Words spoken with a snarl – ‘fascism’, ‘progressivism’

Benito Mussolini and Theodore Roosevelt (images public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

Tomorrow is election day in America, the culmination of one of the most intense years in democratic politics in the world. We’ll look forward in future posts. Today, however, I’d like to pause and think about the vocabulary of insults that mark politics – in America, yes, but elsewhere too.

Fascism

These days, those on the left of politics often toss this word, thoughtlessly, into political discussions. Let’s recall that this neologism of 1920s fell into political discourse like a hand grenade thrown deliberately, proudly, by a band of insurgents wanting the wrest power from the Italian elites. In the 2020s, its use has often been reckless, signifying merely an insult, not a social movement. There is a movement afoot, but one that hasn’t coalesced, not intellectually, except in a few dark corners of political debate.

But then, on October 22, came news that John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine Corps general and Donald Trump’s longest-serving White House Chief of Staff, tossed the “fascist” grenade into the final weeks of the campaign. He did so purposefully, with deliberation. Kelly told the New York Times that Trump fits “into the general definition of fascist”, which Kelly then went on to define:

“Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” he said.

Kelly is a conservative and a Republican. He has an MA in national security affairs and an MS in strategic studies, both earned when he was in this 40s, long after serving in combat in Vietnam. His was not a thoughtless intervention. Fascism may be a term that is used sloppily, but sloppiness can also mask deliberate deceit. And, according to historian Roberto Vivarelli (1991, p. 29), fascism itself uses language “not as an instrument of persuasion but as a means of deception”. But probably not in Kelly’s case.

Progressivism

If the left snarls at the right by thoughtlessly tossing its “fascism” grenade, the right snarls back with epithets like “Communist”, “Marxist” and even the one the left itself favours: “Progressive”. Trump often denigrates Kamala Harris as one of these beasts.

In its political sense, “progressivism” too was a neologism of the early 20^th century. It became a political force strong enough to have an era in American politics named after it, and a much-loved if problematic president as its figurehead. Teddy Roosevelt, in 1901, became the youngest person to become US president and served two four-year terms – as a Republican. But he then became a Progressive, founding a party of that name after he fell out with his fellow Republicans, who were increasingly concerned with preserving the wealth and power created during the Gilded Age of industrialisation, and abandoning the more egalitarian ethos of the original “party of Lincoln”. The Republicans cursed Roosevelt when his third-party campaign to return to the White House in 1912 spilt the vote and let Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats seize power. But those were not the sort of Democrats we know today. Democrats then were the party of Southern conservatives, of Jim Crow laws, of Plessy v. Ferguson and “separate but equal”. A thoughtful academic, Wilson had received early backing from the newly formed National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), founded by the pioneering black scholar W. E. B. Du Bois. But well regarded for the internationalism that marked his presidency, Wilson’s legacy now is marred by having backed the southern states’ reinforcement of racial segregation.

But aren’t there two – quite distinct – understandings of the term “progressive”?

• Progress is the structure of history. That view developed in the 18^th century, as Enlightenment thinking sought to explain history without reference to any inscrutable divinity. Things can only get better. In the long run, that is. Human understanding grows through reason.

• Progress is not inevitable, but it is worth hoping for. Hope may motivate us, but we’re used to disappointment. Being progressive is an aspiration, a hope for agency, for the ability to influence events.

The early 18^th century philosopher Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel saw history as progressive:

Historical change, seen abstractly, has long been understood as involving a progress toward the better, the more perfect (Hegel, 1837/1953, p. 68).

But he too identified the need for individuals to shape that progress. Change in nature is cyclical, but not among humans. What he called the “Spirit” (Geist) of human beings suggests a “desire toward perfectibility” (p. 68). Action allows the potential for progress to come into existence.

In contemporary usage – as a snarl – “progressive” has become a term of abuse, associated with progressive taxation (“soak the rich”), and with “woke-ness”. It applies, in a snarl, to that oxymoron of society, the “unthinking of academia” – occupiers of ivory towers who have probably never had to work for a living.

---

In the early 20th century, political debate took place against a backdrop of thoughtful political theorising. In the early 21^st century, can’t we develop – don’t we deserve - a more thought-filled discourse in politics? Shouldn’t we set the snarls aside, and think? Political discourse – in America and elsewhere – shouldn’t be an exemple of …

Hegel, G. W. F. (1837/1953). Reason in History: Lectures on the Philosophy of History (R. S. Hartman, Trans. R. S. Hartman Ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Library of Liberal Arts.

Vivarelli, R. (1991). Interpretations of the Origins of Fascism. The Journal of Modern History, 63(1), 29-43.