### Commentary
"6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the *appeal to a frustrated middle class*, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority."
America doesn't have the history of overt class conflict that Europe has. The cliche is that everyone in the US thinks of themselves as middle class. Because we do. So, as term of analysis, "middle class" is fairly useless in the American context.
Yet there is a distinct set of people that play the same role in the US that, say, shop owners played in Weimar Germany. Calling them the petty bourgeoisie works as well as anything, I guess. (Petite bourgeois: 
“a social class composed of small business owners, shopkeepers, small-scale merchants, semi-autonomous peasants, and artisans.”)
When I think of the US petty bourgeoisie, I think of the owner of a car dealership in a smallish city. A big frog in a small pond, thinking he’s entitled to respect from respectable fellow citizens, and usually gets it.
The classic petty bourgeoisie are owners / self-employed. However, I think the category extends “downward” to employees. Anyone who thinks to herself, “I’m the sort of person who could run this joint” can be included in the class. (As Steinbeck may have said, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”)
However, economics has little to do with whether one American looks at another and sees a petty bourgeoisie. More relevant is *lifestyle*. Bill Clinton used to describe himself as the champion of people who “work hard and play by the rules.” I think he was onto something, so let’s use that as a starting definition for America's petty bourgeoisie.
I lean hardest on “play by the rules.” Consider gay citizens. They made an astonishingly fast transition from being “them” to being “us.” (Not according to everyone, of course, and I suspect the tide will turn.) Why did they make it?
Gay marriage. At one point, the image of the gay man was of someone in a bath house in the Castro district of San Francisco: *not playing by the rules*. Now it’s a married man with a mortgage and a Labrador Retriever: *playing by the rules*. Playing by the rules means you are a person who values stability, order, and fitting in. Note that one member of the petite bourgeoisie will allow someone entrance into the charmed circle even if their lives are *not* stable and *not* orderly, so long as they aren’t uppity about *preferring* their life. (People who don’t fit in have a harder time.) Therefore, the stereotypical White rural woman who lives in a trailer with a succession of abusive boyfriends is inside the in-group because she’d *rather* be in a stable marriage. (Or so we assume.) The inner city Black woman with the same behavior must *want it that way*. She *wants* to break the rules.
(I’m not denying the racism that puts the two women in different categories. I’m looking at the logic that flows from that racism.) So the car dealership owner that everyone knows is a bad ‘un gets a pass. “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.” As long as he pays tribute to virtue, his vices are not so important. - - - -
So let me amend Eco’s description of who fascism targets (or appeals to). > a class suffering from an economic crisis… Not so relevant in the US. True economic crises don’t cause much upheaval. And I think, for example, the foofahrah about the price of eggs was more ass-covering than a genuine motivation. (It’s more respectable to lie – possibly to yourself – that you’re outraged about inflation than to admit you want Trump to hurt the outgroup on your behalf.) > … or feelings of political humiliation… I’d say “social humiliation” rather than “political.” The car dealership owner doesn’t get so much automatic deference as before. Few men can be the sole breadwinner, which affects marriage dynamics. Comedians and activists have no compunctions about making fun of White men, often in ways that belittle them. “The rules gave me a place and now people who don’t play by the rules are trying to dislodge me!” > … and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
I think this is irrelevant. The feared pressure is in the other direction. It’s no accident that there’s so much anger at the “elites.” Kids go to college and snooty professors teach them to look down on their parents. Everyone once knew that children are their parents’ property, to mostly do with as they would, but now teachers act like they’re responsible to the child, not the parents. Doctors and scientists are know-it-alls, saying that what you want to believe is wrong. Fucking eggheads’ answer to “factory jobs are going” is “learn to code.” The college-educated look down on people who went to work after high school.
(And they're not wrong to think the elites are doing these things! That makes it worse.)
The attitude: people high in the hierarchy are dislodging us, here in the middle of the hierarchy, and pushing us lower.
Fascists tell these people, “No! We too are high in the hierarchy, we're on your side, and we’ll defend your position.”
Fascists also offer these people – and I think this is underestimated – the opportunity to *break the rules and get away with it*. Playing by the rules is often no fun at all. A chance to “cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war” is *liberating*, especially when you can justify it by going after the *them* that is already going after you. And it can be done at no (status) cost to you!