Opinion & analysis by Supportive Oregonians · Published Aug. 26, 2026 at 8:15 a.m. PT · Sources checked Aug. 26, 2026

Who Are the Fascists? Examining Power, Intimidation, and Political Projection in America

An evidence-based inquiry into fascism’s historical meaning—and a nonpartisan test for concentrated power, coerced conformity, intimidation and weakened rights in American public life.

“Fascist” is used so freely that it often obscures more than it explains. This article does not begin with a roster of villains. It begins with definitions, then asks how government power and political intimidation should be judged—consistently—across parties and movements.

Once someone is branded a fascist, some people decide there is no reason to listen, debate or defend that person’s ordinary civil rights. The label becomes the accusation, trial and sentence. Calling someone a fascist is not itself fascism. But using the accusation to justify threats, censorship, vandalism, professional destruction or denial of due process repeats an old authoritarian habit: classify a person as an enemy, then treat the classification as permission.

The practical question is not simply who wears which label, but how power is organized and restrained. Does emergency authority expire? Can an agency’s decision be independently reviewed? Are speech, association, privacy, property, due process and family relationships governed by clear, neutral rules? Are threats, coercion and violence judged consistently regardless of ideology? Those questions should be asked of every administration, party and movement.

This analysis first examines broad categories of government power and then turns to Oregon schools as one case study involving student safety, privacy, conscience and parental rights. It also examines documented antifascist conduct, Russia’s authoritarian use of “denazification” rhetoric and the habit of political projection. These are institutional comparisons, not claims of equivalence: one disputed policy, protest tactic or abuse of discretion does not by itself make a person, movement or government fascist.

Editorial disclosure: Supportive Oregonians publishes this independent informational website, supports Dr. Barbara Kahl and is not the official campaign. This is an opinion analysis based on linked public records and outside sources. The policy judgments are the publisher’s; readers can inspect the sources and reach their own conclusions.

What fascism actually means

Fascism is not simply government action. It is not a synonym for taxation, regulation, public education, socialism, capitalism, conservatism, progressivism, patriotism, religion, border enforcement or environmental policy.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum defines fascism as a far-right, ultranationalist and authoritarian political philosophy. Its historical account emphasizes the nation above the individual, exclusionary nationalism, paramilitarism, suppression of pluralism and individual rights, one-party rule under an authoritarian leader, and violence treated as redemptive or purifying.

What “far-right” and “far-left” mean

Far-right and far-left are analytical umbrella terms, not synonyms for “politics I strongly dislike.” Their boundaries vary by country and era. A sound classification looks at a movement’s recurring beliefs, goals, conduct and relationship to democracy—not one policy, one slogan or one partisan label.

Direction is not method. Far-right and far-left describe broad ideological direction; democratic and authoritarian describe how power is exercised. These categories are not mirror images and do not imply equal prevalence, harm, goals or methods. A radical movement may pursue change peacefully through elections, while an authoritarian movement can arise on either side. The complete pattern—not a single policy position—matters.

Historical fascist movements commonly concentrated political power around a leader or party, divided society into insiders and enemies, attacked independent institutions, treated loyalty to the movement as more important than neutral law and used national decline or humiliation to promise rebirth. Those traits explain why scholars place historical fascism within the radical nationalist right. They do not make ordinary conservatives fascists.

A constitutional conservative who supports limited government, divided power, religious liberty, free speech, private property, parental authority, due process and equal treatment under law is defending barriers to fascism. A progressive who rejects nationalism is not therefore fascist—but can still act in an authoritarian way by supporting censorship, compelled conformity, unreviewable administrative power or selective punishment of peaceful dissent.

A policy can be authoritarian without establishing a fascist system. A movement can use a tactic associated with fascism without possessing every feature of historical fascism. Precision matters because it allows citizens to criticize coercion without turning every disagreement into a historical analogy.

The political projection of fascism

Political projection appears when a movement loudly condemns in its opponents the same coercive tendencies it excuses within itself. It sounds like this:

• Political violence is unacceptable—unless our cause is morally urgent.
• Government secrecy is dangerous—unless our officials claim to be protecting people.
• Parents deserve respect—unless their beliefs are judged harmful.
• Free speech is fundamental—unless the speaker holds a dangerous idea.
• Due process protects everyone—unless the accused has already been labeled an extremist.
• Government should not impose ideology—unless the ideology is ours.

