Davis, CA — UC Davis philosophy professor Mark Reiff spoke with the Vanguard this week in a Zoom interview, and issued a stark warning about the moral foundations of fascism, the limits of reasoned debate in confronting it, and the failures of liberal institutions—including academia itself—to respond with clarity or courage.
Reiff, whose recent book What Stares Back When One Stares Into the De–Enlightenment examines the values underlying fascist political movements, said that many liberals mistakenly assume fascism is defined by moral nihilism or authoritarian immorality.
“That’s wrong,” Reiff insisted. “Fascism has a very comprehensive set of moral values—perverse to us, yes—but moral values nonetheless.”
According to Reiff, this misunderstanding weakens the liberal response.
“We think if we just explain how Trump violates the Constitution or disregards the law, people will change their minds. But if you live in a different moral world, that’s not persuasive.” – Mark Reiff
“It’s not an insult to a fascist to call them racist. They’ll say, ‘Yes, exactly—that’s what I’m trying to do.’ We think we’re criticizing them for being illiberal, but that’s the goal. Our failure is not identifying and directly opposing their values.”
Reiff argues that fascism is grounded in a radically different conception of society and the self. Liberal democracies are organized around individual rights, he explained, whereas fascism sees “the people” as the core moral unit. But who counts as “the people” is strictly defined.
“For liberals, ‘the people’ means everyone, or at least all citizens. For fascists, it excludes entire categories—Black people, gay people, Jews, Muslims, women, anyone who doesn’t conform,” he said. “Fascism claims to be democratic, but only because everyone inside its narrowly defined ‘people’ is assumed to think the same way.”
This homogeneity justifies authoritarian control. “If the people are all one, then the leader can do whatever he wants—because he is simply enacting the will of the people,” Reiff said. “That’s how they see it. It’s like the Trinity in Catholic theology: the leader, the state, and the people are one.”
In this worldview, there is no tension between dictatorship and democracy—because dissenters aren’t considered part of the people in the first place.
Reiff sees this fascist logic playing out in real time under President Donald Trump’s second administration. “There’s a race among his minions to please him. Everyone knows what Trump wants, so they try to do it without being asked,” Reiff said, referencing the infamous Nazi-era quote about officials anticipating Hitler’s will.
“Trump doesn’t need to issue direct orders. His subordinates act in anticipation of the leader’s desires because they believe they’re channeling the will of the people. That’s a fascist framework,” he said.
Reiff’s analysis underscores why traditional liberal tools—facts, evidence, rational debate—are failing to reach hardened supporters of authoritarianism. “We think if we just explain how Trump violates the Constitution or disregards the law, people will change their minds,” he said. “But if you live in a different moral world, that’s not persuasive.”
For fascists, truth itself is reframed. “In liberalism, truth means the best inference from available evidence. But in fascism, truth is aspirational—it’s about what should be true, not what is true. Facts were never part of the equation, so pointing them out isn’t an argument.”
“Fascism has a very comprehensive set of moral values—perverse to us, yes—but moral values nonetheless.” – Mark Reiff
This is why fact-checking often backfires, Reiff said, referencing research into conspiracy theories like QAnon. “Correcting the record can make things worse. It just confirms the belief that a vast conspiracy is hiding the truth.”
Despite the bleak landscape, Reiff is not entirely without hope. He argues that, while rational argument fails with committed fascists, other modes of persuasion—emotional, narrative, aesthetic—can still reach people on the fence.
“During fascist periods, art often flourishes because it’s one of the few avenues left for making moral arguments,” he noted. “That’s why figures like Martin Luther King were so powerful. He didn’t just argue. He told stories, created emotional resonance, inspired with vision.”
But Reiff is critical of liberal leaders for failing to do the same. “What we need are compelling narratives. What we get are technocratic talking points drained of emotion. That’s not how you inspire resistance.”
Reiff’s critique extends beyond politics. He believes that universities have failed in their duty to equip citizens with the tools to resist authoritarian thinking. “This couldn’t be happening if our universities had done their job,” he said. “The fact that so many people can embrace fascist values suggests that our institutions have failed for decades.”
