Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast. This is Sam Harris. Just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you're not currently on our subscriber feed, and we'll only be hearing the first part of this conversation. In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at samherris.org. We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support of our subscribers. So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one. I am here with Jonathan Roush. Thanks for joining me again. Happy to be here. So let's jump right into it. You have recently written yet another important article for the Atlantic where you can often be found. The title of this one is Yes, it's Fascism. So that got my attention. I'm sure it got other people's attention. I think I've resisted using this term because there were obvious historical associations that didn't quite and don't quite map on to our current circumstance under Trump 2.0. But the resistance has seemed more and more pedantic as the months have rolled by and the overreach and indecency of this administration has become more and more obvious and unignorable and odious. Let's just start with your misgivings about it, which you expressed as some degree in the article and yet you've overcome them. How did you decide to finally pull the trigger on this terminology and what are your concerns about doing so? Well, it was painful. I'll tell you that. This is the article I hope never to write. A year ago in the Atlantic, I wrote an article saying that Trump was not a fascist. He's a patrimonialist. That's a style of government that you find not only in states, but in the mafia, criminal organizations, cults, political machines where the state is in effect the personal property and family business of the leader. In that situation, the head of state will go rampage through the bureaucracy, cutting through rules and replacing people with personal loyalists. One thing's get very corrupt and they get very incompetent and that's clearly what we were seeing and that I think uncontroversially applied to Trump. But patrimonialism, it's not ideological. It's not especially aggressive. It's not interested in the use of force or taking over other countries. For example, and it could have just been about Trump and enrichment and I thought initially that's probably where things were headed. Over the course of the last year and specifically over the course of the past few weeks and a couple of months, we saw the emergence of so many properties that are associated with fascism that to me it became perverse to withhold the label. So I finally dropped my resistance sat down, thought of all the things I could think of that are usually associated with fascism. There's no standard definition or bright line in out kind of status. But I had no trouble coming up with 18 of them and that point I threw in the towel and I said, we got a nameless thing. So yeah, I want to walk through those 18 or many of them as you present them in the article. But let's just linger on patrimonialism because it's certainly bad enough. This has taken us to a place. If he were merely a patrimonialist, he's taken us to a place that we don't want to be or at least shouldn't want to be despite the fact that half the country still seems to be cheering. So when you talk about patrimonialism as an approach to governance, in this case, where the state and it's where America, let's not speak so generically, America and her policies or institutions, everything is considered effectively Trump's personal property to be sold off for personal advantage. And we've seen him do that with the tariff policy. He slaps of 46% tariff on Vietnam and how does Vietnam try to get that tariff removed? They green light a $1.5 billion resort deal for the Trump family. There are now scores of examples like this and the Trump family has enriched itself to the tune of at least $12 or $3 billion depending on which account you favor. But there's probably more than that that's happened. I mean, this is all just absolutely despicable and destructive of our standing in the world. And yet this was a stop on the train before we reached fascism. I just wanted to emphasize that whether or not someone agrees that you're naming this correctly, we shouldn't lose sight of all the ground our country has lost and is losing under this president. But yes, it was more than bad enough when it was patrimonialism. We've never seen the US government turned into the personal property of the leader where he dials up a prosecution or he accepts gold bars and then basis his tariffs based on stuff that people give him. And that's the opposite under patrimonialism. The opposite of patrimonialism is not democracy. It's bureaucracy because what they want to do is weaken all the tendons in the bureaucracies that make government competent because you don't want experts, experts are loyal to ideals and professional standards. You want people who are loyal only to you. So you wind up with appointments like, I don't know, think of of your incompetent Trump appointee or think about how they fired all those people who watch over nuclear weapons only to have to hire them back. So you destroy the government's competence with patrimonialism. What you don't do is reorient the direction of the government in a way that's ideological or aggressive or organized. And that I think was, as you say, the next stop on the line. So there's a difference and you acknowledge this difference in your piece between having a leader and his enablers who are fascists or aspiring fascists or fascistic to whatever degree and having the full capture of government and society by a regime that is in fact fascist. And you wouldn't say we have succumbed in that final sense in order to do, I think you think we're likely to succumb. And so this is not going to look like Hitler's Germany even in the worst case scenario. So to be clear, what you seem to think now is that calling Trump and his enablers, and many of whom are far more ideological than he shows any sign of being, calling them fascist is more or less unavoidable at this point. It seems more or less unavoidable. I'd actually like to get your take on whether it's advisable because there is a school of thought that says, look, it does no good to use this word. It's just a generalized slur and it will get people's backup without accomplishing anything. I felt that part of what Trump is so good