Projection does not mean every side is identical. It means people often see coercion clearly when the other political tribe uses it and much less clearly when their own side does.

The real test of a democratic principle is whether it protects people we distrust. Free speech that exists only for agreeable speech is not free speech. Due process that exists only for sympathetic defendants is not due process. Religious liberty that exists only for approved religions is not religious liberty. Antifascism that protects only the rights of antifascists is not a defense of universal freedom.

Who are the fascists? Examine power before labels.

The title question is deliberately uncomfortable. It cannot be answered responsibly by naming an entire party, profession or voting bloc. People hold inconsistent views and can change. Policies and institutions are easier to examine because they transfer authority, define rights, establish penalties and affect people who never consented to them.

That produces better civic language: this rule weakens due process; this agency has too much unreviewed discretion; this practice discriminates by viewpoint; this movement uses intimidation to silence lawful opposition. Those claims invite evidence. A label usually invites retaliation.

A policy does not become democratic because it uses compassionate vocabulary, and it does not become fascist merely because government acts. Democratic governments tax, regulate, police, educate and provide services. The key question is what a policy permits, how long the power lasts, who reviews it and what remedy remains when officials are wrong.

Where government policy deserves scrutiny

The same constitutional questions should follow power across policy areas. No single item below proves fascism. Each is a place where legal authority, necessity, scope, duration, transparency, review and remedy should be visible to the public.

These standards apply whether authority comes from a Republican president, Democratic governor, Congress, an agency, a school district, a police bureau or a public-private partnership. Applying one test across ideologies does not claim that every abuse is equally common or equally severe. It means constitutional rights should not change with the party controlling the machinery.

Oregon schools as a case study: safety, secrecy and parental rights

Schools are one case study—not the definition of fascism and not this article’s whole subject. They are useful because they combine state authority, a vulnerable population, professional discretion, confidential records, compelled-speech concerns and family rights.

One of Oregon’s clearest debates concerns schools, children, gender identity and parents. Accuracy is essential because exaggeration weakens legitimate criticism.

Oregon has not enacted a blanket statute ordering every teacher to deceive every parent. The Oregon Department of Education’s still-posted Supporting Gender Expansive Students guidance was published in January 2023. ODE describes it as recommendations and best practices, not legal advice, and says updates are being released section by section.

The full guidance says determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student. It recommends letting students decide when, with whom and how much identity information to share. It also says schools should begin treating a student in alignment with an asserted identity, possibly involving a parent or caregiver but not necessarily.

Most significantly, ODE recommends that, “to the extent possible,” schools refrain from revealing a student’s gender identity—even to parents, caregivers or other administrators—without the student’s permission. It says those decisions should be individualized according to student safety and that schools should work with a parent or caregiver “if appropriate.”

Oregon law separately requires school-district policies providing parental notification when a student is subjected to bullying or may have committed it. For the targeted student, ORS 339.356 permits withholding notification when an official reasonably believes it could endanger the student. Notification also may be withheld if the targeted student requests confidentiality, the official finds notification is not in that student’s best interest and the student is warned that federal law may still provide parents access to the relevant education record.

The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act generally allows parents to inspect maintained education records, seek corrections and exercise some control over disclosure, subject to legal exceptions. Those rights normally transfer at age 18 or when a student attends a postsecondary institution. FERPA does not require proactive disclosure of every conversation. ODE does say that a written support and safety plan is part of the education record and may be subject to parental disclosure under FERPA.

Those are the relevant facts. The moral and constitutional question is harder:

This question fits the site’s broader focus on Oregon education results and parental choice. It is not resolved by pretending every parent is safe. It is also not resolved by treating parental disagreement as evidence of danger.

Genuine danger exists—but disagreement is not automatically abuse

Some children live in dangerous homes. Physical violence, sexual abuse, severe emotional abuse, abandonment and credible threats are real. No responsible defense of parental rights should require immediate disclosure when specific evidence indicates that doing so could place a child in serious danger.

