SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Trump will undoubtedly attempt to enhance his authoritarian aspirations by subordinating other branches of power to his will, inspire his base in civil society, and then, in turn, employ it to increase pressure on governmental institutions in his behalf.
And, so, it begins—again! Only this time, with new vigor, improved efficiency, and an all-encompassing agenda. Following his four-year layoff from 2020-24, in which he licked his wounds while still dominating the media, Donald Trump’s second presidency has already witnessed a blizzard of executive orders, pardons for fascists and criminals, promises to roll back the welfare state, overt threats to American democracy, and actions that endanger the well-being of the planet. This flurry of activity reflects the sobering truth that, while enough intelligent people expected him to win the election of 2024, no one believed that he would win like he did.
Trump will undoubtedly attempt to enhance his authoritarian aspirations by subordinating other branches of power to his will, inspire his base in civil society, and then, in turn, employ it to increase pressure on governmental institutions in his behalf. This might produce a transition to fascism, but to claim that fascism has taken over the United States is a drastic oversimplification. This empties the word of meaning. We are not yet living in either an authoritarian dictatorship or a “party-state”—and resistance is still possible. America’s democratic institutions and traditions are stronger than those in Italy following World War I or in the Weimar Republic. Institutional checks and balances still exist, though they are under attack, and nominal respect for our Constitution remains.
Most importantly, the military is still independent and no secret police is acting with impunity outside legal constraints. Were the state “fascist,” I would be under arrest and the venues that publish my writings would already have been shut down. Certain members of the “resistance” sometimes like to exaggerate their courage in the face of authoritarian dangers. That is insulting to those living in real fascist states who put their lives on the line daily.
Trump glories in his cult of personality and undoubtedly sees himself as Hegel’s “world spirit on a white horse.” It is his world as far as he is concerned, and the rest of us are simply allowed to live in it.
“Fascist” tendencies are apparent in civil society, but it remains contested terrain: censorship, conformism, segregation, religious intolerance, and racism are rampant in many more agrarian “red states” where Trump’s base is active. In urban environments, however, myriad progressive forces challenge them and interfere with the new administration’s programs with respect to abortion, immigration, multiculturalism, and other matters. Moreover, independent civic associations still exist, other loyalties compete with what any fascist administration would demand, rights of assembly are still exercised, and debate continues in public forums. However, this is not to deny that civic freedom is imperiled—and , under Trump’s rule, the dangers seemingly grow greater every day.
Is the president a fascist? Yes. Whether he actually knows what that means is an open question, but his presentation of self and explicit political ambitions justify that view. His pathological indifference to truth, unsubstantiated claims, blatant bigotry, thoroughly corrupt inner circle, and celebration of authoritarian politics is telling. He thinks that he knows better on every issue. He rages against “enemies of the people,” threatens retribution against his opponents, and places himself above the law. Trump glories in his cult of personality and undoubtedly sees himself as Hegel’s “world spirit on a white horse.” It is his world as far as he is concerned, and the rest of us are simply allowed to live in it.
If Trump’s desired transition to some form of fascist state is successful it will have been enabled by “pragmatic” conservatives, who once foolishly thought they could act as “adults in the room” and control the upstart. The enablers of Hitler and Mussolini thought the same thing, and wound up in the same position. Soon enough the puppet was controlling the puppeteers. The president’s return to office has been marked by the self-serving use of institutional opportunities, perverse constitutional interpretations, and loopholes in the legal system to succeed in becoming the dictatorial presence he believes that he deserves to be.
Democrats still fail to appreciate the shrewdness of this New York real estate broker who closed the ultimate deal. They forget what Max Weber—among the very greatest of social scientists—knew, namely, that charisma lies in the eye of the beholder. It has nothing to do with intelligence, or kindness, or humanitarian politics. It is instead a seemingly magic connection established between the charismatic personality and those who encounter him. Of course, the magic does not magically appear. Charisma is always the product of a tumultuous context, and it is misleading to personalize what is a sociopolitical phenomenon; indeed, this misperception is precisely what Trump himself wishes to reinforce. Ultimately, the charismatic personality’s power rests on an ability to express the political thoughts and emotions of his community during any given crisis. Keeping the crisis alive thus becomes crucial, and Trump grasps that. Under his rule, no less than any other fascist, there is always a crisis and there is always publicity—whether good or bad is immaterial.
