The Bush administration is no more fascist than the Clinton administration was communist.
Now, I’m certainly no fan of the current administration, but I would not call them fascist-that’s a very serious charge, and one not to be thrown around lightly.
**
Maybe I enunciated my point poorly. Maybe you didn’t read the thread entirely. Maybe you don’t want to understand my point. It matters little. I haven’t at any point said that the US is about to slide into fascism. I brought up the suggestion that there are fascists in the White House that are influencing administrative policy. I pointed to Bush speeches that seemed to me to be pushing a sentiment that sought to capture more power for the administration in pushing fascist policy. The specific issues that Bush is speaking about are of no concern. I don’t care enough about the specifics of Bush’s rantings to oppose them. The general sentiment is what I referenced. And while the “sentiment” in a speech may be shaky grounds on which to base an argument, I thought it would be an interesting debate as to whether his comments are an indication of such influences. Too bad you’re all caught up being so indignant about the issue and neglect to address the point.
**
(Does it make you feel silly to make a grammatical error right before you nail me for making one. Note the parentheses mistake.)
For someone who can’t read a dictionary, I did a pretty marvelous job of quoting it. Again, I’m not saying America is a fascist state (I seem to remember even saying as much), I was simply pointing to indications that America is being pushed, if ineffectively, in that direction by certain government personnel.
Anyone would think that I’m the first one to suggest that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Co. may be taking “right-wing” to extreme lengths.
As for my misinterpretations of the definition of fascism, do you want to point out anything in particular, or am I just wrong and that’s all there is to it?
I stand corrected. If you catch any more spelling or grammatical errors, please let me know. I’m far from perfect. How ‘bout you?
For someone who seems to make a claim to logic, you sure disappoint.
This charge that I hate the US—is that anything like the charge that anyone who opposes a war is anti-American or unpatriotic?
As for hating Bush, this thread isn’t about Bush, except where the super-defensive assume it is and insist on making the argument about him. I’ve even said repeatedly that I don’t think Bush is the fascist. How can you hate a puppet or a stooge. One tends to feel pity more than hate.
And who even intimated that I was a savior?!! I have to laugh. So someone who questions authority is now projecting themselves as a savior? I’m not sure I’m ready for that responsibility but thanks for the promotion, if only in your mind.
As for the extremist accusation, well I’m not sure how to react. Would I rather be an extremist than a drone who tows the line and buys the bullshit without question? Yes. Is it extreme to question the authorities? If you say so, champ. But what, do you propose, is my agenda? (Before you say it, I’m not a democrat and I don’t like Clinton.)
Did you make it through that article that I linked yet, Guinastasia?
Never mind reading the whole thread - it helps to actually read what you are in the process of writing:
The gentle reader believes that you are, in fact, claiming that we are moving towards fascism.**
Your failure to understand the specifics of Bushian policy as well as a lack of knowledge of the history of interactions between the executive and legislative branches are what have led you to make your illogical OP. “Sentiment” and suspicion alone don’t cut it. Facts count.**
Do tell. Are you attacking a particular parenthesis, or both parentheses?**
Quoting: A+. Comprehension: C-.**
No credit is given here for having company in making unfounded assertions.**
You may wish to reread my last post.
A coup attempt by a sitting President would be pretty weird, but I guess technically possible, in a nation where the President is considered a civilian, for that President to use the military to seize control of things he normally wouldn’t already control.
But no, what I was talking about was already referenced: the strange and somewhat silly McGuire incident.
**
What or who is the gentle reader? Someone who ignores what I say explicitly and tries to put words in my mouth? Or a guiding spirit that you consult when you don’t understand what someone is saying? For the cheap seats: I am suggesting that there are fascist elements in the White House. That and “moving towards fascism” are two different notions. Can you follow that?
**
I love it when I’m accused of not understanding certain things without any actual basis for the statement. I don’t understand ……… Okay, so what is your basis for saying so, genius. C’mon, cough it up. Or is it just easier to make personal snipes. Schoolyard stuff, sport. Sentiment and suspicion don’t cut it? I’m not aloud to question sentiment and be suspicious of such? Why not? Are you only allowed to debate that which you have physical evidence for?
**
That would be a misuse of a set of parentheses, whereby you open with two parentheses and close with one parenthesis. You catching on? Or are we going to debate grammar here. Either way, this is a lark for me.
**
Says you? Based on what? You don’t say much, do you? Plenty of snipes—no substance. (Although it could’ve been worse than a C- I guess.)
**
But credit is given for announcing that they are unfounded without saying why?
