[music]

David Remnick: The word of the day in this election is no longer vibes or joy. It's a much darker word. Fascist. The retired four star generals Mark Milley and John Kelly, who both served under Donald Trump, came out and said it. Rachel Maddow could hardly be blamed if she said, "I told you so." Maddow has been warning of authoritarianism at home for a very long time.

Rachel Maddow: This is not normal American stuff. This isn't American at all. This is strongman, authoritarian, form of government stuff, which our Constitution protects us from explicitly. What Trump is proposing to do here in America to the media is what Putin, of course, has already done in Russia.

David Remnick: Maddow's podcast, Ultra and her book Prequel take the long view on far right movements in America going back to 1939, when a pro-Nazi group called the German American Bund held a huge rally in New York City.

Rally Speaker: What we are actively fighting for under our first, a social trust, white gentile ruled United States. Second, gentile controlled labor union free from Jewish Moscow directed domination.

David Remnick: I sat down with Rachel Maddow on stage the other day at the New Yorker Festival. Rachel, let's start with something incredibly cheerful. About a mile up the road, at Madison Square Garden-- I could tell because on the subway down here, I was surrounded by people who were not going here, alas, but going to Madison Square Garden, you could tell by the hats. Something very ominous is occurring. There's a rally, a MAGA rally, a Trump rally at Madison Square Garden. I'd like you to describe what you think the resonances are of that rally at Madison Square Garden.

Rachel Maddow: Lots of things have happened at Madison Square Garden. It's telling that when Trump announced it, immediately, people started talking about February 1939 and the German American Bund holding their rally there. Which I want to say was infamous. Their very famous rally there actually wasn't that well known. It wasn’t a cultural touchstone in American life until fairly recently. There was a beautiful short film that was made about it that raised awareness about it, but also people started talking about it and citing it and incorporating it into our popular history of what's happened in this city and in this country in the past century.

That historical presence of that Bund rally is itself an interesting thing because 10 years ago or 15 years ago, most Americans would not have known that happened. Now we find that Trump is doing one of these final closing argument rallies and he's doing it there. We all think of that. It tells you where our heads are. It also tells you something important about history, which is that we tell ourselves the stories from our history that we think we need today. We're talking a lot about authoritarianism, fascism, we're talking a lot about Hitler, we're talking a lot about stuff that was considered to be off the deep end in terms of mainstream electoral discussion not that long ago.

We’re doing it because we are trying to grasp and put in real context the threat that this very new type of American politician represents in 2024. I am not afraid of the Madison Square garden rally in 2004. Madison Square Garden is where the Republicans all wore band aids as a joke to mock John Kerry's war wounds. 1964, actually, this date, 1964, 60 years ago today, was Barry Goldwater's closing argument rally before the 1964 election in which he railed against desegregation. Got a 28-minute standing ovation and proclaimed that he was about to win the presidency in the greatest upset in the history of American politics. He did not.

10 years before that, in 1954, there was a huge rally. 13,000 people at the Garden to try to head off the censure of Joe McCarthy. Roy Cohn spoke at that. Gerald L.K. Smith, one of America's all time hall of fame anti-Semites, was there. William F. Buckley was, was there. Members of Congress were there. It was organized in terms of the crowd, organized in large part by the National Renaissance Party, which was a uniformed, Stormtrooper-style Nazi militia that wore swastika armbands. Madison Square Garden has had its moments. You may choose one of these analogies instead of the 39 rally. It tells you something about where our heads are at, that those are the kinds of things we're looking for.

David Remnick: We're certainly not thinking about the Knicks, that's for sure. When you watch Marshall Curry's short film, it’s about seven-minutes long. It involves the head of the German American Bund speaking and, by the way, being attacked by a counter demonstrator. Then this guy's beaten into submission. What's amazing is the stagecraft is right out of what would be a Leni Riefenstahl movie. It was Nazism. People wearing armbands, doing the Nazi salute, the rest. If you were to propose this to Donald Trump, he would say, "Oh, come on, get over it. I was president from 2016 to 2020. This business of fascism and authoritarianism is wildly overblown." What say you?

Rachel Maddow: The thing about Curry's film that made it land so viscerally is that it seemed really foreign. The film features Fritz Kuhn, who was the head of the German American Bund, who did want fascism himself, wanted to be America's Fuhrer. Part of the problem, the reason he never did, is because he spoke with an impenetrably thick German American accent, which put people off a little bit.

David Remnick: It was very reassuring.