The corporatization of higher education, he argued, has turned faculty into risk-averse bureaucrats. “I’ve been told many times, ‘Don’t let students know what you believe.’ But students need role models. They need to see people standing up for something,” he said.
One academic leader once told him, “Nothing we do as professors could ever affect the real world.” Reiff’s response: “Then why are we doing this?”
Reiff warned that many Americans remain dangerously complacent. “People say, ‘This isn’t Nazi Germany.’ And I say: it’s worse. In 1933, there was no Hitler yet. We’ve already had our warning, and we’re repeating the same patterns.”
He noted that while the United States still has institutions like courts and a free press, they are not functioning as intended. “It’s not that the guardrails don’t exist. It’s that they’ve been co-opted. They’re failing to protect us.”
He cited recent cases in which federal judges have hesitated to hold Trump administration officials in contempt, even in the face of blatant defiance. “If you did that in any courtroom in America, you’d be sanctioned immediately,” he said. “And yet here we are.”
Ultimately, Reiff believes the path forward requires moral courage—particularly from liberals.
“We’re conflict-averse. We want to respect everyone’s views. But this is a moment when we need to stand up, take risks, and be willing to absorb some hits,” he said.
He drew a contrast with how power is typically demonstrated. “One way to show power is by absorbing injury and standing firm. That’s what the civil rights movement did. That’s what Martin Luther King did.”
With authoritarianism spreading across multiple institutions and civic norms collapsing, Reiff believes it will take more than reason to turn things around. “We need art. We need narrative. We need leadership. And we need people who are willing to fight.”
“Reiff’s analysis underscores why traditional liberal tools—facts, evidence, rational debate”
I read up to this point anyway…
Too bad. But one regret I had, I’m not sure if he was referring to liberals in the context it is used in the US or in terms of liberal democracy, which means something very different. I should have clarified that in retrospect.
It’s pretty clear in the context of his remarks throughout the interview – and the title of his book – that he is referring to “liberalism” as the political philosophy that grew out of the enlightenment – a politics based on individual freedom, free market capitalism, and rational evidence-based science. Things that Republicans used to believe in.
“I’ve been told many times, ‘Don’t let students know what you believe.’
(Good advice, overall. Or more importantly, don’t tell students what THEY should believe.)
“But students need role models. They need to see people standing up for something,” he said.”
(No, they don’t. That’s not what they’re there for. In fact, I’d argue that such a belief could even be an indicator of arrogance. I, for one, don’t automatically claim to be “wiser” or “smarter” than students. You’re there to serve THEIR needs, not yours.)
“One academic leader once told him, “Nothing we do as professors could ever affect the real world..” Reiff’s response: “Then why are we doing this?”
(Well, you’re doing it because it’s a pretty sweet job – and one of the few avenues where someone with a Ph.D. in philosophy, for example, has a chance of being employed. And – where you can spout off and not get fired.)
(Students are there so that THEY can get a job after graduation.)
“This couldn’t be happening if our universities had done their job,”
I agree, but not for the reason you’re putting forth.
You seem very anti-education in general, anti-academic in specific (and interestingly picking on periphery rather than core issues of the interview).
It’s not anti-education, it’s anti-indoctrination.
Indoctrination is an overused term in the political sphere. It implies a level of intentionality that simply doesn’t exist in the actual educational setting. The term is misused. It is used to discredit educational content that someone politically or ideologically oppose—especially in areas like race, gender, or history. It’s often a projection of disagreement, not a demonstration of actual coercive educational practices.
I am not “anti-education” – I’m the exact opposite of that.
But it seems to me that some professors don’t understand why their own job exists (or at least, not the primary reason it exists).
No one would attend a university if they weren’t hoping that it leads to better employment opportunities. It is WAY too costly (financially, and otherwise) to do so in the absence of the primary reason to attend.
It is somewhat “different” than how it was viewed in the “old days”, where it was sort-of viewed as a way for young people to become more “rounded” (and when it was basically “free” to attend). But those were the days when ANY college degree was more valuable in the workplace, than it is now. (As a side note, that earlier period also corresponds to the time that primarily “white men” were the ones attending. Nowadays, everyone and their grandmother has a degree – the only difference being that they’re now saddled with student loan debt.)
