Because…?
Billmon (he’s back!) highlights an example of points 1,4, and 8*, all in one. Comments from an attendee of a “Salute to the Military” at a Baptist church in Kentucky:
Photos of the event and more commentary here (a screen capture after the contents were removed from the original website).
This is so far removed from my experience I don’t know what to make of it. Is this a common occurrence in a church, or just an isolated example of “ridiculously bad taste”?
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
Pantom, I agree with you, but apparently there is a disconnect in the minds of many Americans. Polls say 65% are against torture (under any circumstances), but where is the outrage? It’s like they’re answering it as a hypothetical question and not something that is really happening. I can only guess it’s because it’s not happening to them (see Rashak’s point).
That’s why I’m asking what the point of alarm should be. How bad do things have to get, and how bad is too late?
I’m going to disagree with the “entwined religion” point as an aspect of Fascism, as well.
In Spain, religion became an important issue during the Civil War and, thus, there was a certain amount of public piety as a way to continue to tout the triumph of the Fascists over the “godless communists” over the ensuing 26 years, but once the war ended, there was no continued tradition that somehow equated or mixed nationalism or being Spanish with being Catholic.
Germany did attempt to treat Nazi tradition as a religious experience (and attempted to use the Christian churches as one more conduit for propaganda). On the other hand, those two trends tended to conflict, spurring a certain amount of (not to be confused with large) rebellion from within the churches and a corresponding (again, not huge) suppression of Christian religion by the Nazis.
The Church had a prior antagonism with the Italian government from the (then recent) assumption of the papal states. Mussolini worked out a few diplomatic agreements with the church to ease the tension, but the church was never “entwined” with Italian Fascism and Mussolini played to a “New Rome” theme rather than a religious one.
The fledgling Austrian Fascists of the late 1920s and early 1930s did associate with traditional Catholicism, but the Fascists of Hungary and Romania never established any serious “religious” aspect to their movement and Portugal was actively hostile to the church.
So, among actual examples of Fascism, we have contradictory examples of co-opting existing religion, attempts to supplant it with their own creation, general indifference, and outright hostility.
This is not to deny the odd examples of religious/political merging that were provided, above. However, such examples of odd little clumps of people confusing religion and politics does not indicate to me anything resembling a general movement in the U.S. As the one observer noted, even his gung-ho father was put off by the odd imagery. (It is possible that there is such a conflation in certain regions of the U.S., but even there it appears to be limited to very small groups with no spillover to the general population–and I do not associate it with Fascism.)
I can remember similar displays of church-sponsored nationalism (well, maybe not quite so tacky) from the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s (when we were all opposed to godless communism). I suspect that I missed the ones from the 1980s and 1990s simply because I was no longer living in communities where they appeared. Throughout that time, I have seen no evidence that they are increasing in popularity. The same people who enjoyed them when I was young enjoy them now.
Brutus and Shodan, the fact that Mr. Godwin is stalking the sidelines of this thread perhaps blinded you to what I was actually saying and not saying (and without speaking for others, I believe that several others have similar opinions.)
To wit, they are these:
-
Post WWI Italy, early Depression era Weimar Germany, etc., had a number of social characteristics. I see parallels to some but not all of these characteristics in the American socio-political scene today.
-
Mr. Bush appears to have a strong sense of personal confidence in the objective morality of the policies he is espousing, a sense that God wants him, and him particularly, to be doing exactly what it is that he is doing.
-
Some though by no means all of Mr. Bush’s supporters seem to be taking an attitude of extreme hero worship of him and an attitude that criticism of the man or his policies is unpatriotic, unAmerican, and indicative of moral turpitude, and probably a bad case of eczema as well.
-
These three things do concern me as a citizen and a Christian.
-
The above four points do not constitute, in my mind, a feeling that “Bush = Hitler,” the U.S. is doomed to fall into a fascist dictatorship, the sky is falling, and every Republican is secretly out to destroy American freedoms. They do give me cause for concern about how America can make it past that sense of divisiveness and that I-believe-misplaced moral certitude in the rightness of Bush policies.
