SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks to reporters as he leaves the Russell Senate Office Building on November 21, 2024 in Washington, DC. Hegseth was on Capitol Hill meeting with Senators to discuss his nomination and qualifications.
(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Trump's Cabinet Nominees Are Not a Joke, They're a Fascism-Inspired Dare
The individual nominees Trump has put forward forward are concerning on their own terms, but the implications of their nominations are even more chilling when taken as a whole.
Nov 29, 2024
As a professor of rhetoric who studies Nazism, fascism, and demagoguery, I've watched Trump’s cabinet picks with mounting unease. The majority of them are so egregiously unfit for the offices they're nominated to run, it seems like a perverse joke.
A wrestling CEO and the subject of a lawsuit accusing her of sheltering pedophiles for Secretary of Education? A celebrity doctor with a history of multi-level medical and insurance marketing schemes for Medicare and Medicaid administrator? A cable news personality whose called for purging “woke” generals from the military for Secretary of Defense? An anti-vaxxer with a history of drug abuse for Secretary of Health and Human Services? A dog murdering governor whose been banned from all the Tribal lands in her state for Secretary of Homeland Security? The list goes on.
But Trump’s cabinet nominees aren’t a joke. They’re a fascism-inspired dare.
In the last months of the campaign, not one but two of Trump’s former cabinet members, plus the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—all four-star generals—openly called him a fascist. Several other people, including his opponent, did as well. Whether or not the specific term “fascist” is accurate, there are reasons it keeps coming up.
Trump has repeatedly echoed fascist rhetoric, staging multiple fascism-inspired rallies, threating to be a dictator “on day one” if re-elected, and calling journalists and his political opponents “enemies from within.” He’s even threatened to deploy the military against U.S. citizens who oppose him. After General Mark Milley, criticized Trump’s role in the January 6 insurrection, Trump suggested he should be executed. Milley’s execution is not the only one Trump has fantasized about.
But even in his less provocative moments, Trump exhibits tendencies that align with fascist politics. He has consistently resisted or rejected the norms and institutions of democracy, including accepting election results, respecting non-partisan civil services, and upholding the separation of powers at the heart of American democracy.
Open opposition to democracy has been at the center of fascist politics since fascist politics have existed. Italy’s Benito Mussolini, Germany’s Adolf Hitler, Spain’s José Antonio Primo de Rivera, among others, rejected democracy as decadent, unnatural, and weak. In many cases—Italy and Germany, chief among them—fascist parties participated in democratic politics in order to rise to power, and even after they were in power, they often retained the trappings of democracy, including parliaments and elections.
But they also eviscerated the norms and institutions designed to keep them in check. Mussolini, for example, helped push through the Acerbo Law in 1923, which said that whichever party earned the highest number of votes in parliamentary elections automatically got two-thirds of the parliamentary seats. In 1933, Hitler and the Nazis took their proposal to suspend Germany’s constitution to the Reichstag for approval, which they got through coercion and changing voting rules on the spot.
Destroying democratic institutions, and other efforts like it, were of course intended to consolidate fascist power, but they were also explicit challenges to democratic lawmakers. They were so egregious that lawmakers were forced to unambiguously declare their allegiances—would they defiantly confront the fascists, or would they fall in line? Needless to say, defiant confrontation had predictable consequences and falling in line had obvious advantages.
Whether or not Trump intends to usurp two-thirds of Congress or suspend the Constitution, he’s leaning into the fascist tradition of issuing egregious demands, which require lawmakers to unambiguously declare their allegiances. In nominating a Director of National Intelligence who has no experience in national intelligence, Trump is forcing Senators—Republicans, in particular—to say publicly whether they’re with him or against him.
No one should imagine, even for a second, that Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing with his Cabinet picks. He knows his nominees need Senate confirmation. During his first term, his Cabinet nominees were “conventional” Republicans, which is to say anti-tax, anti-regulation, and pro-national security. Still, they faced considerable scrutiny, even among Senate Republicans. As several of his initial appointments resigned or found themselves caught up in ethics scandals, Trump resorted to “acting” appointments to circumvent the Senate.This time, Trump isn’t bothering with conventional nominees. He’s challenging the Senate by compiling a list of nominees that are more than just partisans. They’re more than just extreme. They are ultimatums. The question is not, “Is Nominee A or B qualified?” It’s “Are you going to try to stop me or not?”
