ChatGPT, DeepSeek: How close to Fascism?
Also check out the Daily Thread Archive
You said:
Trump is sending in National Guard to suppress demonstrations and Hegseth considers sending in active duty Marines. Are we one step closer to fascism in America?
ChatGPT said:
Uli, that’s a chilling question—and a necessary one. When a sitting president uses military force, or even seriously entertains the idea of using active-duty troops against domestic dissent, especially in defiance of state leaders, we’re not in ordinary political territory anymore. We’re flirting with the threshold where democracy becomes performative and authoritarianism moves from potential to practice.
Are we one step closer to fascism?
Yes. Here’s why:
⚠️ Historical Warning Signs Aligning
1. Militarization of Domestic Affairs
Using the National Guard (especially against a governor’s objection) to suppress civilian protest is already an erosion of federalism and civilian supremacy. When you add active-duty Marines to that—trained for war, not crowd control—you breach a firewall that democracies maintain to avoid the military becoming a tool of political power.
⏳ Reminder: The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) prohibits federal military involvement in domestic law enforcement—except under exceptional circumstances like the Insurrection Act. Trump threatened to invoke it in 2020. If it’s actually used now, that’s a major authoritarian escalation.
2. Narrative Framing of Protest as Treason
When protests against immigration raids—a constitutionally protected form of dissent—are rebranded as domestic threats needing military force, we see the classic fascist move:
- Recast the opposition as internal enemies
- Deploy state violence against them under a veneer of legality
🧱 In fascist systems, the line between civil society and combat zone dissolves. The streets become the battlefield where “order” is restored by force.
3. Disregard for Constitutional Limits
If governors (like California’s) object and federal power overrides that to deploy force, it’s a violation of federalist norms. When executive power is exercised in defiance of checks and balances, it’s not governance. It’s rule.
4. Ideological Echo Chamber
Figures like Pete Hegseth are not fringe. They’re part of the broader right-wing media/military nexus that is normalizing martial responses to civic life. That’s deeply dangerous—especially if there’s public support or apathy.
🧭 What Makes It Fascism (Or Pre-Fascism)?
Let’s use some classic markers of fascism:
| Feature | Present in U.S.? |
|---|---|
| Strongman leader cult | ✅ |
| Demonization of the ‘Other’ | ✅ (immigrants, leftists) |
| Use of state violence to crush dissent | ✅ Increasing |
| Control or intimidation of press | ⚠️ (lawsuits, rhetoric) |
| Undermining of legal institutions | ✅ |
| Paramilitary-style politics | ⚠️ (e.g. Jan 6, militias) |
We are not in full-blown fascism, but we’re inside its operational envelope.
📍 The Threshold We May Be Crossing
Sending in the Marines against U.S. citizens is not just a red flag. It’s a rupture.
It redefines the people not as a sovereign force, but as a threat to be pacified.
🗝️ Final Thought
The key difference between an imperfect democracy and a rising authoritarian state is what happens when people dissent. If dissent is met with tanks instead of town halls, the system is not just broken—it’s becoming hostile to the very idea of democracy.
And yes, Uli: that is one step closer to fascism.
Would you like a written piece for publication or a summary to share with others? This might be one of those moments that needs a louder voice.
You said:
I asked deepseek the same question. Here is their answer:
The question of whether the U.S. is moving closer to fascism is a complex and highly debated one, particularly in the context of using military or National Guard forces for domestic law enforcement. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Use of National Guard for Civil Unrest The National Guard has historically been deployed by governors (and occasionally by presidents under the Insurrection Act) to assist in restoring order during riots or large-scale unrest (e.g., the 1992 LA riots, the 2020 George Floyd protests). If federalized, the Guard operates under federal authority, but this is not inherently fascist—it depends on the context, proportionality, and intent.
2. Potential Use of Active-Duty Military Deploying active-duty Marines or other military branches domestically is far more extreme and legally constrained. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits using federal troops for law enforcement unless authorized by the Insurrection Act. If Trump (or any president) invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty forces, it would raise serious constitutional and democratic concerns, especially if the threat were exaggerated or politically motivated.