-
Tangential to this thread, but important to the larger picture of us as discussants on a message board that has recently dealt with it: I believe that Mr. Bush’s “solution” to the “Social Security problem” is in error and founded in an unwillingness to honor internal government commitments regarding the purpose and function of government funds. I’m opposed to how he proposes to solve the problem, and mildly disturbed at the idea that a long-term problem has become an immediate crisis. That has little bearing on the thrust of this thread, but is an issue that I’m certain will come up, so I’m addressing it.
-
The above are in no way an accusation against you two or other board Republicans in particular. Only* a misunderstanding of what I intended to say would have led you to see it as such.
I’ve therefore restated the premises I attempted to assert above in less confrontational mode, in hopes that you might be willing to address them without seeing them as accusatory.
- Presumably a guilty conscience among some extreme Rightists who do in fact favor an America run along a theocratic scenario, à la Gary North, might also cause such ire. I choose to believe that my VRWC counterparts (;)) on this board are men of honor committed to America as she has traditionally been, a land of freedom and social values, not such weirdos as the first sentence describes.
Regarding the 14 characteristics of fascism, you realize that the article that first listed them was written in 2003 as part of an anti-Bush article. So it’s not surprising that the Bush administration would fit the 14 characteristics…they were designed with that in mind. Here’s the article, btw.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
The problem is, when you characterize something as fascist, you dismiss it out of hand, and it ends real debate over the policies of the administration, and more generally, when it is appropriate for a government to restrict rights in the name of national security, and whether building up the military is a good or a bad thing.
Soon the Dem’s ‘obstructionism’ will be blamed for our economic crises as they become more unignorable.
Just a stray thought from the peanut gallery to keep things going.
What if “we” aren’t fascists? What if “we” are just incompetent?
Never attribute to good planning that which can be explained by incompetence.
I’m sure some people are fascists. I’m also sure there are a lot more who are just “lost in the ozone again”.
Captain Amazing is right about why accusations of fascism are worthless. The accusation itself shuts down debate. This thread is pointless, just another chance for the hatemongers on either side to shout that the other side is hateful.
The purpose of the fascism comparison is to imply that supporting Bush and the Republicans will lead to the gas chambers. Since massacring millions of people in concentration camps is bad, then Bush and the Republicans are bad. We could argue about authoritarian trends in the US government, we could argue about the wisdom of foreign entanglements and alliances, we could argue about whether the current president is a dolt, all those discussions could be fruitful and worthwhile. But the fascism charge is simply a way to assign irredemable evil to the Bush administration, and by extension, everyone who voted for him (note, I didn’t vote for him).
And then people can’t understand why the usual gang of republican partisans are outraged. If Bush=Hitler then Republicans=Nazis, therefore the repulicans on this board want to shove the rest of us into gas chambers.
And the defense that the OP didn’t claim Bush was a fascist, but merely ASKED if Bush was a fascist doesn’t fly. She knew what she was doing.
Why?
I agree that certain words have excessive baggage attached to them; however, what are the odds that anna has genuine concerns? Is it even a possibility?
How should the conversation of these issues be conducted? Or is an entirely verboten, non-PC subject?
Whether it is PC or not depends on whose side is doing what.
Sort of like Kerry was a child killing flipflopping coward traitor who waterskis in Cambodia and was nowhere near whatever battle he was in and did not get wounded “enough” and is a papist plant who will take his orders from Rome and is a Commie liberal pinko fag lover who talks French and wants us to be invaded by towel headed freedom haters and baby killing abortionist queers who hate God and America and freedom and want to destroy marriage and bring back the Old Ones.
And also like John McCane who is a Commie “mole” because he got brainwashed in that Nam prison and has black children and hates our military and (other assorted vile and putrid “stuff”).
That’s all OK, because it defames someone else.
Note: The ridiculous regurgitated rabid run-on rants and rhetoric were intentional.
Bingo! Can we please debate the policies of this administration and not throw the word fascist around like we’re some kind of self appointed political morality police?