But an exception designed for genuine danger can become overbroad when “danger” lacks a clear standard or becomes ideological. A parent who threatens violence presents a safety concern. A parent who has committed abuse presents a safety concern. A parent who says, “I love my child, but I do not agree with this interpretation of sex and gender,” has expressed disagreement. That disagreement may be emotionally difficult, but it is not automatically abuse.

This editorial argues that a government institution should not convert ordinary religious, scientific, moral or philosophical disagreement into evidence that a parent is unsafe. Nor should a student’s fear of disapproval, standing alone, automatically prove that a parent presents danger.

Where discretion can become a problem

1. The school employee becomes the judge of the parent. “Best interest” can be necessary, but citizens should know what evidence, documentation, review and appeal govern that judgment.
2. An emergency exception can become normal procedure. Confidentiality may be necessary when evidence indicates abuse; it should not become indefinite simply because no one must reconsider it.
3. The school can become a parallel family authority. Teachers and counselors may be trusted adults, but major support decisions require stronger safeguards than ordinary classroom interactions.
4. Safety can become an ideological veto. If disagreement, discomfort, criticism and threats are placed in the same category, a protective standard can become a tool for excluding dissent.

Nothing in the reviewed guidance establishes blanket school authority to authorize medical treatment independently of parents. The concern is narrower: social and educational support can still become significant, and decisions about secrecy and parental exclusion should be transparent and reviewable.

The safeguards this editorial proposes

1. A presumption of parental involvement. Parents should ordinarily be informed about significant identity, counseling, behavioral, disciplinary or written support-plan decisions involving their minor children.
2. A specific-evidence standard. Religious conviction, political belief, anticipated disapproval or disagreement alone should not be treated as proof of abuse or danger.
3. Written findings. When information is withheld, the decision should identify the safety concern and the evidence supporting it while protecting information whose release could itself endanger the student.
4. Independent review. One teacher, counselor or administrator should not hold indefinite unilateral authority to exclude a parent.
5. Time limits and reconsideration. Emergency confidentiality should be reviewed at defined intervals rather than becoming permanent by inertia.
6. Use the established child-protection system. Credible evidence of abuse should trigger mandated reporting and formal review, not an indefinite shadow process.
7. Separate kindness from medical authority. Protecting a student from bullying is different from assuming parental authority over medical or major psychological treatment.
8. Meaningful record access and appeal. Families should receive plain-language information about FERPA rights and a usable way to challenge decisions.

These proposals are the publisher’s policy position, not a description of current Oregon law. Their goal is to protect students facing demonstrable danger while preventing “safety” from becoming a blank check for secrecy.

Oregon case study continued: preventing bullying is not the same as compelling belief

ODE’s 2023 guidance says persistent refusal to use a student’s asserted name or pronouns can potentially contribute to a hostile environment. In discussing the Every Student Belongs framework, that guidance also says bias incidents may include deliberate or unintentional derogatory conduct, microaggressions, insults, verbal assaults and invalidations.

The binding Every Student Belongs rule is narrower. It defines a bias incident as a hostile expression of animus connected to a perceived protected characteristic when criminal investigation or prosecution is impossible or inappropriate. It prohibits nooses, neo-Nazi symbols and the Confederate battle flag, with an educational-standards exception. The broader “microaggressions” language is ODE guidance, not the rule’s text.

Preventing a student from being threatened, stalked, shoved, mocked or deliberately humiliated is a legitimate school responsibility. Prohibiting a noose displayed to threaten a student is not fascism. Protecting students from targeted, repeated harassment is not fascism.

But vague concepts can become dangerous if treated as disciplinary offenses without objective standards. Can a student ask a sincere question? Can a teacher respectfully express a religious belief? Can someone decline to affirm another person’s belief while remaining civil? Does an accidental pronoun mistake prove hostility? At what point does repeated conduct become targeted harassment, and who reviews that determination?

A free society distinguishes civility from compelled agreement. Schools can regulate threats, intimidation and targeted harassment. Government should be cautious when moving from regulating harmful conduct to regulating conscience.

Political intimidation outside government: the Antifa paradox

Government is not the only source of coercion in public life. Political movements can create informal systems of punishment through threats, doxxing, vandalism, assault, blacklists or fear. Harsh criticism and peaceful protest remain protected speech; intimidation and violence should be judged by conduct, not excused by a movement’s name.

