Understanding the Conceptions of “Fascism” in Our Contemporary Political Climate
The term fascism is often associated with its historical origins in Mussolini’s interwar Italy and in Nazi Germany. Because of this, when the term is used today, it is often done so in analogy to specific oppressive traits or characteristics of these regimes. (See: Paxton, 2005; Stanley, 2005; on the tendency for analogy, see: Toscano, 2023.) This “checklist” analogical approach of trying to pin down the characteristics that do and do not constitute fascism causes consistent disagreement around the meaning of the term (e.g., How many traits make a regime fascist?). We have seen this lack of cohesion in abundance in our current political climate, especially during this past election cycle. Fascism is already considered a cluster concept and a rather ambiguous term, and its manipulated and varied uses in contemporary political rhetoric only add to the confusion. This distracts from our understanding of what fascism is and its potential presence and implications in our modern politics. Without developing a critical understanding of the term, I fear that its use will develop into an empty political smear that distracts from genuine concern about oppressive politics.
For this reason, and with funding from a 2024 Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF), I set out to understand fascism in theoretical-philosophical and political-legal contexts. However, as I followed the developments of a very active campaign season and started to draw emphasis on our current political climate, I geared my inquiry toward the most prominent ways the term fascism is currently being used, addressing the question What is understood as fascism in our contemporary political climate, and why? To do so, I give the reasons for those respective understandings, offering a much-needed context for the multiplicity of ways in which the term is used today. Especially because of the disunity surrounding the term, and the polarized climate of our current politics generally, keeping these analyses nonpartisan is vital to provide the full contextual scope of where the use of the term fascism is situated in our contemporary political rhetoric. On this account, this article should not be understood as advocating for or agreeing with any particular conception of the term, nor should it serve as a diagnosis of fascism. Rather, this project introduces the plethora of ways the term fascism is talked about in all spheres of contemporary American political rhetoric in order to clarify some of the confusing climate surrounding the term and promote genuine political discourse.
Foundations of This Project and Methodology
The complexity of the term fascism leads to its rather ambiguous and incoherent use in today’s political climate. However, we can look to Robert Paxton’s Anatomy of Fascism (2005) for a more cohesive and modern general conception of the term to use as a frame of reference. Although even Paxton references the ambiguity surrounding the term, he outlines that “a usable definition of fascism . . . is a compound, an amalgam of different but marriageable conservative, national-socialist, and radical Right ingredients, bonded together by common enemies and common passions” (Paxton, 2005, p. 207). Ultimately, fascism is not a concrete political doctrine, but can instead be considered as a complex dynamic of ideologies, relationships, and processes.
Though Paxton offers analyses of the types of characteristics fascistic politics employ, thinking of them as definitive definitions of fascism creates only a “checklist” kind of approach that perpetuates the incoherence surrounding the term in our current political moment. Paxton was—to a degree—wary of this as well. In the earlier portions of his project, he hesitates to outline a concrete conception of the term to avoid letting his analyses fall into a narrow search for the “fascist minimum”—in other words, a means to decide the point at which something is or is not “fascist” (Paxton, 2005, p. 206).
To enable genuine discourse on the matter of analyzing fascistic politics, it needs to be free of any overly restrictive or narrowing definitions. Post-Holocaust Frankfurt School theorist Theodor Adorno conceptualized fascistic politics as vague and truly “untheoretical in nature” (Adorno, 2002, p. 221; Toscano, 2023, p. x) as a means to outline the inadequacy of trying to pose some kind of singular metric on the matter. Alberto Toscano in his project Late Fascism (2023) articulates these sentiments well. He notes that requiring certain analogical components to cast the label only offers constraint on criticizing and analyzing the processes in which violent and oppressive politics take place today (Cicerchia et al., 2024; Toscano, 2023). Especially considering the various and rather manipulated uses of the term in today’s climate, we must analyze its place in our current political rhetoric through a similarly open lens.