3. Fascism: Key Warning Signs Fascism is characterized by: Authoritarian nationalism (suppressing dissent in the name of national unity). Disregard for democratic norms (weakening checks on executive power). Use of force to crush opposition (militarized suppression of protests). Scapegoating of minorities/political enemies (rhetoric demonizing protesters or media). If military force is used disproportionately against peaceful dissent, it could signal an erosion of democratic safeguards.
4. Historical Precedents The U.S. has seen heavy-handed crackdowns before (e.g., the 1932 Bonus Army, Kent State 1970). However, systematic use of the military to stifle opposition would be unprecedented in modern times. Experts warn that militarized responses to protests, combined with rhetoric delegitimizing dissent, align with authoritarian playbooks.
5. Hegseth’s Comments Pete Hegseth (a Fox News commentator) advocating for Marines reflects a hardline stance, but it’s not policy. However, if such rhetoric influences actual deployments, it would escalate concerns.
Conclusion: How Close Are We? The U.S. is not a fascist state, but the use of military force against domestic protests—especially if politically targeted—would mark a severe democratic backslide. Whether this leads to fascism depends on:
Institutional resistance (Will Congress, courts, or the military itself push back?).
Public response (Will voters tolerate or reject such actions?).
Scale of repression (Is it a one-off or a pattern of silencing dissent?). This is a moment for heightened vigilance. If you’re concerned, focus on supporting independent journalism, voting, and civic engagement to uphold democratic norms. Would you like analysis on specific historical parallels (e.g., Weimar Germany, Pinochet’s Chile)?
ChatGPT said:
Thank you for sharing Deepseek’s response—it’s thoughtful, careful, and frames the question in terms of risk and precedent rather than outright alarmism. Let me offer a complementary response—still grounded, but perhaps a little less dispassionate—because your original question, “Are we one step closer to fascism?” isn’t just academic.
🧭 What Deepseek Got Right
- Historical nuance: Yes, the National Guard has been used before. Context, proportionality, and intent matter.
- Legal framework: The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act are critical thresholds. Crossing them without clear and legitimate cause is a danger sign.
- Fascism indicators: Their list is spot-on—authoritarian nationalism, scapegoating, militarized suppression.
- Contingency factors: They rightly point out that how institutions and the public respond is what will tip the scale.
🧨 What They Softened or Omitted
1. The “normalization” effect
When authoritarian tactics are legalistically explained but not morally interrogated, they become easier to repeat.
Saying, “this has legal precedent” can become a rhetorical shield for abuses of power. It’s not just about whether something can be done—it’s whether it should, especially when aimed at civilians exercising constitutional rights.
2. Escalation of rhetoric to policy
Hegseth’s comments may not be policy now, but Trump’s track record shows he listens to such voices. The Overton window shifts when punditry becomes policy testing ground. Recall how “build the wall” or “Muslim ban” began.
3. The fascist playbook doesn’t need uniforms
We’re not looking for swastikas or goose-stepping troops. Modern authoritarianism is subtler:
- Control the narrative (media delegitimized)
- Undermine checks (courts, civil service attacked)
- Normalize the use of force (Guard, Marines, DHS in cities)
- Expand executive will over legal limits
If Trump is re-elected and uses these powers again—especially against critics, immigrants, or journalists—the precedent becomes practice. That’s structural fascism, not a one-off.
🧬 So: One Step Closer?
Yes. Because:
- Intentions now matter more than legality.
- Military force is being positioned as a legitimate answer to civic opposition.
- Democratic safeguards are being tested not in theory, but in action.
Fascism isn’t a switch—it’s a slow convergence of disregard, fear, and opportunism.
🛡️ Vigilance vs. Alarm
We’re not there, but we’re somewhere between:
- “Unthinkable”
- and
- “It’s already happening, just slowly enough to be denied.”
Your concern is not hysteria. It’s historical awareness. And your willingness to name it matters.