Obsessed with him, no less than ratings, established media enhanced Trump’s charisma and also provided him with billions of dollars in free publicity. In the process, they systematically underplayed former President Joseph Biden’s record. Legitimate criticisms could be made of the bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan, the president’s Gaza policy, inflation, and more. But they came while virtually ignoring Biden’s defense of democratic norms in the face of an attempted coup, his life-saving response to the Covid-19 pandemic, his bold infrastructure initiative, his protection of the welfare state and healthcare, his role in generating jobs and higher employment numbers, his reinvigoration of NATO, his defense of Ukraine, his radical environmental policies, and his heightening of America’s standing in the world. Biden’s gravitas was shaken by his disastrous showing in his debate with Trump. Poor packing helped further undermine his popularity and his presidency to the point where his substitute in the presidential race of 2024, former Vice-President Kamala Harris, couldn’t decide whether to embrace her former boss or distance herself from him.
Did this cost her the election? Perhaps. But it remains unclear what her campaign should have done instead: Poll numbers for Democrats and Republicans remained remarkably stable throughout. Not that it matters now. What does matter is that progressives still have no feasible idea for how to “reach” the most intellectually apathetic, ill-informed, prejudiced, and plain reactionary supporters of Trump who—using the colloquial phrase—“just don’t want to hear it.” The idea that the “message didn’t get out” is ridiculous: Every voter either knew or should have known what was at stake—I think they did know and each made his or her decision.
The Democrats are now faced with a stark choice: Either frighten “independents” and moderates with the haunting specter of fascism or mobilize those alienated voters who had formerly been part of their base. Democrats can’t do both at the same time. They need to make up their minds. Best for them to look in the mirror, formulate a message, stop trying to convert the collaborators, and inspire their former friends to return home.
This will require a radical stylistic change in dealing with the media and the public. With very few exceptions, such as Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” and John Oliver’s “Last Week Tonight,” the liberal establishment has responded to Fox News and the rest of Trump’s quasi-fascist propagandists like nerds trembling before a school-yard bully. CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are shifting their most critical newscasters to off hours or simply letting them go. Their hosts and commentators remain too timid, and high-minded, to deal with the vulgar, racist, and demeaning rhetoric that has traditionally been used by fascist insurgents.
Liberal media cannot again afford to provide the new president with billions in free publicity by focusing on him, and wringing their hands over his follies, while ignoring the need for unifying principles and a class agenda. This didn’t work before and it won’t work now. Trump gained votes among every meaningful demographic, and his old base remained firm. Meanwhile, identity formations in the Democratic Party turned against one another—and the wounds are still fresh. The majority of white women voted against Senator Harris, a woman of color, along with a record number of Black men, and Latinos concerned about abortion, empowerment of trans-people, and immigrants. Even worse, perhaps, too many young people stayed home. Today, the self-styled “resistance” appears lifeless, a bold programmatic alternative is lacking, and there is no resolve to move beyond identity politics, soft welfare reforms, and an ideological strategy that neither offends nor inspires.
The timidity of the president’s critics is self-defeating. The bully is still in the schoolyard, and it’s time for the Democrats to stop being scared of their own shadow.
Of course, circumstances may change. Political parties in power tend to lose votes in midterm elections, and Republicans might suffer the same fate in 2026. However, fascist parties have traditionally suffered setbacks before assuming power and there is already whispering that the midterm elections may not take place. Many are afraid that Trump (who will have served two terms) is preparing for a third term in 2028, when he will be 82 years old. We are not there yet, but much harm to democracy will surely have been done by then.
How much depends on the extent to which institutional checks and balances remain operative. Trump made 245 federal judicial appointments during his previous tenure and three to the Supreme Court. The nation’s highest court now has a conservative majority, and it already provided the president with immunity from virtually all criminal prosecution. Republicans also hold a slim majority of 219-213 in the House of Representatives and control the Senate 53-47. There should be no mistake: These are Trump’s Republicans and they are marching in lockstep. It is hard to believe that either the House, Senate, or Supreme Court will exercise checks and balances in a consistent manner.
