Anatomy of Fascism

I checked out the classic study of fascism, Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton. The book is hard to read since it comes off as required reading for an upper-level political science course. It has a helpful summary at the end.

Samantha Powers provided a good book review. She provides his definition:

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

Fascism arises in various ways, including as a result of a broken political system. Republicans are no longer the conservative party, resulting in one party trying to do too much. Trumpism fits the “fascism” label in various respects.

Paxton argues that authoritarianism and dictatorships are not the same as fascism, which is more of a populist movement with a concern Borg-like of bringing in all other institutions. I see some of that here too. Not completely but some signs.

I will let others “deep dive” into the question, but Trumpism is fascist adjacent. 

==

I also checked out The Interbellum Constitution: Union, Commerce, and Slavery in the Age of Federalisms by Alison LaCroix. 

The book argues that 1815-61 was its own constitutional era in the area of federalism. The book has a lot of material but is a mix of too much and too little. The book was too long and still left me wanting. It was something to skim. 

For instance, there are multiple personal stories and intriguing details. I enjoyed this bit from John Quincy Adams, talking about fellow Cabinet member William Wirt, then the Attorney General:

He said that doctrine was too bold for him: he was too much of a Virginian for that. I told him that Virginian Constitutional scruples were accommodating things, whenever the exercise of a power did not happen to suit them, they would allow of nothing but powers expressly written; but when it did, they had no aversion to implied powers.

How apt for many people today. Also, a lot of interesting tidbits are dropped in. For instance, the Steerage Act of 1819 is an early regulation of immigration. OTOH, the discussion of what federal power was involved (commerce? implied by Art. I, sec. 9?) is handed in passing. 

The law is part of a wider discussion but the lack of details shows up in more significant ways. An important case as Cooley v. Board of Wardens is merely noted in passing. We do not get a full summary of even the cases given a wider discussion.  

The book also sometimes has a curious tone, which perhaps is a matter of taste. I can clearly understand why many people felt this book was a worthwhile work of scholarship. There is still a lot to say about constitutional developments pre-20th Century. 

I did not care for the book's style. I know the author will be upset. More seriously, it is unfortunate, since the subject matter is definitely interesting.