I consider Corey Robin one of the most brilliant political philosophical minds of our time. His book on reactionary/conservative thinking over the past 250 years is must reading, and, from reviews I have read, he understands Clarence Thomas better than most commentators. However, this article in The New Yorker is blandly conventional in blaming constitutional paralysis as the most significant element for our nation's challenges, and too sanguine about the facts regarding Trump's reign and its consequences.
I agree with Corey Robin to the extent he appears to be saying the Senate is the injury beyond the insult of the Electoral College. I disagree with his big example of Republican and institutional pushback against Trump when he compares what happened with Trump's NDAA veto and previous presidents who vetoed the NDAA. Robin misses the factual differences between previous presidential vetoes and Trump's. Carter wanted a particular nuclear carrier spending plan removed, and got it removed after his veto. Reagan wanted more power to control negotiations with the Russians, and got it. Clinton wanted to avoid a violation of the ABM Treaty over a proposed missile defense of one of the US protectorates. Bush II's and Obama's vetoes were similarly policy based. Trump's stated reason for his veto was his carping about the symbolic gesture of renaming military bases named after slaveholders and clear racists--and in the context of Mitch McConnell and other Republicans worried about Trump's desperateness following his re-election loss. Context therefore matters far more in this instance than Robin's essay assumes.
To read Robin's article, one would think Trump made very little difference in policy making. However, when we look at what Trump's administration "accomplished," despite the paralyzing "checks and balances," we must start with Trump's various executive actions--where Congress' structural paralysis allows for that type of executive focused governance. On immigration, student debt collection, and environmental de-regulation, Trump did a lot of damage to our nation and our planet. And Trump worked effectively with Republicans in Congress to stack the courts, which is a significant structural oriented change.
As for defining Fascism in the context of Trump, we should look at Jason Stanley's (Yale political philosopher prof who wrote "How Fascism Works" in 2018) definition of fascism. Stanley defines fascism, saying, "One of the hallmarks of Fascism is the ‘politics of hierarchy’—a belief in a biologically determined superiority—whereby Fascists strive to recreate a ‘mythic’ and ‘glorious’ past…(while) excluding those they believe to be inferior because of their ethnicity, religion, and/or race.”
I believe it is factually indisputable that Stanley's definition applies to how 40% of Americans and 50% of the senate think--and why we should be concerned that the Republicans have a strong chance to win back the White House in 2024 through the Electoral College. Our nation has had what the late sociologist, Bertram Gross, called "Friendly Fascism," for much of the post 1960s period in US history. In this context, it is useful to quote Mussolini, who gave a working definition of fascism in the early 1930s: “It is in the corporation that the Fascist State finds its ultimate expression…According to the Fascist conception, the corporation is the organ which makes collaboration systematic and harmonic…”. One can say Mussolini's definition of "corporation" does not quite cover our modern conception of corporations. However, the tendency of corporate executives in the US to side with authoritarians, whether here or in China, is unmistakable--and again not one that provides me with any sense of security.
Finally, Fascism's ugly side continues to grow in our nation, but less because of what Robin sees as our governmental and corporate leaders being paralyzed. He seems to back into an assumption that Biden and the corporate Democrats want to stop fascism, but are somehow powerless to do so. For anyone believing that, let's consider Buenaventura Durruti, a Spanish anti-Fascist, who said in 1936: "No government fights fascism to destroy it. When the bourgeoisie sees that power is slipping out of its hands, it brings up fascism to hold onto their privileges." When we consider Durruti's advice, we who favor progressive policies should be outraged at how the outgoing Democratic leadership in Nevada behaved when the progressive slate prevailed last weekend. We now know how Democratic power brokers admitted to the two authors of the new book on the Biden campaign, "Lucky," how they really thought they could decide to let Trump win in 2020 rather than let Bernie win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
I find myself less and less sanguine about the prospects of the American experiment, partly for what Robin sees as constitutional paralysis, but as much if not more the propaganda the majority of our nation's people have ingested since the start of the Cold War. For that, I find Jodi Dean's books of the past decade a more reliable guide to what ails us.
