Skip to main content
The Perception Machine


This report was prepared by Google's Gemini AI in response to a prompt composed by Jeff Diver and first published on Quora.com as an answer to a question: What role do media and rhetoric play in shaping perceptions of Fascism in America Today? 

For the interactive version of the report, see: INTERACTIVE REPORT 

Here's how Gemini organized its response:

June 5 at 2:53 PM
Gemini Apps

Here's my plan to tackle that topic. Let me know if you need to make changes.

(1) Research how the term 'fascism' is currently defined and understood within contemporary American political and social discourse.
(2) Analyze how mainstream media outlets (print, broadcast, online) portray or discuss movements, figures, or ideologies labeled as 'fascist' or 'fascistic' in America.
(3) Investigate the narratives and discussions surrounding fascism on social media platforms and within alternative media ecosystems in the United States.
(4) Identify and document the specific rhetorical strategies, language, and framing employed by various public figures and commentators when discussing fascism or related concepts in America.
(5) Examine how historical comparisons to past fascist regimes are utilized in current American media and rhetoric, and their impact on public perception.
(6) Research public opinion polls and studies that measure American understanding and perceptions of fascism, noting any correlations with media consumption or political affiliation.
(7) Explore academic and expert analyses on the interplay between media, rhetoric, and the evolving perception of fascism in the United States.
(8) Identify and analyze counter-narratives or critiques that challenge or redefine the prevailing perceptions and uses of the term 'fascism' in American discourse.

The Perception Machine:

The Interplay of Media and Rhetoric in Shaping Perceptions of Fascism in America Today

Executive Summary

This report examines the intricate and often contentious role of media and rhetoric in shaping contemporary American perceptions of fascism. It establishes a foundational understanding of fascism, drawing on academic definitions and historical contexts, to illuminate the complexities of its application in modern political discourse. The analysis reveals that while the term "fascism" is widely used, its contested nature and frequent misapplication can diminish its analytical precision, potentially hindering public understanding of genuine authoritarian threats.

The report highlights historical parallels between the conditions that fostered fascism in 20th-century Europe—such as economic disparity and widespread distrust in government—and current societal vulnerabilities in the United States. It explores how the enduring narrative of American exceptionalism, despite historical evidence of authoritarian tendencies within the nation, creates a cognitive barrier to recognizing emerging fascistic elements.

A detailed examination of media's role demonstrates its multifaceted influence. Mainstream media, through its coverage volume and sentiment, both reflects and shapes public discourse, yet its structural practices, including a tendency towards false equivalency and a reluctance to apply strong labels, can inadvertently normalize concerning political behaviors. The digital landscape, encompassing social and alternative media, further complicates this dynamic by amplifying far-right rhetoric, weaponizing humor and memes, and leveraging algorithms that can create echo chambers and control information flow.

Rhetorical strategies are identified as potent tools in this process, employing tropes that bypass rational deliberation and foster an "us vs. them" framework, often leading to dehumanization. The cultivation of a cult of personality, amplified by digital platforms, creates a direct, emotional bond between leaders and followers, eroding traditional democratic accountability. The strategic, often cynical, labeling of opponents as "fascist" by various political factions contributes to semantic exhaustion, further polarizing public discourse and hindering collective action against actual authoritarianism.

Public perception data reveals a significant paradox: while most Americans express unfavorable views of fascism in the abstract, a notable portion of the electorate supports figures widely described as exhibiting fascistic traits. This suggests a perceptual gap, where the concrete manifestations of fascism, often repackaged by rhetoric or presented as solutions to societal problems, are tolerated or embraced.

In conclusion, the interplay of media normalization, the strategic deployment of rhetoric that exploits societal anxieties, and existing public vulnerabilities creates a self-reinforcing dynamic that can accelerate democratic decay. Addressing the threat of fascism in America necessitates systemic interventions, including promoting media literacy, reforming digital platforms, strengthening independent journalism, and confronting historical amnesia, to foster a more informed citizenry and bolster democratic resilience.

1. Introduction: Conceptualizing Fascism in the American Discourse

The term "fascism" has become increasingly prevalent in American political dialogue, often invoked to describe contemporary movements and figures. However, its widespread use frequently obscures its precise meaning, leading to confusion and contentious debate. To understand its role in shaping public perceptions, it is essential to first establish a clear conceptual foundation and acknowledge the inherent complexities in its modern application.

1.1. Defining Fascism: Core Characteristics and Historical Context

Fascism is fundamentally an ultranationalist, authoritarian political philosophy that subordinates individual interests to those of the nation.[1] It is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and the forcible suppression of opposition.[1] Key elements include extreme nationalism, often manifesting as racial or ethnic supremacy, and the cultivation of a cult of personality around the leader, frequently perpetuated through mass media and propaganda.[2] Fascist regimes advocate for the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies, viewing violence—including political violence and war—as a means to national rejuvenation.[2] They typically aim for a totalitarian one-party state and national economic self-sufficiency, or autarky.[2]

Historically, fascism rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, notably in Italy under Benito Mussolini and Germany under Adolf Hitler.[2] These movements capitalized on profound societal disillusionment, economic despair, and widespread political instability in the aftermath of World War I.[4] For instance, Germany experienced hyperinflation and international embarrassment following the Treaty of Versailles, while Italy faced mass strikes and high unemployment.[4] These conditions eroded public confidence in existing political establishments, clearing a path for leaders who promised to restore national honor and stability.[4]

The historical emergence of fascism from conditions of disillusionment, economic crisis, and distrust in existing political establishments highlights that fascism is not merely an ideology but a response to systemic failures and societal anxieties. This suggests that contemporary discussions of fascism in America are often rooted in similar underlying conditions, rather than simply a re-emergence of past ideologies. The vulnerability to authoritarian or fascistic appeals is thus a function of these underlying societal stressors, not just the overt adoption of a political ideology. Media and rhetoric, therefore, play a crucial role in framing these anxieties and channeling public dissatisfaction towards or away from movements labeled as fascistic. This implies that the current debate about fascism in America is not just about political labels, but about the symptoms of deeper societal fragilities.

