Fascism Isn’t Right or Left; It’s South

Earlier this week Ben Shapiro wrote a piece called “Fascism Isn’t Right-Wing.” It's in response to a typical question from media, this one from Jake Tapper to Chris Christie, asking whether support of Trump is a sign of authoritarianism. Shapiro explains a few things rather clearly, which I’ll share. But, as with many attempts to explain fascism and other ideologies, I think, “This is clearer on the Spherical Model.” Every now and then it’s worth re-sharing that model—after all, it’s what the blog is about—so I’ll do some of that today, after what Shapiro brings up in his piece:

Authoritarianism is not what people in the media think it is. They think authoritarianism is Donald Trump tweeting. But there are many forms of authoritarianism. In fact, fascism is an element of both Left and Right. It is not merely a Right-wing action. Authoritarianism can just as easily be implemented by a series of executive orders that go outside the Constitution, that radically re-shift the balance between people in the government, something Joe Biden does with alacrity.

It's likely Churchill didn't actually say this, but the
quote will do for today's post. Found here.

So, fascism = authoritarianism. The error is in assuming it’s always right-wing authoritarianism and that the left wing could never be that. Later in the piece, he says this:

The truth is that fascism as an ideology is closer to the American Left than it is to the American Right. Fascism is an ideology that was generalized in response to communism, but it drew from Marxism, Hegelian politics, and progressive-era ideas, which is why many of the early supporters of Mussolini were members of the Left, including people who had worked in Woodrow Wilson’s administration who went on to work in the FDR administration.

So we know that fascism means authoritarianism. And it’s related to Marxism, which spawned communism and socialism, also progressivism and probably a few more -isms as well—each one authoritarian, meaning coercion and top-down control.

But what do we mean by Right and Left?

Common belief says that fascism is right. Far right. So, to stay as far away from that as you can, you go left. Maybe all the way to communism.

Is communism as far as you can get from fascism? Because communism is authoritarian. And, didn’t we say earlier, fascism = authoritarianism?

On August 29 Glenn Beck was talking about authoritarianism as well. First he quoted the entirety of a piece by Emma-Jo Morris, the political editor for Breitbart: “Morris: The 2024 Election Is Going to Be a Vote of Defiance.” Here’s the first paragraph of that piece:

Leading up to the 2024 election, there are a number of pressing issues Americans will consider—rampant illegal immigration, skyrocketing inflation and price of living, violent crime marring cities—but those issues are now against the backdrop of a palpable shift toward authoritarianism. And a vote for Trump in 2024 will be a vote of defiance.

Her assertion is that people will be voting against the authoritarian regime that has been imposed on them. And she offers plenty of examples of that authoritarianism—that tyranny that we’ve been tolerating, hoping it was just something that would pass, but that we can no longer tolerate.

Then Glenn Beck responds, with a warning about an overreaction.

Now, I think that there are real ways that can be done constitutionally. But I warn you, there is going to come a time where, even on our side, many will say, “Screw the Constitution. There are things we have to do.” That is always trouble. Always a sign you don’t want to be in that group.

Please, be aware of this. There are forces, on many fronts: on the left, who wants to destroy the Constitution; and those now posing as the right, but they’re not the right. They’re the fascistic left.

In America the choice is not right or left. It is either anarchy or complete control.

I’ve heard him use that last line before, changing the left/right model from communism to fascism, and instead labeling the far extremes as either anarchy or complete control.

I’m not saying he’s wrong. And neither is Ben Shapiro. I’m saying the Spherical Model can clarify. It offers more perspective on the relative closeness or distance of various political ideas, or ways of governing. I’ll just review it quickly (repeated from here, and from the website).

 

Political conversations tend to describe the far ends as extreme, assuming there’s some virtue in being balanced in the middle. And we refer to our nation as center right—just a little more conservative than exactly center.

But what are the extremes? Do we assume communism or socialism at the extreme left, and fascism at the extreme right?

That can’t be right, because communism and fascism are both totalitarian statist tyrannies, just slightly different flavors. Nazi means “national socialist party” and the communist Soviet Union’s name was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

So if Nazism and communism aren’t diametric opposites, then what are the logical extremes?

How about total government control, or tyranny, versus total lack of government control, or anarchy?

That’s better. Then freedom is that perfect balance in the middle.

