Making Sense with Sam Harris — Episode #456: “American Fascism”

Date: February 4, 2026
Guest: Jonathan Rauch
Theme: Examining the use of the term “fascism” in describing Trump-era American politics and society, drawing distinctions, risks, and deeper implications for democracy.

Episode Overview

In this episode, Sam Harris is joined by political commentator and author Jonathan Rauch to confront the increasingly pressing question: Is it appropriate and accurate to label Trump and his administration as “fascist”? The discussion probes Rauch’s recent Atlantic article, “Yes, It’s Fascism,” and navigates the semantic, historical, and practical challenges of invoking such a charged label. Together, they explore patrimonialism, the erosion of norms, the glorification of violence, and the dangers of normalization, all while reflecting on the current state and potential future of American democracy.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Reluctance and Rationale for the “Fascism” Label

• Initial Resistance:

  • Both Harris and Rauch admit a longstanding hesitation to apply the term “fascism” to Trump, given its weighty historical context—especially comparisons to 1930s and 40s Europe.
  • Rauch previously favored calling Trump a “patrimonialist,” signifying a corrupt, self-serving leader treating governance as personal property without broader ideological motives.
    • Quote:

      “A year ago in The Atlantic, I wrote... Trump was not a fascist, he's a patrimonialist... The state is, in effect, the personal property and family business of the leader... That, I think uncontroversially, applied to Trump.” — Jonathan Rauch (01:36)

• Why Change Now:

  • Rauch recounts how recent events have pushed beyond patrimonialism. The administration began to display hallmarks of fascism that, once tallied, could no longer be ignored.
    • Quote:

      “We saw the emergence of so many properties that are associated with fascism that to me, it became perverse to withhold the label.” — Jonathan Rauch (02:50)

2. Defining Fascism and the “Checklist” Approach

• Sam Harris Reads ChatGPT-Derived Definition (07:54):

  • Ultra-nationalism
  • Anti-liberalism
  • Emphasis on national rebirth after decline
  • Rejection of pluralism and demonization of opposition
  • Morally necessary coercion or violence
  • Fusion of mass movement with the state to eliminate genuine competition

• Rauch’s Method:

  • Rather than a strict definition, lists 18 characteristics that are consonant with fascism, all of which now align with Trump and his movement.
    • Quote:

      “There's no standard definition... I had no trouble coming up with 18... At that point, I threw in the towel.” — Jonathan Rauch (02:59)

• Not Absorbed Statewide:

  • Rauch is clear: America is not fully fascist but instead a “mixed state, a hybrid state with a liberal constitution and a fascist leader. That gets complicated.” (09:21)

3. Patrimonialism vs. Fascism

• Patrimonialism:

  • Running the state as a personal business; corruption and incompetence thrive as loyalty replaces merit.
  • Destruction of government’s competence is intrinsic, but not driven by an ideological mission or aggressive expansionism.

• Fascism’s Qualitative Shift:

  • Now “about re-orienting the government in a way that’s ideological, aggressive, organized.”
    • Quote:

      “You destroy the government's competence with patrimonialism. What you don't do is reorient the direction of the government in a way that's ideological or aggressive or organized.” — Rauch (05:13)

4. Demolition of Norms (09:31)

• Trump’s Style:

  • Trolling, insults, and breaking taboos are not just quirks but serve to dominate discourse, disorient norms, and “move the ground” so that liberal or civil society can’t keep up.
    • Quote:

      “This is what you do if you're a fascist and you want to dominate the dialogue, because liberals... can’t function in that space... We just become dumbfounded in that space.” — Rauch (10:33)

• Historical Echoes:

  • Both Hitler and Mussolini were initially seen as clowns or buffoons, underestimated even as they upended political norms.

    • Sam Harris:

      “Fascist figures present as comical... But in cases where they succeed, the satire proves ineffectual.” — (11:47)

    • Jonathan Rauch:

      “Hitler was seen as a buffoon... Mussolini was seen as this kind of strutting popinjay... These are smart people... intentionally manipulating the public discourse and dialogue.” — (14:13)

5. Glorification of Violence (15:06)

• Not Yet Large-Scale Purges:

  • Rauch acknowledges we’re not seeing systematic mass violence. But the growing normalization and even celebration of violence as a first, not last, resort signals deep concern.