1.2. The Contested Nature of the "Fascism" Label Today

Despite its specific historical and academic definitions, the term "fascism" is frequently used in contemporary American political discourse with considerable ambiguity and inconsistency.[6] It has become a widely employed pejorative or "buzzword" across the political spectrum, used to denounce disliked leaders, policies, or even entire political parties.[6] This often involves a "checklist" approach, where certain traits are identified as fascistic, leading to ongoing disagreement about whether a particular movement or figure truly fits the definition.[7] Scholars acknowledge that while contemporary movements may exhibit "fascistic tendencies," direct historical comparisons are often imperfect, necessitating a nuanced understanding rather than a rigid equivalency.[13]

The widespread, yet often imprecise, application of the "fascism" label creates a semantic battlefield where the term loses its analytical precision, potentially hindering effective public understanding and response to genuine authoritarian threats. This phenomenon, sometimes described as a "crying wolf" effect 15, can desensitize the public to the term's gravity. When the label is applied indiscriminately to a wide range of political opponents or policies, its power as a warning signal diminishes. This means that when truly dangerous, fascistic elements emerge, the public may be less inclined to recognize or react to them due to a desensitization to the label. This creates a vulnerability in democratic defense mechanisms, as the critical language needed to identify and warn against such threats is blunted. Media, by participating in or failing to critically examine this overuse, inadvertently contributes to this desensitization, impacting the public's ability to discern genuine threats from political hyperbole.

2. Historical Echoes: Authoritarianism and Fascistic Tendencies in U.S. History

The discussion of fascism in America today often occurs without a full appreciation of the nation's own historical vulnerabilities to authoritarian impulses. Understanding these historical echoes is crucial for comprehending how contemporary media and rhetoric shape perceptions of fascism.

2.1. Precursors and Parallels: Economic Disparity and Distrust in Government

The historical rise of fascism in Europe was deeply intertwined with profound economic instability and a pervasive distrust in existing governmental systems.[4] Post-World War I Italy and Germany, for instance, grappled with economic collapse, hyperinflation, and rampant unemployment, which fueled widespread dissatisfaction and discredited democratic institutions.[4] These conditions created a fertile ground for radical movements and charismatic "outsider" leaders who promised to restore order and prosperity.[4]

In the United States today, striking parallels exist. The American economy has not been "exceptional for the average American citizen," with opportunity becoming increasingly out of reach for many.[6] Data indicates a significant wealth gap, with the U.S. having the highest income inequality among G7 nations.[6] Economic disruptions, such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, have exacerbated poverty while billionaires continue to amass wealth.[6] This growing wealth divide makes average Americans more likely to sympathize with radical movements that offer alternatives to a perceived failing system.6 Concurrently, there is a rising distrust of government, exemplified by the election of Donald Trump in 2016 on an "outsider" platform.[6] A 2019 Pew Research Center poll revealed that 75% of Americans believe trust in government is shrinking, indicating a widespread loss of faith in neoliberal governance.[6]

The persistent presence of economic inequality and institutional distrust creates a structural vulnerability within American society that makes it susceptible to authoritarian appeals, regardless of specific ideological labels. This means that the appeal of fascistic rhetoric is not solely about the content of the message, but about its resonance with pre-existing societal frustrations. When people lose faith in traditional institutions and feel economically disenfranchised, they become more receptive to narratives that offer radical alternatives, strong leadership, and scapegoats.[5] Media, by focusing on economic anxieties or amplifying distrust, can inadvertently prepare the ground for such appeals, even if they do not explicitly endorse fascism. This points to a reciprocal relationship where societal conditions influence the effectiveness of rhetoric, and rhetoric in turn shapes public perception of these conditions.

2.2. The "American Exceptionalism" Debate and its Impact on Perception

For much of its history, the United States has cultivated a narrative of "American exceptionalism," perceiving itself as antithetical to fascism due to its role in defeating Axis powers in World War II.[22] This "Good War" narrative positioned America as the safeguard of liberal ideals against fascist tyranny.[23] This deeply ingrained belief has often led journalists, pundits, and academics to dismiss comparisons of contemporary U.S. political phenomena to fascism as mere hyperbole.[23] Such dismissals often stem from a lack of familiarity with the nation's own historical authoritarian impulses.[24]

However, a growing body of scholarship challenges this notion, arguing that authoritarian demagoguery and fascistic leanings have a long, unsettling presence in American history.[22] Examples range from the activities of interwar right-wing groups like the Silver Shirts and the Ku Klux Klan to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and the historical suppression of Black labor and civil rights through mechanisms like the Black Codes.[22] These historical instances demonstrate that the "authoritarian impulse" has repeatedly driven policy and gained public support at various turning points.[25] The argument is that "Trumpism isn't new, but rooted in our refusal to come to terms with this historical reality".[25]

