Thoughts on Jason Stanley’s How Fascism Works

Jason Stanley’s How Fascism Works starts with a plausible and succinct definition of fascism—“ultranationalism of some variety…with the nation represented in the person of an authoritarian leader who speaks on its behalf.” It then identifies the features of “fascist politics”, or “fascist tactics as a mechanism to achieve power.” These “strategies” are “the mythic past, propaganda, anti-intellectualism, unreality, hierarchy, victimhood, law and order, sexual anxiety, appeals to the heartland, and a dismantling of public welfare and unity.” Fascists deploy these tactics, Stanley suggests, to exploit existing or manufactured insecurities about or fears of parts of a country’s population in order to justify oppressive policies targeting political opponents and troublesome political minorities so that they can take control. Each of these is the focus of a chapter, followed by a brief Epilogue.

From here the book sets out to show two things. One is to show how Nazis and Italian Fascists made use of these tactics to gain power while justifying horrific policies and practices. The second is how these same tactics are being used in contemporary political settings, including the United States under Donald Trump. I am not expert enough in the relevant history to say to how much Stanley contributes to our understanding of historical fascism. I can say that I found what he says on these topics disquieting and convincing. Stanley fares much less successfully in the second part of his program however. In fact, these parts of the book seem to me to fail to cohere in any meaningful way, leaving it unclear just what Stanley is trying to say about the current relevance of “fascism” as naming a political ideology, or “fascist” as a descriptor of either political tactics or contemporary states. 

The book’s failure to convincingly use fascism to make sense of contemporary politics stems from a number of deep problems. One of the biggest is that Stanley simply doesn’t establish how he understands the connection between fascism as a kind of state, as an ideology, and as a rhetorical tactic. All of the tactics Stanley identifies can and have been put to use in the service of political ambitions that do not include ultranationalism, authoritarianism, or a cult of personality. What then makes them fascist tactics as opposed to plain old ugly and illegitimate tactics? If it is not that they’re only used in service of fascist ends—the establishment of a fascist state or in promoting fascism as an ideology—then what? You might think this is an important point to get clear on, yet Stanley barely addresses it, and no obvious answer is consistent with what Stanley proceeds to present in the rest of the book. 

Stanley has one sentence where he offers some clarification. “Fascist politics” he says “distinguishes ‘us’ from ‘them’, appealing to ethnic, religious, or racial distinctions, and using this division to shape ideology and…policy.” The appeal to ethnic, religious, or racial distinction is the crucial part, as pitting an ‘us’ against ‘them’ is hardly unique to far right politics. But the piecemeal and eclectic set of contemporary examples discussed in the book obscure things considerably as they range from the quite plausibly fascist to the most definitely not—the book parades people or events in  Rwanda, Hungary, Poland, Brazil, the former Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Turkey, Myanmar, and the US. Among the Americans named and shamed by Stanley are Nixon, Reagan, Charles Murray, Stephen Pinker(!), (some) rural Americans, and an obscure internet personality. Donald Trump and a number of his entourage and supporters are also featured of course. 

While some of these cases—such as Orban in Hungary or Erdogan in Turkey— do involve systematic and continued use of the dubious tactics in service of a highly nationalist, illiberal, and intolerant state, many simply do not. Some of Stanley targets are more plausible read as involving tribal animosities (Rwanda), plain old racism (most of the American examples), hostility to immigrants (France, Germany and the US) or libertarianism (Paul Ryan). The only common thread is that they all provide (putative) examples of people doing the sorts of bad things fascists, but not only fascists, have been known to do.

A second fundamental problem with the contemporary focused parts of the book is Stanley’s attempt to force too much into his blurry analytical framework. Two topics in particular seem to pre-occupy Stanley: immigration and America’s obscenely high incarceration rates, particularly among African-Americans. Stanley has a lot of important things to say on these matters, and he ably demonstrates how racism is interwoven with both. The most substantive and valuable parts of the book make the case for the racist underpinnings of a lot of the political rhetoric about immigration and crime in America, both historically and now—Stanley provides a depressing lineup of quotes showing how some Americans and American politicians remain tempted by racist fears of immigrants and minorities to this day. What is not clear is what any of this has to do with fascism, or how invoking fascism is suppose to illuminate things further. Every damning thing Stanley wants to say on these topics can be made plausible without the dubious insinuation that there is fascism as well as racism afoot here.

Lastly, Stanley undermines a great deal of his credibility as a commentator on contemporary politics by being consistently unfair to his political opponents. Were we to believe Stanley, opposing abortion shows support for backwards gender roles, racism underlies all concerns about immigration, worries about leftwing censorship on college campuses are fabrications of rightwing agitators, opposition to gay marriage is born of sexual anxiety, doubts about the efficacy of social welfare programs is code for racist beliefs—name a political controversy and the conservative or libertarian position turns out to be fascist. Oppose unions? Worry about declining birth rates? Have doubts about trans women using women’s bathrooms? Think things might have been better in the past? Prefer the familiarity of small town life to the cosmopolitan big city? Sorry, you’re looking like a fascist. Suffice to say, Stanley leaves no room for “honest”, respectable conservatism at all. 

All these problems plague Stanley’s reading of the Trump presidency most of all. The desire to paint Trump as resorting to fascist rhetoric leads Stanley to focus too much on what these people say, and too little on what the Trump administration actually does. (His immigration policies are an exception, but as argued above, the evil there can be established in more straightforward ways.) Trump’s arrogance, narcism and inability to accept even the mildest criticism leads him to say things that suggest a cult of personality and deep intolerance of opposing views, and he certainly can say things that look like pandering to America’s worse racial instincts. Disgracefully, many of his cynical and sycophantic followers indulge this nonsense. But little of this has had a significant or deep effect on American law, political practice, or culture. Most Americans do not approve of this president, his critics remain free to command large  audiences while savaging and mocking him, and an opposing party remains positioned to oppose authoritarian legislation. Pace Stanley, I do not think the GOP is a “ruling party.” It remains one party in a deeply troubled but still functioning two party liberal democracy that maintains effective checks and balances. There is a lot to say about what is wrong with Trump’s presidency, but that story is better told without the distractions invited by invoking the specter of fascism.