Jan
29
2026

Good News from Barton Swaim!

He writes at the WSJ: America Doesn’t Do Fascism. (WSJ gifted link)

“The clearest sign that we are not actually in a bubble,” investor Ben Horowitz remarked last month, “is the fact that everyone is talking about a bubble.” You could say the same about fascism. Under the real thing, people know what’s happening without needing a lot of eggheads and politicos to tell them.

Since 2016 Donald Trump’s fiercest critics have intermittently reached for the word “fascism” to explain their troubles. The word is everywhere on the left just now. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz settled on it last summer (“These are fascist policies—that is what they are”), and this week he made the discreditable comparison between people worried about immigration raids and Anne Frank. Democratic Party Chairman Ken Martin calls Mr. Trump “fascism dressed in a red tie” and says the administration wants to “march us to full-on fascism.”

This week the Atlantic published an essay headlined “Yes, It’s Fascism,” in which Brookings Institution scholar Jonathan Rauch draws up a series of categories—“demolition of norms,” “might is right,” “police-state tactics,” “blood-and-soil nationalism”—that in his view describe both Mr. Trump and “classical” fascism of the 1930s. But Mr. Rauch says America “has not fallen to fascism,” which is a relief. We’re now only “a hybrid state combining a fascist leader and a liberal Constitution.”

Read on for Barton's refutation.

Today's Eye Candy from Getty Images is a pic of the Roman fasces, adopted as a symbol by Italian Fascists in 1919. That is, in fact, whence the term "fascism" derives.

And, well, make of this what you will: the fasces used to be pretty popular in America too. It appeared on the Mercury Dime from 1916-1945. The Lincoln Memorial (designed in 1913, completed in 1922) features the symbol throughout. And, notably, the US House chamber has featured two big bronze fasces up on the rostrum since 1950. Versions have been in the House chambers since 1789; so, as they say: a long tradition of existence.

Also of note:

  • Your periodic reminder. And it comes from Romina Boccia at the Daily Economy: Social Security Isn’t a Retirement Account.

    The senators elected in fall 2026 won’t be able to avoid dealing with Social Security. The program is projected to hit a financial cliff before the end of 2032, forcing Congress to consider benefit reductions, higher taxes, or more borrowing.

    The looming deadline exposes a deeper problem than arithmetic: Congress has spent decades selling Social Security as something it isn’t. Public misunderstanding of the program’s true nature is one of the biggest obstacles to reform.

    Many Americans think Social Security works like a retirement account. In Cato polling conducted in August, about one in four said they believed they had a personal account within the system. That misconception didn’t arise by accident. Politicians routinely describe payroll taxes as “contributions,” speak of a “trust fund” as if it held real savings, and defend benefits as “earned.”

    Social Security is not a savings program. It is a pay-as-you-go transfer system. Today’s workers’ payroll taxes fund today’s retirees’ benefits. There is no individual account accumulating a balance over time. Payroll taxes are taxes, neither deposits nor savings.

    The Social Security Administration bears some of the blame: once you assure them of your identity, they will happily let you download your "Social Security Statement", showing the amounts you (and your employers) have forked over to them over the years.

    And to some extent, your retirement benefits are based on that history. But the details get very arbitrary very quickly once you look into it. And (you may have heard) if you're making too much other income, you have to turn around and send some of that cash they sent you … back to Uncle Stupid.

    Okay, I'm done ranting. As a public service, if you have US Senate candidates running this year, demand they tell you their plans for avoiding that financial cliff.

  • I'm not sure whether to be happy or sad about this. Jeffrey Blehar says that Democratic Overreach on Immigration Beckons. (archive.today link)

    A thought on developments in Minnesota and nationwide. In the wake of the Minneapolis shooting, and particularly in the wake of the perceived — and real — climbdown of federal authorities in the city, the far left is now rising like a rabble to not only claim victory but push boldly forward. The rhetoric is loud and growing louder: Trump must somehow be compelled to formally restrict his own powers! ICE or DHS must be abolished! Rise, leftist Lilliputians, and tie President Gulliver down while he’s still dazed!

    And this, incidentally, is why sending Greg Bovino home to retire and bringing in Tom Homan was the strongest possible countermove the Trump administration could have made: not only because Homan is a professional but because progressives who misinterpret the politics of the moment will wipe away their situational advantage by massively misjudging the mood of the American people.

    I should note Jeff Maurer (a liberal Democrat) is making the same observation as Jeffrey: I See a Way for Democrats to Fumble Away Their Sudden Advantage on Immigration. And I'm gonna swipe his graphic:

    In words:

    If people trusted the left more on immigration, then Democrats might have more leeway to have a nuanced conversation about immigration enforcement. But they don’t and they don’t, so “illegal things are illegal” seems like a good message for now. Democrats can offer an alternative to Trump’s marauding gangs of unaccountable thugs by championing professional, practical enforcement of immigration law. They might even go nuts and get serious about E-Verify, surely the most practical way to reduce illegal immigration. For the first time in a decade, Democrats could gain an advantage on illegal immigration. And they might do exactly that, though “overreach and fumble the advantage back to Trump in a shockingly brief amount of time” remains very much on the table.

    So… look forward to more of the (awful) same? For the foreseeable freakin' future?

  • I'm not sorry either. Erick Erickson criticized Trump on his substack, and a commenter wondered if this meant he regretted voting for Trump in 2024.

    Newsflash: Erick is Not Sorry.

    The 2024 election was going to be between the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, and the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris.

    This summer, when Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas retire from the United States Supreme Court, I’ll be very happy Donald Trump is picking their replacements, not Kamala Harris, even as Trump grumbles about Leonard Leo.

    Last week, when Renee Good hit an ICE officer with her car and was killed, I was very glad Donald Trump was President and chose not to drag the ICE officer through the mud or a perp walk for his act of self-defense.

    And more in that vein at the link.

    I get it. And I don't exactly disagree, but I put myself on a different path.

    For the record (in case you've missed it), I didn't mark a vote for President in 2024. I'm not sorry about that. I am sorry that GOP primary voters didn't seem to like Nikki Haley earlier in the year.