The persistent belief in "American exceptionalism," despite historical evidence of authoritarian tendencies, creates a cognitive dissonance that makes it difficult for the public and media to recognize and effectively respond to contemporary fascistic threats. This historical amnesia, perpetuated in part by a "suppression and rewriting of history" [24], allows for a normalization of the intolerable [15] by framing current events as aberrations rather than continuations of deeper patterns. This cognitive dissonance arises because the deeply ingrained narrative of America as a beacon of democracy clashes with the reality of historical and contemporary authoritarian impulses. This makes it challenging for the public to reconcile the idealized image of the nation with the presence of fascistic elements. Media, when adhering to this exceptionalist framework [20], can unwittingly contribute to the normalization of these elements by treating them as "aberrations" rather than systemic issues. This creates a delayed and inadequate societal response, as the public is not "equipped to fend off the rise of a fascist leader" [24] if they believe it "can't happen here." The rhetoric of "this isn't America" [27] thus becomes a form of denial that allows fascistic tendencies to deepen.

3. Media's Multifaceted Role in Shaping Perceptions

Media, in its various forms, plays a pivotal role in shaping how fascism is understood and perceived in contemporary America. This influence spans from the framing of discussions in traditional outlets to the amplification of narratives on digital platforms.

3.1. Mainstream Media's Framing of Fascism

The term "fascism" has become a prominent subject in American mainstream media, reflecting intense scrutiny and evolving public discourse.[28] An analysis of 17,000 articles over two months identified 787 headlines with "Fascism" and 1,682 with "Fascist," generating a potential reach of 763.4 billion impressions across online news, podcasts, and platforms like Reddit.[28] The sentiment surrounding "fascism" is predominantly negative, reflecting societal resistance to extremist ideologies, particularly when the term "fascist" is used in critiques or in reference to presidential candidates.[28] However, some publications maintain a neutral, analytical stance.[28]

Discussions are driven by influential voices, including journalists and media personalities from leading publications like The Washington Post and Politico, as well as politicians (e.g., Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris) and tech CEOs (e.g., Elon Musk).[28] A significant debate centers on the media's role in normalizing figures like Donald Trump.[20] Critics argue that mainstream media, by adhering to a "false partisan equivalency" and treating fundamentally abnormal political dynamics as "normal elections," fails to adequately confront the threat of fascism.[20] This reluctance to apply strong labels and a perceived fear of government repercussions contribute to this normalization.[20]

The media's approach is often critiqued for a "cognitive dissonance" and an inability to adapt to a fundamentally changed political landscape.[20] Instead of addressing the overarching threat of fascism (the "forest"), media outlets are accused of focusing on smaller, tactical issues (the "trees").[20] This leads to a perceived "cowardice" in directly labeling and confronting fascistic threats, thereby allowing them to be normalized within the political discourse.[20]

The predominantly negative sentiment towards "fascism" in mainstream media paradoxically coexists with accusations of its normalization of fascistic elements. This indicates a critical disconnect: while media outlets may condemn the ideology in principle, their structural practices (e.g., false equivalency, focus on sensationalism, fear of retaliation) and business models can inadvertently grant legitimacy or amplify the reach of figures exhibiting fascistic tendencies, thereby shaping public perception in complex and often contradictory ways.[13] The contradiction arises from the media's operational logic and institutional constraints. While individual journalists or editorials may express negative sentiment, the broader media ecosystem, driven by the need for clicks, engagement, and maintaining access [13], often prioritizes "both sides" narratives or sensationalism over a rigorous, consistent labeling of anti-democratic behavior.[20] This "false equivalency" [20] means that even negative coverage can inadvertently legitimize a figure by placing them within the "normal" political spectrum. Furthermore, the fear of being labeled partisan or facing government harassment [20] can lead to self-censorship, preventing the media from using the strong language necessary to fully convey the threat. This creates a perceptual gap where the public receives mixed signals, making it harder to form a clear and unified understanding of what constitutes a fascistic threat.

3.2. The Digital Frontier: Social and Alternative Media

The digital landscape, encompassing social media platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) and alternative media (alt-tech) sites, plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions of fascism, particularly through the amplification of far-right rhetoric and disinformation.[30] These platforms are extensively utilized by far-right movements to spread misinformation and promote tacit acceptance of fascist ideology.[30] Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, often reward the spread of misinformation, hate, and outrage, creating insular echo chambers.[29] This "epidemic of misinformation" spreads rapidly, reaching millions before traditional fact-checking mechanisms can effectively intervene, and can even create an "implied truth effect" where unlabeled false content is perceived as more trustworthy.[29]

A particularly effective strategy employed by the far-right is the weaponization of humor and meme culture.[19] This approach allows for the breaking of taboos, the normalization of extreme narratives, and a gradual shift in societal norms.[31] Tactics like "edgelording" involve making provocative or offensive statements under the guise of humor, providing a shield against criticism by allowing defenders to claim it was "just a joke".[31] This makes it challenging for mainstream society to respond effectively without appearing overly sensitive or humorless.[31] This is not accidental but part of a broader "metapolitical" strategy, aiming to shape cultural discourse and redefine what is socially acceptable before achieving political power.[31]

The strategic weaponization of humor and meme culture by the far-right on digital platforms represents a sophisticated metapolitical strategy that bypasses traditional gatekeepers and shifts the "Overton Window" of acceptable discourse. This allows the normalization of extreme ideas not through explicit endorsement, but through repeated exposure, ironic detachment, and the creation of a shared, transgressive cultural identity, making it significantly harder for democratic institutions and mainstream media to effectively counter the insidious spread of fascistic narratives.