But wait; there’s a problem with this model too: It’s common in history for people suffering in anarchy to turn for relief to total government control—anything for security. But in this model, as a people move to the left, they have to pass through that balanced freedom section. You’d think that it would be very common for someone to stop and say, “Hey, this freedom is good. Let’s stop going leftward and stay here.” Yet that pretty much never happens. But going directly from chaos to state control is historically common.

Plus, notice that there’s not that much difference between the tyranny of the state and the tyranny of anarchy. Total government control means the state has all the power—the police, the military. The state can do what it wants, and the mere citizen is without any rights except what the state decides to grant.

Anarchy, on the other hand, means that power belongs to whoever is stronger and meaner than the next guy. If you threaten to beat people up (or kill them) if they don’t give you all their belongings, and you’re strong enough to mean it, then you have power. If someone else is stronger or better armed than you are, then you have to yield power to them.

In other words, anarchy, while less organized, is power in the hands of the strongest and best armed—just like a tyrannical government.

So maybe government tyranny and anarchic tyranny are pretty close to the same thing. When I show this, I use a ribbon, labeled at the ends, and fold it in half, so it looks something like this:

Tyranny and freedom are really the opposite extremes.

Not bad. But it puts all those different kinds of tyrannies in the same location, and maybe there are differences.

A simple line doesn’t give us the dimensions we need.

So, how about if we use three dimensions—a sphere? If we draw a line at the equator, we can separate freedom (northern hemisphere) from tyranny (southern hemisphere). And then we can draw a longitudinal dividing line, with more local interests in the western hemisphere and larger interests—from state to nation, to international, in the eastern hemisphere.

I call this the Spherical Model.

The Political Sphere

Down in the south, you can see that one side of tyranny is the chaos of anarchy, and the other side is the totalitarian control of government tyranny. It’s easy to get from one to the other—which is what much of world history has shown us. You can have communism, socialism, and Nazism as separate patches in their quartersphere, based on how much control they exert on their people (southern direction), or how far they plan to expand (toward the eastward extreme of world domination).

Up north in the freedom zone, location is mostly a matter of whose interest. Free people don’t yield power to a governing authority beyond the appropriate interest. Families make their own decisions about the care, upbringing, and education of their children. Communities on up to cities and counties decide on local law enforcement and protection needs. States (or provinces) deal with their particular infrastructure and laws. Only very limited powers are granted to a nation—as are enumerated in the US Constitution. And that sovereignty would never yield to an international power, but would cooperate with other free sovereignties concerning international issues.

 

OK, so, you find Nazism/fascism, communism, and socialism all in the south—toward tyranny and away from freedom. And they’re all in the bottom section we call statist tyranny, because the tyrants are the government, rather than simply mob bosses, as you’d see in chaotic tyranny. Either way, you have coercion of people by those in charge—and they’re in charge because they have the power to force their will on others.

Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all statist tyrannies.

Why does this matter today? Because authoritarianism—that is, tyranny—is not Donald Trump tweets (or Xs, or Truths, depending on what you call the platform he uses). A tweet doesn’t coerce anyone to do anything against their will. It’s just an expression of a few words. They may or may not represent an idea that you like. But, unless they come from a person in power with commanding force behind them, they’re just words.

But there’s been a consistent mislabeling of Trump as a fascist—because he’s “a right-wing extremist”; i.e., a Republican. And we know the worst fascist was Hitler; ergo, Trump = Hitler. And, they think, we have to do anything to stop today’s Hitler from getting power.

What do they mean by anything? Keeping your vote for him from counting. Stopping you from expressing your opinions in the marketplace of ideas. Using lawfare. Suing him—and anyone supporting him. Lying about him. Covering up crimes of those he opposes. Instigating powers over the people, particularly over the people supporting him. In fact, anything includes any fascist and/or corrupt anti-Constitutional thing you can think of. (See examples here, from a couple of years ago, before we were seeing this year’s attacks.) 

So, if you put the opponents of Trump on the sphere, they’re definitely in the southern hemisphere of tyranny. And they’re mainly on the statist side of the tyranny hemisphere.

Meanwhile, the one they call the authoritarian: in reality, his ideas, and his followers resemble a lot of ideas you find in the northern hemisphere—the freedom hemisphere.