First, at places like UC Davis, their job is first research and maybe second education.
Second, part of education is mentorship.
Third, if you believe these days a college degree means less, simply look at the income disparity. Part of Trumpism’s appeal is the “left behind” blue collar, working class person who struggles to get by without a college and sometimes without a high school degree.
But if they get a university education, they might learn that “normal” people don’t use the “n” word (good heavens, it might hurt MAGA’s feelings!), and that’s apparently “indoctrination.”
Part of education is good citizenship. Good citizens learn not to say the most horrible, antisocial things that come into their little pea brains just because they “can.”
I can’t get my kid to clean her room, but someone thinks a teacher can convince them to chop off various body parts…. Oh wait, wrong topic.
“Mentorship” in regard to employable skills – I’d agree.
Regarding research, I thought that Trump did-away with that? (Regardless, that’s not what the author is referring to.)
Regarding comparisons with “blue collar” work, I’m not referring to factory workers.
One problem with comparing salaries of college educated people with “everyone else” is that societal “losers” generally fall into the “everyone else” group. (The reason being that college itself requires dedication and some talent to get through it.)
Another problem with comparing salaries is that it doesn’t account for student debt, nor does it account for taxpayer subsidies to the university system. (Both of which should be compared to the cost of training programs for trades.) Another problem is that it doesn’t always account for lack of salary while attending college.
I’m increasingly seeing articles showing that college enrollment is dropping like a rock (not yet at the UC system – but in all other systems.) And that interest in the trades is increasing.
As a side note, Trump’s immigration “policies” are likely leading to fewer skilled workers, thereby increasing demand for U.S. blue-collar, skilled workers.
Two degrees of dissembling and into the rabbit hole we go.
You mean like “this” rabbit hole?
“I can’t get my kid to clean her room, but someone thinks a teacher can convince them to chop off various body parts…. Oh wait, wrong topic.”
Or, this one?
“But if they get a university education, they might learn that “normal” people don’t use the “n” word (good heavens, it might hurt MAGA’s feelings!), and that’s apparently “indoctrination.”
But again (back to the topic), there’s almost NO STUDENT who would attend college if not for the primary reason (subsequent, hoped-for employment). Your “average” computer science major is not there to here some professor’s views on Trump.
Now, maybe these other people (who have no chance of employment, as a result of their choice in degree) are somewhat more-interested in what some professor thinks. (THERE’s their role model – someone who is almost as unemployable at they are as a result of their similar choice of degree – outside of the university system itself.)
“hear”, not “here”. (Yeap, I went to college.)
(But truth be told, I’d see my error when reading it again if I was still in elementary school, in a system that itself was sub-par.)
KS say: ” But if they get a university education, they might learn that “normal” people don’t use the “n” word ”
I’m not following. What does that have to do with anything? Was something deleted that this is referring to?
“I can’t get my kid to clean her room, but someone thinks a teacher can convince them to chop off various body parts…. Oh wait, wrong topic.”
Similar to this, these chumps are trying to pass a “No furries” bill in Texas to keep “furries” from using litterboxes in classrooms.
And yet this hasn’t happened. What a laughingstock these people are.
“Two degrees of dissembling and into the rabbit hole we go.”
And seems to be arguing to go back to a time when only “white men” were at the univerisities.
But he’s not on the right. No, not at all. 😆🤣😂🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
The professor was definitely right about one thing. We should never have had a culture where “respect” is expected to be given to every opinion just because it’s a personal opinion.
Naw. Many “opinions” of these right wingers are morally reprehensible and need to be called out as such. Let them whine. Maybe they can try being decent human beings for once in their privileged little lives.
Right – I was referring to a time when discrimination was rampant, and college degrees were primarily pursued by white men, thereby creating “exclusivity” regarding graduating from college (and providing additional incentive for societal discrimination – including subsequent employment opportunities).
Are your reading comprehension skills so poor that you saw that as “support” for that type of society?
I laugh at your “reading comprehension” comment coming from someone who didn’t know what the social contract is.
Have a seat.