I will, however, offer a preemptive note for how the term is most often used in our political rhetoric by both the left and the right; it is used to encapsulate the fear of authoritarian ideological imposition over all of society, often articulated as totalitarianism, whether it’s postulated from a nuanced argument or mere political name-calling.
Originally, I meant for this project to exist as a research paper that addressed some of the ideas put forth by post-Holocaust continental thinkers that I wished to explore further in my senior thesis. However, as my research developed, it became centered on current events, political theory, and American jurisprudence. I gathered a diverse foundational bibliography I could use to develop a strong understanding of relevant concepts for my senior thesis. With the guidance of my faculty mentor, Professor Nick Smith, I developed a focus for each week of my research project based on the current political-legal climate. Most of this research took place remotely, via news and journal articles, and during the weeks I delved into topics that focused more on contemporary jurisprudence, law review articles and legal documents were easily accessible online with databases like LexisNexis. However, whenever I needed to access texts that weren’t available to me online (typically primary source books), I visited Dimond Library on the 鶹app (UNH) campus.
Though my senior thesis will tackle some of the overarching issues of understanding and rooting oppressive politics in our contemporary political moment, in this article I present my findings regarding the uses and various conceptions of the term fascism in our current political climate.
Common Use of the Term in Our Current Climate: Indictments Against the Right
Today’s political rhetoric most commonly sees President Donald Trump and the conservatives as fascists with claims that their core political values and agenda have “long been exploiting fascist propaganda . . . [and] are now inscribing it into fascist policy” (Stanley, 22 Dec. 2021). During the past election cycle, the biggest spotlight was on the discourse surrounding Project 2025. The project, published before the 2024 presidential election by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, offers roughly 900 pages of guidelines for the next Republican president (now President Trump) to institute conservative leadership in government and promote conservative ideals in America. This political initiative is a self-described “plan to unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors” that they illustrate as the Democratic left (Roberts, 2023, p. 16). The project primarily revolves around four general core sentiments: (1) the protection and centralization of family, traditional, and religious values, (2) promoting the foundational values of self-governance by dismantling the centralized bureaucracy that is alleged to be dominated by left-wing ideals, (3) returning the sovereignty and freedom of the American people to the center of priority and addressing global threats, and (4) rejecting left-wing authoritarianism imposing a specific way of living—and instead returning to the individual’s self-directed pursuit of the “good life” by way of economic and democratic freedom (Roberts, p. 3–16).
Though indictments of fascism have been made against specific policy platforms set forth by this conservative movement for various reasons, all seem to revolve around a fear of imposed partisan-ideological entrenchment in government. We can begin to analyze this by looking at some of the most commonly posed theoretical tendencies of fascistic politics that are grounded in conceived relations of predominance and inferiority in particular groups. In these dynamics the predominant group understands themselves as victimized and seeks their own freedom to return to their prominent position (Paxton, 2005, pp. 219–220; Toscano, 2023, pp. 72–73; also see: Stanley, 2020, pp. 78–108). Historically, such politics often pivot toward leaders who promise liberation for and sympathy toward this group through revolutionary rhetoric and a promise to impose a prosperous political order, creating a dynamic where loyalty to the leader and the agenda are the highest priority (Tourish, 2023, p. 15). Critics of President Trump and contemporary conservativism cite these tendencies when they make accusations of fascism (see, for example: Sarat, 4 Feb. 2025). This is mostly because of President Trump’s persistent desire for a loyalist overhaul (even within the ranks of his own party) and the fidelity of his constituency, alongside his tendency to promote his agenda above the normative and legal conventions of democratic politics (Sarat, pp. 15, 20–23; on the Trump administration’s outlook of holding its agenda above legal conventions, see: Trump, 15 Feb. 2025).