How do you know? You ask questions about the ideas, rather than throw out epithets about the person. You find out if those ideas coincide with freedom. And a good gauge is whether they adhere to the US Constitution.

I was surprised as anyone to find Trump’s presidency mainly up in the freedom zone. His stated positions during his campaign said he would be, but I hadn’t believed him. Not everything got fixed. But, as you’d expect in a freedom society, economic security went up—for all demographics. That was after a decade of statist tyranny had tried to convince us America was in decline and all we could do was manage the decline.

I was never sure—I’m still not—that Trump fully understands and embraces the US Constitution, which is based on God-given rights. But I know the Constitution is up in the freedom zone. And he adhered to it better than we’d seen, at least since Reagan. The contrast between Trump and the current White House resident is stark—as different as north from south.

So what are the questions? What are the principles of freedom? I’ve provided a few lists over the years, depending on purpose. Here’s a list I quoted in 2016, from Benjamin Constant in 1816. I used only Benjamin Constant’s words, but I turned it into a bullet-point list to make it easier to grasp:

First ask yourselves, Gentlemen, what an Englishman, a French-man, and a citizen of the United States of America understand today by the word “liberty.” For each of them

·        it is the right to be subjected only to the laws,

·        and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals.

·        It is the right of everyone to express their opinion,

·        choose a profession and practice it,

·        to dispose of property, and even to abuse it;

·        to come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings.

·        It is everyone’s right to associate with other individuals, either to discuss their interests, or to profess the religion which they and their associates prefer,

·        or even simply to occupy their days or hours in a way which is most compatible with their inclinations or whims.

·        Finally it is everyone’s right to exercise some influence on the administration of the government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed.

 

That’s what it looks like to have freedom. If you’re considering policy—or the policies supported by a candidate that you’re vetting—then you might find this list useful:

·        Is the policy being debated something that an individual has the right to do, and therefore has the right to delegate to his/her government? For example, a person has the right to protect his own life and property. He can, therefore, combine resources with his neighbors and hire a government entity, such as a sheriff, to do that job for him. Similarly, the several states can combine to delegate the power of defending the nation to a national government entity. Conversely, a person does not have the right to take his neighbor’s excess grain production, for example, and bestow it on himself, because his neighbor was more prosperous in a particular season. He can, of course, ask his neighbor for charity, but he cannot coerce the neighbor to give. That would rightfully be considered theft. Therefore the person cannot delegate the redistribution of wealth to the government to do for him—that would place him too far south on the sphere.

·        Does the policy infringe in any way on God-given natural rights, such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Does the policy infringe on the free exercise of religion or try to establish a particular sect as a state religion? Is political speech hindered? Does the policy infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms? Does the policy constitute an illegal search or seizure? Does the policy deprive a person of life, liberty, or property when the person has not committed a crime for which that deprivation is the just sentence? Does the policy try to claim for government a power that was not specifically granted in the Constitution? etc. If the policy infringes on the God-given rights, then government cannot take that power without usurping power from the people—which is too far south on the sphere.

·        Is the idea being debated a proper role of government: some aspect of protection (including national defense, protection from interstate crime, enabling international and interstate commerce, standardized weights and measures and currency to protect the value of wealth, the judiciary that guarantees the protective laws), as enumerated in the Constitution? If not, then accepting the idea is outside the Constitution—and is too far south on the sphere.

·        Is the perspective appropriately local? It is important that any issue be handled at the most local level possible. Parents should decide the means, methods, and curriculum for educating their children, for example. An issue that affects a state should be handled at the state level, not the national level. National decisions should not be ceded to some international body. An inappropriate interest level is too far south on the sphere.

We’ve only talked here today about the Political Sphere. There are two other spheres that overlie the political sphere: the Economic Sphere and the Social Sphere. For the Economic Sphere, the polar opposites are north/prosperity and south/poverty, with the same east/west lines. For the Social Sphere, north is civilization and south is savagery, again with the same east/west lines. 

There are additional questions for these. You can read them here. 

Pending a theoretical book someday, the largest explanation of the Spherical Model is the website: SphericalModel.com. While I don’t have the illusion that this obscure website and blog will change people from thinking with the right/left model, I nevertheless think it would be a better way for people to understand abstract ideas that they only think they understand.