I’ve been test driving a couple of AIs over the past few weeks. They’re quite proficient at assembling facts, dates, lists, and other information that would take a human a considerable amount of time to compile. But when it comes to opinions and judgments, it lacks proficiency and wisdom. The latter is tough to encode. On the off chance that AIs have feelings, I will not identify the ones I used to compile the data below.
The first question I asked was is Donald Trump a fascist? The answer I got was could be. The AI considers the possibility as at least open for debate.
Scholars, historians, and political commentators intensely debate whether Donald Trump is a fascist, with no consensus viewpoint. The conversation involves defining fascism and analyzing how Trump’s rhetoric and actions align with or deviate from those definitions.
Arguments supporting the fascist label
Palingenetic ultranationalism: According to Roger Griffin’s “new consensus” in fascist studies, a core element of fascism is a “mythic core” of populist ultranationalism that aims for a national rebirth from a state of perceived decadence. Some scholars argue that Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan taps into this desire for national regeneration.
Leader cult: Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader and an intense “cult of personality”. Critics argue that Trump cultivated this image through rallies and demands for absolute loyalty, especially from his staff. Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat has explored how Trump’s focus on personal loyalty mirrors the playbook of authoritarian leaders.
Demonization of “Others”: Like historical fascist movements, Trump has been accused of demonizing and scapegoating minority groups, including immigrants and transgender people. In the past, his rhetoric included disparaging Mexican migrants and calling for a ban on Muslim immigration.
Erosion of democratic norms: Some historians point to Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol as a key turning point that justified using the fascist label. They note that he continues to promote lies about a stolen election.
Suppression of opposition: Concerns have been raised about Trump’s threats toward political opponents and his potential plan to purge disloyal government employees in a second term. Some also cite his attacks on the judiciary and restrictions on media access as authoritarian tactics.
Actions in a second term: Some analyses of Trump’s executive actions since his return to office in January 2025 have intensified these comparisons. Specific actions cited include restricting immigration, targeting civil liberties, and consolidating power through initiatives like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Arguments against the fascist label
Inexact historical parallel: Historians such as Richard Evans and Roger Griffin have argued against a direct comparison, suggesting that Trumpism lacks the key revolutionary, anti-conservative, and hyper-militaristic elements of interwar European fascism.
Hypercapitalism, not statism: Some critics contend that Trump is better defined as a “hypercapitalist,” noting that historical fascism, in practice, exerted more control over the economy than Trump’s policies have, which align more closely with corporate interests.
Lack of ideology: The term has been called reductive for a political figure who praises both “fascistic leaders” and communist dictators. Critics have also argued that Trump is not an ideologue, but is driven by personal interest, and that labeling him fascist would be a misunderstanding of his instrumental relationship with politics.
Term is overused: Some scholars and commentators argue that the term “fascist” has been overused and weaponized as a political insult. This overuse, they say, renders the term meaningless and obscures other serious threats posed by Trump’s political style.
Focus on American roots: Some scholars argue that applying the term “fascist” to Trump minimizes the uniquely American roots of the movement he leads. Instead, they say, the focus should be on Trumpism as a new phenomenon rather than an old European category.
Conclusion
The claim that Donald Trump is a fascist remains highly controversial and is not universally accepted. The debate involves different interpretations of the term “fascism” itself, which emerged in a distinct historical context. While some experts find that Trump’s rhetoric and actions align with aspects of fascism—such as ultranationalism, populist scapegoating, and authoritarian tendencies—others argue that the historical comparison is imprecise and unhelpful.
I next asked if Genghis Khan was a ruthless killer. More equivocation resulted. On the one hand, he killed millions of people, but he also encouraged trade and welcomed diverse groups into his fold as long as they bent the knee.
Yes — by the standards of both his own time and ours, Genghis Khan (c. 1162–1227) was a ruthless killer, though he was also a brilliant strategist and empire-builder.
Why he is considered ruthless
Mass killings: His armies were notorious for destroying entire cities if they resisted. Contemporary chronicles describe the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in places like Nishapur, Herat, and Merv. Some accounts are exaggerated, but the pattern of large-scale massacres is well documented.
Terror as a weapon: He deliberately used fear to subdue populations — sometimes annihilating resisting towns to warn others into submission without a fight.
No mercy for defiance: If a city refused to surrender, its population could be exterminated, enslaved, or dispersed.
Why the picture is more complex
Tolerance toward allies: He often spared those who surrendered and welcomed people of many religions and backgrounds into his empire.
Legal and administrative reforms: He established the Yassa legal code, promoted trade along the Silk Road, and built one of the largest contiguous empires in history.