The metapolitical strategy of using humor and memes is not just about spreading information; it is about shaping culture before politics.[31] By cloaking hatred in satire, it desensitizes audiences to the underlying bigotry, making it seem less threatening or even "cute".[19] This gradual shift in the "Overton Window" means that ideas once considered fringe become mainstream, not through reasoned debate, but through cultural osmosis and repeated exposure. This creates a perceptual trap: people engage with the humor without fully endorsing the ideology, but the repeated exposure normalizes the content. This makes it challenging for mainstream media and democratic institutions to effectively counter, as direct condemnation can be dismissed as "humorless" or "overly sensitive".[31] The participatory nature of digital media [19] further amplifies this, turning passive consumers into active disseminators, thereby accelerating the mainstreaming of radical ideas and eroding the collective capacity for critical discernment.

Social media platforms are further implicated through their business models, which are accused of being "architects of a system addicted to our data".[29] These platforms profit from feeding people's fear and keeping them engaged, monetizing interactions through targeted advertising.[29] Efforts to combat misinformation, such as fact-checking, are often deemed insufficient, serving more as a distraction than a solution, as disinformation spreads far more rapidly than corrections.[29] The ultimate aim, from this perspective, is to control how Americans perceive reality by influencing digital spaces and shielding administrations from criticism.[9]

Table 2: Media Coverage Trends of "Fascism" in the U.S. (September 1 - October 30[28])

4. Rhetoric as a Tool: Language and Persuasion in Fascism Discourse

Rhetoric serves as a powerful instrument in shaping perceptions of fascism, employing specific linguistic and persuasive strategies that resonate with audiences and often bypass rational engagement. These strategies draw on historical precedents and are amplified by contemporary media environments.

4.1. Key Rhetorical Tropes and Their Historical Lineage

Fascistic rhetoric frequently employs "ordinary devices" that acquire unique persuasive power in specific historical contexts.[32] Common tropes include "Remaking Shit," which involves labeling opposition or existing systems as vile and corrupt, only to then promise to transform that very material into something glorious.[32] Other recurring themes include "carnage," "betrayal" (particularly targeting elites and intellectuals), "manly consciousness," and "specious nomenclature," which uses exclusionary language to define who is a "real American".[32] The historical "blood and soil" rhetoric from Nazi Germany, which ties national identity to ancestry and territory, also finds contemporary echoes in the United States.[32]

The reliance on emotionally charged, often vague rhetorical tropes like "Remaking Shit" or "specious nomenclature" serves to bypass rational deliberation and appeal directly to deep-seated resentments and desires for a "mythic past".[15] This rhetorical strategy is particularly effective in an era of declining trust in institutions and expertise [9], as it creates an alternative truth based on feeling and loyalty to the leader, rather than factual accuracy.[32] The effectiveness of these tropes lies in their ability to tap into existing anxieties and distrust.[6] By attacking "intellectuals and universities" 9, and promoting "anti-intellectualism" [15], fascistic rhetoric creates a vacuum where "power and group identity" become the sole basis for judgment.[15] This leads to a destabilization of shared reality, where "truth is felt, it is authentic, it is sincere. Whether or not it's also factual is beside the (fascist) point".[32] This "post-truth" environment [33] is a pre-condition for fascism, as it makes the public more susceptible to authoritarian narratives and less capable of critical discernment, thereby eroding the foundations of informed democratic participation.

4.2. The "Us vs. Them" Framework and Dehumanization

A cornerstone of fascistic rhetoric is the deliberate creation of an "us vs. them" framework.2 This strategy defines a virtuous in-group, often labeled "real Americans," in opposition to demonized out-groups, which can include immigrants, leftists, intellectuals, and various racial, ethnic, or sexual minorities.[2] This framework is frequently accompanied by dehumanizing language, where opponents are referred to as "vermin," "animals," or "monsters," and accused of "poisoning the blood of our country".[16] The purpose of such rhetoric is to channel deep-seated resentments and provide a justification for violence, exclusion, or punitive actions against perceived enemies.[5]

The pervasive use of "us vs. them" rhetoric and dehumanization is not merely inflammatory language; it is a strategic precursor to political violence and repression. By portraying out-groups as existential threats or "vermin" [16], this rhetoric systematically erodes empathy and legitimizes punitive action against perceived enemies, making previously "intolerable" acts (like internment camps or calls for execution) seem acceptable or even necessary for national purity.[15] The dehumanization of out-groups is a critical step in preparing the public for violence and state-sanctioned repression. When a group is stripped of its humanity through rhetoric, it becomes easier to justify their persecution, internment, or even elimination.[16] This rhetorical groundwork normalizes the intolerable [15] by shifting moral boundaries, making actions that would otherwise be condemned appear as legitimate "law and order" solutions.[5] The media's role in amplifying or failing to adequately challenge such rhetoric [20] directly impacts whether these dehumanizing narratives gain traction and influence public perception of what constitutes acceptable political behavior, thereby contributing to a descent into illiberalism.

