“The inherent contradictions of liberalism lead it to shield the very forces that threaten its own values.”
The recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump has reignited a perennial debate: why do liberal institutions and figures often defend fascist politicians, even when these politicians espouse rhetoric and policies antithetical to liberal values? This phenomenon is not only predictable but also inevitable. The defence of Trump by liberals, despite his blatant authoritarianism and vitriolic attacks on the left, underscores the deep-seated contradictions within liberalism itself.
Shielding Fascism to Preserve Stability
Liberalism prides itself on principles like free speech, legal neutrality, and procedural fairness. While these values are ostensibly noble, they often mask underlying power dynamics that favour the dominant class. When figures like Trump are perceived as being under attack, liberalism’s commitment to these principles often morphs into a de facto defence of fascism. By insisting on neutrality, liberals fail to account for the inherently unequal power relations at play, thereby maintaining systemic oppression.
“By insisting on neutrality, liberals fail to account for the inherently unequal power relations at play, thereby maintaining systemic oppression.”
Consider media coverage. Major news outlets, in their quest for impartiality, frequently provide a platform for far-right voices under the guise of balanced reporting. The mainstream media fall over themselves to give fascists and hard-right figures a voice, even as these individuals incessantly decry bias and label any critical coverage as fake news. This practice not only legitimises fascist ideologies, giving them undue visibility, but also marginalises and demonises radical left perspectives. By amplifying these extremist voices, the media reinforces a false equivalence between the far-right and far-left, presenting them as equally valid viewpoints. This skewed representation distorts public perception, normalises dangerous ideologies, and stifles the growth of genuinely progressive movements.
The liberal defence of Trump, especially in light of the assassination attempt, highlights a reactionary reflex rooted in a fear of radical change. Despite their extremism, fascist politicians like Trump represent a defence of existing hierarchies and capitalist interests. Liberalism, in its aversion to revolutionary upheaval, gravitates towards preserving these structures, even at the cost of aligning with those who undermine its foundational ideals.
During crises, such as the attempt on Trump’s life, liberal figures and institutions rush to uphold the established order. Their defence of Trump’s right to free speech and political participation is framed as a defence of democratic principles. However, this overlooks the reality that Trump’s rhetoric and policies actively undermine those same principles by promoting authoritarianism, racism, and xenophobia.
Antonio Gramsci’s concept of ideological hegemony provides a crucial lens through which to understand this phenomenon. Liberalism, as the dominant ideology, shapes the cultural and political landscape, making its defence of fascism appear as a defence of democratic principles. This hegemonic influence ensures that liberal responses are framed within acceptable discourse limits, systematically excluding genuinely revolutionary alternatives.
Liberalism’s Repeated Failures Against Fascism
To fully grasp the inherent contradictions within liberalism, we must examine historical instances where liberalism failed to protect against the rise of fascist elements. This historical context not only strengthens the critique but also provides a more comprehensive understanding of the patterns at play.
In early 20th century Italy, Benito Mussolini capitalised on economic turmoil and social unrest by forming the National Fascist Party. Despite his violent tactics and authoritarian ambitions, Mussolini received significant support from liberal politicians and business leaders who viewed his regime as a bulwark against socialism and communism. The Italian liberal establishment’s fear of radical left movements led them to support Mussolini, hoping he would restore order and protect capitalist interests. This support was instrumental in Mussolini’s rise to power, highlighting the liberal propensity to defend fascist elements when faced with revolutionary change.
A similar pattern emerged in Germany during the Weimar Republic. Amidst economic instability and political fragmentation, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party gained traction by promising to revive the economy and restore national pride. Many German industrialists and conservative politicians saw Hitler as a necessary force to combat the perceived threat of communism. Liberals, prioritising stability over democracy, often downplayed or ignored the violent and anti-democratic nature of the Nazi movement. This tacit support, or at least the lack of strong opposition, facilitated Hitler’s ascent to power. The liberal establishment’s failure to robustly challenge the Nazis enabled one of the most catastrophic regimes in history.
In Chile, the 1973 military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet against the democratically elected socialist president, Salvador Allende, is another poignant example. The United States, a bastion of liberal democratic values, supported the coup due to fears of socialism spreading in Latin America. Pinochet’s regime, characterised by severe human rights abuses and economic policies favouring neoliberal capitalism, received backing from liberal democracies under the guise of protecting regional stability and capitalist interests. This underscores the liberal tendency to prioritise economic and geopolitical stability over democratic principles and human rights.
False Equivalence
Another key aspect is the liberal tendency to draw false equivalences between the far-right and the far-left. This “horseshoe theory” posits that the extremes of the political spectrum ultimately converge, both posing similar threats to democracy. Such a perspective is not only analytically flawed but also politically dangerous. It ignores the fundamental differences in aims and methods between leftist movements, which seek to dismantle oppressive structures, and fascist movements, which seek to reinforce them.
By equating anti-fascist actions with fascist violence, liberalism creates a moral panic that stifles genuine resistance. This approach not only delegitimises left activism but also emboldens fascist groups by portraying them as victims of ideological persecution.
In the case of Trump, this false equivalence manifests in the portrayal of any aggressive opposition to his policies or rhetoric as an attack on democratic norms. Liberal media and politicians often rush to condemn leftist violence or radicalism while soft-pedalling the far more pervasive and systemic violence perpetrated by the right. This creates a narrative where defending Trump becomes synonymous with defending democracy, even as his actions and words erode democratic institutions.
