Fascism in the Whitehouse

Great Debates
1

My question is:

Are the neocons behind the President pushing for a fascist state in America?

I have wondered for years what it would be like to see a government transform into a fascist state as in Nazi Germany. I have wondered how leaders like Hitler ever managed to convince the populace that militaristic measures and the polarization of power was a valid move.

Well, I have watched Bush capitalize on the deaths of thousands on 9/11 so as to justify unjust military invasion. I no longer wonder how it could be done. I’ve now seen it.

One thing was comforting was the separation of powers that the US retains which sets apart from a fascist state. As long as the three branches of federal government remain very separate I will sleep easier.

The American public would have to convinced that legislative powers should be surrendered to the President for him to gain the power to establish a truly fascist state.

Recently I saw a couple of speeches that were a little alarming in this respect.

2

Dammit! Accidentally hit enter. Not finished with the OP. Bear with me.

3

Nope, if it’s all the same with you, I won’t.

I’m old enough to have seen the exact same fears be voiced about Nixon and Reagan. Don’t worry. The system can’t get that far out of whack.

4

The first speech was Bush attacking certain Senators regarding judicial nominations. (I was unable to link the url for the video itself, so from the linked page just click: “Bush Blasts Democrats on Nominations”

http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?ei=UTF-8&p=Bush&c=av

In this speech Bush says that the Senators opposing certain nominations are “setting a pattern that threatens judicial independence.” He goes on to say that the “judicial confirmation process is broken….”

What does he mean when he says that judicial independence is being threatened? Does he mean that the administrative branch will have to step in and impose measures on the judicial branch so as to avert this “crisis?” By portraying that the confirmation process as broken, he is obviously pushing to change how these confirmations are made. Is this the beginnings of a move for the Whitehouse to assume certain powers that the Senate currently has?

Two more speech excerpts at the same page. For these speeches, scroll down to those entitled: “Bush Targeting Swing Votes for Tax Cuts” and “Bush Presses Congress on Tax-Cut Plan” These speeches are adjacent to each other about half way down the page.

http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?ei=UTF-8&p=Bush&c=av

In these excerpts, Bush seems to be attempting to blame congress for the trouble of the economy, indicating that congress is delaying action and isn’t being “bold” enough with the tax cut proposals. While this could be a simple political ploy to deflect attention from himself on the economy issue with an election looming, but he also makes a point of running down congress by placing blame at their feet, seeming to indicate that congress is delinquent.

Then, again, at the same page. The speech entitled “Bush Promotes Tax Cut Proposals” is a little further down the page.

http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?ei=UTF-8&p=Bush&c=av

In this excerpt he passionately proclaims “You must have fiscal discipline in Washington D.C. in order to deal with the deficit.” Seems like another stab at congress, implying that they are wasting tax-payers money. While this may be another political play, averting attention from the expense incurred in initiating a preemptive invasion and occupation, it sure seems like more undermining of the legislative branch of government.

I think it is interesting that the President made Iraq’s WMD a crisis, apparent congressional sand-bagging and over-spending is a crisis, and senators who oppose Bushes sentiment with judicial nominations are creating a crisis. All of these crises seem to be leading in a common direction: Militarism and centralization of control, i.e. fascism.

While I may well be reading too much into these speeches by Bush, I think it is worth noting so as to view future moves by the Whitehouse in such a light to see how it plays out.

5

Famous last words, eh.

Ever consider that people voicing those fears (as I am am here) served to put a stop to what might have been?

6

How are these speeches by Bush II any different than similar speeches by Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, . . .?

Presidents propose action to set the “direction” for the country. Whenever the President believes that Congress will interfere with the direction that he has attempted to set for the country, he will “go to the people” in an attempt to get the citizenry to write nasty letters to their representatives demanding that the Congress enact the President’s legislation.

That is how the system works.

When the legislators get attacked by too many irate constiuents, they either change their votes or go back and make their own speeches criticizing the President and indicating why they are right and he is wrong.

That, too, is how the system works.

For an example of the destruction of the Separation of Powers (which would not necessarily result in fascism–since fascism and dictatorship are not synonymous), we need to see an example of the President demanding from Congress the ability to act unilaterally in a number of different arenas. The War Powers Act and its successor legislation should be of concern to civil libertarians–although not to the point of reflexive paranoia–but Congress and the President have been wrangling over the control of the war-making apparatus for over 100 years. To get really excited about the oncoming dictatorship, there should be a fair amount more evidence in many more areas of executive action where the legislative powers have been pre-empted.

7

And in case Tom’s rational explanation hasn’t soothed your fears and you’re still worried about a U.S. Fascist state, war, Armageddon etc. - well, it’s always good to be prepared.

8

tomndebb:

Fair retort. I have seen very few, if any speeches from Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt. If you could cite examples that would help. This isn’t a challenge; I would just like to see how these other presidents have attempted to undermine legislators in their political maneouverings. It would certainly set my mind at ease to see that this behavior is not new. Certainly doesn’t seem too noble or righteous, but if it is not new, then it would be less alarming.