4.3. Cult of Personality: Construction and Media Amplification

A hallmark of fascist regimes is the deliberate cultivation of a cult of personality around their leaders, portraying them as exceptional figures to be loved and admired.[4] This image is often meticulously crafted and disseminated through mass media and propaganda.[4] Such a cult involves a blend of paternalistic posturing, hypermasculine bluster, and expansive nationalism.[19] In the digital era, this dynamic is amplified by curated imagery and social media's participatory culture, transforming political leadership into an "affective spectacle".[19] Figures like Donald Trump have effectively fostered such a cult, leading a significant portion of their followers to trust the leader's statements more than traditional institutions, friends, or even family members.[9]

The cultivation of a "cult of personality" in the digital age, amplified by social media's participatory culture [1] and algorithms that reward engagement [29], creates a direct, emotional bond between leader and follower that bypasses traditional democratic accountability mechanisms. This personalized loyalty, often exceeding trust in institutions or even personal relationships [9], makes followers highly resistant to factual counter-narratives or criticism, creating an "unreality" [15] where the leader's authority becomes the sole arbiter of truth. The digital amplification of a cult of personality transforms political loyalty into a near-"religious concept" [9], where "no amount of scandal or immorality can shake the followers".9 This creates a closed information loop where the leader's pronouncements are accepted as truth, regardless of factual basis.[9] This erosion of shared factual reality is a direct threat to democracy, as informed public debate becomes impossible when large segments of the population derive their "truth" solely from a charismatic leader. The media, by constantly covering the leader's persona and rallies, even critically, inadvertently contributes to this spectacle, reinforcing the leader's centrality in public consciousness.

4.4. Strategic Labeling: Accusations and Counter-Accusations of "Fascism"

The term "fascism" is strategically deployed in U.S. political discourse not only to describe perceived threats but also to delegitimize opponents and shape public understanding.[10]While the political left frequently labels figures and movements on the right (e.g., Donald Trump, the Republican party) as fascist or fascistic [7], the far-right ironically engages in counter-accusations, portraying the liberal left as authoritarian or fascist.[12] This rhetorical tactic often involves reversing reality and sowing doubt, contributing to what has been described as a "mass unravelling of meaning" where language loses its precision and words become meaningless.[35

The reciprocal and often cynical application of the "fascism" label by opposing political factions creates a rhetorical stalemate that paradoxically benefits those exhibiting genuine fascistic tendencies. By accusing the opposition of fascism, the term becomes a generic insult rather than a precise analytical tool, contributing to its devaluation.6 This "reversal of reality" [35] further polarizes public discourse and makes it difficult for citizens to distinguish genuine threats from partisan attacks, thereby eroding the capacity for collective action against actual authoritarianism. This strategic labeling leads to a semantic exhaustion of the term "fascism." When everyone is a "fascist," no one is, and the term loses its power as a warning signal. This rhetorical tactic is a form of disinformation that aims to "sow confusion and fear" [35] and encourages followers to "doubt everything they read and watch" [35], except for the leader's narrative. This epistemological crisis undermines the very possibility of reasoned public debate and consensus-building, which are vital for a functioning democracy. The media, by reporting on these accusations without sufficient critical context or by amplifying the "mass unravelling of meaning" [35], inadvertently contributes to this erosion of shared truth and the public's ability to accurately perceive political threats.

5. Public Perception: Understanding American Attitudes Towards Fascism

Understanding how the American public perceives fascism is critical for assessing the impact of media and rhetoric. Survey data reveals complex and sometimes contradictory attitudes, highlighting vulnerabilities to authoritarian appeals.

5.1. Survey Data on Public Views and Trust in Institutions

Public opinion polls indicate a notable segment of American registered voters consider certain political figures to be fascist. For instance, an October 2024 ABC News/Ipsos poll found that 49% of registered voters considered Donald Trump to be a fascist, defined as "a political extremist who seeks to act as a dictator, disregards individual rights and threatens or uses force against their opponents".[16] Despite this, overall public sentiment towards fascism remains largely negative, with 80% or more of Americans expressing unfavorable feelings about fascism, communism, and dictatorship.[36]

A deeper examination of partisan views reveals a nuanced picture. Among those who support Donald Trump, a higher percentage (28%) would choose fascism over communism (16%), compared to Kamala Harris supporters, where only 11% would choose fascism, while 43% would choose communism.[36] This suggests that while fascism is broadly disliked in the abstract, its concrete manifestations, often disguised by rhetoric or framed as solutions to perceived problems, are tolerated or even embraced by a segment of the population.