Philosopher Jason Stanley likens the goals of the Project 2025 to the processes of loyalist overhaul and degradation of democratic conventions that took place in Nazi Germany. Stanley further argues that Project 2025 constructs an image of America that is white nationalist, theocratic, heteronormative, and misogynistic, with policies fostering a “mandate to eliminate civil rights enforcement” (Goodman, interview with Stanley, 2024). Stanley fears that this ideological overhaul in government will foster an authoritarian and dictatorial regime—like the one seen in interwar Germany—that builds America’s institutions and values in an image that disregards, if not persecutes, anyone seen unfit. Stanley argues that because of the ideological loyalty and entrenchment President Trump’s politics seem to prioritize, “Our democratic culture is on life support” (Stanley, 2020, p. xxi).
President Trump himself persistently refutes any affiliation with the project whatsoever (see: Harris, R., quoting Trump, 10 Sept. 2024)
Ultimately, it is this fear of a conservative overhaul spearheaded by President Trump’s agenda that brings about the label fascism by the American left. This label comes alongside the fear that democratic safeguards against such movements will dwindle away because of recent judicial trends—both in the potentiality of President Trump filling the courts with partisan ideologues (Pilkington, 2 Nov. 2024; on the concept of partisan entrenchment in the courts, see: Balkin & Levinson, 2001; also see: Balkin, 2024), and recent rulings on executive power (e.g., Trump v. U.S.) causing a fear that “The President is now a king above the law” (Trump v. US, 603 U.S. 593 [2024] [Sotomayor, J., dissenting], p. 685). Ultimately, the left’s conception of fascism lies in the fear that contemporary conservative politics will authoritatively impose an exclusionary agenda and fail to be held in check by democratic checks and balances.
Understanding the Right’s Use of the Term
The use of the term fascism in American political dynamics is not a one-way street against conservatives. President Trump and his supporters have also posed that their Democratic opposers are “plotting to replace American freedom with ‘left-wing fascism’” (Collins, 26 Oct. 2022).
To remain nonpartisan in these analyses, I want to offer why it may be the case that accusations of fascism cast onto the left from the right are far more sporadic. Contemporary conservative political philosopher Paul Gottfried (2021) postulates that for the American right, fascism is considered a mere historical instance of the interwar period and World War II that channeled specific traits of oppression and ultimately was symptomatic of a grander overarching problem of state overreach and centralized orders of restricting freedom and imposition over society; the primary problem for the right is totalitarianism. In other words, the primary concern is about a particular state or political regime authoritatively imposing a unifying ideology over all of society (see: Gottfried, 2021; on totalitarianism,also see: Arendt, 2024). On this account, Nazism and Soviet Communism are both described as fascist even though one is “far right authoritarianism” and the other “far left authoritarianism.” For contemporary conservatives, fascism becomes synonymous with historical authoritarian enemies of the U.S. even if they are very different ideologies and tens of millions of Soviets died fighting fascism.
After World War II ended, Gottfried notes, “the remaining totalitarian danger was thought to issue from the Soviet Empire and the spread of Communist ideology” (Gottfried, 2021, p. 120). This may offer an explanation of why contemporary conservative thought is infused with rhetoric geared toward fighting the alleged imposition of communism by the American left in our governmental establishments. It is nothing new for American conservatives to postulate their ultimate foe as communistic influences throughout society. America has seen a range of right-wing political initiatives that were persecutory toward the feared encroachment of communism. These stem from McCarthyism and the second Red Scare in the 1950s that sought to dismantle any communist influence in America by surveilling and persecuting Americans with political beliefs or suspected ties to anything “left-of-center” (Carlin, 2011), to the majority of President Trump’s platforms today aiming its efforts toward combatting alleged communism and Marxism in institutions of higher education, public education, and the legal system (see: Trump, 17 July 2023; 26 Jan. 2023; 13 Apr. 2023).
