I know fascism is a loaded word. No, I don’t think the US is quite there yet, but I’m more concerned with the general populace’s mindset that precedes the rise of fascism, rather than any direct comparisons to previous leaders/models (eg, Hitler/Germany, Mussolini/Italy). In that category, the US mindset is, I believe, verging on too close for comfort.
My emphasis. The debate is how pertinant this fear is, and at what point rational citizens should be alarmed, particularly those who can be identified as Left-leaning, since they are the likely targets.
As I’ve said, we’re not quite there yet, but at what point is it too late to stop it? What is the breaking point for rational citizens? Is it really headed in this direction, or is it a partisan alarmist viewpoint? Should the Left be worried?
Ambassador Joe Wilson emailed a left-leaning blog this week, in response to the Jeff Gannon/Talon News story (he’d been interviewed by Gannon, and Gannon is alleged to have received classified info on the Plame outing). He called the current admin. fascist, and offered this cite as a (partial) explanation:
Read the rest of it at the cite… Perhaps more of you are familiar with this:
Is there anything on this list the US is not guilty of, to some degree or another?
Well, that’s my worst-case-scenario mindset at work. Confirm, debunk, strategise, commiserate, ridicule with drive-bys, whatever…
Best way to fix it would be to change the title to “Hysterical raving from the far left, or Why Hiding Under the Bed and Crying is the Best Way to React When You Lose an Election”.
If you want it to make sense, you can’t use mutually contradictory terms in the same sentence.
I am sure we are all deeply impressed and grateful for the depth and clarity of friend Shodan’s response. A nitpick: perhaps, for the sake of brevity, a single “neener!” would have sufficed.
WTF? Did someone change the forum name to Great Snide Innuendos while I wasn’t looking?
After the inquiry about the actual definition and standards of fascism as a political movement over in GQ, I expected a thread of this sort – and that it would be a classic Left/Right mudslinging match.
Before it gets too down-and-dirty, though, may I suggest that it might be worthwhile for the Right to take a good look at the actual pre-fascist / pre-Nazi / pre-Franco circumstances and issues of the relevant countries, note honestly the occasional parallel as well as the differences, and contemplate how best to deal with them – much as 1940s and 1950s little-d democratic Leftists needed to look at the influence of Communists that, while limited, actually was there.
Behind the sarcasm about Bush as Fuehrer lies the quite real assertion that it has somehow become unpatriotic to criticize the President or his actions, in the minds of many strong Bush-supporters. (Which means we need men like Bricker and Mr Moto, who are Republicans and Bush supporters who are unafraid to say from time to time that they oppose (or at least don’t support) some aspect of his policies.)
There is a quite real undercurrent that I’ve seen twice before, once as a small child and once in my later teens: the McCarthy period and the reaction to the Vietnam War protests. And the attitude espoused, that being a good citizen necessarily mandates agreeing with my leader’s political stances, is one that was distasteful then and is more so now.
I don’t like Mr. Bush and the vast majority of his policies. But I’m prepared to give him credit for doing something right on the rare occasions that I think he has. And, like it or not, he’s won two elections, albeit with some controversy over the total legitimacy of all his votes.
I think I have a right to say that – just as my opponents have a right to pillory me for having views they consider wrong-headed.
Woe betide us if it suddenly becomes wrong to criticize the President. Those of you with a fondness for history might note that we’ve had serious debates on this board in the last month or two which could be paraphrased, preserving the basic content, and sent back in time to 1800 to argue for and against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Or to 1931 Germany or 1921 Italy. And that last, frankly, scares me.
No, I don’t think Mr. Bush is grounds to break Godwin’s Law. But he does have a very strong sense of the moral rightness of what he does that in his view gives him the right to allow the misleading of the public towards an end good in his view, and that of his supporters. That’s unnerving. More so is the underlying attitude, which could be easily coopted by someone without Mr. Bush’s apparent commitment to the Republic (as opposed to the Republicans) to invoke Sinclair Lewis’s scenario.
Those of you who rjung might address as “Pubbies” and “Bushistas” – do me the honor of thinking that through carefully, and taking the time to grasp where the Left is seeing Gestapo hiding under the bed. And then decide whether you may in fact have some dirty laundry on your side of the fence that requires laundering.
His fellow libertarian, Mises Institute president Lew Rockwell, wrote a year-end piece called “The Reality of Red State Fascism,” which claimed that “the most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing.”
