I think there needs to be precision in categorizing sets of authoritarian political ideas - responses also vary according to the nature of the authoritarian political ideas.

Fascism is ideological in ways Trump isn't - Trump is still a danger in terms of democratic backsliding

An important difference between 20th century fascism and 21st century right-wing authoritarian populism is that fascism was explicitly deadset on exposing democracy as bad - people like Orbàn or Erdogan or Trump are fine with the superficial trappings of democracy.
Mussolini shut down true accusations of voter intimidation through the intimidation of his critics, which led to the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti, who had exposed the fascist intimidation at the polls. Trump spread and encouraged conspiracy theories about voter fraud.
Why does this matter? Because right-wing populist supporters make arguments that THEY are the ones defending not just the abstract "will of the people" (that's common in fascism too) but the procedures of democracy itself. They accuse their rivals of authoritarianism.
People like Mussolini or Hitler made no secret that they thought of democracy as decadent and corrupt, not just morally, but politically, as a system. Trump or Erdogan or Orbàn (or to a lesser extent Putin) claim that it's LIBERALISM which is decadent and corrupt.
This is an important difference because 21st century right-wing populist movements can take over established conservative parties - as it has happened in the US and Hungary - without the needs for their own party. In a two party system that's especially effective.
In a two party system like the US partisan voters will vote for their party no matter what - and they can claim continuity with a previous less populist/less authoritarian incarnation of the party. 21st century right-wing populist movement can very easily become "normalized"
Insisting on calling those movements "fascist" leaves room for equivocation and minimization - since 21st century right-wing populism is less ideological, less explicitly anti-democratic, less explicitly hierarchical, an accusation of fascism will look extreme and overblown.
So there's a continuos motte-and-bailey back-and-forth between "fascist" and "dangerous for the liberal democratic system", which is a waste of time and may alienate some people.
A political movement can lead to democratic backsliding without having organized squads of goons in uniform explicitly sanctioned legally and politically, or without building concentration camps, or without a clear anti-democratic ideology.
In order to reduce the hold of a right-wing authoritarian politics onto a conservative party you need the non-authoritarian parts of the conservative party, and authorities of a conservative leaning to respond to the threat, without equivocations or whataboutism.
Fascism and Nazism in the 1930s created their own parties and attracted support from conservative parties or voters by using the threat of communism and painting themselves as the only serious anti-communists - but they quashed liberal democracy quickly and by force.
It took Hitler less than six months to move from assuming power (30th January 1933) to outlawing any political party other than the Nazi Party (14 July). Mussolini abolished elections little more than two years after he had been put in power WITHOUT winning an election.
By contrast Orbàn still allows elections and opposition parties, after ten years of being in office - even though he has sapped their strength and restrained their room for action by making them largely ineffective.
Trump also didn't abolish the opposition party, and took part in an election. He didn't explicitly denounce democracy as a system, either. He had to resort to alleging voter fraud - to say that his rivals were the secret authoritarian ones.
Even Putin at least formally respects things such a term limits - he's been in a position of power since 1999 but has alternated between the job of president and prime minister to at least FORMALLY acknowledge term limits.
Why is this important? Because while no one had any doubts about what kind of regime fascism was and what were the consequences for dissent, average conservative voters might easily be persuaded that the democratic backsliding isn't happening - that it's overblown partisanship.
Why is this important in the US? Because even right now, after the disaster of the assault on the Capitol, Trump has an extremely high approval rating among Republicans - and he, or someone who behaves like him in terms of rhetoric and methods, might still run even after the loss
So it's important to establish that the democratic backsliding is REAL and DANGEROUS even though there are no concentration camps for dissenters and elections weren't abolished, or parties disbanded - that it doesn't take ideological fascism for a movement to threaten democracy.

More from Politics

Handy guide for Dominic Raab and other Brexiteers, and for anyone keen to replace our EU trade with trade with the rest of the world on WTO terms...


You can't magic away the vast distances involved. Clue: we fly in only 1/192th of our trade compared to the amount that arrives via sea


But even if you invented a teleporter tomorrow, WTO terms are so bad, so stacked against us, that a no-deal Brexit will be a total economic disaster


And while the Brexiteers fantasise, real jobs are being lost, investments are drying up, companies are moving assets to the EU27 or redomiciling. All already happened and happening right now, not in some mythical


Of course, there are many, many myths that Brexiteers perpetuate that are total fiction. You've seen a couple of them already. The thread below busts a whole lot
"3 million people are estimated not to have official photo ID, with ethnic minorities more at risk". They will "have to contact their council to confirm their ID if they want to vote"

This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD


There is no evidence in-person voter fraud is a problem, and it wd be near-impossible to organise on an effective scale. Campaign finance violations, digital disinformation & manipulation of postal voting are bigger issues, but these are crimes of the powerful, not the powerless.

In a democracy, anything that makes it harder to vote - in particular, anything that disadvantages one group of voters - should face an extremely high bar. Compulsory voter ID takes a hammer to 3 million legitimate voters (disproportionately poor & BAME) to crack an imaginary nut

If the government is concerned about the purity of elections, it should reflect on its own conduct. In 2019 it circulated doctored news footage of an opponent, disguised its twitter feed as a fake fact-checking site, and ran adverts so dishonest that even Facebook took them down.

Britain's electoral law largely predates the internet. There is little serious regulation of online campaigning or the cash that pays for it. That allows unscrupulous campaigners to ignore much of the legal framework erected since the C19th to guard against electoral misconduct.

You May Also Like

1/ Some initial thoughts on personal moats:

Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.

Characteristics of a personal moat below:


2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.

As Andrew Chen noted:


3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized

Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than


4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.

After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.

5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.

In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.