Trust in traditional institutions is notably low, particularly among Republicans. A Gallup poll indicated that only 12% of Republicans trust the media, and 53% lack confidence in higher education.[9] Conversely, a striking 71% of Trump voters report that what he says is true, a level of trust higher than that accorded to their friends, family, or religious leaders.9 This indicates that a significant portion of Americans trust virtually no institutions or peers, but place immense trust in a single individual.[9]

The apparent contradiction between a general societal aversion to fascism (80% unfavorable36) and the willingness of a significant portion of the electorate to support figures labeled as fascistic (49% consider Trump fascist[16]; 28% of Trump supporters pick fascism over communism[36]) suggests a perceptual gap or a prioritization of other concerns over democratic principles. This indicates that for many, the abstract concept of fascism is abhorrent, but its concrete manifestations, often disguised by rhetoric or framed as solutions to perceived problems (e.g., economic instability, immigration), are tolerated or even embraced. This perceptual gap is a critical vulnerability. It suggests that the public's understanding of fascism may be superficial or heavily influenced by partisan framing. For some, the label "fascist" might be dismissed as mere partisan attack.[9] For others, the perceived benefits offered by a leader (e.g., "America First" policies, economic promises, strong leadership in times of distrust 6) might outweigh concerns about authoritarian tendencies. This indicates that media and rhetoric have been effective in repackaging or normalizing elements of fascism, making them palatable by associating them with desirable outcomes or by framing them as necessary responses to societal decline.[15] This creates a situation where people might vote for what they perceive as "solutions" without fully recognizing or acknowledging the fascistic implications, leading to a "hollowing out of our Republic".[25]

5.2. Factors Influencing Susceptibility to Authoritarian Appeals

Several factors contribute to the susceptibility of the American public to authoritarian appeals. High levels of distrust in government and traditional institutions, combined with economic anxieties, create a fertile ground for radical movements and figures.6 When average Americans feel that the current system is not working for them, they become more inclined to sympathize with radical alternatives.[6]

Furthermore, the perceived "moral superiority complex" attributed to the political left, and the "constant condescension" from opposing parties, can alienate individuals who primarily desire a better standard of living.[9] This alienation can push them towards political extremes that offer a sense of belonging and validation.[9] The suppression and rewriting of American history, coupled with the enduring myth of American exceptionalism, leaves the nation "ill equipped to fend off the rise of a fascist leader".[24] This historical amnesia prevents a critical self-assessment of the nation's own authoritarian impulses, making it harder to recognize their contemporary manifestations.[23]

The "moral superiority complex" attributed to the Left [9] and the perceived condescension from opposing parties [9] can act as a catalyst for radicalization, pushing individuals who feel unheard or disrespected towards movements that offer a sense of belonging, vindication, and a strong leader.[9] This highlights that public perception of fascism is not solely about ideological alignment but also about emotional and social alienation, which media and rhetoric can exploit by framing political discourse as an "us vs. them" cultural war rather than a debate over policy. This emotional alienation creates a fertile ground for populist authoritarianism. When people feel dismissed or shamed by mainstream discourse, they become receptive to leaders who validate their grievances, even if those leaders employ fascistic rhetoric.[9] The rhetoric of "Calling Out" [32] can be turned to support fascist attitudes by channeling resentments against scapegoats in the name of national purity, reinforcing a sense of unity and moral vindication.[32] Media, by amplifying this "culture war" framing and focusing on emotional appeals rather than substantive policy debates, inadvertently reinforces the polarization that makes individuals more susceptible to radicalization and less inclined to engage in reasoned democratic discourse. This indicates that public perception of fascism is deeply intertwined with affective politics and the perceived social standing of different groups.

5.3. The Challenge of Identifying and Responding to "Fascistic Creep"

The inherent ambiguity of the term "fascism" and the tendency to dismiss its application as hyperbole pose significant challenges to identifying and responding to "fascistic creep" in American politics.[7] ]The normalization of undemocratic actions by both media and political establishments further complicates this identification.[20] The pervasive, deeply ingrained belief that "it can't happen here" [20] prevents a critical confrontation with emerging threats, fostering a dangerous complacency.

The difficulty in identifying "fascistic creep" stems not only from the contested definition of fascism [7] but also from the gradual, often subtle, nature of its infiltration into democratic systems.[37] This "normalization of the intolerable" [15] means that small, incremental erosions of democratic norms are accepted, making it harder to recognize the cumulative shift towards authoritarianism. This slow-burn effect, coupled with a media landscape that may prioritize sensationalism or partisan framing over consistent vigilance [20], creates a societal blind spot that allows fascistic tendencies to consolidate power without triggering widespread alarm until it is too late. "Fascistic creep" [16] operates through a process of incremental normalization of previously unacceptable behaviors and rhetoric.[15] It is not a sudden coup, but a "soft fascism" [8] that aims to "stamp out dissent and seize control of every major aspect of a country's political and social life, without needing to resort to 'hard' measures like banning elections".[8] Media's failure to consistently label and condemn these incremental steps [20] means that each new transgression is treated as a separate event, rather than part of a larger pattern. This fragmented perception prevents the public from connecting the dots and recognizing the cumulative erosion of democratic norms. The media's adherence to "normal" political reporting [20] inadvertently legitimizes the process of democratic decay by treating it as business as usual, thereby hindering the public's ability to perceive the true nature of the threat.

6. Conclusion: Implications for Democratic Resilience and Future Discourse

6.1. Synthesizing the Interplay of Media, Rhetoric, and Perception

The examination of media and rhetoric's role in shaping perceptions of fascism in America today reveals a complex and precarious landscape for democratic resilience. Fascism, while academically defined by specific characteristics, is applied in contemporary discourse with significant ambiguity, often serving as a political pejorative that diminishes its analytical power. The enduring narrative of American exceptionalism, despite historical authoritarian tendencies within the U.S., creates a cognitive barrier, making it difficult for the public and media to recognize emerging fascistic elements.