As for fascism and dictatorships not being synonomous, while that may be true, you failed to recognize that they are mostly interdependent since a leader will usually not get away with fascist policy unless he establishes a dictatorship to some degree.

9

In Nazi Germany, you had a fairly new system of government-prior to that was the Weimar Republic and before that, the German Empire, under the Prussian Hohenzollern dynasty.

You also had the aftermath of a devasting world war, and the collapse of most of the old governments in Europe.

Not the case here.

10

Good job Jackmanni.

I thought this topic would bring the pointless schoolyard-style comments out of the woodwork.

Who said anything about Armegeddon? Are you so insecure about your point of view that you must portray anything that questions your stance as something other than what it is so you can feel better about brushing it off?

Pick up a history book some time. You’ll find that productive states and empires do at times turn into fascist regimes. Is it paranoid to suspect that history may repeat itself one more time?

11

Well, review that history book again. Usually, this occurs in areas that have a history of instability and revolutions.

NOT in basically stable, free democratic societies.

12

I’m certainly no big fan of GeeDubya, but I don’t think America is headed for a fascist state just yet. There are still (supposedly) enough checks and balances in place to prevent George from leading us into a new Fourth Reich.

On the other hand, if the 2004 elections get suspended for “emergency reasons” (terrorism, the modern bogeyman, is a prime candidate for this excuse), or if electronic voting machines get widespread and/or mandatory use (“in the interest of election fairness”), or there’s a sudden groundswell in the suspension of civil rights or existing checks, then I’ll start to worry.

So what is it with Republican presidents scaring the populace towards fears of fascism, anyway? :wink:

13

Hysteria by losing Democrats, obviously.

The only President with a chance of imposing fascism even worth talking about was FDR. He didn’t swing it - without a world war and a depression no other President is going to bring it off either.

See some previous threads by scotandrsn on this same topic.

Sorry - this is a pretty silly notion.

Regards,
Shodan

14

rjung, why exactly are you worried about electronic voting machines?

lander2k2, let’s keep our terms straight. If GWB succeeded in establishing a de facto dictatorship based on social conservatism, authoritarianism, nationalism and militarism, that still wouldn’t be fascism. Fascism, in its classic, mid-20th-century form, includes those elements, but it also includes elements of socialism and populism – a desire for some kind of revolutionary transformation of society that would sweep aside the power of the old aristocrats and the new business elites alike, and forge all the volk into a real social community. Neither Mussolini nor Hitler ever really set about to put through such a social revolution, but the idea was always in their minds, and in their propaganda. They were willing to enact totalitarian economic systems – not on the all-encompassing scale of the Soviet Union, but under the Fascist and Nazi regimes, the state would control industry and plan the economy to whatever extent seemed expedient at the time, without bothering about industrialists’ right to autonomy. See “Fascism: A History,” by Roger Eatwell (Penguin Books, 1995).

Obviously, central economic planning, and social revolution of any kind, both are about far as you can get from Bush’s (for want of a better word) thinking.

15

Some posters criticized a comment by a cite on another thread, saying that

"Radical leftists think the Bush Administration is like the Nazi Party for one specific reason. They haven’t studied the rise of the Nazis. They truly believe the comparison is apt not because they misunderstand Republicans, but because they misunderstand Hitler.

This thread demonstrates that some leftists do indeed think the Bush Administration is like the Nazi Party.

16

I am a leftist (hi vanilla)
and I don’t think that.

17

While one aspect of fascism does indicate a need for a dictator (or, at least, an unreasonbly strong executive in the person of the Duce/Führer/Caudillo), there are many dictatorships that are not fascist. The OP hints at dictatorship, but does not provide any reason to believe that the feared dictatorship will be fascist in character.

Except that it is not “undermining” anything. It is exactly how the process works–and has since the inception of the country. Only Congress can pass laws. But the leader of the country is the president. (If the U.S. used a parliamentary system, there would be less friction because the prime minister would be the leader of the largest party (or coalition of parties). As the first among equals, we would expect him to be proposing legislation. However, the guys at the Constitutional convention chose a different arrangement. Article 2, Section 3 includes the instructions

So the president must report on the condition of the country to Congress and recommend the “measures” to take the country in a certain direction. On the other hand, he is at the mercy of Congress in initiating any legislation that will carry out those recommendations. How will he do this other than to appeal to Congress, and if they balk, appeal to the citizenry?

I don’t have a handy list of specific cases where the presidents appealed to the people over the Congress (although most State of the Union addresses carry an element of such appeals). Ronald Reagan was well known for going over the heads of Congress, but each president has done something similar at one time or another. It is not a matter of subverting the process, but of working within the process.

18

I’m curious as to what “leftists” (especially in the plural) have said any such thing on this thread.

19

Is it just me, or has the proper definition of neo-conservatism been altered to mean “bellicose Bush supporters?” Looking at past fascist dictators like Hitler, Antonescu, Pavelic, Salazar, Mussolini and Franco, I find very few, if any, significant similarities with them and Bush and company.

20

Bush simply will not tolerate dissent. Congress is evil for getting in his way… how DARE they they exercise their constitutional powers to prevent the president from doing whatever the hell he wants! Wicked, nasty Congress!