In 1935 Sinclair Lewis’s novel It Can’t Happen Here the author argued that it can happen here, but the common feeling is that in the US that a dictatorship is not possible. However, the behavior of Donald Trump has for the first time raised the specter of a presidential takeover of power. While other presidents may have tacked to the right or to the left in their politics and policies, in no case did observers think that a president could establish an authoritarian regime. Nevertheless, the claims by the Trump White House to practically unlimited presidential powers have instilled the fear of dictatorship in many Americans. Are there really parallels between present American developments and what happened in Europe during the Interwar period, despite differences that mark the passage of time?
Journalists have pointed out similarities between Benito Mussolini and Trump—even to a physical resemblance—but not enough attention has been drawn to the methods that the Duce used to take over the Italian government, a methodology that established a “school” for dictators. His followers included Adolf Hitler, who imposed on his own party the “legal” road to power pioneered by Mussolini.
Simply put, Mussolini overthrew the Liberal State by exploiting its freedoms. His movement never won a majority in a free election, but between 1919 and 1924 he shredded political and social norms and shone the spotlight on himself and proclaimed his own greatness. Liberal opponents made the mistake of opposing him by following a course based on an excessive respect for political norms. Believing that Mussolini would change his policies when he had to confront the post-World War I crisis as Prime Minister, Parliament gave him a majority because it believed that it could vote him out if he did not alter course, a mistake the Germans made as well.
After World War II, the new Italian Republic severely restricted the Prime Minister’s powers, which Mussolini had used to set up his dictatorship. A weakened Prime Minister is a major reason why Italian governments fell so often following World War II, but the constitution succeeded in making a dictatorship less possible—at least until now.
Historians have written that the weaknesses of the Liberal Italian parliamentary system paved the way for Mussolini’s coming to power in 1922, and Weimar for Hitler, but all systems have faults that are corrected by political norms. Both Fascist dictators shredded the political norms of their nations through unprecedented actions and coarse rhetoric. Once thought immune to dictatorial tendencies, the American political system–which has its own deficiencies that are being exploited by the current President—seems to be going down the same road. The office of President is too powerful and becoming ever more so; the Electoral College allows losers of the popular vote to become president; congressional gridlock and sabotage are common; and Americans rail against the political morass and call for a savior. An extremist base whose cultural orientation resembles the one which allowed dictators to succeed abroad exists also in the United States. Hewing to an excessively legalistic line that prevents action when norms are broken is a crucial drawback of liberal politicians. This attitude sabotaged the Mueller investigation, which meekly accepted the OLC’s opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, recommended no action, and issued a legalistic report that repelled readers. Impeachment is the only way to remove a president, but the constitution imposes almost impossible procedures to accomplish this, while a struggle between timid or cynical politicians and a brazen president expert in shredding accepted customs paralyzed the process until only a short time ago—and chances for removal appear slim. The situation and the President’s calculated effrontery is bringing us closer to the kinds of crises of the Italian Parliament, the German Reichstag, and other parliamentary bodies failed to resolve in the 1920s and 1930s by acting decisively against politicians who mobilized the masses to support their defiance of the rule of law.
Some observers think that voting Trump out of office is the way to go. In elections we trust, but let’s remember that neither Mussolini nor Hitler won majorities in a free election. It can be argued that conditions were different then, but have they merely changed form? In Italy and Germany, the shock of World War I threatened the middle class; its members who were being “declassed” turned to dictatorships to save themselves. In the United States, the middle class is also threatened by fears of technological obsolescence and of “replacement” by different racial groups. Mussolini and Hitler took advantage of such fears, blaming Socialists and Communists: Trump does the same, except that Socialists and Communists count for next to nothing in the US.
Our congress is supposed to defend separation of powers, which safeguards democracy against dictatorship—but many of its members are too timid, opportunistic, or legalistic. Many fear losing their seats, or support the extension of presidential powers de facto; others claim to be hewing to the constitution even while violating their own supposed principles. In both Italy and Germany, the executive branches succeeded in becoming supreme. The executive took over the bureaucracy by installing its own people to run it and by threatening workers with the loss of their livelihood. Are the armed forces a guarantee? History suggests not. In Italy the army remained loyal to the King, not Mussolini, and in Germany Hitler eliminated all army opposition only in July 1944. The free press is a bulwark? Attacked and destroyed in both Italy and Germany; in the US the President attacked as an “enemy of the people” (a beloved Communist phrase). Is it on the way to destruction? Both Mussolini and Hitler solidified support through direct communication with the masses—employing constant rallies to “mobilize” the masses and the new medium of the radio to bombard them with their rhetoric; now twitter and the Internet have replaced the radio and rallies keep Trump’s base energized and create a sense of belonging.
What about constitutions? Mussolini and Hitler destroyed the German and Italian constitutions, but never formally repealed them. No matter how revered constitutions are, dictators can coexist with them.
The warning signals are flashing, but the Americans—like the Italians and Germans of the Interwar period—seem not to appreciate their importance.