Rockwell is correct in that the red-state citizens basically wanted to be left alone. Unfortunately for the left, their continuous activism was perceived as an active effort to minimalize red-state values. This forced the “red-staters” into a more active role politically than they would normally assume.
In a perverse way, it’s entirely possible that the left is indirectly responsible for this shift. There were some gains made, slowly, and this encouraged more activity on the left, and instead of a very gradual push for change, the push became more aggressive and less subtle. Had the changes been slower, the red states may have been more tolerant, or at least less likely to become politically active; think “frog in a boiling pot.”
Anyone who posts this, and then quotes rjung approvingly, doesn’t require any refutation.
Which is exactly why the OP doesn’t require refutation. First compare Bush with Hitler, and then try to pretend you are above the fray. Bullshit.
Look, Poly, you have been charging around the SDMB accusing Bush-supporters of lying, stealing, and dishonesty for refusing to condemn his policies on Social Security out of hand. And for objecting when people like RTFirefly lie - simply, straightforwardly lie - about what Bush said and believes.
So spare me the hypocritical horseshit about how much Republicans have to look at their own dirty laundry. Social Security in its present form of “pay as you go” has been going on since 1968, and the only one you want to blame it on is Bush, because he wants to fix the problem in some way other than the usual “raise taxes as a first and only resort”.
There’s a big fucking beam in your eye. Pull it out and we can talk. Until then, the usual leftist spew as characterized in the OP is worth nothing. If you didn’t object to the cronyism, corruption, and general slime of the Clinton administration, don’t bother me with this sanctimonious slop about how the Republic is tottering every time some liberal loser gets kicked to the curb.
If there was ever a demonstration of the truth behind Godwin, it’s this. The OP compared Bush with Hitler. Nothing and nobody that follows is going to be worth wasting electrons over.
MoveOn.org compared Bush to Hitler, while criticizing Bush (Praise the Leader!) Friend Anna has, on numerous occaisions, criticized The Leader. Therefore, it necessarily follows, that Anna has compared Bush to Hitler.
It’s all pretty simple, really, once you know how their minds work.
If I enjoyed reading ad hominems I’d hang out at MoveOn or with the Freepers. I expect better, even in the Pit–and this is not the Pit. I would ask everyone to debate the OP (or any side issues) and leave the personal innuendo out of this.
Just a note in that the OP’s point has also been made by Ayn-Rand-heir Leonard Peikoff’s THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, which attacks standard US Conservatism & Liberalism alike. Interestingly, Peikoff & the Ayn Rand Institute he directs both fiercely support the Iraq war, the War on Terror & the State of Israel.
Anyone interested in this stuff should check out David Neiwert’s blog, especially his “Rise of Pseudo-Fascism” series of posts. If only to be reassured that his more worrisome predictions have not yet come to pass.
David Neiwert made many of the same observations as in the links in the OP, and suggested that things might get worse after a Bush election victory last November. However, it seems to me that some things have gotten somewhat better since then instead. The “dissent is treason” meme, for example, seems to have been moved to the back burner, the Democrats are showing signs of actually being a voice of opposition for a change, and the GOP’s recent fondness for gerrymandering may be receiving a critical examination from within the party, thanks to Schwarzenegger. (We can only hope.) All of which are some small cause for reassurance.
Still, despite the contemptous pooh-poohing that seems to pass for debate from some quarters, I think there was cause for concern and to some extent still is. The GOP is not threatened politically right now; come 2006 we may see the rhetoric ratcheted up again, and hateful blowhards like Coulter and Savage will be ready and waiting. But at the moment things actually seem to be slightly better on this front than they were even six months ago.
Of the following list, I would say that there are several actual traits (bolded) that are indicative of Fascism (as a distinct movement):
**1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism **
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
**3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause **
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
The rest of the list is either true of a lot of non-Fascist authoritarian states or true of totalitarian states or simply added to the list to make the point that Fascism is “bad.”
In addition to those points, I would note that Fascism has traditionally enhanced point #1 with a sense of “identity” (frequently, but not always racial) and it requires a controlled (but not socialist) economy. (This may have been the intended point of #9, but that is not clear.) It also depends on a devotion to a charismatic leader (Duce, Fuehrer, Generalissimo, etc..) So far, none of these latter components have established themselves in the current American scene. (Even the people who chant “we must support the president” rarely set up shrines to worship any monumental W’s.)