Mainstream media, despite often expressing negative sentiment towards fascism, inadvertently contributes to its normalization through practices like false equivalency and a reluctance to apply strong labels to anti-democratic actions. The digital sphere, particularly social and alternative media, amplifies this challenge by enabling the rapid spread of disinformation and the strategic weaponization of humor and memes, which subtly shift societal norms and bypass critical engagement. Rhetoric, through the deployment of emotionally charged tropes, "us vs. them" narratives, and dehumanization, actively erodes empathy and legitimizes punitive actions against perceived enemies. The cultivation of a cult of personality, amplified by digital platforms, fosters a profound, often uncritical, loyalty to a leader, undermining traditional democratic accountability and shared factual reality. Finally, the strategic, reciprocal labeling of opponents as "fascist" by various political factions leads to semantic exhaustion, further polarizing discourse and hindering collective action against genuine threats.

The cumulative effect of the media's normalization, the strategic deployment of rhetoric that exploits societal anxieties and distrust, and the public's perceptual vulnerabilities creates a self-reinforcing dynamic that can accelerate democratic decay or "fascistic creep".16 This implies that addressing the threat of fascism in America requires not just countering specific ideologies, but fundamentally reforming the information ecosystem and fostering critical media literacy to break this cycle of manipulation and desensitization. This dangerous dynamic means that societal anxieties (economic, social 6) increase distrust in institutions.6 This distrust makes the public more susceptible to populist, anti-establishment rhetoric 6 that employs dehumanization and "us vs. them" narratives.16 This rhetoric, amplified by social media algorithms that prioritize outrage 29 and normalized by mainstream media's "false equivalency" 20, further erodes shared reality and strengthens the cult of personality around a leader.9 As the leader's authority becomes the sole source of truth, public perception becomes increasingly insulated from critical information, making it harder to identify "fascistic creep".16 This continuous cycle weakens democratic institutions from within 37 and reduces the collective capacity for resistance, highlighting the urgent need for systemic interventions beyond merely labeling the threat.

6.2. Recommendations for Fostering Informed Public Understanding

To bolster democratic resilience and foster a more informed public understanding of fascism in America, a multi-pronged approach is necessary:

  • Promoting Media Literacy and Critical Thinking: Educational initiatives are essential to equip citizens with the skills to critically evaluate information sources, recognize rhetorical manipulation—especially the subtle forms embedded in humor and memes—and discern factual accuracy from propaganda.29 This involves understanding how algorithms shape information consumption and how to identify echo chambers.
  • Reforming Digital Platforms: There is a pressing need to hold social media companies accountable for their algorithmic amplification of misinformation and hate speech. This requires moving beyond superficial fact-checking mechanisms, which are often insufficient, towards systemic changes in business models that currently reward outrage and division.29
  • Strengthening Independent Journalism: Supporting and protecting the integrity of independent journalism is paramount. Media outlets must be encouraged to resist pressures for normalization and to clearly label anti-democratic actions and rhetoric without fear of retaliation, even when such actions originate from powerful political figures.20 This involves fostering an environment where courageous reporting is valued and protected.
  • Reclaiming the "Fascism" Label: Academic and public discourse should strive for greater precision and nuance in the use of the term "fascism," distinguishing it from general authoritarianism or mere political disagreement. Restoring its analytical power as a specific warning signal is crucial to ensure that genuine threats are recognized and taken seriously, rather than dismissed as hyperbole.6
  • Confronting Historical Amnesia: A more honest and comprehensive reckoning with America's own history of authoritarian impulses, white supremacy, and anti-democratic actions is vital. Challenging the myth of "American exceptionalism" can help the public recognize that fascistic tendencies are not foreign aberrations but have roots within the nation's own past, enabling a more vigilant response to present dangers.23
  • Addressing Root Causes: Long-term democratic resilience requires addressing the underlying societal issues that create fertile ground for authoritarian appeals. This includes tackling economic inequality, fostering trust in democratic institutions, and mitigating the social and emotional alienation that can push individuals towards radical movements.6

Effective countermeasures against fascistic tendencies must move beyond simply "calling out" the threat 32 and instead focus on systemic interventions that address both the supply of manipulative rhetoric and the demand for it. This implies a multi-pronged approach that not only educates the public to be more discerning consumers of information but also pressures media platforms to reform their practices and encourages political actors to engage in more responsible discourse, thereby fostering a more robust and resilient democratic public sphere. This holistic approach recognizes that public perception is shaped by a complex interplay of factors, and true democratic resilience requires a concerted effort to strengthen all components of the informational and political landscape.

