CONFRONTING FASCISM

It did not take long. Soon after the new Trump administration moved in and began its implementation of significant components of the "Project 2025" blueprint, the accusations of "Fascist" and "Fascism" surfaced everywhere. Governmental institutions that had survived for generations suddenly ended up on the endangered species list. Civil servants, whose lifetime employment had been considered permanent, were suddenly asked to resign or face termination. Many faced replacement by functionaries whose dominant "expertise" included their willingness to pledge loyalty to the new president. With a stroke of the pen, all references to D.E.I. (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) were erased. Related programs and their administrators were eliminated. Everything considered negative, including the January 29 mid-air collision over the Potomac, were blamed on its programs. Thousands of immigrants, mostly undocumented, even some legally in the country, now feared internment and deportation. Members of the administration's authoritarian core began haphazardly deciding who belonged to the in-group and whose careers should be eliminated. And the administration's apparent master plan continued to unfold day after day. Fascism is essentially an ideological catch-all term which refers to a broad set of aspirations and influences that emerged during the early 20th century. It became identified by the European dictators Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Francisco Franco. The movement included elements of nationalism, enforcement of social hierarchy, hatred toward social minority groups, opposition to liberalism, a cult of personality, racism and the love of militaristic symbols. An ABC News poll, conducted in October 2024, found that 49% of American registered voters considered President Trump to be a Fascist. This could simply be a gut-level response. However, multiple academics have contributed to the attempt to fit President Trump into their definition of the ideology. Yale historian Timothy Snyder, whose fairly recent manuscript "On Tyranny" received significant traction, in his article: "What does it mean that Donald Trump is a Fascist?" (The New Yorker, Nov. 8, 2024), defined the concept as "a political extremist who seeks to act as a dictator, disregards individual rights, and threatens to use force against political opponents." Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale, in his book: "How Fascism Works - the politics of us and them," elaborates on this definition. He talks about the "cult of a leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed communists, Marxists, minorities and immigrants who are presumably a threat to the character and the history of a nation." The leader proposes that only he can solve it, and he considers all of his political opponents enemies or traitors. As the expression goes: "If the shoe fits..." Historian Ian Kershaw wrote that "trying to define "Fascism" is like trying to nail jelly to the wall." However, the allegations of Fascism don't just emerge from the president's political opponents. Trump's former Chief of Staff, retired Marine General John Kelly maintains that Trump "fits the definition of Fascist." Former United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, after the president suggested that Milley "should just shoot the protestors. Just shoot them in the legs or something," called Trump "Fascist to the core." Political Scientist Robert Paxton, who specializes in the study of Fascism, previously denied that Trump should be labeled a Fascist. However, he changed his views after the January 6 attack. Paxton saw the attack on the Capitol as similar to Mussolini's 1922 march on Rome. Just as Mussolini pardoned the black-shirts who helped him ascend to power, Trump pardoned his supporters convicted of taking part in the attempted insurrection. Princeton philosopher Jan Werner Muller is still not convinced that "Trumpism" is a species of Fascism. He prefers to call it far-right populism. However, he concedes that " it would be foolish to start reflecting on Fascism only when it is fully fledged." Regrettably, aside from some of the attributes identified in the opening paragraph, the list of qualifications is rapidly expanding: - The Department of Education is scheduled to be eliminated; - The Federal government has been instructed to insure that the K-12 education curriculum across the country is converted from "radical indoctrination" to "patriotic education."; - The administration has withdrawn from the USAID - the Agency for International Development. The 10,000 staff of experts has been reduced to a skeleton contingent of 300. - Mr. Trump plans to terminate multiple individuals from the Board of the Kennedy Center and install himself as its chair, with the intent to change its vision to that of a "golden age of arts and culture. - The president made a point of his intention to use the Insurrection Act of 1807, and deploy the military in Democratic cities and states against perceived opponents. (Between 2022 and October 2024 he has made more than 100 threats to investigate, prosecute, imprison or otherwise punish his perceived opponents.). - He made a point of supporting the activities of Elon Musk, his unelected "special government employee" who managed to exhibit his Fascist inclinations by twice enthusiastically offering a stiff-armed Nazi salute during the inauguration ceremonies, and by telling a crowd of 4,500 Neo-Nazi "Alternative For Germany" attendees of Germany's second largest political party - during Holocaust Remembrance Day, and during the 80 year anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, to not be ashamed of what happened during the execution of the Nazi's "final solution" during World War 2. So, is President Trump really a Fascist? Probably! But the more important question is whether the electorate cares, and whether enlightened patriots will continue to let him get away with it. Theo Wierdsma

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDER ATTACK

Throughout his campaign, President Trump maintained that he never read and had nothing to do with "Project 2025," the handbook for a new conservative government, published by the Heritage Foundation as "The Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise." He adamantly insisted: "I haven't read it. I don't want to read it purposely. I'm not going to read it." Nevertheless, after getting elected, he appears to have changed his mind. A CNN analysis concluded that of the 53 executive orders and actions from his first week in office, more than two-thirds - thirty-six - evoked proposals outlined in Project 2025's 922 page detailed blueprint for the next Republican president. Few are more controversial than Mr. Trump's objective to eliminate Birthright Citizenship. In his executive order titled: "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" the president stipulates that beginning 30 days from the date of his order - January 21 - children born in the United States will no longer automatically acquire citizenship. The president declared: "It is ridiculous." He mistakenly claimed that: "We are the only country in the world that does this with the birthright as you know, and it is absolutely ridiculous." In reality, more than 30 countries across the world offer citizenship as a birthright, although some have attached some conditions. Mr. Trump's obsession with birthright citizenship was not unexpected. He targeted the issue as well during his first term in office. Almost immediately upon his announcement, 22 states sued to stop the order from taking effect. Judge John C. Coughenour, a senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary restraining order, blocking the the executive order from taking effect. He summarized his decision by stating: "I've been on the bench for four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." Legal minds agree that the termination of birthright citizenship constitutes a clear constitutional violation and is the most legally precarious of all executive orders the president has issued thus far. The 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified by the states on July 9, 1868, clearly states that: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The validity of the Amendment was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of "United States v. Kim Ark" in 1898. This case established that "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applies to everyone who is not a diplomat or a soldier in an invading army. The 14th Amendment was designed to protect the civil liberties of people who recently had been freed from slavery. The "birthright clause" was based on a principle in English law in the early 17th century by a ruling that anyone born in a place subject to the King of England was a "natural-born" subject of England. Birthright citizenship has nothing to do with one's parents. Congress could decide tomorrow to stop granting citizenship to those born to an American parent abroad, but it does not regulate citizenship of those born on U.S. soil. The 14th Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship - birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the form of law. Citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Taking away birthright citizenship from children born on U.S. soil would not be simple. Doing so would only be possible through the passage of a new constitutional amendment, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the states. Alternatively, the U.S. Supreme Court could adopt a more restrictive interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This would require the Court to radically deviate from the well-established precedent that cements the fact that children born in the country are lawful citizens regardless of their parents' immigration status. Gerald Neuman - professor of International, Foreign and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School joins virtually all legal scholars in the country by bluntly stating: "The president of the United States has no authority to change citizenship rules at all." President Trump's Executive Orders may comply with guidelines outlined in the blueprint published by Project 2025. However, they must be based on existing statutory powers granted to him by the Constitution to be legally enforceable. Theo Wierdsma