Social contract has no meaning in law. The police aren’t going to arrest you by referring to a “social contract”, nor is the DA going to charge you with a crime by literally referring to a “social contract”.
Again, I avoided taking majors that didn’t lead to a job. Perhaps you impressed someone at a job interview by lecturing them on “social contracts”. (Actually, you might have, if you ever worked at a university in support of an unemployable field. And if that didn’t work, perhaps your hostility toward someone for having the “wrong” political views did work for you – I wouldn’t be surprised.)
Social contract is the basis of the US Constitution which is the foundation of our law.
I already know that, David – we’ve been through this.
If you’re stating that the “basis” is exactly the same thing as the Constitution itself, then perhaps the words could be used interchangeably. But I have not seen that in action in any arrest or prosecution of a crime (e.g., “you’re charged with violating the social contract – how do you plead”?)
(The answer would likely be, WTF are you talking about, your honor?)
They don’t charge you with the act of violating the social contract – but the act of violating the law is in effect doing that very thing.
You’re mincing words, here.
Is this something you really want to argue about (another rabbit hole, as you put it)?
Again, one would have to compare exactly what was in the “social contract” (line-by-line) with the U.S. Constitution, to conclude that they’re exactly the same.
There’s no such thing as violating a legally social contract in law. If you’re stating otherwise, please put forward citations in which someone was charged with violating a specific statute contained within a law formally labeled as a social contract.
The law would be based on the Constitution, not the “basis” for it.
It’s either that or get back on the phone, and my hand is cramping. Besides, I’m actually interested in the topic.
Well, it is somewhat interesting. But it’s not a point of argument with someone like Kendra, who attempts to use this as an insult.
I’m familiar with the Constitution and its amendments, but truth be told – I’ve kind of forgotten what some of what’s in there, as well. (The reason being that it doesn’t come into play in my everyday life, in any obvious way.) But it’s easy-enough to research it.
Now, if I was running for president, I’d probably “review it” at least. (Yes, that’s a joke.)
Let’s just hope that no one exercises their “Second Amendment” rights in a way that no one likes. (Well, too late for that, really.)
By the way, was THAT in the “social contract”?
We already know that the founders somehow “forgot about” slavery, as George Carlin put it.
Sounds like you’re one of the people “engaging” with people like Beth Bourne (thereby almost causing a shut-down of the free-speech area at the Farmer’s Market – ultimately due to “lack of respect” for others).
Certainly within your privileged ability to do so.
Perhaps the positive contribution in doing so is the entertaining spectacle it creates for others, when attempting to purchase a bag of oranges from local farmers.
Wrong again. Sounds like you are utterly incapable of not making assumptions and creating strawmen out of whole cloth. You have zero idea who I am and what I do and what I do in my spare time.
Anything else you want to be dead and laughably wrong about?
Again, someone who advocates calling Black people the “n” word with impunity can have a seat. That kind of person is not “normal” or “decent.”
Have these two even set foot in an institution of higher learning? They seem to have not one clue as to how it actually works.
Proud Dunning Kruegers.
Two master degrees, for me. Obtained simultaneously, while working full time (which also required travel across the U.S.).
Anything else you want to say?
2 masters degrees and still don’t know what the social contract is and its influence on the founding document of your country?
I stand by my Dunning Krueger comment.
And anyone arguing that people should be allowed to use the “n” word with impunity have no moral leg to stand on.
Nowhere did I say that using such a word should be met with “impunity”. I support you (and anyone else) who wants to VERBALLY confront someone who uses that word. Nor would I have a problem with an employer firing someone as a result. (Though that could lead to a lawsuit, if only “some” skin colors were allowed to use it, I suppose.)
But unlike you, I don’t support violent responses. I’m sorry that you feel differently than I do, regarding that.
We’ve been through this a number of times, at this point.
So you actually do have more to say? Apparently, don’t know when to quit when you’re behind.
It is true that I attempted to avoid degrees which had no employability.
It is also true that I don’t advocate violence when someone uses a word that someone else doesn’t like – INCLUDING the “n” word. This is obviously not the same thing as advocating for use of that word. (Again, check your reading comprehension skills, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.)