Antifa abbreviates antifascist. Opposition to Nazism, racial supremacy, political dictatorship and efforts to strip people of rights based on ethnicity, religion or ancestry is honorable. But a morally admirable name does not guarantee morally admirable conduct.

A Congressional Research Service overview describes the American antifa movement as decentralized, consisting of independent groups and individuals without a single national command structure. It distinguishes largely nonviolent activity from crimes committed by some adherents. Not every antifascist endorses violence, and not every black-clad protester belongs to a named organization.

Named groups do exist. Rose City Antifa says it was founded in Portland in 2007 and uses direct action, education and solidarity. Its website says direct action can prevent fascist organizing or provide “consequences” to organizers, supported by research and tracking. That phrase is the group’s own broad language; it does not, by itself, prove violence.

A separate documented event illustrates why conduct must be judged on evidence. On January 20, 2021, demonstrators described in contemporaneous Associated Press reporting as carrying anti-Biden and anti-police signs damaged the Democratic Party of Oregon headquarters. Reuters described the demonstrators broadly as anti-government and anti-fascist. The reporting reviewed for this article does not establish that Rose City Antifa organized the event.

Breaking a window is not uniquely fascist; fascists do not own a historical monopoly on broken glass. But when any movement uses threats, vandalism, assault or fear to stop lawful speech, assembly or participation, it is using an authoritarian method.

The paradox is simple: a movement can sincerely oppose fascism while some participants adopt political intolerance that resembles what they claim to resist. A noble noun does not sanctify an ignoble verb.

“Out with the fascists” has a trapdoor

If “out” means voting authoritarian candidates out, defeating coercive proposals through elections, exposing falsehoods, organizing peaceful opposition and enforcing neutral laws against violence, it describes democratic action.

If it means driving people from public spaces through intimidation, destroying property, threatening families, preventing lawful speech by force, denying due process or treating an accusation as permanent civic exile, it becomes the language of a purge.

The more humane standard is: defeat authoritarian policies, expose dangerous ideas, enforce laws against actual violence, and preserve the civil rights of every person. Someone who assaults another person should face impartial law. Someone who expresses an offensive idea should be answered with evidence, speech, peaceful protest and democratic action—not treated as a nonperson.

When authoritarian habits become a system: Russia

To understand the difference between a disputed American policy that may show an authoritarian tendency and a comprehensive authoritarian system, consider Russia.

Russia is widely classified as authoritarian. Whether Vladimir Putin’s complete political system should also be called fascist remains disputed among scholars. Political scientist Alexander Motyl argues that the label can plausibly apply. Scholar Marlene Laruelle argues that it is not the best complete classification. “Fascistic” in the points below is therefore this editorial’s analysis of particular features, not a claim of settled academic consensus.

Power centered on one ruler

Constitutional changes allow Putin to seek terms that could extend his presidency to 2036. In 2024, he was officially credited with 87.28 percent of the vote. Antiwar challengers Boris Nadezhdin and Yekaterina Duntsova were excluded from the ballot, and Russia did not invite OSCE election observers.

Freedom House’s 2026 Russia report describes a multiparty system managed to prevent genuine competition, extensive advantages for the ruling party, coercion and manipulated election practices. This is not merely a popular incumbent winning a normal competitive election. It is a system built to obstruct genuine transfer of power.

Pluralism and public truth hollowed out

Freedom House reports that the Kremlin directly or indirectly controls all national television and most radio, print and media advertising. “Foreign agent,” “extremism” and “undesirable organization” laws are used against media and opposition activity. As of December 2025, the report cites 1,902 people subjected to imprisonment or another deprivation of liberty in connection with political speech or activity.

Democratic institutions may remain on paper while losing their independence in practice. Elections, courts, parties and media can keep their names even as power is concentrated elsewhere.

Education used to manufacture loyalty

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Freedom House says Russian schools have been ordered to hold patriotic-education classes, use state-approved explanations and revised textbooks to defend the war, and add military education and training. University students face required instruction on patriotism and loyalty. Teachers, students and parents have faced penalties for contradicting the official account.

This is profoundly different in degree and structure from Oregon’s education disputes. The comparison matters only because it shows why control over education, official vocabulary and dissent deserves scrutiny in any society.

