Lo mejor que he leído sobre Trump

Actualización 18/11/20: Aunque la descripción de las diferentes formas del fascismo me sigue pareciendo interesante, hoy no diría que sean aplicables a Trump. Me parece más acertado el análisis que hacen de él Sam Harris y Andrew Sullivan (audio).

·   ·   ·

Estos dos párrafos son el mejor análisis sobre «qué es Trump» que he leído hasta ahora:

[…] to call him a fascist of some variety is simply to use a historical label that fits. The arguments about whether he meets every point in some static fascism matrix show a misunderstanding of what that ideology involves. It is the essence of fascism to have no single fixed form—an attenuated form of nationalism in its basic nature, it naturally takes on the colors and practices of each nation it infects. In Italy, it is bombastic and neoclassical in form; in Spain, Catholic and religious; in Germany, violent and romantic. It took forms still crazier and more feverishly sinister, if one can imagine, in Romania, whereas under Oswald Mosley, in England, its manner was predictably paternalistic and aristocratic. It is no surprise that the American face of fascism would take on the forms of celebrity television and the casino greeter’s come-on, since that is as much our symbolic scene as nostalgic re-creations of Roman splendors once were Italy’s.

What all forms of fascism have in common is the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history.

Son de Adam Gopnik en The New Yorker: Being Honest About Trump.