Works cited

  1. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, accessed June 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#:~:text=Fascism%20prioritizes%20the%20nation%20over,self%2Dsufficiency%2C%20and%20totalitarianism.
  2. Fascism - Wikipedia, accessed June 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
  3. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, accessed June 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#:~:text=Merriam%2DWebster%20Dictionary%20defines%20fascism,that%20is%20characterized%20by%20severe
  4. What Is Fascism? | CFR Education, accessed June 5, 2025, https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/what-fascism
  5. The 14 Characteristics of Fascism - AWS, accessed June 5, 2025, https://osbcontent.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/PC-00466.pdf
  6. Why Does Fascism Rise? Looking at the Relevance of Fascism in ..., accessed June 5, 2025, https://yipinstitute.org/article/why-does-fascism-rise-looking-at-the-relevance-of-fascism-in-america-today
  7. Understanding the Conceptions of “Fascism” in Our Contemporary Political Climate | Inquiry Journal - University of New Hampshire, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.unh.edu/inquiryjournal/blog/2025/04/understanding-conceptions-fascism-our-contemporary-political-climate
  8. FASCISM Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
  9. Welcome to America, fascism - The Johns Hopkins News-Letter, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2025/02/welcome-to-america-fascism
  10. Fascism Comes to America: A Century of Obsession in Politics and Culture | Penn Arts & Sciences Department of History, accessed June 5, 2025, https://live-sas-www-history.pantheon.sas.upenn.edu/node/14919
  11. cmv: The use of "fascism" as a warning about a political figure about to gain power or potentially gain power is self defeating and ineffective, fascism is impossible to define and as Ian Kershaw said "like nailing jelly to a wall". We should use terms like "white supremacist" instead always. : r/ - Reddit, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1htc9t3/cmv_the_use_of_fascism_as_a_warning_about_a/
  12. Fascism—an “Ism” of the Left, not the Right - Hoover Institution, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.hoover.org/research/fascism-ism-left-not-right
  13. The Neo-Fascist Discourse and its Normalisation Through Mediation - LSE Research Online, accessed June 5, 2025, https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103791/1/Neo_Fascist_Discourse_FINAL.pdf
  14. Full article: Trumpism, fascism and neoliberalism - Taylor & Francis Online: Peer-reviewed Journals, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1600910X.2025.2481159?af=R
  15. How Fascism Works - Wikipedia, accessed June 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Fascism_Works
  16. Donald Trump and fascism - Wikipedia, accessed June 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_fascism
  17. Fascism in the United States - Wikipedia, accessed June 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_the_United_States
  18. Sliding into Quasi-Fascism? - Verfassungsblog, accessed June 5, 2025, https://verfassungsblog.de/sliding-into-quasi-fascism/
  19. Trump's military parade: A 'big big celebration' or an authoritarian ritual? - Yahoo News Canada, accessed June 5, 2025, https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-military-parade-big-big-170955072.html
  20. Fear and Fascism: How America Reached a Political Breaking Point ..., accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/podcasts/fear-and-fascism-how-america-reached-a-political-breaking-point
  21. Fascism Now? Inquiries for an Expanded Frame - University of Minnesota Press Manifold, accessed June 5, 2025, https://manifold.umn.edu/read/ces0701-introduction
  22. Fascism in America : past and present - Western Libraries, accessed June 5, 2025, https://library.wwu.edu/fascism-america-past-and-present
  23. Introduction - Fascism in America - Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/fascism-in-america/introduction/0A3FBCE6BFD86B8F2BE5C18498E1C0BA
  24. “On the Historical Roots of U.S. Fascism” | University of Minnesota Press Manifold, accessed June 5, 2025, https://manifold.umn.edu/read/ces0701-roots-of-us-fascism
  25. On Fascism: 12 Lessons from American History - Amazon.com. Spend less. Smile more., accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-12-Lessons-American-History-ebook/dp/B084M1B6GP
  26. Book Review: On fascism: 12 lessons from American history - thesis eleven, accessed June 5, 2025, https://thesiseleven.com/2023/02/13/book-review-on-fascism-12-lessons-from-american-history/
  27. The triumph of American fascism - CCPA - Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/the-triumph-of-american-fascism/
  28. Fascism in Media: Insights on Trends and Public Sentiment - Fullintel, accessed June 5, 2025, https://fullintel.com/blog/fascism-in-news-headlines-key-insights-and-trends/
  29. Of Facebook and fascism! - Manushya Foundation, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.manushyafoundation.org/post/of-facebook-and-fascism
  30. Call for Book Chapters: Alternative Truths-The Power of Social Media and Disinformation in Far-Right Fascism | H-Net, accessed June 5, 2025, https://networks.h-net.org/group/announcements/20069483/call-book-chapters-alternative-truths-power-social-media-and
  31. How the far right uses humour and meme culture to its advantage - D+C - Development + Cooperation, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/when-hatred-wrapped-satire-xenophobia-irony-and-fascism-jokes-it-leaves-mainstream-society
  32. How to Spot a Fascist: A Review of The Rhetoric of Fascism, Edited by Nathan Crick, accessed June 5, 2025, https://constell8cr.com/issue-6/the-rhetoric-of-fascism/
  33. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century: Snyder, Timothy - Amazon.com. Spend less. Smile more., accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Twenty-Lessons-Twentieth-Century/dp/0804190119
  34. Mapping the Conceptual Work of “Fascism” in the War on Terror” in ““Make Fascism Great Again!””, accessed June 5, 2025, https://manifold.umn.edu/read/ces0701-make-fascism-great-again
  35. Adopting Trump's style, European far right copies leftist language to sell fascism, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/adopting-trumps-style-european-far-right-copies-leftist-language-to-sell-fascism/
  36. Would Americans choose communism or fascism? - YouGov, accessed June 5, 2025, https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50737-would-americans-choose-communism-or-fascism
  37. What Was the Fascism Debate? - Dissent Magazine, accessed June 5, 2025, https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/what-was-the-fascism-debate/

Comments

Post a Comment

New comments on this blog are moderated. If you do not have a Google identity, you are welcome to post anonymously. Your comments will appear here after they have been reviewed. Comments with vulgarity will be rejected.

”go"