Regarding “impunity”, you’ve already stated that violence is a justified response, as a result of using that word. So your position is quite clear.
We obviously have a difference of opinion.
Another demonstration of your poor reading, analysis, and critical reasoning skills if you’re still beating on the whole “I’m advocating violence” thing.
You strike me as someone who creates the most ridiculous strawmen out of your fevered, hysterical imagination (or right from your nether regions) to demonize and make yourself feel superior to.
Go tilt at some more strawmen of your own making, Quixote.
You’re a bully. No one is going to be silenced because YOU say so. Got it?
Who do you think you are to tell anyone that, rando?
I don’t really give two runny figs what a bully thinks about anything. And I’m pretty sure to decent people (which excludes several in this conversation right now) it is you who should stop while you’re ahead.
You seem to have no shame, though. That was clear in your stance on the “n” word. How proud Mommy and Daddy and any kids you have must be! What a freedumb defender! A *real* patriot.
Maybe you should quit before you show more people how intellectually deficient you are by showing more of your poor reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
I didn’t state that anyone needed to be “silenced”. In fact, I’m stating the opposite regarding free speech.
Again, this demonstrates your lack of comprehension, or just an active imagination.
I did state that the reason students attend college is to develop job skills, and that (most of them) are not seeking out political opinions of professors, nor are they looking to them to “lead” them in regard to their own opinions. Students are not a blank slate, and it’s not the job of professors to “impart” them with their own opinions. The fact that this is apparently news to you (and anyone else) demonstrates a problem with universities, at least in regard to perception.
Yes, I’m pretty sure that my parents would be proud that I don’t advocate for violence if someone uses a word they don’t like.
I’m no bully – you are. (But really, do you think this is a useful conversation?)
Ok, you guys…. Time to argue the issues rather than personalities.
“Proud Dunning Kruegers.”
Duh, I know I’m intellectually inferior to you but I do know how to spell “Krugers”.
Superficial detail. You can’t critically reason your way out of a wet paper sack, as has been adequately demonstrated by your own words here for years.
You are another antisocial tool of motiveless malignancy. A malignant clown.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect essentially explains that it’s common for some people to have this incorrect idea about how smart they are.
I think this describes you to a tee. And you further proved it by spelling it wrong when you tried to fling it as a pejorative at others.
LMAO
Perhaps, but she didn’t have to look up the term to see what it meant.
Perhaps I didn’t either.
Perhaps you should consider why do you have comment policies that you don’t enforce.
“Perhaps, but she didn’t have to look up the term to see what it meant.”
Spelling vs. looking up a term — who wins? Who cares?
Haven’t read comments yet. But reading the article, I kept thinking that everything being applied to Trump, not all without merit, was also easily applied to far-left progressive fascism. The righteousness, the power grabs, the certainly of ideals, the justification of violence, the gas-lighting talk. Strange that the author is blind to that.
Should be interesting now to read the 18+ comments.
And so weird that he’s criticizing Universities for not standing up against ‘fascism’, when conservatives are complaining that Universities have becomes bastions of far-left political thought. So, does everyone just hate Universities, no matter what?
“One way to show power is by absorbing injury and standing firm.”
And unlike during the civil rights movement, how about NOT whining when you get arrested? Standing firm means accepting the consequences when protesting.
Why is that weird? I’m not sure I agree with him that the universities are the problem, but just because conservatives believe that universities are bastions of far left – doesn’t mean they are. My own experience is that most students are apathetic and the only ones you see are a vocal minority and frankly the same is the case with professors. When I was in graduate school, I was stunned by how non-political the political science department was.
“And so weird that he’s criticizing Universities for not standing up against ‘fascism’, when conservatives are complaining that Universities have becomes bastions of far-left political thought.”
Excellent point Alan.
Every once-in-awhile, Trump “almost” sounds like Jerry Brown. And they’re both actually right regarding this type of thing:
“I’m just saying they don’t need to have 30 dolls. They can have three. They don’t need to have 250 pencils. They can have five.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/04/trump-third-term-economy-tariffs-constitution/83443855007/
(This is the type of thing his own party doesn’t like.)