National myth and “antifascist” justification

In a 2021 official essay, Putin argued that Russians and Ukrainians were “one people—a single whole.” This editorial interprets that narrative as weakening Ukraine’s claim to separate nationhood and turning conquest into supposed historical restoration.

In his February 24, 2022, address announcing the invasion, Putin said an aim was to “demilitarise and denazify Ukraine.” The Russian state invoked antifascism while invading a neighboring country, suppressing dissent, controlling media and militarizing education.

That is political projection at national scale. A movement can claim antifascism while using the accusation of fascism to legitimize authoritarian conduct. The label alone proves nothing. The structure of power tells more.

America is not Russia—and saying so matters

The United States is not Russia. America has competitive elections, opposition parties, independent courts, public criticism of officials, private media, public-record laws and peaceful ways to challenge policy. An agency rule, school guidance document, public-health order or protest controversy is not equivalent to jailing journalists, eliminating electoral competition or invading another country.

Equating every American dispute with a complete authoritarian regime would trivialize people living under comprehensive repression and make legitimate criticism of government power easier to dismiss. Oregon’s school debate is one narrow example of competing safety, privacy, conscience and parental interests—not evidence that Oregon is fascist.

The comparison is useful only at the level of institutional habits: vague terms that expand official discretion, secrecy without review, dissent redefined as danger, political labels substituted for individual evidence and rights made conditional on approval. One disputed policy does not create fascism. Comprehensive authoritarian systems emerge when many permissions accumulate and independent checks disappear.

That is why bottom-up government and local accountability, due process, parental involvement and open records matter before a crisis—not only after power has been centralized.

A nonpartisan test for government power and authoritarian policy

Before calling any American policy fascist—or dismissing every warning as partisan exaggeration—this editorial proposes a more precise test:

Precision does not weaken criticism. It gives criticism a spine.

The better answer to “Who are the fascists?”

The title question should not end with a list of disliked people. A fascist movement is identified by a full pattern: ultranationalism, exclusion, leader-centered power, suppression of pluralism and rights, and political violence treated as legitimate. An authoritarian policy is judged by what it permits. Political intimidation is judged by conduct. Keeping ideology, policy, tactic and regime distinct separates diagnosis from propaganda.

A society that genuinely resists fascism does not need a rival mob, a blacklist or a government office that decides which citizens possess acceptable souls. It needs limited government, equal law, divided power, free speech, due process, transparent institutions, independent journalism, family involvement, peaceful civic participation and moral courage.

It should be able to protect vulnerable children without automatically treating parents as enemies, prevent harassment without compelling belief and condemn vandalism regardless of the political flag carried by the person committing it.

People can change. They can abandon hateful movements, discover they were manipulated and admit they were wrong. A society that assumes opponents can never be redeemed will eventually decide that removal is easier than persuasion.

The moment human dignity belongs only to people who agree with us, authoritarianism is no longer merely something we oppose. It is something we have begun to imitate.

Sources and public records

• U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: Fascism
• Andrea Pirro: Far right—The significance of an umbrella concept
• Luke March: Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe
• Swiss Political Science Review: Studying European Radical Left Parties
• University of Oxford: Social Democracy
• Oregon Department of Education: Gender Identity Guidance
• ODE: Supporting Gender Expansive Students full guidance
• Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 339
• OAR 581-022-2312: Every Student Belongs
• U.S. Department of Education: FERPA regulations and overview
• Congressional Research Service: Antifa—Background
• Rose City Antifa’s public self-description
• Associated Press/PBS: January 20, 2021 Portland protest
• Freedom House: Russia, Freedom in the World 2026
• OSCE/ODIHR: Russia’s decision not to invite 2024 election observers
• Alexander Motyl: Putin’s Russia as a fascist political system
• Marlene Laruelle: Is Russia Fascist?
• Kremlin archive: Putin’s 2021 essay on Russia and Ukraine
• Kremlin archive: Putin’s February 24, 2022 address

Source note: Links to organizations and government archives document what those sources say; linking does not imply endorsement. The Russia section distinguishes facts reported by outside monitors from the publisher’s analysis and notes the continuing scholarly disagreement over the word fascist.

Topics: fascism in America · authoritarian government policies · political projection · far-right and far-left · political intimidation · civil liberties · Oregon schools and parental rights