To the Editor:

In today’s polarized political climate, words like “fascism” are increasingly used to describe opposing views, particularly by some Democrats toward conservative figures like Donald Trump. This trend risks not only oversimplifying the term “fascism” but also projecting certain authoritarian tendencies closer to home. In psychology, projection is a defense mechanism where individuals attribute their own uncomfortable feelings or behaviors to others. In the political arena, this has led to misdirected accusations that can obscure a balanced understanding of policy and governance.

Projection and the Fascism Accusation

When we look closely at what characterizes fascism—centralized power, suppression of dissent, control over media and information, and aggressive nationalistic policies—we see elements of these traits across the political spectrum, albeit in different forms. Many of the criticisms leveled at Trump are rooted in these fears. However, some recent actions by Democratic leaders and policies reveal a similar drift toward centralized control, media influence, and attempts to control public discourse.

Examples of Democratic Actions Resembling Authoritarian Tactics

Here are a few specific examples where Democratic leaders and actions have mirrored characteristics often associated with authoritarianism:

Coordination with Social Media Companies: During the 2020 election, intelligence agencies, with support from Democratic leaders, flagged content they deemed “potential disinformation” to social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. A notable example is the suppression of the New York Post’s story on Hunter Biden’s laptop, later confirmed as authentic. While this coordination was presented as a measure against foreign interference, it raised concerns about government influence over information flow—a tactic we see more commonly in authoritarian regimes.

The Disinformation Governance Board: In 2022, the Biden administration proposed establishing a “Disinformation Governance Board” within the Department of Homeland Security to counter misinformation. While framed as a safeguard, this initiative raised fears about government overreach and the potential for censorship, leading to its quick dissolution. Such a board, even if well-intentioned, has unsettling implications for freedom of speech and open dialogue, a cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic.

Lawfare to Stifle Political Opposition: Another concerning trend has been the use of “lawfare,” where legal action and investigations are employed to drain resources, damage reputations, and intimidate political opponents. High-profile investigations and lawsuits involving conservative figures, including Trump himself, raise questions about whether legal tools are being used strategically to hinder political adversaries. Lawfare as a political weapon is a tactic commonly seen in authoritarian regimes, where legal systems are leveraged to eliminate or suppress opposition voices. In a healthy democracy, the law should serve justice, not partisan interests.

“Cancel Culture” and Silencing Dissent: While not formal government censorship, there is an increasing trend among some Democrats and media allies to “de-platform” those with opposing views. Social media companies have often responded to political pressures by restricting or removing content deemed harmful, but defining “harmful” can be subjective and risks narrowing the scope of acceptable discourse.

Comparing Trump’s Platform to Authoritarian Regimes

When comparing Trump’s policies to truly authoritarian regimes—such as North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran—it’s clear that his approach diverges significantly from their practices. Trump’s policies focus on border security, economic independence, and limiting government regulation within a democratic framework. Authoritarian regimes, by contrast, exert near-total control over media, stifle opposition, and impose sweeping social restrictions. Trump’s “America First” policy, while nationalist, emphasizes fair trade and reduced international intervention, without the isolationist and militarized stance of countries like North Korea or Iran.

Moreover, Trump’s policies seek to benefit all Americans, regardless of background, promoting economic opportunity, national security, and personal freedom. Fascism, by contrast, enforces conformity, often privileging one group at the expense of others. Trump’s platform explicitly rejects identity politics and instead promotes a unifying vision for the country—one of opportunity, self-reliance, and a strong but limited government.

A Call for Self-Reflection

Accusations of fascism should not be used lightly. Before we cast such serious labels on political opponents, we must scrutinize our own tactics and principles. If we want to protect the freedoms that make our Constitutional Republic unique, we should be cautious about any political drift—left or right—toward authoritarian tendencies. By fostering a climate of self-reflection and balanced discourse, we can strengthen our nation and uphold the principles of liberty, open debate, and respect for dissenting views.

Scott Barrish
Ocala