This also may give context for why the most prevalent contemporary conservative platforms that focus on rejecting the supposed fascism of the left also speak of rejecting communism in the same breath. President Trump has persistently posed the Democratic Party as the “enemy from within,” and illustrates them as “very dangerous . . . Marxists and communists and fascists” (Greve, quoting Trump, 16 Oct. 2024). In contemporary conservative discourse, all of these terms tend to fall under the same umbrella for painting political opposition as a totalitarian enemy—conflating political buzzwords to make that point. Thus, when we conceive of the contemporary conservatives’ indictments of “fascism” against the left, they are unable “to situate fascism consistently on the political spectrum . . . reducing [the term] to an all-purpose insult” (Gottfried, p. 114). When conservatives accuse the American left of fascism, it appears to be a political tactic—and an effective tactic--to postulate their opposers as a totalitarian threat.
Liberal Fascism?
Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism provides an account of “fascism” on the left that goes beyond the conflation of political insults (Gottfried, p. 108). Though Goldberg (2007) does explicitly reiterate that a conception of left “liberal fascism” today is not blatantly oppressive in the way that interwar fascist regimes were, he highlights that they share a totalitarian temptation—meaning that American liberalism, though derived from a seemingly good intent, aims to create a unified utopia in its own political image that affects all realms of human life. For Goldberg, this creates a fascistic and totalitarian potentiality we ought to be wary of. Although he echoes the same fears of the American left veering toward totalitarianism that other conservatives pose, he does offer that this is not exclusively a propensity of the American left, noting that conservatives are—and historically have been—subject to these same totalitarian tendencies (Goldberg, pp. 22–23).
In the context of our current polarized political discourse, this wariness on both sides is seen in politics regarding regulating certain spheres of society that tend to present an ideologically based “positive, normative vision for the political community, a concrete utopia; consequently, becoming increasingly intolerant of the political other” (Blaszczyk, 2024, p. 313). Goldberg notes that any prescription of this as being uniquely a tendency of the liberal left would be a fallacious one. The right may champion combatting particular repressions of freedom, but they are at least equally guilty in our modern political context (for example, conservative-led suppressions of free speech; on this, see: Blaszczyk, 2024; also see: Heyman, 2014, p. 318).
Conclusion
Through this research, I developed a more comprehensive view of the different conceptions of fascism and how the term is used in our contemporary political sphere by both the left and right. In context of the right, the term can be understood as a rhetorical tool used to illustrate the totalitarian image that they either see or want to create in their political opposition. The more nuanced arguments constructed by the right tend to postulate totalitarian tendencies they claim are entrenched in the left’s politics. The left, on the other hand, makes explicit accusations against the right of being violent, exclusionary, vengeful, and authoritative, and map that onto more generalized conceptions of fascism both historically and in a modern context. Ultimately, the array of the discourse on fascism ought to be considered—whether it be in specific traits and violence we can point to, or in a general wariness of totalizing tendencies in politics altogether—when we ask what is at the root of oppressive politics.
There are many people I’d like to thank for the impact they’ve had on this project. First and foremost, Professor Nick Smith, my academic advisor, thesis advisor, and faculty mentor for this project. You’ve been the foundation for my academic growth throughout my undergraduate career at UNH. I cannot thank you enough for the advice and inspiration you’ve provided me with over the past few years. I’d also like to thank all of my peers in the philosophy department for their persistent encouragement and help throughout the various stages of this project and beyond. I’d also like to thank Dana Hamel for his generous donation that allowed me this research opportunity through the Hamel Center for Undergraduate Research. Last, and most important, I’d like to thank my longtime partner, Kim. Without your unconditional support and reminders to come back down to earth when things get hectic, this project wouldn’t have been possible.
References
Adorno, T. (2002). The Stars Down to Earth and other essays on the irrational in culture. Edited by S. Crook. Routledge Classics.
Arendt, H. (2024). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Originally published in 1951. First Mariner Classics.
Balkin, J. M. (2024). In Bollinger, L., & Stone, G. (eds.). Abortion, partisan entrenchment, and the Republican Party. Roe v. Dobbs: The Past, Present, and Future of a Constitutional Right to Abortion. Oxford University Press. pp. 81–100.
Balkin, J. M., & Levinson, S. (2001). Understanding the constitutional revolution. Virginia Law Review, 87. pp. 1045–1109.