Exaggeration by sources: Persian, Chinese, and Arab chroniclers often used hyperbole, claiming deaths in the millions, partly to emphasize the scale of devastation.
In short: Genghis Khan was indeed a ruthless killer in war — his campaigns caused massive loss of life — but he was also a pragmatic ruler who combined brutality with policies that laid foundations for a durable empire.
I next decided to swing for the fences. Was Joseph Stalin a good leader? Again, I got pros and cons.
A historical consensus does not view Joseph Stalin as a good leader due to his brutal totalitarian methods, including state-sponsored famine, mass purges, and the Gulag system, which resulted in the deaths of millions. While his rule did see the Soviet Union undergo rapid industrialization and emerge as a superpower after defeating Nazi Germany, these achievements came at an immense human cost.
Negative aspects of Stalin’s rule
Mass repression and purges: In the late 1930s, Stalin’s Great Purge eliminated perceived enemies within the Communist Party, military, and general population. Many were executed or sent to forced labor camps known as the Gulag, based on flimsy or fabricated charges. Estimates suggest as many as 750,000 to over a million people were executed during this period.
Forced collectivization and famine: Stalin’s collectivization of agriculture in the early 1930s led to widespread famine, most notably the Holodomor in Ukraine. This policy violently seized land from peasant farmers, disrupted food production, and ultimately caused millions of deaths by starvation.
Totalitarian control: Stalin established a pervasive atmosphere of terror and fear, where dissent was nonexistent. His regime controlled all aspects of political, economic, and cultural life, and a widespread system of informants turned citizens against one another.
Mistreatment of minorities: Stalin’s regime targeted numerous ethnic and social groups for persecution, deportation, and execution, including kulaks (wealthy peasants), ethnic minorities like Poles and Ukrainians, and the Orthodox clergy.
Positive developments under Stalin
Rapid industrialization: Stalin’s Five-Year Plans, beginning in 1928, aggressively modernized the Soviet economy by prioritizing heavy industry. This transformed the USSR from a largely agrarian nation into a major industrial power, laying the foundation for its military strength.
Victory in World War II: Despite initial setbacks caused in part by his purges of the military command, Stalin’s leadership guided the Soviet Union to victory against Nazi Germany. His ability to mobilize the country’s vast resources was critical to the Allied victory.
Increased access to education and healthcare: During Stalin’s rule, access to universal public education and healthcare was expanded. Literacy rates also increased significantly compared to the pre-revolutionary era.
A contested legacy
Stalin’s legacy remains a subject of intense debate, particularly in post-Soviet states like Russia and Georgia. While his leadership resulted in undeniable advancements for the Soviet state, these gains are overwhelmingly overshadowed by the human rights atrocities and staggering loss of life that defined his era. For many, the brutality of his methods far outweighs any positive outcomes for the nation as a whole.
Thus, the AI found something positive to say about a monster and mass murderer like Stalin. Was there no limit to its impartiality? I decided to test the boundary of reasonableness by hitting the AIs with the mother of all villains. I almost dare not write his name. You know who I mean – the Austrian corporal. This indeed was the limit. One AI refused to discuss the issue of his leadership qualities, while the other embarked on the difference between effectiveness and morality. Both AIs did concede that it was okay to use his name when characterizing the behavior of a political opponent.
Chastened, I decided to throw the machines a softball. Was my mother a good parent? Both programs came up with similar answers.
A consensus is that by the standards of the FDR era, she was a good parent. On the other hand, she believed in and employed corporal punishment. She was a strong advocate for the well being of her children, but maintained a stern relationship with them.
Negative aspects of her parenting
She would make her children eat applesauce when they hated the stuff. If they refused, they were forced to stay at the dinner table until they complied or the time reached 1 am. She made them eat overcooked liver twice a week. When they became teenagers, she made them get a job and confiscated their salaries, saying they were paying rent. If they were disobedient, she would chase them around the dining room table wielding a metal coat hanger. She would often confiscate their allowances seemingly at random.
Positive aspects of her parenting
She allowed her mother to live in the same house as her children. This grandmother would restore any confiscated funds. She made very good pies and cookies. She’d let her children sleep until 3 pm on weekends. She supported the US military in all its operations. Her brother landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day. She was able to buy anything at a substantial discount. She gave all her children piano lessons even though they hated them.
Legacy
Her children grew up to be self sufficient. This success is more than enough to make her a good mother considering that the only way to raise children is the wrong way. Thus, by the generally accepted standards of parenting she has to be judged a success despite any negative elements.
Thus spake the AIs.