Are you just tugging my chain? You didn’t say squat beyond, essentially, that everything except the bit about belligerent nationalism was not of debatable merit. What do you want me to reread? I’m asking you to debunk the other five or so points that I brought up specifically with regard to fascism. Are you not up to it? Are random snipes and unfounded insults as far as your intellect stretches?
one-party dictatorship
No effort has been made to actually suppress any other party–not just the Democrats, but any other parties, as well.
Forcible suppression of opposition
The Constitutional freedoms that have, thus far, been arguably (but not conclusively) endangered, have not been the results of attacks directed at opposition groups, but at those who appear to be outsiders. I am well aware of the general campaign of misinformation that seeks to brand certain critics as “anti-American” while glibly pretending that such an epithet is not simply the latest word for “un-American” with its coercive power to silence legitimate criticism as “unpatriotic.” However, this is a struggle of words in a battle of public opinion and cannot legitimately be called “forcible suppression” under any reasonable reading of that phrase.
Private economic enterprise being brought under centralized control
Giving one’s friends the plums of victory may be cronyism, patronage, nepotism, incestuous behavior, or any number of other bad things. However, that is quite different than the sort of nationalization of industry that “centralized control” conjures up.
belligerent nationalism
I’ll give you this one
Racism
You need to understand how the term is used in creating Fascism. It is not the sort of generalized antipathy that causes friction between groups or allows a majority ethnic group to dominate minority groups. In the context of fascism, racism indicates a method of appealing to the common ethnic heritage of all the citizens for the purpose of proclaiming that they have a right and an obligation to dominate other peoples. In Germany, this took the form of the myth of the Aryan master race; in Italy, this took the form of hearkening back to the glory of ancient Rome. No such appeals have yet been made to the American people, and no claims of “obvious” American moral superiority over other peoples has issued from the White House.
Militarism
Like racism, militarism has a specific meaning in regards to fascism. This does not mean a simple extension of power via the military, but a call to all of the citizenry to act as though the society, itself, was engaged in a military campaign, with an emphasis on promoting groups such as the Scouts to engage in para-military training and a call on the people to act as though they were under military command. This is hardly the case in the U.S., today, where every time they jack the Terrorism Color Alert up to chartreuse, or whatever, they immediately follow that with a call for everyone to go on with their lives as though nothing had happened (but to be alert doing so).
And, as I noted earlier, fascism also engages in a cult of personality of the leader–a pattern that we are certainly not seeing emanate from the White House, today.
For the preceeding reasons, most of us reject any purported connection between the administration and fascism (or facscist leanings). (Note that a significant number of posters to this thread really despise Bush, yet no one is really supporting the “fascism” claim.)
There isn’t that much difference between the two major parties in the first place. For all that the supposedly vast and deep ideological chasm dividing the two is constantly played up and emphasized (creating it in the first place), party affiliation doesn’t actually say a lot about political views.
It’s like ‘liberal vs. conservative’: the words ceased to be meaningful several decades ago. Their usage bears no resemblance to their claimed definitions.
I COULD try to assuage the OP’s fears.
I COULD assure him that his fears are groundless, that the WORST-case scenario for left-leaning Bush-haters is that someone else will be President on Jan. 20, 2008. I COULD try to reassure him that the Democrats will undoubtedly re-take the White House one day.
But you know what? It’s WAAAAY more fun to watch people like him stew and fret about impending fascism.
The gentle reader marvels at how easily you forget your own words, to wit:
"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."*
If you’re now backing down from your untenable OP, fine. But denying your original remarks is foolish.
**
Yes, actually having demonstrable facts that support one’s position is encouraged in Great Debates.
I’ll give you a half-point for your perspicacity on parentheses. Next time you pick up a dictionary, though, look up the difference between inadvertent omission and ignorance (i.e. Whitehouse). Ugh.
*in the interests of amity, no comment will be made about any further grammatical transgressions on your part.
Because they’re
[ol]
[li]Prone to errors,[/li][li]Not open to inspection by third parties to verify they’re counting votes accurately, and[/li][li]Made by companies backed by rich Republican donors.[/li][/list=1]
The first two are scary enough; the last one has the potential to make Florida 2000 look like Amateur Night by comparison.
References:
[list=*]
[li]Republicans, Corporate Players Make the Voting Machines[/li][li]Broward vote total off in reporting glitch[/li][li]Drudge Report: FLORIDA TALKSHOW CALLERS CLAIM MACHINES ‘BROKEN’, VOTED FOR MCBRIDE, MARKED IT AS BUSH[/li][li]Salon: Voting Into the Void[/li][/ol]
I mean, hell, I work with complex computer software systems, and I know how easy it’d be to slip a “bug” into a voting system to count every other “Gore” vote as a “Bush” instead. And you wouldn’t even need to have a cousin working at Fox News to do it.
