It seems to me the universes of cases problem is what makes the "fascist" label useless to those genuinely trying to understand a political actor by way of comparison. Must _everyone_ be compared to Mussolini and Hitler?
Looking back at human history, pretty much the default mode of political governance is some sort of personalistic, autocratic dictatorship, from Hammurabi to Louis XVI. Why, when there are so many possible comparisons, would we want to limit ourselves to just two?
To go back to your motivating example, is (now once again) President Trump like Mussolini? Maybe. But he is much more obviously similar to Huey Long, Andrew Jackson, and Ross Perot (each in different ways).
But I suspect the people actually concerned with this usage of "fascist" (to genuinely understand a political actor) are few and far between.
The normative usage problem is what makes the "fascist" label of diminishing utility, I suspect, for the vast majority of those who resort to it. "Fascist" in these cases is just a word to sick the attack dogs on someone. But if Ronald Regan is a fascist, and George H.W. Bush is a fascist, and George W. Bush is a fascist, and then Donald Trump is a fascist, then the normative impact of the word just keeps getting more and more diluted.
It seems to me the universes of cases problem is what makes the "fascist" label useless to those genuinely trying to understand a political actor by way of comparison. Must _everyone_ be compared to Mussolini and Hitler?
Looking back at human history, pretty much the default mode of political governance is some sort of personalistic, autocratic dictatorship, from Hammurabi to Louis XVI. Why, when there are so many possible comparisons, would we want to limit ourselves to just two?
To go back to your motivating example, is (now once again) President Trump like Mussolini? Maybe. But he is much more obviously similar to Huey Long, Andrew Jackson, and Ross Perot (each in different ways).
But I suspect the people actually concerned with this usage of "fascist" (to genuinely understand a political actor) are few and far between.
The normative usage problem is what makes the "fascist" label of diminishing utility, I suspect, for the vast majority of those who resort to it. "Fascist" in these cases is just a word to sick the attack dogs on someone. But if Ronald Regan is a fascist, and George H.W. Bush is a fascist, and George W. Bush is a fascist, and then Donald Trump is a fascist, then the normative impact of the word just keeps getting more and more diluted.
Yep! Absolutely right. :)
So we shouldn't call people we disagree with fascists? What would be a more useful invective?
How about “personalistic hegemonic electoral authoritarian regime... ist”? It has a great ring to it.
For pejoratives and invectives, the world is one's oyster!