Trump plans to “drain the swamp” and hollow out the federal government by firing tens of thousands of employees from numerous regulatory, cultural, and scientific agencies and departments. In concert with his bizarre cabinet and agency appointments to lead cabinet offices and agencies, whose only qualification is unconditional loyalty to him, this can only lead to bureaucratic anarchy. But that too is part of the authoritarian playbook. Feeding rivalries among subordinates and flunkies, like all successful dictators, the ensuing chaos can only strengthen his position. In addition, purges are being planned for the Department of Defense, the State Department, various intelligence agencies, the FBI, and the Department of Justice.
Herein is the basis for any transition to a more authoritarian state. Fascism is based on the “unification” of all political institutions—the Nazis called it “Gleichschaltung”—under the aegis of the (deified) Führer, Duce, or president. In the context of Trump’s pardons for more than 1,500 convicted insurrectionists, mostly white supremacist members of the underclass, it is not difficult to envision a private militia—a militant and violent vanguard loyal to the person of Trump—that can help bring this unification about. However, it remains incomplete without the support of elites and, to gain it, Trump has fashioned an economic agenda that benefits them. Following in the footsteps of other fascist leaders, indeed, he is selling it to his economically disadvantaged base through the use of psychological projection and his opponents supposed betrayal of the national interest.
Insisting that Democrats are catering to “special interests,” which actually comprise the popular majority, Trump has forwarded a tax cut that will disproportionally benefit the 728 billionaires who possess more wealth than half of American households combined. In the same vein, he has also called for privatizing public lands, deregulating energy production, and cutting agencies that test the safety of consumer goods and the standards of food. With regard to his base, in similar fashion, he is intent on protecting the supposedly real victims of racism (white Christian men) from further discrimination by eliminating “diversity, equality, and inclusion” programs that benefit women, the transgendered, and people of color. For good measure, casting himself as the primary victim of legal persecution, in spite of being convicted on 34 felony counts, Trump has pardoned himself and his family along with the disgraced ex-General Mike Flynn, grifters like Steve Bannon, genuine fascists like Enrique Torres of the Proud Boys, and others of this ilk. Unleashing the former insurrections would in a pinch, of course, create the disturbances that only the president can quell, thus again increasing his own power.
Foreign policy deserves its own separate discussion, but the unifying thread is already clear. It is the desire to transform a popular belief that the United States is a nation under siege into a self-fulling prophecy. It begins with sending 1,500 troops to the southern border in order to prevent an immigrant “invasion.” Trump has also provoked a tariff war with China, and another with Canada and Mexico is hanging in the balance. Outrage has already greeted his saber-rattling over Greenland and the Panama Canal, his withdrawal from the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accord, and the closing of the humanitarian aid agency U.S. Agency for International Development.
Infuriating Egypt and Jordan, two allies fearful of Islamic extremists spilling over their borders, Trump has called upon them to take in 2.3 million Gazans in order to clear out Gaza for Israel. What will happen with Russia and Ukraine is anybody’s guess, but a $177 billion aid package has already been reduced to $76 billion. For the moment, suffice it to say, that Trump’s foreign and domestic policy aims should converge in a politics that blends conflict with chaos. Our president surely hopes that this will lead citizens to rally around. him, the self-proclaimed “savior,” who always puts “America First!”
Creating such laundry lists of threats and warnings is not the stuff of great journalistic prose. However, they demonstrate the overwhelming sweep of the Trump project and the early signs, if not of fascism, then of a new order that will surely pervert American democracy. Critics need to bare their ideological teeth, unify competing lobbies, and demand a bold class agenda on par with the “New Deal” of the 1930s and “the Great Society” of the 1960s. The timidity of the president’s critics is self-defeating. The bully is still in the schoolyard, and it’s time for the Democrats to stop being scared of their own shadow. Otherwise the next four years will turn into eight—and then, if some acolyte takes on Trump’s mantle, perhaps more.
"Our polling finds that voters want the government to do more to help them," said Data for Progress' leader, warning that "their view of DOGE and the administration could quickly sour."
Survey results released Thursday show that majorities of U.S. voters think billionaire Elon Musk will use his position in the Trump administration for self-enrichment and fear that the presidential advisory commission he is chairing will target Social Security, food assistance, healthcare programs, and more.