FriarTed’s list was simply written to counterbalance the first list, complete with mirroring the errors on the first list. It providies no valid response to the first.
Interesting article … I’m still pondering it. I agree that the US does seem to fit all of those ‘fascist’ criteria. However, that’s a matter of interpretation, and perhaps several other countries would fit them too; on the other hand, I tried asking myself which of those criteria Britain meets, and very few get past.
This one jumped out at me:
**3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause **
That could explain the focus on homosexuality and gay marriage.
still pondering
Aside …
Have I missed something? What’s Communism got to do with this thread? It’s not as if anyone’s suggested ‘let’s drop capitalism and go be happy Communists instead!’ Sorry, but I don’t see what the point of FriarTed’s post was?
Well, if your intention is to be ignored as having nothing of value to say here, the above is a pretty good strategy. Now it seems to me it would be mighty hard to discuss fascism without referencing the most well-known fascist governments of the previous century, and one does not automatically make all comparisons to fascist Germany invalid by shouting “Godwinism” every time the subject comes up.
Frankly, Shodan, IMO you are way out of line here, and I respectfully suggest you just walk away and cool down for a while, or if you’ve really got a bee in your bonnet, start a Pit thread.
Physician, heal thyself.
Anyway, looking at the OP’s list of fascist characteristics, I’ll add my opinions of their relevance to the current administration, recognizing that probably no one cares very much what I think:
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – ‘powerful’ is undefined; in any event US nationalism is, IMO, nowhere near that of numerous other countries 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – true to a signicant degree of the administration, less so, (I hope) among the public 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – no disagreement there 4. Supremacy of the Military – not applicable, IMO; the military neither rules the country nor, as yet, has much more political power or funding than in previous administrations 5. Rampant Sexism – No more so than at any other point in recent US history, and probably less so 6. Controlled Mass Media – Not valid, although not for lack of trying by this administration 7. Obsession with National Security – valid, but not entirely unjustified 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – I disagree, and furthermore I don’t buy this as a specific characteristic of fascism 9. Corporate Power is Protected – generally valid 10. Labor Power is Suppressed – not actively suppressed; more like irrelevent in the current climate 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – not quite to the point of declaring whole whacks of art “degenerate”, but certainly anti-intellectual to some degree 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – IMO not to any greater degree than previous administrations, except for anti-terrorism, which is treated more as a military matter currently 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – probably valid to some degree, but I can’t consider this a feature specific to fascism 14. Fraudulent Elections – arguable in the case of the 2000 election, not arguable, IMO, for the 2004 election.
I do not happen to believe that we are in immediate danger of becoming Germany in 1936. We’re still electing our presidents, more or less, and I don’t personally believe that there is all that much public support for the administration policies that hew closest to a fascist mindset. To try and claim that there nothing in this worth arguing here, however, is patently absurd.
We already have fascists in this country. Before and during World War 2, there was the Bund. Afterwards, and even now, there are neoNazis such as the Working Mans White People Party or something. We have the Klan. We have various “militias”. No matter what country or time period you choose, there have always been people like this. Sometimes you can spot them by the goofy outfits and ridiculous titles (Imperial Wizard of the Grand Dragon Poobah, OberUnterSidewaysDownReichFuhrer mit der Scheiss Kopf). Sometimes you can’t spot them at all. It’s a simple fact there will always be this kind of person. I don’t think the counrty will turn into a fascist state. The pendulum will swing the other way, and whoever was involved will be taken down. We did finally figure out Joe McCarthy after all. There are enough checks and balances, and enough of a “loyal opposition” around to prevent it. Just as important, the military is not centered on any individual. It answers to Congress - not the President or any other personality cult, and is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President. Part of that oath is to defend against any enemy forign and domestic. If it got desparate enough, that would include arresting the President himself, on orders from Congress.
One of the best Great Debates OPs I’ve seen in a long time, Annaplurabelle. You’ve selected a topic that is timely, extremely important, and debatable, and have presented it with all the right questions and emphasis. If nothing else, this trend toward fascism debunks the myth that libertarians are aligned somehow with the right, or with so-called neo-conservatives.
I’ve linked it before, and even opened a thread on it, but I believe that this speech by Al Gore is one of the most important of our time. It is so compelling that I am willing to support his candidacy for president should he seek the nomination (of any party).