Personally, I say we should give eveeryone big slips of paper with big checkboxes and a Sharpie marker, but I doubt the Powers That Be would really want that…
I agree with rjung about #1 and #2. I’ve supervised a lot of data entry. I hated the idea of not having hard copy backup, when it was just insurance statistics. It’s all the more important with an election at stake.
A system has been described to me, where each voter fills in a paper ballot. Before the voter leaves, the ballot can be checked by machine to be sure the didn’t vote twice for some office. The ballots are tabulated by machine, but the paper backup is always available for verification.
I don’t neccessarily define fascism as the establisment of a right-wing totalitarian government. Laws against flag burning, mandating the Pledge of Allegience (and the public reaction to the challenge of the “under God” clause), and the anti Dixie Chicks rallys are small but bona fide examples of fascism, IMO.
In other words the term can be appllied to specific policies or the political climate as well as a regime.
I’m curious as to why you feel that way. Certainly there is a segment of the political Left that has used fascist as a generic term of opprobrium for many years (or, at least, an epithet hurled at authoritarian governments that are not, themselves, on the Left). However, that is no more accurate–or useful in discussion–than the Right’s use of communist (or socialist) or similar words when hurled as epithets.
We already have accurate and descriptive words for the phenomena that you described: chauvinism, jingoism, etc. Why insist on using a word that still carries a specific meaning in ways that are not pertinent to that word (except as it is used as a meaningless epithet to indicate one’s own place on the political spectrum in relation to one’s opponent)?
First up, ** tomndebb**, thanks for at least addressing some specific issues that I can bite into, even if it isn’t strictly on the question raised in the OP. The random barely related tit-for-tat becomes a little tiresome after a while.
**
One could validly argue that the democrats and republicans represent a single party that is the bow-down-to-big-money-party. The very system that requires financing from the super-wealthy as well as endorsement from the corporate media is a system that can maintain a single party while making it look like two. Take, from example, Lyndon LaRouche, Democratic presidential candidate. The man seems to me to be a top-rate economist who can actually evaluate matters for himself and lead people. He also certainly does not belong to the bow-down-to-big-money party (even though he is technically a democrat). The media won’t touch him. He was excluded from the Democratic debate recently despite having more election campaign contributors than any other democratic candidate and having the fourth highest in total campaign contributions. The man has more support than most of the PR monkeys that were in the debate, yet they won’t let him near the other candidates in a debate ‘cause they know he’ll make the others look like idiots. There’s an example of the maintenance of a one-party deal for you.
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/030429so_car_debate_ltr.html
Even though, this in itself has little to do with the OP, it does illustrate the seemingly all too readily accepted fallacy that America’s system of government can’t be corrupted or manipulated.
**
If you read what I posted on the issue again you’ll see that I don’t know of any use of new terrorist fighting legislation being used to actually enact forcible suppression of the opposition.
What I am saying, and I’m sure you’ll agree is that those laws could very easily be used to do so. Political prisoners could feasibly be taken under those laws it seems which at least opens the potential and speculation that that is the covert agenda. And it doesn’t have to be some vast conspiracy at work. It can just be some opportunistic individuals taking advantage of laws passed by naïve legislators that is the problem.
**
True, but you must admit that it is a step in that direction.
**
Yeah, it’s pretty plain to see.
**
No, of course they haven’t. That would be political suicide in today’s cultural climate. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t a driving sentiment in the fascists that I have suggested are in the administration. Nor does it necessarily mean that the same racism isn’t appealed to in many of the supporters of the war. Just because it isn’t talked about in the open doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I’ve seen and heard too many red-neck style comments referring to how stupid Iraqis are for this and that reason. Not to mention the all too frequently seized upon notion that Muslim = potential terrorist despite the fact that middle easterners only constitute a small minority of terrorists.
**
The go-about your daily lives is only an effort to maintain the consumer confidence index and such so that the economy is prevented from implosion.
And I’ve seen a very hate-driven militaristic mentality out there in political land. Flip talk radio some time and listen to the hate-mongering reach a frenzied pitch. Shooting paintballs at giant pictures of Saddam, Jaques Chirac, and Osama (at a recent concert event in my area) is one example of militarism, if only in a modern guise. Smashing French cars with sledge hammers is another. While one could easily label this as mere belligerent nationalism, it seems to me that the two go hand in hand. Belligerence—excessive hostility, mixed with generous helpings of blind nationalistic patriotism leads down only one street: righteous indignation aimed at any who question the “homeland” or its “commander in chief” leading inevitably to militaristic sentiments of bomb them all! The social manifestations depend largely on cultural quirks and would vary widely.