Blaszczyk, M. (2024). Section 230 reform, liberalism, and their discontents. California Western Law Review, 60(2). pp. 221–314.
Carlin, D. (12 October 2011). (BLITZ) Radical thoughts. Hardcore History, 40 [podcast].
Cicerchia, L., Glyn-Williams, O., Morejon, G. (hosts), & Toscano, A. (2024). On late fascism w/Alberto Toscano. What’s Left of Philosophy, 88 [podcast].
Collins, M. (26 October 2022). Alternate realities: Democrats and Republicans smear each other as ‘fascists.’ Is either right? USA Today.
Goldberg, J. (2007). Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton. Doubleday.
Goodman, A. (interviewer) & Stanley, J. (interviewee; 18 September 2018). Fascism expert Jason Stanley on Project 2025: Great replacement theory, attacks on immigrants & Gaza. Democracy Now.
Gottfried, P. (2021). Antifascism: The Course for Crusade. Cornell University Press.
Greve, J. E. (16 October 2024; quoting Trump, D. J.). Trump doubles down on ‘enemy from within’ comments at Fox town hall. The Guardian.
Harris, R. (transcriber, quoting Trump, D. J.; 10 September 2024). Trump-Harris presidential debate transcript. ABC News.
Heyman, S. (2014). The conservative-Libertarian turn in First Amendment jurisprudence. West Virginia Law Review, 117(2). pp. 231–343.
Paxton, R. O. (2005). The Anatomy of Fascism. Vintage; Random House.
Pilkington, E. (2 November 2024). Trump, emboldened by the immunity ruling, wants to strengthen grip on courts. The Guardian.
Roberts, K. (2023). In Dans, P., & Groves, S. (eds.) Foreword—A promise to America. Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project—Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. p. 1–18.
Sarat, A. (4 February 2025). Loyalty, democracy, and the future of American politics. Fulcrum.
Stanley, J. (2020). How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Random House Trade.
Stanley, J. (22 December 2021). America is now in fascism’s legal phase. The Guardian.
Toscano, A. (2023). Late Fascism: Race, Capitalism, and the Politics of Crisis. Verso Books.
Tourish, D. (2023). It is time to use the F word about Trump: Fascism, populism, and the rebirth of history. Leadership, 20(1). University of Sussex. pp. 9–32.
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024).
Trump, D. J. (26 January 2023; transcribed). President Trump’s Plan to Save American Education and Give Power Back to Parents.
Trump, D. J. (13 April 2023; transcribed). Agenda47: Firing the Radical Marxist Prosecutors Destroying America.
Trump, D. J. (17 July 2023; transcribed) Agenda47: Protecting Students from the Radical Left and Marxist Maniacs Infecting Educational Institutions.
Trump, D. J. [@realDonaldTrump], (15 February 2025, 1:32 PM EST). He who saves his Country does not violate any Law. X (formerly Twitter).
Author and Mentor Bios
Travis Dean-Ploof, originally from Rochester, New Hampshire, will graduate in May 2025 with a bachelor of arts degree in political and legal philosophy. Travis serves as the president of the UNH Pre-Law Society and has been a member of the philosophy department’s Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl Team. He conducted this research with the support of a 2024 Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) and hopes to build upon this work by developing a substantive account of where, why, and how oppressive politics loom on the doorstep of American democracy. Travis plans to begin law school in fall 2026 and is considering pursuing a graduate education in philosophy simultaneously.
Nick Smith, JD/PhD, is a professor of philosophy and has been teaching at the 鶹app since 2002. He was previously a litigator at a major New York law firm and a judicial clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He teaches and writes on issues in law, politics, and society. Dr. Smith has published I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies in 2008 and Justice through Apologies: Remorse, Reform, and Punishment in 2014 (both with Cambridge University Press). He has been interviewed by or appeared in many major news outlets, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, and BBC, among others. He has mentored numerous undergraduate researchers and Inquiry authors.
Copyright 2025 © Travis Dean-Ploof