Rachel Maddow: It was reassuring in a way. "Oh, this is a foreign thing." If you look at Ken Burns’ film on America and the Holocaust, he features not footage of Kuhn, but also of other figures in the German American Bund who did not have accents at all and who were preaching the same anti-Semitic bile. Part of our dissonance there is, how is this America? This seems like such a foreign thing. Then you see the George Washington banners that are hanging on the opposite sides of the stage. Actually the National Renaissance Party, that group that I referenced from the 1954 rally at the Garden, the leader of the National Renaissance Party published a book titled Adolf Hitler: Europe's George Washington.

There's this effort to take foreign fascism and make it seem American. Our dissonance there is, in how can this possibly be homegrown? When we talk about making America great again and we talk about the threat of an authoritarian takeover in the United States in the form of Trumpism, it is not something foreign. It is something that's coming from a fascist place that is a recurring, ebbing, flowing tide that we've faced in multiple generations.

David Remnick: Is Donald Trump a fascist?

Rachel Maddow: Yes.

David Remnick: To reassure you, Liz Cheney said the same thing sitting in that chair yesterday.

Rachel Maddow: Liz Cheney and I have always agreed on everything.

David Remnick: I thought that was true.

Rachel Maddow: We go way back. [crosstalk]

David Remnick: If he's a fascist, is he a self-conscious one?

Rachel Maddow: I don't think it matters. I think that Robert Paxton's definition of fascism is the most useful. He describes the messaging that brings fascists to power and then what happens once fascists are in power. Paxton's key insight was to say their policies don't matter. What they say they want to do with government doesn't matter. They never hold to what they say they're going to do with government. If you can set that aside and look at the way they claim power, it's almost always the same messaging. It is, "We are a Nation in decline. We used to be great. We're no longer great. We have been humiliated. Everybody's laughing at us. We've been victimized by traitors within. Stabbed in the back."

Who has sold us out? Who provides the explanation for why we are no longer great? It's an all-powerful enemy that is within that we need to root out. Normal tactics don't work against them. It's somebody-- It's a group that is among us and also above us. They’re scheming against us and we need to turn our force against them. The immigrants, the liberals, the Jews, whatever, whoever you want your scapegoat to be. Once you've defined this superhuman enemy that has ruined the nation, that needs to be opposed, you can't do that with electoral politics. You can't do that with democracy, because what is democracy?

Democracy is the process by which we all, as equal citizens, participate in a group decision about what we want going forward. You can't have that if there's an enemy among us who is subverting everything that's great about this nation. They can't participate. Therefore we can't use democratic means. We're in an emergency situation. We need an extraordinary means. Maybe we'll get democracy back someday, but we can't use it now. Do you know what? It might have to get a little bloody. We might need a little bit of violence to save the nation, just this once.

David Remnick: You wrote a book called Prequel. You wrote it with a purpose. You titled it with a purpose. Tell me a little--

Rachel Maddow: A little on the nose with the title, I know.

David Remnick: That's fine. It came out, to some degree, out of the podcast Ultra as well. Tell me about the generation of that book and your intent.

Rachel Maddow: I want us to understand previous fights with fascism, domestic fascism in this country. Not because I want to make us feel like, "Oh, we're never going to beat this thing," but because I want us to be proud that we have beat it in the past. I want the Americans who were good at fighting previous generations of fascists to be famous. Almost none of them are. In Prequel and in Ultra, this podcast that I've done a couple series of, almost none of the good guys or people anybody have heard of. I’m trying to-- I'm their PR agent. I'm going back and finding dead antifascists in American history who did good work.

David Remnick: What's radically different between the history described in Prequel and the history that we're living through now? That in Prequel, the bad guys are plenty powerful. Henry Ford, huge industrialist. Charles Coughlin, Father Coughlin, had how many listeners on a given night? 30 million.

Rachel Maddow: In a time, we only had 130 million people in the country. He was getting 20-30 million people listening to him.

David Remnick: More than Tucker Carlson?

Rachel Maddow: Yes. Inarguably the most dominant media figure there's ever been in American history.

David Remnick: But, they weren't President of the United States. That seems to be the elemental difference between Prequel and sequel. What are the origins of Donald Trump, in your view?

Rachel Maddow: I'm going to say something that is not nice, which is that I don't care about Donald Trump as a person at all. I care about him as my fellow man. We all need to recognize the humanity in everyone.

David Remnick: Up to a point.

Rachel Maddow: Yes, but I don't-- Failed watercolorist or whatever Hitler was. Benito Mussolini, small fry journalist. Okay. Do I care? I don't care. I don't think it's the most important thing about them. Are there things in their individual biographies that might explain why they developed the yen that they had to try to become strong men, leaders, and oppressors? Maybe. What I think is the importance of Trump is his message. He’s telling, "I will protect you--"

David Remnick: If I can interrupt, Rachel, forgive me. What I mean is the social conditions that allowed him to be-- In other words. Wait. If you looked at, in the case of Hitler, there's the Treaty of Versailles, the humiliation post the First World War, economic conditions, Weimar, all that. What's the analogy here?

