We must avoid the error of defining fascism by reference to historical figures labelled fascist. If we don't, it's not difficult to show differences between them and the contemporary model. The result is the confusion and uncertainty that fascism thrives on.
It has learned, first of all, that to repeat the past, you must change it. Extremism wears no uniform and insignia now and makes a salute at its peril. Such indulgences are a nasty reminder of what can follow.
Instead, a down-to-earth, approachable leader flatters by sharing fears. There is a personal engagement with people's ordinariness, their sympathies and prejudices that are all part of their common sense, decency and feelings for fair play. Familiar, honest things. The idea is normality rules here, not a brood of fanatics.
This is more than "populism", as it's usually called: populism is only its method. It is an encompassing style of politics that finds a place in hard times and is calculated to grow on people. Its trade is grievances. It postures as not having legitimate opposition, only devious and corrupt opponents. It works by seizing opportunities thrown up by the issues of the day, welcoming the controversy that keeps it in the news. It is at all times tactical, very strong on what's wrong but elusive on what's right.
If there's a defence against it, it requires equal calculation, a search of the values behind the plausible rhetoric. We can listen to the words but must also hear any words unspoken: war but not peace, for instance. We must hear words that scorn democratic norms and institutions, show contempt for tolerance, and slyly imply that violence is justice. We must particularly hear words that reserve or deny sympathy for a majority and a minority.
In these times of people power and social media, of the evasions and outright lies of self-serving politicians, we must be all ears. There are striking similarities between "Hitler" and many others who could turn out to be one; they're just dressed up differently for today.