Sure, the administration is fucked up. The society is too, in many ways. But calling it fascist or pre-fascist adds nothing at all to the debate, serving only to insult the people who don’t agree with you and jerk off everyone in the circle who does.
Well, If you have read the responses so far, you will not that at least half of them disagree with one or more of the 14 points listed by the OP, and there has been an interesting (to me at least) side discussion on whether any of these actually represent fascism. Actually, everyone who has shown up here seems to be able to discuss this subject without blowing a fuse except Brutus and Shodan. If you don’t think it’s worth discussing, that’s fine; you have registered your objections, but please don’t feel personally slighted if everyone else continues without you.
How about something like this:
"I disagree with this new privacy policy, because it violates constitutional principle X, it will be misused, and won’t do anything to solve problem Y’.
Good way to discuss it.
“I disagree with this new privacy policy, because it’s FASCISM!”
Bad way to discuss it.
Even if the policy is similar to policies in fascist governments, that doesn’t make the policy good or bad. The acutal effects of the policy make it good or bad. And the invocation of fascism is worse than useless, because then the debate becomes whether that policy really is characteristic of fascism, whether the OP is an idiot for bring up fascism, whether the people defending the policy are fascists, and so on, rather than whether the policy is good or bad, wise or foolish, popular or unpopular, will lead to good results or bad results, or violates or doesn’t violate fundamental priciples.
And since the OP throws Godwin out the window, let me add: If Hitler were alive today, his most common tactic would be to accuse his enemies of being fascists. As Woodie Guthrie pointed out, when America gets fascism they’ll call it anti-fascism. And that’s not just a cynical take on propaganda. The easiest person to fool is yourself. After all, the other side is SO BAD (they’re FASCISTS for crying out loud!), it justifies any sort of slippery manuevering on the part of us good people.
Strictly speaking, you are correct. But there’s also no denying that there was a virtual fusion of the State and the RCC with all kinds of mutual concesions. Franco became a new Crusader of sorts, the man that had “saved” Spain from the new hordes of godless heathens and for that he was openly admired and praised by The Church, gaining privileges such as marching under canopy for offical religious ceremonies – and honor normally reserved for the Pope and other high ranking religious figures. In return, Catholicism not only became the official religion of the land but all other faiths were de facto illegal (although towards the end of his regime there was a certain relaxation of the law). Church doctrine on matters such as abortion, marriage, homosexuality, etc., became the law of the land. Religion instruction in all schools was compulsory.
Pehaps the biggest irony in all of this, is that while Spain had a very long – and second to none – tradition as a bastion of Catholism, there had been, for centuries, a rising undercurrent of anti-clericism amongst the proletariat. Needless to say, said feelings came to a boil during the Civil War and were ultimately crushed during Franco’s dictatorial regime…only to rise again stronger than ever after his passing. For Spain today is on a fast track to becoming – to the absolute horror of the Church and the remaining adherents to centuries of indoctrination and intolerance – one of the world’s most secular nations.
Lastly, and to tie it back to the OP, while Bush’s US hasn’t gone to the extremes that Franco did, I don’t think many would dispute the rise of religious influence in America. Which partly explains the current disconnect between the US and the rest of the Western world as religion goes in the exact opposite direction as it does in the States. Of course, that is not the only reason we seem to be drifting so far apart…
Did you read the OP?
The word fascism is not one that just popped up in the thread as an insult thrown by someone or another. The point of the thread is should we be on the lookout for it? Obviously you think it could never happen here. I’m sure that was the majority position in every nation that has had fascist elements take over. Otherwise it follows that they would have been on guard against it and early on could have prevented it.
I see your position as an attempt at censoring the idea by proclaiming it to be a politically incorrect jibe. While I doubt that few of us think it is something just around the corner, the fact that many people are becoming suspicious of the possibility should be significant to all Americans, despite the ugliness of it. The wider the possibilty is being considered, the less it should be dismissed as frivious. I’d rather someone’s feelings get hurt over our openly questioning the possibility and being wrong, than to be all PC about it and shoving early signs under the rug and calling it a circle jerk if in fact a 21st century version of it is starting to take root.