Data for Progress and the Progressive Change Institute conducted a series of surveys about Musk—the world's richest person—and the new Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) in the lead-up to and shortly after Republican President Donald Trump's return to the White House on December 14-15, January 10-11, and January 24-27.
Watchdogs and some lawmakers have sounded the alarm about Musk—whose business affiliations include social media platform X, space exploration company SpaceX, and electric vehicle makerTesla—potentially using his post at DOGE to benefit himself, and the new polling suggests voters share those concerns.
Pollsters found that 51% of voters across the political spectrum agreed that Musk "isn't interested in efficiency, he's only interested in enriching himself," and he will be able to use DOGE to direct resources—including more federal contracts—toward his companies and weaponize the government to undermine competitors.
There were clear divisions among party lines: 74% of Democrats expect self-enrichment from Musk, while just 29% of Republicans have such concerns. Independents and third-party voters were split at 49%. Among all respondents, 14% said they "don't know," and 35% believe that "Musk has shown he has experience saving taxpayers money and helping the government improve."
Trump announced that the billionaire would lead DOGE—which is focused on gutting federal regulations and slashing spending—shortly after his November victory, which was aided by over a quarter-billion dollars from Musk. They initially floated cutting $2 trillion but Musk has since tempered expectations.
The pollsters found that 87% of U.S. voters are somewhat or very concerned about DOGE and the Trump administration targeting Social Security for cuts. Similarly, 84% fear cuts to veterans' healthcare, and 83% worry about cuts to the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, or Medicare.
The polling shows that 79% are worried about reducing food inspections as well as research for cancer, chronic illness, and infectious diseases. Additionally, 78% fear cuts to food assistance for low-income families, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Majorities of voters are concerned about downsizing national defense as well as cutting the federal workforce and funding for national parks, according to the surveys. They are also worried about reducing: federal disaster response and weather monitoring, environmental and toxic waste cleanup, road maintenance, mail delivery, and student loan aid.
The surveyers also questioned voters about messaging on the Musk-led commission. As Data for Progress detailed in a Thursday blog post:
When a case for DOGE is tested against two alternative messages against DOGE, saying DOGE will "steal from you by cutting Social Security, Medicare, and veterans healthcare to give tax breaks to giant corporations and billionaires like Musk" performs better with Independent voters, whose views on DOGE shifted 24 points more unfavorably on net, compared with simply saying DOGE will cut those programs or simply saying DOGE will benefit billionaires...
Additionally, while saying DOGE will cut programs to "give tax breaks to giant corporations and billionaires like Musk" effectively decreases DOGE's favorability, a message that combines "steal from you" and "give tax breaks" has an even greater negative impact on voters' opinion on DOGE, particularly among Independents whose views on DOGE shifted 14 points more unfavorably on net with the combined message.
Another round of tax cuts for the wealthy, similar to the law Trump signed in 2017, is a top legislative priority for Republicans, who now control both chambers of Congress in addition to the White House.
The pollsters also found that 56% of all voters—including 67% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and 45% of Republicans—believe "the government should do more to solve problems and help Americans." Another 19% believe the government is doing "the right amount," while 22% think it is doing "too much" and 7% aren't sure.
Data for Progress executive director Danielle Deiseroth noted in a Thursday statement that the survey results were published amid mass chaos over a now-rescinded Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo about Trump's federal funding freeze, which led to lawsuits and the Tuesday shutdown of Medicaid payment portals nationwide.
"As Trump's chaotic OMB memo showed, his administration is using 'government efficiency' as a way to slash the healthcare and benefits that Americans rely on each day from the federal government," she said. "Our polling finds that voters want the government to do more to help them, and as they learn more about these disruptions led by Trump and Elon Musk, their view of DOGE and the administration could quickly sour."
Over three-quarters in a new survey endorsed the idea that the "future is frightening" and 62.9% agreed that "humanity is doomed."
More than half of young people in the U.S. are "very or extremely worried" about the climate crisis and an even larger percentage are motivated to do something about it, including at the ballot box.