Rachel Maddow: There isn't one. I don't think that authoritarianism rises out of economic conditions. That there are complicated, difficult, and in some cases, incredibly oppressive economic and social conditions that give rise to all sorts of things. The question is whether or not authoritarianism will rise. Authoritarianism rises because you get a talented demagogue who uses the constant grievances that are always there and channels them into a simple solution. "I will take care of you. I will be your protector." All of these things in politics that vex you and that you worry about and that we've been fighting about for so long.

"You will no longer have to worry about them. You will no longer have to think about them. They will be settled. You will not have to vote again." The people who annoy you and who make you uncomfortable and who disagree with you will disappear. The really vexatious ones, the ones who really bug you, we may execute them on television, and it'll be fun. It is a future in which politics doesn't exist because the good guys won and they're going to rule forever. You can sell that to people who are in great need of relief economically or socioeconomically or who have faced various kinds of oppression. You can also, apparently, sell it to billionaires.

David Remnick: The richest person in the country. The richest person in the world, Elon Musk, has already established his bona fides within MAGA, jumping up in the air, contributing tens of millions of dollars. The other day, is the second wealthiest person in the country, in the world, Jeff Bezos decided it would not be a good idea for The Washington Post, which he owns, to publish an endorsement essay. What does that portend, not just for The Washington Post, but for the country, should Donald Trump win?

Rachel Maddow: If the plan is to count on the benevolence and wisdom and courage of billionaires, that's a bad plan. It’s a bad plan for any industry. It’s a really bad plan for any country. Some of the stuff that I've worked on in the past year or so, and some of the interviews and stuff that I've done, I think about a person like Lev Parnas, or a person Stormy Daniels, or a person Cassidy Hutchinson. Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss. I think about Americans that, who have nothing and who have no institution behind them and who have no one supporting them, no one backing them up. They do not have bodyguards, they do not have protection, they do not have money.

I think about those people standing up and saying, "This is a truth that I know and that you all ought to hear about. Trump and his movement are going to be very angry for me to be sharing this, but you need to know." I think about the bravery of those people, of those Americans. Then you contrast it with Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, these guys who have more than anyone has ever had in history. They’re so afraid. They are so afraid of losing any tiny little bit of what they have that they're willing to take being called, and being universally recognized, as sniveling cowards because they're so afraid that they might lose some of what they got.

David Remnick: What do you do if you're a reporter at The Washington Post or you're on the editorial board? What do you do?

Rachel Maddow: Your fear is not helpful to anyone. The power of the authoritarian is your fear. It's a conscious choice to not be afraid. Ultimately, these authoritarians, their message is based on a lie. Trump is not going to be your protector. The people who make you uncomfortable or disagree with you are not going to disappear. There isn't a secret cabal that we can scapegoat and blame for everything. Doing something about immigrants, locking up tens of millions of people in camps is not going to do anything about the price of childcare. If it is going to do something to the price of childcare, it's not going to be what he expects. It's based on a lie.

These guys are just crooks and thieves. Nobody’s afraid of crooks and thieves. They're disgusted by them and want them done with. That psychological message of strength and refusing to play their game, refusing to be afraid, to me, is what I've learned from all of those regular Americans I was describing that I've been trying to do projects with and trying to focus on and trying to interview and trying to showcase. We're not going to be led here by whoever the good version is of Jeff Bezos, or whoever the good version is of Elon Musk. We're going to be led by regular people. By Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss. We're going to be led by Rusty Bowers. We're going to be led by Liz Cheney, frankly. By people who are willing to not be afraid and to act on it and to treat these guys with the disdain they deserve. Opposition matters.

David Remnick: You’re going to be on an election night panel and I want to know, and you've done this before. The stakes have been high before, but never so high as now. What are you feeling when you're sitting there with the little magic camera there and you're surrounded by your colleagues? What's in your, not just your brain, but in your kishkas? How are you processing this? As they now say.

Rachel Maddow: I left my body halfway through the primaries and I will not rejoin my body until Inauguration Day. After we get done covering Inauguration Day, I will go home and drink and cry, no matter who wins, because I have been holding my feelings at bay.

David Remnick: This whole crowd's going to join you.

Rachel Maddow: For months now. Yes.

David Remnick: Rachel Maddow, thank you.

[music]

Announcer: Rachel Maddow leads MSNBC's election coverage and her books include Prequel about the fascist movement in America.

[music]

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.