At its core, liberalism is inextricably linked to the preservation of capitalist interests. Fascism, despite its populist rhetoric, fundamentally supports capitalist structures through its emphasis on nationalism, xenophobia, and anti-socialist sentiments. When faced with the potential destabilisation that a genuine leftist movement could bring, liberalism opts to protect its economic foundations by tacitly or overtly supporting fascist elements.
This alignment is evident in corporate support (as we have just witnessed in France) for right-wing politicians who promise deregulation and tax cuts. By safeguarding capitalist interests, liberalism reveals its true priorities, which lie in maintaining economic hierarchies rather than promoting genuine social justice.
Farage: Liberalism’s Dangerous Ally
The political landscape in Britain offers a parallel case with Nigel Farage and Reform UK. Farage, much like Trump, positions himself as an anti-establishment figure while fundamentally upholding the dominant class. His rhetoric and policies are steeped in nationalism and xenophobia, aligning with far-right ideologies. It was no surprise to find Farage going out to bat for Trump and bemoaning the mainstream media rather than the words politicians like him use. This is, after all, a man who suggested he would pick up a rifle if Brexit was not delivered. However, liberal figures and institutions have often afforded him a platform under the guise of free speech and political balance. This defence, much like in the US context, reveals the same liberal contradictions and tendencies to shield fascist elements in times of perceived crisis.
Farage’s prominence in the media and political discourse illustrates how liberalism enables the rise of far-right figures. By treating his views as a legitimate part of the political spectrum, liberals inadvertently normalise xenophobia and nationalism.
Fueling America’s Slow Civil War
Author Jeff Sharlet has warned of a “slow civil war,” taking place in the United States, a gradual and insidious descent into domestic conflict driven by deepening political and social divides. The first shot of this slow civil war arguably echoed through the halls of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, when Ashli Babbitt, a fervent supporter of then-President Donald Trump, was fatally shot by Capitol Police while attempting to breach the Speaker’s Lobby. This tragic event marked a violent turning point, highlighting the extreme polarisation and the lengths to which some individuals are willing to go in their political fervour.
Saturday’s assassination attempt on Trump could serve as a catalyst for escalating this slow civil war. If Trump frames the attack as a divine intervention, portraying himself as being saved from his would-be assassin by a higher power, it could further rally his supporters around a messianic narrative. This would not only embolden his base but also deepen the existing polarisation in American society. Was the bullet fired at Trump the second shot in this slow civil war?
The threat of a slow civil war is exacerbated by the rise of Christian fundamentalism. Trump has already cultivated a strong following among evangelical Christians who view him as a defender of their values. If he invokes divine protection in the wake of the assassination attempt, it could further radicalise this group, leading to increased militancy among his supporters. The narrative of divine intervention would reinforce the belief that Trump is on a sacred mission, making any opposition not just political but also spiritual in nature.
Moreover, the symbolic significance of Babbitt’s death on January 6 cannot be understated. For many in Trump’s base, she has become a martyr, a symbol of resistance against what they perceive as a corrupt and illegitimate political system. This perception fuels a dangerous cycle of radicalisation, where each act of violence or repression against their cause is seen as further justification for their struggle.
In this context, the assassination attempt on Trump could be viewed not just as an isolated incident but as part of a larger narrative of conflict and divine struggle. The invocation of divine protection could mobilise Trump’s supporters, who already feel besieged and betrayed by the political establishment, to take more extreme actions. This escalation could manifest in increased violence, more brazen attempts to undermine democratic institutions, and a deepening divide that threatens the very fabric of American society.
The first shot of the slow civil war was arguably fired on January 6 with the death of Ashli Babbitt. The recent assassination attempt on Trump, if framed as a divine intervention, could serve to further inflame tensions and accelerate the descent into a more pronounced and violent internal conflict. The interplay of political polarisation, religious fervour, and the martyrdom of figures like Babbitt creates a volatile mix that could push America closer to the brink of sustained civil strife.
Neutrality Over Justice
The liberal defence of fascist politicians like Trump, particularly in moments of perceived crisis, is a manifestation of the inherent contradictions within liberalism. By prioritising procedural neutrality and capitalist stability over genuine egalitarianism, liberalism reveals its complicity in sustaining the very forces that threaten its ideals. This defence is not an aberration but a predictable outcome of a system designed to perpetuate inequality and suppress revolutionary change.
“The liberal defence of fascist politicians like Trump, particularly in moments of perceived crisis, is a manifestation of the inherent contradictions within liberalism.”
Understanding this dynamic is crucial for those committed to radical change. It highlights the necessity of transcending liberal frameworks and forging a path towards a truly emancipatory revolutionary politics that confronts and dismantles the structures of oppression, rather than merely managing them.
Authoritarianism (5) Books (4) Capitalism (7) China (4) Class (5) Climate Change (5) Conservative Government (33) Conspiracy Theories (4) COVID-19 (5) Creeping Fascism (10) Crime and Punishment (4) Economics (5) Film (6) Finance (4) France (8) GB News (4) Imperialism (5) Iraq War (4) Israel (5) Keir Starmer (4) Labour Party (8) Marxist Theory (8) Media (4) Messing Around (6) Migrants (9) Palestine (5) Police (5) Protest (12) Russia (6) Social Media (6) Suella Braverman (8) Trade Unionism (5) United States of America (17) War (9) Working Class (4)
Leave a Reply