In recent years, the controversy over the fascist analogy has also been heated. In a flood of books and essays, scholars have endlessly debated whether we are facing a revival of the violent ideology of Mussolini and Hitler or witnessing a profoundly different beast for which a new terminology is needed. And while the radical right has flourished across continents and countries, this theoretical dispute has raged most intensely in the United States. From its imposition of xenophobic travel restrictions in 2017 to its incitement to violence against Congress in 2021, the Trump administration has made this issue a permanent topic of interest.
With the Trump years behind us, the debate over fascism is losing some of its urgency. Perhaps this means that he can now offer new insights into contemporary political thought. Instead of arguing about the contemporary use of the term "fascism," we why it was so important to do so. What was at stake in the search for the correct definition? After all, there were no major political differences among many of those participating in this debate. All condemned the racism, sexism and plutocracy of the right while wishing for bold egalitarian policies.
They even echoed each other in their arguments for drawing historical comparisons to fascism: to expose the evils that have long plagued liberal democracy, especially in the United States. The biggest difference between the two positions was not so much their view of the issues of the time, but the way they approached the controversy and its value both for intellectual exploration and for political mobilization. The clash of definitions was also a disagreement about the role of language and history in shaping political agendas.