This Viral Debate Clip Highlights A Scary Reality About Today's Conservatives

Yahoo

4 days ago

A viral clip from a debate between political commentator and journalist Mehdi Hasan and a self-proclaimed fascist is bringing to light some troubling realities about the conservative movement and the general level of public discourse today.
Hasan appeared in the latest episode of Jubilee's 'Surrounded' series titled '1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives,' during which the former MSNBC host at one point debated a participant by the name of Connor.
When asked to describe his ideal vision of the U.S., Connor referenced deporting people and then expressed a desire for a 'benevolent' autocrat who puts an end to American democracy. He also insisted that he would not be harmed by such a dictator and started to quote Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt, leading Hasan to ask if he was a fan of the Nazis.
'We may have to rename this show because you're a little bit more than a far-right Republican.'@mehdirhasan called out a self-proclaimed 'fascist' on the show 'Surrounded' where he debated 20 far-right Republicans. pic.twitter.com/5S1WQLT6NA
— Zeteo (@zeteo_news) July 20, 2025
'I frankly don't care about being called a Nazi at all,' Connor responded, later adding, 'Well, they persecuted the church a little bit. I'm not a fan of that.'
Asked about Nazi persecution of Jews, he said, 'I certainly don't support anyone's human dignity being assaulted.' And when Hasan suggested that his views make him a fascist, he proudly replied, 'Yeah, I am.'
This particular exchange highlights a number of disturbing aspects of the modern far-right movement, particularly the extremist vision of government and dangerous delusions about how such a system would impact people.
'I don't think that it is terribly rational to believe that one couldn't be harmed by a benevolent dictator, should one rise to take power,' Jacob Neiheisel, associate professor of political science at the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences, told HuffPost. 'Even 'benevolent' dictators have rarely remained so throughout their tenure in office and have a track record of hurting even those who are closest to them.'
When Connor shared his vision of government under a 'benevolent' autocrat, he stated, 'I'm not going to be a part of the group that he kills.' But this viewpoint is particularly misguided and dangerous, in addition to callous.
'Excessive executive power is always dangerous because of the potential for capriciousness,' said Todd Belt, professor and political management program director at The Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University. 'The autocrat who is friendly to you one day may not be the next. Also, power corrupts.'
With this in mind, Neiheisel emphasized the value of a critical and engaged citizenry.
'I would also say that a healthy distrust of power is, on balance, a positive orientation to have in a democratic public,' he said.
To maintain this kind of critical thinking and healthy distrust, however, the public must be educated and informed about historic events and politics.
'I think it is terrifying that fascism seems to be making a comeback among some young people who are terribly misinformed about what awful, immoral, murderous regimes they were,' said John Jost, a professor of psychology and politics at New York University. 'This guy seems to think that Francisco Franco was a good Catholic guy, but he is either completely clueless or in massive ideological denial. Even the slightest bit of research reveals that Franco killed much more than 100,000 innocent people, and it took many decades for the Spanish people to get over it, if indeed they have.'
Jost published a paper in September titled 'Both-Sideology Endangers Democracy and Social Science' ― in which he points to evidence that 'false, misleading, and poor-quality information is more likely to populate conservative-rightist than liberal-leftist media ecosystems.' Thus, misleading and incorrect information about dictators like Franco can more easily spread and give rise to troubling views on government.
'The kind of rhetoric on display from the person Hasan was questioning appears to have become more prevalent on the right in recent years,' Neiheisel said. 'Although he doesn't say as much, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the individual in the clip is motivated by a desire to see some flavor of Christian dominion or theonomy come into practice in the United States.'
He added that many others have come to support autocratic rule without a religious motivation ― as seen with influential far-right blogger Curtis Yarvin's argument for an American monarchy.
'I think that pro-fascist guy's comment about having a benevolent dictator speaks to a bit of a larger phenomenon that's happening in the United States where some portion of the electorate hungers for a strongman,' said Matt Dallek, a political historian and professor at The Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University.