The data came from a poll published on Thursday in The Lancet Planetary Health, which found that concerns about the climate crisis were impacting young people's decisions about their personal and public lives, with 52.3% saying they were "hesitant to have children" and 72.8% planning to vote for candidates who back ambitious climate policies.
"Climate change is causing widespread distress among U.S. youth and affecting their beliefs and plans for the future," the study authors concluded. "These effects may intensify, across the political spectrum, as exposure to climate-related severe weather events increases."
"There was no state sample where the endorsement of climate anxiety came in less than 75%."
The study was based on an online survey conducted between July 20 and November 7 of 2023. In what authors believe to be the largest of its kind to date, the survey considered 15,793 answers from young people aged 16 to 25 in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
The vast majority of respondents, 85%, were at least moderately worried about climate change, while 57.9% were very worried. Nearly two-thirds reported feeling anxious, powerless, afraid, sad, and angry about the climate crisis, while 51.2% felt despair. A smaller but significant number said that climate change was impacting their mental health and that worries about climate change were having a negative impact on their daily lives, at 42.8% and 38.3% respectively. Over three-quarters endorsed the statement, "The future is frightening," and 62.9% agreed that "humanity is doomed."
Many respondents anticipated the crisis to alter the trajectory of their lives, with 69.4% expecting it to impact where they would live, 66% expecting it to menace their health, 63.5% saying it would impact their future plans overall, and 65.5% saying it would outright make their lives worse.
However, many planned to take proactive steps to address climate change. In addition to voting, 68.2% said they would decrease their or their family's contribution to climate change, 67.4% said they would work for more sustainable employers, and 61.4% said they would join or back climate advocacy groups.
The climate crisis also shaped the respondents' thoughts and opinions, with 89.4% blaming corporations and industry for the emergency, 86% blaming the U.S. government, and 85.5% blaming other wealthy nations. Similar percentages put the onus on corporations, the U.S., and other wealthy governments to fix the problem. A full 71.9% of respondents agreed with the statement, "I don't want to participate in a social and economic system that harms the planet."
The survey results were consisted with past polls of young people. An earlier global poll, also published in The Lancet, found that 75% of U.S. respondents were moderately worried about the climate crisis and 46% were very worried. However, one thing that stood out in the most recent survey was how consistent the results were across state and party affiliation.
"One of the most striking findings of the survey was that this was across the political spectrum," lead author Eric Lewandowski, a clinical psychologist and associate professor at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine, toldThe Guardian. "There was no state sample where the endorsement of climate anxiety came in less than 75%."
In past surveys on U.S. climate attitudes, whether someone is a Republican, Democrat, or Independent has had a strong influence on how concerned they are about climate and whether or not they think the government should act on it.
However, the study authors noted, "Compared with these past reports, greater proportions of Republicans in this survey endorsed negative emotions and thoughts about climate change and the response of the U.S. government, and plans to vote for political candidates who support aggressive climate policies."
For example, while 92.6% and 86.5% of Democrats and Independents respectively said they were at least moderately worried about climate change, 73.5% of Republicans also said they were. While 83% of Democrats and 76.1% of Independents wanted the U.S. government to carry out a "plan to prevent the worst impacts of climate change," 69.1% of Republicans also did. And 62.3% of Republicans surveyed said they would vote based on a candidate's climate ambition, compared with 85.5% of Democrats and 74.5% of Independents.
Another factor that influenced respondent's climate feelings was whether or not they had experienced an extreme weather event, and this effect was not impacted by party affiliation.
"Despite baseline differences by political party, as respondents across the political spectrum perceived the impact of a greater array of severe weather events in their area, their distress related to climate change and their desire and plans for action increased," the study authors wrote.
Coming weeks after the devastation of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, the survey indicates that young people's mental health and well-being will consider to suffer as the climate crisis intensifies. This can be offset somewhat by giving these young people a chance to discuss and act on climate in their communities, schools, workplaces, and government. However, as with all climate impacts, the distress of young Americans has one overarching solution: rapidly phasing out fossil fuels to reduce emissions.
"These findings reinforce a theme identified in other research that climate change-related distress will continue to increase while climate change remains insufficiently addressed," the study authors concluded. "Accordingly, the response to address this distress must be for industries, governments, and policymakers to act at the necessary scale."