The individual nominees Trump has put forward forward are concerning on their own terms, but the implications of their nominations are even more chilling when taken as a whole. How the Senate responds will tell us a lot about just what kind of threat to democracy Trump will be in the coming years. If history is any guide, we’d do well to pay careful attention.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Ryan Skinnell
Dr. Ryan Skinnell is a Professor of Rhetoric and Writing at San José State University in Silicon Valley and the author of six books, including “Faking the News: What Rhetoric Can Teach Us About Donald J. Trump” and “Rhetoric and Guns.” He has also published more than 100 essays, articles, and book chapters about subjects including fascist rhetoric, demagoguery, and Nazism. He is currently writing a book about Adolf Hitler’s rhetoric.
As a professor of rhetoric who studies Nazism, fascism, and demagoguery, I've watched Trump’s cabinet picks with mounting unease. The majority of them are so egregiously unfit for the offices they're nominated to run, it seems like a perverse joke.
A wrestling CEO and the subject of a lawsuit accusing her of sheltering pedophiles for Secretary of Education? A celebrity doctor with a history of multi-level medical and insurance marketing schemes for Medicare and Medicaid administrator? A cable news personality whose called for purging “woke” generals from the military for Secretary of Defense? An anti-vaxxer with a history of drug abuse for Secretary of Health and Human Services? A dog murdering governor whose been banned from all the Tribal lands in her state for Secretary of Homeland Security? The list goes on.
But Trump’s cabinet nominees aren’t a joke. They’re a fascism-inspired dare.
In the last months of the campaign, not one but two of Trump’s former cabinet members, plus the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—all four-star generals—openly called him a fascist. Several other people, including his opponent, did as well. Whether or not the specific term “fascist” is accurate, there are reasons it keeps coming up.
Trump has repeatedly echoed fascist rhetoric, staging multiple fascism-inspired rallies, threating to be a dictator “on day one” if re-elected, and calling journalists and his political opponents “enemies from within.” He’s even threatened to deploy the military against U.S. citizens who oppose him. After General Mark Milley, criticized Trump’s role in the January 6 insurrection, Trump suggested he should be executed. Milley’s execution is not the only one Trump has fantasized about.
But even in his less provocative moments, Trump exhibits tendencies that align with fascist politics. He has consistently resisted or rejected the norms and institutions of democracy, including accepting election results, respecting non-partisan civil services, and upholding the separation of powers at the heart of American democracy.
Open opposition to democracy has been at the center of fascist politics since fascist politics have existed. Italy’s Benito Mussolini, Germany’s Adolf Hitler, Spain’s José Antonio Primo de Rivera, among others, rejected democracy as decadent, unnatural, and weak. In many cases—Italy and Germany, chief among them—fascist parties participated in democratic politics in order to rise to power, and even after they were in power, they often retained the trappings of democracy, including parliaments and elections.
But they also eviscerated the norms and institutions designed to keep them in check. Mussolini, for example, helped push through the Acerbo Law in 1923, which said that whichever party earned the highest number of votes in parliamentary elections automatically got two-thirds of the parliamentary seats. In 1933, Hitler and the Nazis took their proposal to suspend Germany’s constitution to the Reichstag for approval, which they got through coercion and changing voting rules on the spot.
Destroying democratic institutions, and other efforts like it, were of course intended to consolidate fascist power, but they were also explicit challenges to democratic lawmakers. They were so egregious that lawmakers were forced to unambiguously declare their allegiances—would they defiantly confront the fascists, or would they fall in line? Needless to say, defiant confrontation had predictable consequences and falling in line had obvious advantages.
Whether or not Trump intends to usurp two-thirds of Congress or suspend the Constitution, he’s leaning into the fascist tradition of issuing egregious demands, which require lawmakers to unambiguously declare their allegiances. In nominating a Director of National Intelligence who has no experience in national intelligence, Trump is forcing Senators—Republicans, in particular—to say publicly whether they’re with him or against him.
No one should imagine, even for a second, that Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing with his Cabinet picks. He knows his nominees need Senate confirmation. During his first term, his Cabinet nominees were “conventional” Republicans, which is to say anti-tax, anti-regulation, and pro-national security. Still, they faced considerable scrutiny, even among Senate Republicans. As several of his initial appointments resigned or found themselves caught up in ethics scandals, Trump resorted to “acting” appointments to circumvent the Senate.This time, Trump isn’t bothering with conventional nominees. He’s challenging the Senate by compiling a list of nominees that are more than just partisans. They’re more than just extreme. They are ultimatums. The question is not, “Is Nominee A or B qualified?” It’s “Are you going to try to stop me or not?”
The individual nominees Trump has put forward forward are concerning on their own terms, but the implications of their nominations are even more chilling when taken as a whole. How the Senate responds will tell us a lot about just what kind of threat to democracy Trump will be in the coming years. If history is any guide, we’d do well to pay careful attention.
