What makes someone a Fascist? Is it the things they say? The actions they take? Or the assessment of their colleagues and opponents? In an interview with the New York Times, Donald Trump’s former Chief of Staff, General John Kelly told the newspaper the 45th President fitted the description of a fascist. Kamala Harris also denounced Trump as a ‘fascist’ who wants ‘unchecked power’. Kelly highlighted how Trump wished for ‘the kind of generals Hitler had’ and wanted a more compliant military hierarchy.
Harris has raised further concerns about the lack of checks and balances on a potential second Trump presidency: “people like John Kelly would not be there to be the guardrails against his propensities and his actions. Those who once tried to stop him from pursuing his worst impulses would no longer be there and no longer be there to rein him in.” Whereas Trump himself has riled against the comparison and said he was the ‘opposite’ of Adolf Hitler in response to Kelly’s stinging critique.
Should we be comparing Trump to Hitler and fearing the consequences of an unchecked second term? Let’s take a step back from the recent headlines and look at the ways in which Trump has previously used comparative rhetoric as a method of political communication, both to draw parallels between himself and another international leader to embellish his reputation, and aggressively to give more force to his toxic arguments.
When he faced ninety-one criminal charges in 2023, Trump insisted he was not afraid of prison and likened himself to a famous inmate: ‘I don’t mind being Nelson Mandela, because I’m doing it for a reason.’ He could not have picked an icon further from Fascism. The comparison with the dignified Nobel Peace Prize-winning South African was absurd: one was imprisoned for leading the fight against apartheid, the other faced criminal indictments and civil trials spanning allegations he inflated his wealth, misclassified hush money payments to women, tried to overturn the 2020 election loss, and hoarded classified documents. The former was imprisoned for upholding his beliefs, fighting racism, and leading a movement for justice, the latter was trying to save his reputation and avoid a custodial sentence.
Yet by bringing his personal legal challenges and Mandela's struggle together, Trump used a comparison to structure his political statement and give it more strength than if he had merely said, ‘I don’t mind going to prison, because I’m doing it for a reason.’ By drawing a moral equivalence and placing himself alongside the anti-racist Black leader he disorientates the audience, who may wonder if Trump has a point about the wider political context of the charges being brought against him.
As well as using comparison as a defensive mechanism, Trump has been aggressive in his provocative use of metaphors. Most caustically he zeros in on the issue of migration and compares undocumented immigrants to an infection that is ‘poisoning the blood of our country’. More broadly he compares his political opponents to ‘vermin’: ‘We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country,’ he proclaimed to a crowd in New Hampshire. Note here how fascists are positioned alongside Trump’s other enemies signalling that this right-wing ultra nationalist badge is not a label he would ever assign himself.
Trump's dangerous metaphorical language is invidious and the ‘othering’ of groups such as political opponents, including the whole spectrum of left-wing politics, is a sign of his own authoritarianism. Through his public discourse he is cooking up an existential threat. He wants the voters to feel uncertain and fearful, that the temperature is rising and only a political strongman can 'douse the flames'. Trumpian language is widely critiqued but is not easily dismissed. It is the job of a free press, academia and a wider engaged civil society to continually castigate such abuses of language, not just because they are deplorable turns of phrase, but because they can have real-world consequences and be a harbinger of totalitarianism.
Trump’s dehumanising language clearly echoes Fascist speech, despite his nonsensical comparison with Mandela and his flipping of fascism as a label to criticise his own opponents. Kelly and Harris have done the right thing in calling out his nascent fascism. Both could have done so earlier in the electoral process, but so should have many cautious political commentators and other passive world leaders. Words matter. What is happening in America is terrifying for many that fear a rise in fascism, but this is not a unique phenomenon. Across Europe populist leaders including Marine Le Pen in France and André Ventura in Portugal have made similar comments, and their inflammatory language offers a model for the Reform UK party. It takes guts to stand up to the toxicity of fascist worldviews.
If Trump wins on the 5th November, and his actions follow his words, will Keir Starmer be brave enough to also call this man a Fascist? Will he ever compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler?