Kim Monson Featured Articles

The ubiquity and frequency of the word fascism have grown significantly in recent years to the point that it is now used as a weapon as opposed to a philosophical argument. Declaring that another is a fascist is a way to discredit the accused fascist and silence debate about the topic at hand. For most, this logical fallacy was obvious and showed that true intellectual dialogue could not be continued, however that all changed on September 10th of this year when the accusation of a fascist led to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Since the declaration of fascism now gives the power and authority to murder in cold blood or physically harm others, it is long past due to look at where the word comes from and what it means to be a fascist. Words are necessary for our society to exist and if we are going to accuse others of the heinous crime of being a fascist, we should all be on the same page of where fascism came from and who actually is a fascist in our country.

It should come as no surprise that at the same time that the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazism) was gaining traction, a similar socialist party was rising under Mussolini in Italy. His Fascist bloc used an emblem from the Roman times: the fasces which is a bundle of rods strapped around an ax. This emblem came to signify the main tenet of fascism which is the use of state force to unite everyone under their power and authority. Fascism was not an insult to them at the time; it was a self-identifying belief in a political movement born out of revolutionary socialism. Fascism was not born out of a desire to protect the greatness of what Italy used to be but rather a radical reimagining of what governance should be that would reorganize society and deliver national greatness through modern planning and aggressive central control. Mussolini explained the goal of fascism rather bluntly when he said, “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” From this statement, it is very easy to glean the political, economic, and cultural goals of fascism.

A necessity of fascism is to create an authoritarian regime by which the goals of fascism could then be achieved. They did not believe in having checks and balances on the government and abandoned the idea of limiting the government and its bureaucracies. To achieve that end, fascism directly attacked the belief of individual rights and believed that the rights of the people outweighed the rights of individuals. This was typically portrayed and communicated through the ultranationalist argument using the good of the nation to justify a host of grievances including censoring the press, banning opposition parties, and jailing or outright killing opponents. It seems quite obvious then that the economics of the country would be neither outright socialism nor any sort of free market. Instead, they used corporatism and unions to allow the state to direct how private property was used and utilized. The unions allowed the state to set wages, working rules, and production priorities but at the same time they did not allow strikes. Independent unions were quickly crushed as were any corporations that did not want to listen nor embrace fascist control. For the good of the nation, fascism believes in state direction, coordination, and discipline of every major industry. Culturally, they squashed any semblance of free speech or the right to peacefully assemble. Any satire or criticism of the government was seen as treasonous. Fascists do not believe in moral relativism but neither did they believe that truth was absolute. Instead, the state was the source of truth and any disagreement with the truth was by extension a disagreement with the state – a very dangerous position to take.

This naturally begs the question of how does fascism present itself in our society? The simple answer is that unless someone is a self-identified fascist there is a high likelihood that they are not indeed a true fascist. What does bear a deeper analysis is where each party falls on its proclivity towards the fascists’ goals with respect to government power, nationalism, economics, and the culture. Perhaps the speediest analysis is to investigate first what an antifascist truly is. Any individual that supports the following is in fact supporting anti-fascism: decreasing the size and scope of the government; limiting the power of bureaucracies and government officials; support for free speech in all of its forms (individual speech, freedom of the press, the ability to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances); representative and democratic governments; free markets; individual rights and moral absolutism. Missing from this list are two main ideas that bear greater scrutiny and nuance: socialism and nationalism. Even though the fascist movement was carried into existence by the socialist movement, both Hitler and Mussolini aligned their fascist movements against Marxism for a critical, pragmatic reason: it is much easier to consolidate power if you co-opt capital rather than outright nationalizing of all industries, thus the abandonment of socialism once the vehicle of power was under their control. Fascism and socialism/Marxism are very similar in their economic goals with minor differences on how private property is “defined” because even though fascism allows for property ownership, what ownership do those individuals truly have of their businesses if the production is controlled by the state? So how then do we deal with nationalism as this term appears to produce different thoughts under different regimes? Fascist nationalism uses the national identity to justify breaking individual rights to bow to the collective whereas civic nationalism is much different. Civic nationalism, that most conservatives follow, is a love of the country because of the ideals our country is founded on which is why many citizens can say they love America but in the same sentence denounce a strong central government – something a fascist could not do. Thus, to say that anti-nationalism is anti-fascist is a sophistic argument, when the more correct argument would be that to justify mistreatment of an individual or group based on the needs of the many is one side step away from mirroring a fascist, nationalistic ideal.