• New Government Rhetoric:

  • Language from top officials and media personalities, memes, and government communications now revel in violence against “internal enemies.”
    • Quote:

      “You see memes displaying violence in hortatory terms... sharing... a children’s comic book character with a machine gun... That’s incompatible with the kind of society that our founders were trying to build.” — Rauch (17:32)

• Sam’s Alarm at Public Apathy:

  • Harris expresses frustration with the silence from the gun rights community after a peaceful protester (“Mr. Pretty”) was publicly killed by federal agents—a direct contradiction of supposed Second Amendment values.
    • Quote:

      “Where the hell are the conservative gun owners on this?” — Sam Harris (18:17)

6. Dangers of Under-Reacting

• Clownishness as a Cover:

  • Harris and Rauch warn that the “entertaining buffoon” persona leads many to minimize or excuse real harm:
    • Sam Harris:

      “There’s something about the lack of seriousness... It’s a pattern. It’s not just Trump.” (13:55)

  • Rauch: The actual danger is felt only once “norms have been demolished and violence is normalized.”

• Labels as Mental Anchors:

  • Rauch contends that people “need these boxes to put things in” (07:33), and “fascism may be the only appropriate box” given the present reality.

Most Memorable Quotes (with Timestamps)

• Jonathan Rauch (01:36):

  “A year ago in the Atlantic, I wrote an article saying that Trump was not a fascist, he's a patrimonialist... But over the course of the last year... we saw the emergence of so many properties that are associated with fascism that to me, it became perverse to withhold the label.”

• Sam Harris (07:54):
  (On fascism’s definition and current resonance):

  “Fascism is an ultra nationalist, anti liberal political project... treats opposition as an enemy rather than as a rival, and elevates coercion, often outright violence, as morally necessary to purge internal traitors and reassert collective greatness... All of that resonates with the current moment.”

• Jonathan Rauch (10:33):

  “This is what you do if you’re a fascist and you want to dominate the dialogue, because liberals... can't function in that space. We just become dumbfounded in that space.”

• Sam Harris (11:47):

  “Fascist figures present as comical. They present as clowns, they present as easy targets of ridicule... But in these cases where they succeed, the satire proves ineffectual.”

• Jonathan Rauch (17:32):

  “You see memes displaying violence... sharing... a children’s comic book character with a machine gun shooting up boats, killing all the people in them... That’s incompatible with the kind of society that our founders were trying to build.”

• Sam Harris (18:17):

  “Where the hell are the conservative gun owners on this?”

Important Segments & Timestamps

• 00:38 — Introduction of the topic: why the word “fascism” now?
• 01:36 — Rauch’s history of labeling Trump: patrimonialism versus fascism.
• 05:13 — Distinction and transition between patrimonialism and fascism.
• 07:01 — Merits and risks of using “fascism” as a label.
• 07:54 — Sam reads a synthesized historical definition of fascism.
• 09:31 — “Demolition of norms”: Trolling and norm-breaking as political strategy.
• 11:47 — The “buffoon” phenomenon in fascism’s historical rise.
• 15:06 — “Glorification of violence” in rhetoric vs. action.
• 17:27 — Examples of state-endorsed violence in the current era.
• 18:17 — The silence from gun rights activists after the shooting of a protester.

Tone and Language

The conversation is earnest, deeply analytical, and urgent—Sam Harris and Jonathan Rauch both grapple with the seriousness of the specter of fascism while carefully acknowledging the risks of alarmism or overstatement. Their tone is reflective, sometimes exasperated, but always intent on clarity and truth.

Summary

This episode offers a sobering, nuanced evaluation of the trajectory of American democracy under Trump’s leadership. Through a careful historical, psychological, and political lens, Harris and Rauch grapple with whether “fascism” is a helpful and necessary label. They catalogue both the destruction of norms and the darker embrace of violence, warning of the perils of normalizing behavior that would have once been unthinkable. Ultimately, they urge listeners to recognize these patterns before it’s too late—insisting that clarity in language may be essential for democratic self-defense.