Ryan Skinnell
Dr. Ryan Skinnell is a Professor of Rhetoric and Writing at San José State University in Silicon Valley and the author of six books, including “Faking the News: What Rhetoric Can Teach Us About Donald J. Trump” and “Rhetoric and Guns.” He has also published more than 100 essays, articles, and book chapters about subjects including fascist rhetoric, demagoguery, and Nazism. He is currently writing a book about Adolf Hitler’s rhetoric.
As a professor of rhetoric who studies Nazism, fascism, and demagoguery, I've watched Trump’s cabinet picks with mounting unease. The majority of them are so egregiously unfit for the offices they're nominated to run, it seems like a perverse joke.
A wrestling CEO and the subject of a lawsuit accusing her of sheltering pedophiles for Secretary of Education? A celebrity doctor with a history of multi-level medical and insurance marketing schemes for Medicare and Medicaid administrator? A cable news personality whose called for purging “woke” generals from the military for Secretary of Defense? An anti-vaxxer with a history of drug abuse for Secretary of Health and Human Services? A dog murdering governor whose been banned from all the Tribal lands in her state for Secretary of Homeland Security? The list goes on.
But Trump’s cabinet nominees aren’t a joke. They’re a fascism-inspired dare.
In the last months of the campaign, not one but two of Trump’s former cabinet members, plus the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—all four-star generals—openly called him a fascist. Several other people, including his opponent, did as well. Whether or not the specific term “fascist” is accurate, there are reasons it keeps coming up.
Trump has repeatedly echoed fascist rhetoric, staging multiple fascism-inspired rallies, threating to be a dictator “on day one” if re-elected, and calling journalists and his political opponents “enemies from within.” He’s even threatened to deploy the military against U.S. citizens who oppose him. After General Mark Milley, criticized Trump’s role in the January 6 insurrection, Trump suggested he should be executed. Milley’s execution is not the only one Trump has fantasized about.
But even in his less provocative moments, Trump exhibits tendencies that align with fascist politics. He has consistently resisted or rejected the norms and institutions of democracy, including accepting election results, respecting non-partisan civil services, and upholding the separation of powers at the heart of American democracy.
Open opposition to democracy has been at the center of fascist politics since fascist politics have existed. Italy’s Benito Mussolini, Germany’s Adolf Hitler, Spain’s José Antonio Primo de Rivera, among others, rejected democracy as decadent, unnatural, and weak. In many cases—Italy and Germany, chief among them—fascist parties participated in democratic politics in order to rise to power, and even after they were in power, they often retained the trappings of democracy, including parliaments and elections.
But they also eviscerated the norms and institutions designed to keep them in check. Mussolini, for example, helped push through the Acerbo Law in 1923, which said that whichever party earned the highest number of votes in parliamentary elections automatically got two-thirds of the parliamentary seats. In 1933, Hitler and the Nazis took their proposal to suspend Germany’s constitution to the Reichstag for approval, which they got through coercion and changing voting rules on the spot.
Destroying democratic institutions, and other efforts like it, were of course intended to consolidate fascist power, but they were also explicit challenges to democratic lawmakers. They were so egregious that lawmakers were forced to unambiguously declare their allegiances—would they defiantly confront the fascists, or would they fall in line? Needless to say, defiant confrontation had predictable consequences and falling in line had obvious advantages.
Whether or not Trump intends to usurp two-thirds of Congress or suspend the Constitution, he’s leaning into the fascist tradition of issuing egregious demands, which require lawmakers to unambiguously declare their allegiances. In nominating a Director of National Intelligence who has no experience in national intelligence, Trump is forcing Senators—Republicans, in particular—to say publicly whether they’re with him or against him.
No one should imagine, even for a second, that Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing with his Cabinet picks. He knows his nominees need Senate confirmation. During his first term, his Cabinet nominees were “conventional” Republicans, which is to say anti-tax, anti-regulation, and pro-national security. Still, they faced considerable scrutiny, even among Senate Republicans. As several of his initial appointments resigned or found themselves caught up in ethics scandals, Trump resorted to “acting” appointments to circumvent the Senate.This time, Trump isn’t bothering with conventional nominees. He’s challenging the Senate by compiling a list of nominees that are more than just partisans. They’re more than just extreme. They are ultimatums. The question is not, “Is Nominee A or B qualified?” It’s “Are you going to try to stop me or not?”
The individual nominees Trump has put forward forward are concerning on their own terms, but the implications of their nominations are even more chilling when taken as a whole. How the Senate responds will tell us a lot about just what kind of threat to democracy Trump will be in the coming years. If history is any guide, we’d do well to pay careful attention.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.