John Bolton sets Gens. Milley and Kelly straight

Gens. Mark Milley and John Kelly have accused Donald Trump of being a fascist — “fascist to the core,” according to the overwrought and seemingly ignorant Milley. Both retired generals hope the fact that they worked with Trump during his first term lends credibility to their name calling.

But John Bolton, another of Trump’s unhappy first-term advisers, rejects the fascist label as applied to his former boss. He says that fascism is a “comprehensive ideology” and that “Trump isn’t capable of philosophical thought.”

Bolton isn’t far from the mark. To get closer, let’s use a distinction that the great Jeanne Kirkpatrick made between authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

Trump has displayed authority tendencies — as have Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. But fascism is totalitarian. Trump has never displayed any such tendencies.

Authoritarian regimes are about maintaining the authority of the dictator.  Obey normal laws and don't oppose the dictator, and you will be safe. Iran was like that under the Shah.  So are most dictatorships. 

Totalitarian regimes are much different.  As the name implies, they seek total control. They seek to impose a new system of societal organization.  They want to change the way people live.  They want to create a "new man." 

Fascism is a totalitarian ideology.  So is communism, its not-too-distant cousin.  So are certain forms of Islamic rule, such as what the Ayatollahs are trying to impose on Iran and certainly what the Taliban is re-imposing on Afghanistan.

In these regimes, the ruler isn’t content to hold power and receive respect. He wants to reorganize the nation along ideological lines. He wants to rid society of those citizens who don’t conform to his ideological vision.

Hitler is a great example. So is Mussolini with his corporatist economic system, racial laws, and quest for the creation of a new kind of citizen —the state-obsessed fascist Italian. As he wrote in The Doctrine of Fascism:

For the fascist, everything is in the state, and no human or spiritual thing exists, or has any sort of value, outside the state. In this sense fascism is totalitarian, and the fascist state which is the synthesis and unity of every value, interprets, develops and strengthens the entire life of the people.

Under totalitarian rule, it's not enough to obey normal laws and keep quiet about politics. You can be imprisoned and maybe even killed for your identity (including your class) and/or the way you live outside of the political context.  Kulaks, bourgeois "parasites," Jews, homosexuals, and modern women have all been imprisoned and even killed in significant numbers under various totalitarian regimes. 

In Trump’s case, I see essentially nothing to suggest he has totalitarian impulses.  As Bolton says, he has no comprehensive, ideologically-driven plan for America. There’s no evidence that he wants to reorganize American life.

Trump has a few pet projects — strict enforcement of immigration laws, high tariffs, lower taxes, less government regulation of business (which seems anti-totalitarian). His program is a mixture of Reagan Republicanism and the new populism. It lacks any unifying principle. “Make America great again” is a slogan, not an ideology. Nor does it entail control over the lives of ordinary citizens.

Even the claim that Trump is authoritarian seems dubious. During his first term, there was no repression of the opposition. As far as I know, there were no imprisonments for voicing opposition to Trump. Even those who expressed their opposition violently — as in Portland, Minneapolis and Washington D.C. — rarely faced consequences.

It’s true that Trump would have liked to come down hard on rioters and in a second term would likely make a more determined effort to do so. But it’s not authoritarian to punish violators of normal prohibitions against violence and the damaging of property.

Might Trump go further in a second term and punish mere dissent? It’s possible. Would he attempt to retain power after January 2029 or hand power to an unelected acolyte? It’s possible.

Such actions would make him authoritarian, but not totalitarian. Non-fascists dictators have been imprisoning dissenters and clinging illegally to power for as long as I can remember.

But to call Trump an authoritarian based on speculation that he might do things he didn’t do in his first term seems unfair (though it’s not unfair to worry about this possibility). And to call Trump him a fascist is both ridiculous and, given its historical connotations and the two recent attempts on his life, reprehensible.

It’s not surprising that Bolton is much closer to the mark than Kelly and Milley. All three are disgruntled, but Bolton is smarter and better educated than the other two.

It’s also not surprising that Kamala Harris has latched on to the “fascist” smear. Even if she knew better, it wouldn’t matter. She’ll say anything to gain power.

And there’s reason to worry that, if elected, she will do almost anything to maximize it.