wasn’t fascist. If the former, what has Trump and his administration done to violate it? A lot of stupid remarks? Yes, but that doesn’t violate the First Amendment. Condemning speech they don’t like? Yes - like every single administration in my life. Have you ever looked at what the CFPB has tried to do to organizations whose speech they don’t like? Are you familiar with what the Democrats tried to do to the NRA in New York?
3. “Democratic elections.” Who said the J6 riots (which is what they were) was a conservative movement? And who ever thought that drop box ballots entirely impossible to validate is a necessary condition to democratic elections? (p.s. America is a republic, not a democracy.)
4. “The Constitution.” Are you kidding me? You are essentially arguing that not upholding the Constitution is fascist. Are you sure that’s what you want to argue? Do liberals uphold the Second Amendment or try to thwart it every way they can think of? Did Cuomo, as Secretary of HUD, try to force communities into supporting his plans through fines? Did Obama pressure health insurance companies to support the ACA? Do you realize the Constitution has a Take Care Clause requiring the Executive Branch to enforce laws passed by Congress? How do you think that applies to immigration laws?
5. “Law, order and [LOL] decency.” Do you think all non-fascists support “decency?” Who in the world are you to define decency anyway? You do know the First Amendment has nothing to do with decency right? As for law and order, you have to be joking. “Likely”’crimes of Trump? What crime is “likely” he committed? Show me some reason to think that. And minimizing violence? You mean like the “mostly peaceful” BLM riots? You mean like ignoring murders committed by people in the country illegally? Give me a break.

You are right we are not living in 1940s Nazi style regime, but we are living in an era where bias, not reason, rules the day. The real problem is that both sides (a phrase I don’t like using for Americans but unfortunately apropos right now) call each other fascists or baby killers or genocide supporters or people who hate America.

Thats the real problem. Accusing people of such things when they sincerely just hold different, reasonable beliefs only serves as license to demonize and dehumanize each other. That never ends well.

I have publicly advocated my position (and emphatically agree with you) that specifically Trump and his supporters should not be lumped in with conservatives, but I disagree with your labeling them fascists. They're better categorized as right-populists, in my view.

Mussolini summed up fascism as 'Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State,' and argued it's a totalitarian ideology that encompasses every single aspect of life. Trump and MAGA have consistently argued against the DoE, have argued for a shrinking of various other federal agencies, and have now taken up supporting 2A arguments in federal courts. All three of these directly contradict a fascist agenda. Certainly some of their policy proposals toe the line, but they can also be explained as populist policy proposals.

On the other hand, they don't show a logically or internally consistent ideology either, like conservatives, progressives, classical or American liberals, or even environmentalists do. They frequently hold contradictory views on the basis of whether the specific policy is popular or largely supported - e.g. they generally argue for limited government interference in the market but then cheer on government interference in the market, a la the Intel stake. This is showing a logical inconsistency in ideology frequently found in populism, where the consistency is much more vibes based.