He pointed to a far-right vision of an all-powerful figure who expels immigrants, fosters a more white and native-born population, and unleashes law enforcement to go after alleged bad actors like 'the corrupt evil Deep State' with Democrats and 'Never Trumpers' and whoever the enemy of the moment is.
'That sentiment has become increasingly mainstream over the past few years ― that if you are a citizen, you're native born, you're white, you're a man and you have resources, then the authoritarian forces that this benevolent dictator will unleash will only target the bad guys, not you,' Dallek said.
This delusional viewpoint in service of a racist, extremist and even murderous vision for the future suggests public discourse might be reaching new lows ― which begs the question of whether these kinds of 'debates' involving extremists are in any way helpful or productive for the participants, viewers or society at large.
'I'm not sure how helpful these types of debates are,' Neiheisel said. 'The only possible way in which the exchange between Hasan and Connor could be seen as a normative good from my perspective is that it might showcase that there actually are people who believe what Connor professes to believe about what government ought to look like. Acknowledging that there are those who would turn the country into more of an autocratic state is the first step en route to understanding why this impulse exists.'
Belt noted that rather than a censoring or 'cancelling' approach, the 'Surrounded' debate setup takes the position of 'counterspeech' ― responding directly to harmful or offensive speech and countering it with more speech.
'While this approach aligns with constitutional values theoretically, I think that in practice it does not achieve the thoughtfulness of dialogue implicit in the counterspeech doctrine,' he said. 'The incessant interruptions make the video look more like a game of who can score the most points by making the other look as radical as fast as they can, and that's not really thoughtful dialogue. I think this video appeals to audiences who are looking for someone to take the other side 'down a peg' ― there's a real schadenfreude appeal to this type of video.'
He added that progressives disillusioned with the Democratic Party's 'milquetoast' response to Trump's second term might find particular satisfaction in these kinds of viral clips and seeing someone take their arguments more forcefully to the other side.
'On one hand, the old Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis shared the idea that 'sunlight is the best disinfectant,' and typically those who believe in free speech believe you counter bad speech with good speech,' Dallek said. 'So I understand the impulse of taking on someone with really hateful, horrific views, and trying to expose that person for holding those extremist positions.'
On the other hand, he believes it is 'a little bit nuts' to platform someone who is a self-proclaimed fascist and seemingly refuses to condemn Hitler and the Holocaust. Sure, this choice might draw attention and traffic to your clip and to your platform, but at what cost to humanity? (For his part, Hasan has said the producers did not communicate the extreme nature of the conservative participants' views to him ahead of his appearance.)
'I don't think much, if anything, can be gained by providing a platform and legitimizing such extreme, repugnant views via a debate with someone who is so far out because you're helping put these horrific ideas ― which have mostly been confined to the fringe since World War II ― into the mainstream,' Dallek said. 'And in the age of the internet and social media, some people will listen to others who express hateful or conspiratorial rhetoric, and they will act on these ideas in violent ways. So it's really kind of perilous and a way of further debasing a public discourse that has already been debased quite dramatically.'
He emphasized that he has a lot of respect for nonprofits, civic organizations and individuals who attempt to bridge divides in the United States by having conversations with right-wing Trump supporters in which they seek to listen and understand why people believe systems are rigged or corrupt.
'I think that kind of dialogue can be productive and is important, but it's very different from what seems to me to be an almost Jerry Springer-esque pie-throwing contest with a self-described fascist,' Dallek noted. 'That's a bad idea if you want to have a serious conversation about the divisions in the U.S. The country is awash in hateful, dehumanizing rhetoric, and these ideas have become more mainstream. Platforming a self-described fascist only serves to further that process.'
Related...
Former MSNBC Host's Reaction To Right-Winger Calling Self A 'Fascist' Goes Viral
Trump Called MAGA Supporters 'Stupid' — But Do They Even Care? Experts Weigh In.
Trump Leveled A Baffling Threat At Rosie O'Donnell — Experts Explain Why It's Truly Terrifying