The ultimate irony is that the individual who assassinated Charlie Kirk bears more resemblance to a fascist than Charlie Kirk ever did. As opposed to standing on the side of free speech and individual rights as Charlie did, the assassin instead believed in using force and violence to silence those who had opposing views. It is dangerous for us to use words improperly especially when those words are used to silence debate and discussions which are in effect censoring opposition. If we as a society begin to throw words around without knowing their true meaning, how can we expect to self-govern? When activists, media members, or politicians point at Republicans and declare they are fascists, they are doing two things at once: lying about what fascism is and creating a permission structure for violence against Republicans. We must stop allowing lazy people on both sides to throw the word fascist around just to shut people up. We must demand for the correct definition and historical accuracy; we must request to argue like adults, not toddlers who can call you a poo-poo-diaper-baby in order to win the debate. If words are going to now mark targets for elimination, then there must be an accountability for using those words.

Two shoe salesmen were sent to a new territory to assess its market potential and report back to their company. The first salesman reported back, “There is no potential, nobody wears shoes here.” The second salesman reported back, “There is unbelievable potential, nobody wears shoes here.” This story is a concise example of a situation that may be viewed both as an obstacle or an opportunity.

A few years ago, a friend leading my county’s political party got a call from a Boulder, Colorado high school politics teacher. The instructor was inquiring if someone would be interested in speaking to his class about our political party platform to his students. As a recognized speaker within the party, my name was provided to the instructor, who subsequently extended an invitation to me.

With a bit of hesitation and many questions I queried what the instructor had in mind. He explained he wanted to get his students to think for themselves about all the local political party platforms so they could understand the different public policy positions and learn to be good civic citizens. I accepted the opportunity.

The first year I did the presentation I did it from a historical perspective. I began by greeting the students at the door of the classroom and shook each of their hands, I looked them in the eye and said, “Hello, I’m Brad, what’s your name?” and handed them a booklet with the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution. The students were polite and about one third of the class seemed receptive to my message. They asked engaging and challenging questions. Upon reflection, I recognize that my presentation focused extensively on facts and figures, which resulted in insufficient time being allocated for additional questions. I should have incorporated more stories that made a point.

Over the past two years, I have modified my program following previous experiences. My presentations typically last 15-20 minutes and focus on the principles of freedom associated with the founding of the United States. Our country was established on the idea that all individuals are created equal, reflecting the concept of human equality. The American Founders and Framers debated and acknowledged the concept of universal, equal, natural rights for everyone. Citizens provide consent to be governed and to have their rights protected by elected representatives. These representatives operate within defined limits, forming a constitutional government based on the rule of law intended to protect individual rights and property equally. Historically, this concept has served as the basis for our major political parties.

Upon my arrival at the classroom, I placed a poster on the wall listing the freedom principles just mentioned, yet I revealed them one by one and shared their significance. I opened by reciting a paragraph from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural speech from March 4, 1801, “…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

This section of Jefferson’s speech concisely gives the reason for our form of government, which is to protect those universal, equal, natural rights of all men, meaning all citizens. It sets the stage for how I engage the students.

Then at this point I opened the floor for questions, requiring the students to select one of the principles we discussed and tying their question to a freedom principle. This way the students must think about their question rather than base it on a preconceived notion or emotion. This approach encourages more in-depth discussion and solicits greater input from students by opening their perspectives on their questions. It allows for reflection before responding, promoting dialogue rather than one-sided communication.

One hour goes by quickly and there are always more questions than the time allotted. A few students always stay behind to thank me and ask more questions or want to make a point. Some even ask for my contact information to send me more questions if they have them. I am happy to accommodate their desire to learn more.

Notice I have not revealed which political party I am representing in this essay although you may easily guess. That is by design. The instructor does mention to the students the party I am representing in my introduction, but for the purposes here, my goal is to demonstrate that high school students are curious and want to think about ideas. They may not be ready to pick a political party, yet they do want to be challenged by concepts and information of “how to think, not what to think.”

I am hopeful about this new group of students being raised in 2025. I see in their eyes and in their questions a desire to understand and find the universal truths of mankind. They are, in my experience, optimistic and want answers to understand the world around them. The answer to many of these young people’s questions of what it means to be human and exploring life’s complexities is by having more open dialog. My interaction with these students is not just speaking to them but helping them discover these principles as truths. I think there is unbelievable potential, like the second salesman said, “nobody wears shoes here.”