As fascism spread across Europe in the twentieth century, a group of scholars known as the Frankfurt School explored how that ideology grew from the economic and psychological ground of capitalist industrialization. Writing decades later, during the first Trump administration, legal scholar David Lebow considered the parallel case of neoliberalism and a new authoritarian politics.
In line with the Frankfurt theorists, Lebow writes that mid-twentieth-century politics in the US and much of Europe positioned governments as supporting economic growth and social stability. News reporting and other media encouraged conformity and political passivity.
But, starting in the 1970s, slowing growth and economic disruption ushered in a neoliberal era, in which the purpose of governments was increasingly understood as creating and protecting “free markets” rather than directly shaping the economy. Inequality grew, and the continual rise of mass consumption remained sustainable only thanks to increasing debt. This system crashed in 2008, leading to a new phase of economic and political disruption.
Under neoliberalism, workers are recast as the owners of their own “human capital,” making every choice an investment decision. Individuals are seen as fully responsible for their own fates, while governmental or social support systems are devalued. In this paradigm, individuals’ ability to achieve their goals emerges from the economic rather than political or social realms.
“In the democracy of consumers, sovereignty is expressed through market choices,” Lebow writes.
In this environment, and thanks partly to the rise of the internet, media went from homogenous products made by monopolistic corporations to a wild array of options that create their own “hyperrealities.” Without shared cultural touchstones, consumers from one media silo view others as delusional. Rather than unifying and pacifying a populace, this kind of media encouraged idiosyncratic, extreme views.
More to Explore
Noam Chomsky: There’s Reason for Hope
Meanwhile, conservative political parties embraced extreme opposition to any attempts to regulate companies or redistribute resources. Particularly in the US political system, which depends on some bipartisan agreement, this caused federal governance to become increasingly unworkable. Meanwhile, the understanding of citizens as consumers led many voters of all ideologies to view politics through the lens of choosing an ideal candidate or party rather than strategizing to build coalitions and accomplish particular aims. All of this promoted a cross-partisan populist anger focused on “corrupt” politicians and political systems.
As a reality TV star notable for having no compunctions about lying, Lebow writes, Donald Trump became “the avatar of a culture dissatisfied with truth being anything other than what we would like to consume it as.”
Weekly Newsletter
All fascist models focus supporters’ anger on a minority group that is vulnerable but can be cast as representative of larger malign forces. Where Nazis used “the Jew” to represent the powers driving industrialization, Lebow argues, “the ‘illegal immigrant,’ who lacks human rights yet personifies the threat of globalized capitalism, is today’s indispensable outgroup.”
Meanwhile, just as twentieth-century fascists found meaning in the figure of the powerful dictator, people insecure in a neoliberal world are able to identify “with celebrated capitalist ‘winners’ like Trump,” Lebow writes.
Support JSTOR Daily! Join our membership program on Patreon today.