at, I think you actually mentioned this often on your show. Is throwing up so many distractions and outrages on any given day that our minds can't stay tuned on the big picture of what it is he's doing and that people need these labels. They need these boxes to put things in in order to be able to keep their eye on the bigger picture and the fascism is now the appropriate box. And in fact, maybe the only appropriate box. So that's why I thought this was important. Others may think it's premature, I don't know. So I pulled up a definition of fascism as you point out, this is a term that is pretty loosely defined and you can, it's, it has blurry borders, there's no question. But here's one definition I went to, um, Chachi, BT for this, fascism is an ultra-nationalist, anti-liberal political project organized around a promise of a national rebirth, a cleansing restoration after a story of humiliation and decay. It rejects pluralism as a sham, treats opposition as an enemy rather than as a rival and elevates coercion, often outright violence as morally necessary to purge internal, quote, traders and reassert collective greatness. In his mature form, it becomes a leader-centered mass movement that fuses with the state, corrodes neutral institutions and renders genuine political competition functionally impossible. So all of that resonates with a current moment. I mean, the only piece that has not been achieved, but I don't think it will be for want of trying, is this final line of, you know, renders genuine political competition functionally impossible. Right. So it'll be very important what happens in November around the midterm elections. One could argue that not all of these variables have been fully achieved, but there's certainly been movement directionally across all of these domains. So you put this in slightly different language in your piece. So let's just kind of run through your 18. We might not get all of them. And let me know if you want to skip ahead, Danny, that you're more favorite. But let's just start with the first one, demolition of norms. What do you mean by that? The first thing I should say, if I can have a word of preface, is that there is no bright line settled definition of fascism. Even fascists don't agree on what fascism is. And in different countries, over many years, it's taken different forms. You know, Japan looked very different from Franco, who looked different from Mussolini, who looked different from Hitler. So my method here was to assemble characteristics that most people would agree are, first of all, consonant with fascism and second of all, dissonant with incompatible with liberal pluralism. I think everything on this list fits that bill and everything on this list fits Trump and the direction he's trying to take the country. It does not fit the country as a whole. We'll come back to that. But we don't live in a fascist state. We live in a mixed state, hybrid state, with a liberal constitution and a fascist leader. That gets complicated. Okay. So what are the things we're talking about? About half the items on this list, you know, more or less are things that are new since his first term or things that have gotten so much worse that we have to recontextualize him. Others are old. But now looking back, we can say that they fit into fascism and the demolition of norms is one of these, you know, he starts his campaign in 2016 and 15, I guess, with trolling, with extreme insults, with making comments about a news anchor is apparently her period with insulting John McCain, saying he's not a war hero. This assault after insult and we think this is just because he's some kind of crazy person or he's mentally unbalanced. But this is what you do if you're a fascist and you want to dominate the dialogue because liberals, people like me, people like you who are kind of trained to be civil and tolerant, we can't function in that space. We just become dumbfounded in that space. We don't compete there and fascists know that. That's why something Hitler says in Mein Kampf is it doesn't matter if they laugh at us or ridicule us, all that matters is that they can't stop thinking about us. And that's what they're doing in the context of fascism. Yes, interesting. And recalling Hitler in this context is relevant. It has been the case historically that fascist figures present, certainly before they achieve their aims, they present as comical figures. I mean, they present as clowns. They present as easy targets of ridicule. Right? So the cultural machinery of satire gets working against them. But in these cases where they succeed, the satire proves ineffectual. Right? So if you look back in the late 20s and early, even early 30s in Germany, Hitler was very often portrayed as a buffoon, as somebody who was not going to achieve his aims quite obviously because he was so comical and tall, dre and norm breaking. And that was clearly, as clearly as been our attitude toward Trump all the while. I mean, it's still on some level. It still is because I do think he lacks some of the things that proper demagogues like Hitler had. But the fact that he's so entertaining and so seemingly harmless because he's just a colossal jackass on some basic level. Because as many people, I think many people here in this conversation will feel that we are at every point exaggerating the danger, exaggerating the harms already committed because when you take a look at this guy and what he and the things he says, there's something deeply unserious about him as a person. I mean, this is why we have, you know, his defenders effectively. I mean, the main defense of him for now going on nearly a decade is has been, you know, take him seriously, but not literally him. This is the first time in my lifetime where we've, I've noticed people, serious people, seemingly serious people telling everyone in sight not to care what the president of the United States says he's going to do is though that could make, ever make sense. And yet that's been the attitude. It's like, oh, he didn't mean it. You know, he's not going to take Greenland. Oh, he just, he and his director of national intelligence, tools he gathered just accused the previous president, a president Obama of treason, which is a killing offense in most cases. That's not serious. You don't have to listen to any of that. He's just playing around, right? And so there's something about the lack of seriousness that is the style of