"The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition." It's a particular kind of tradition: syncretistic [a combination of beliefs] and esoteric [hidden knowledge]. "Such a combination must tolerate contradictions. [...] whenever [traditions] seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth. [...] Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."
## Commentary
On first thought, it seemed to me modern American fascism is not syncretistic or esoteric. It's based on America's version of evangelical Protestantism, and kind of its whole schtick is that the Bible is literal *revealed* truth. But in practice, it is esoteric. Christianity kind of has to be, what with Jesus being so fond of obscure parables. I once read this article about how the story of the Good Samaritan is *not* about that woke "love your neighbor as yourself" crap. Rather, the deeper meaning is about the importance of correctly classifying neighbors and non-neighbors. Non-neighbors are to be treated harshly. This is a blatantly esoteric interpretation. Also, the Constitution is treated not as a document created by flawed men but as revealed truth. In practice, right-evangelical Christianity combines the Constitution and the Bible into a syncretic religion.
### The Supreme Court
See also the rise (only a few decades old) of originalist interpretations of the Constitution. For example, in 2008 (Heller), "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" was, for the first time, revealed to be about an individual right (not one of "the people"): a fact previously hidden. The Roberts Court (especially Roberts himself) is all about discovering esoteric interpretations of the Constitution. Decisions turn on "the equal dignity of the states," the concept of "major questions," money as speech, the Founders' alleged desire for a "vigorous" President: all concepts not *in* the text but nevertheless shaping correct interpretation of it. And, as originalism has shifted from being about the "original intent of the Founders" to the "original *understanding* of the citizenry at the time," it's become more nakedly an appeal to tradition – one that can be divined only by initiates (judges) not – notoriously – by actual historians. Their evidence that the citizenry had different understandings is irrelevant, per Eco, "because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.”
To some extent, the Supreme Court *has* to be esoteric, but originalism has become markedly more forthright that "truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."
See also the Court's current overturning of precedent: it is frequently framed as *going back* to a lost interpretation (as distinct from replacing a flawed interpretation with a newer, more correct one).