There’s no stopping such a thing in societies that don’t question authority. It’s never happened here only because America as always held such questioning to be a bastion of our freedoms.
Bingo nothing. An “anti-Bush” article that doesn’t mention Bush, used as an accusation towards an OP that also doesn’t mention Bush? (yeah, those hateful, crackpot secular humanists, eh?) I expected the drive-bys from some of you, but frankly, I expected better of posters like Captain Amazing. As for Lemur, kindly point to where I ASKED whether or not Bush was a fascist? IIRC, I specifically asked that we didn’t indulge in leader comparisons.
Again, I am asking about the mindset (or “mood”, as 'luci calls it) of a populace that precedes fascism.
This is not about Bush. IMO, even if Kerry had won the election, the US mindset would still be a viable subject for this question - the polarisation and the mood of the nation would still be a factor to deal with.
I’m not going to respond to any more straw being piled on this OP (“gas chambers”??! give me a break). I posted this because I knew there were posters such as tomndebb, polycarp, liberal, etc. who could avoid the knee-jerking and actually teach me something. I’m sorry if that rankles some of you - but thanks for telling me something about your own mindset…
You remember the 50’s? First-hand? I’ve got some questions coming up in that case…
BTW, I appreciate your responses re what constitutes fascism. In light of all the knee-jerk replies, could you think of an alternative way to discuss this that wouldn’t lose sight of what we are supposed to learn from historical models? Is there a non-inflammatory way to debate pre-fascist conditions in a modern day context?
I learned in college Poli-Sci that politics is a scale:
communism<-liberalism<-democrats<->republicans->conservatives->fascists
Our country is recently moving farther to the right, and therefore “towards” fascism.
I don’t see many ever people agreeing on exactly where on the scale we stand now or how far to the right (or left) would be the point of “too far.”
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” — John Philpot Curran
Making a direct connection between patriotic displays and fascism is risky.
In 1970 a Harris poll found that 37% of Americans felt that anti-Vietnam War protests should be illegal. In the same year construction workers with American flag decals on their hardhats beat up antiwar protesters on Wall Street, and stormed City Hall.
WWII is still known in Russia as “The Great Patriotic War”.
In U.S. history, please refer to the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean War and Vietnam War, among others.
Christianity , “the most common” religion in Germany, was suppressed by the Nazis.
“Thus with God’s blessing, the hope which we are now justified in feeling will not fade or wither.” Winston Churchill, speech at Edinburgh, 10/12/42.
Another WWII history lesson:
“Patriotism was also a complex matter for the 74,000 enemy aliens in Britain, most of whom had escaped from Nazi persecution. In a foolish and tragic reaction to baseless stories about the contribution that spies and saboteurs had made to the German victories, they were locked up in the most squalid of improvised accomodations. At one rat-infested disused factory (Wharf Mills) 2,000 internees shared 18 water taps. Sixty buckets in the yard served as toilets and there were straw mattresses only for the chronically sick. At another such British internement center, two men who’d already experienced a Nazi concentration camp committed suicide: ‘this camp has broken their spirit,’ said an investigator…
There were draconian punishments for British subjects too. On 17 July 1940 a man was sent to prison for a month after saying that Britain had no chance to win the war. A man who advised two New Zealanders ‘You don’t want to get killed in this bloody war’ got three months. A woman who said ‘Hitler was a good ruler; a better man than Mr. Churchill’ was sentenced to five years in prison. The British newspapers were also warned against thoughtless utterances. Editors were told quite unequivocally that ‘irresponsible’ criticism would not be tolerated and the government would decide what was responsible and what was not.” - from Blood, Tears and Folly, by Len Deighton, 1993.
The Palmer Raids.
Is it more useful to a) have a sense of historical perspective in arguing against curtailment of civil liberties in times of war, undeclared and otherwise, or b) rail in Godwinesque fashion against “fascism”, setting oneself up for contempt and one-liners from Brutus?
Your choice.