a presentation here that is, it's a pattern. It's not just Trump. Well, it's a historical pattern. Your correct Hitler was seen as a buffoon in the 1920s. Mussolini was seen as this kind of strutting pop in J. Actually, even Hitler wound up thinking Mussolini is something of a buffoon, but Mussolini was not a buffoon. In fact, he was a brilliant guy. He was a former journalist. He had been a socialist before he became a fascist, no coincidence there. These are smart people. And they are intentionally and deliberately manipulating the public discourse and dialogue first to hijack people's minds so that you think about them all the time. Second, to move the ground of public discourse to an arena where liberal Democrats, you know, Paul D cannot compete. And third, to show that they're in control of what Canon cannot be said. All the stuff your mom taught you about what you can and can't say, throw it out the window. They're in the driver's seat now. And that's the message you get. So the second point you raised, the glorification of violence. Now this I think has not been pushed nearly as far as most people think it must be pushed to justify any kind of analogy to what they consider fascism. This is one place where I even wonder whether Trump is the sort of person who's capable of this. You think of the night of long knives that's finally secured Hitler's power, right? So this is a night where Hitler having become chancellor decides, all right, the essay has too much power is not totally aligned with the SS and the army. I need to keep the conservatives on board. And so what we're going to do in the next 24 hours is murder, you know, the top 200 people or the hundred to 200 people in this organization who have been, who have been my loyalists all the while. So what people think about here when you, when you mentioned violence is the propensity to actually start rounding up people and killing them, right? So now that's, I must admit that I, you know, a sinister, some of these guys seem to me, people like Stephen Miller and JD Vance, you know, who seem far more ideological and on that level dangerous than Trump himself. It is hard for me to imagine the murders, right? So tell me what you're referencing here and how far your imagination ranges. Well, remember this, this list is not about describing America as being right now in the end state of fascism. It's not, I don't think it will be. In fact, I'm slightly more optimistic on that score than I was a few months ago. I'm instead looking at the characteristics of the rhetoric and the leadership. But one of the hallmarks of liberal democracy, of course, every government has to use violence. But it's important whether they do that reluctantly and as a last resort and whether they will try to de-conflict a situation on, talk it down, minimize the use of violence or whether they're rhetoric and their actions are suggesting, no, this can be a first resort. You can be standing on a street corner and holding up your phone as a peaceful protester in Minneapolis and then hurled to the ground, be swarmed by federal agents and then be shot multiple times. And the government's reaction to that will be that you were some kind of, what did they say about Mr. Freddie? So a terrorist and an insurrectionist bent upon massacre. And when you see that and when you see people being dragged out of cars and when you see the kind of rhetoric that Pete Hegseth has been using, there's an article about that, I think, in the Atlantic. I think just today. And you see memes that are displaying violence in hortatory terms, you know, people repelling from helicopters to assault apartment buildings in the United States when you see sharing on government platforms of a children's comic book character with a machine gun, shooting up boats, killing all the people in them and glorying and that, reveling in that, saying, isn't that great? It's incompatible with the kind of society that our founders were trying to build. Yeah. Yeah. I did a section of a podcast on this already, but I remain astonished that the second amendment devotees in our country, the many millions of them for whom, you know, the right to bear arms is the central plank of their civic religion that they've been so acquiescent and really just so blind to the implications of the pretty killing because what happened in the immediate aftermath of that killing, which we saw from at least three different sides. And you can see he never reached for his gun and his murder was totally gratuitous. It was a pure repudiation of the second amendment and everyone from the president and the vice president on down to cash, Patel and Christie, no, many, everyone who got in front of a microphone in the aftermath of that spoke to the country as though the second amendment doesn't exist, right? I mean, they basically said in so many words and more or less all of them said this that if you're in possession of a firearm anywhere near federal law enforcement, that is very likely a death sentence, you know, don't do that. And that's not what something like, I was a, at least 10 million Americans have been saying is the most important thing in our country for as long as I've been alive. And we've, you know, for as long as I've been alive, we've had millions of Americans over there on the right who have been buying guns, training with guns, cleaning their guns, talking about guns, coveting their neighbor's gun. It's all been about guns and it hasn't been about guns for home defense. It's been about guns because at some point in the future, we could have a tyrannical government that would, will begin to infringe upon our civil liberties, the most important of which is our ability to defend those civil liberties by recourse to the second amendment. And here we had a guy who was practicing his first amendment rights to assemble and speak freely against the behavior of eyes. And he was, he was forced to the ground disarmed and then killed. And then you had the, you know, the director of the FBI among others get on television and speak as though the second amendment doesn't even exist. Where the hell are the conservative gun owners on this? If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at samherris.org. Once you do, you'll get access to all full-length episodes of the Making Sense podcast. The Making Sense podcast is ad-free and relies entirely on listener support. And you can subscribe now at samherris.org.