**
Beg to differ on that one too. I’ve seen some way spooky reactions to anyone who would dare question the president. Case in point: The Dixie Chicks. One chick utters a single line at a concert and it is leapt on by the media and next thing people are burning and stomping on CDs and radio stations are refusing to play their music etc etc. That sort of rabid over-reaction seems like cultish twisted behavior to me.
The “most of us” argument just doesn’t hold water. Most of “them” thought the world was flat at one point. It doesn’t mean “they” were right. This is not to say that I am right and you are wrong; it is just to say that popular opinion is not a valid basis for argument and is, in my experience, an attempt to make oneself feel right because “others think so too.” I prefer independent and honest observance of manifestations and events as basis for speculation on the accuracy of an issue such as fascism in the White House.
I COULD try to entice this poster into an actual argument.
I COULD ask him to comment on some of the grounds I have brought up in this thread, that the WORST-case scenario for anyone trying to debunk me is the revelation that I’m not left-leaning and just think Bush is being played like a fool. I COULD point out how naïve and trite it is to portray the issue as some partisan political agenda.
But you know what? It’s WAAAAY more fun to let people like him make mindless statements that reflect the very infantile nature of the Bush administration.
(See, anyone can turn out some cheap snipes. Doesn’t take a whole lot. Might be another thing to actually take up the issue piecemeal and see how the logic stacks up behind all that hot air.)
ummm? The “most of them” was not an appeal to some nebulous mass of people; it was an explicit reference to the Bush-hating posters on this specific thread who are still not persuaded of his fascist tendencies. It was also not an appeal to their support; it was an indication that you have failed to make a case even among the people most receptive to such claims.
As to the other points:
(You really need to go read up on Larouche. The guy is a wacko who spent a significant portion of the 1980s (right up until he was convicted of mail fraud) claiming that the Queen of England was the mastermind behind all the drug smuggling and illegal drug sales in the world.)
Regardless, the Democrats and Republicans, however much they appear to be Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, are not truly a single party. Unlike a parliamentary system that encourages multiple parties and coalition governments, our Congressional/Presidential system has a built-in “winner take all” aspect that results in a two-party system with each party striving mightily to capture the “undecided middle”–and thus putting very similar faces on their platforms and campaigns. However, the two parties are distinct and they are quite different than the true single-party system that operates under fascism.
That the Patriot Act and the high-handed manner of Ashcroft may be a threat to civil liberties at some point still does not indicate that there is a movement toward forcible suppression. When that suppression comes (if it ever does), it will still not be an indication of fascism unless the other attributes of fascism are met.
I deny that there is any similarity between handing sweetheart deals to cronies in industry and nationalizing industry. For there to be any signs of fascism, we would need to see a movement to place GM, Ford, Boeing, SBC, Exxon, Mobil, USX, and other companies under government control. What we see is the opposite, with sporadic efforts to sell pieces of the government to various tycoons. In other words, the movement that you see as indicating fascism is, indeed, a movement in the exact opposite direction.
Regarding the racism angle: what specific statements or actions in the administration convey to you the idea that they wish to announce an “American race.” Without that theme, you do not have fascism.
Under militarism, you point to hate-mongering which has little to do with fascist-style militarism. Regardless, there has been hate-mongering throughout history without involving fascism. Heck, one of the best and most fervent hate-mongers in U.S. history was Woodrow Wilson who is never associated with fascism (conveniently dying three years before it was invented).
Finally, I see no “cult of the leader” associated with Bush. The anger directed at people who criticize Bush is based on the perception that one does not criticize the (office of) President in a time of crisis. (We had even more fervent supporters of Nixon, for heaven’s sake, during the Vietnam War.) I have seen no rallies devoted to supporting Bush, the person, rather than supporting the troops. I do not see any great movement to enshrine the speeches or comments of Bush in books of quotations (other than humorous ones). I see no references by the administration calling for special honor to Bush. And I do not see Bush going out before the people and calling attention to himself in a way that resembles the actions of Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco. There is no current “cult of the leader” in the U.S.
**
Right, I’m pointing to Bush’s statements as an illustration for possible efforts to push fascism. All of those ideas potentially lead in that direction. Whether America actually walks the path and begins the slide into full-blown fascism is another thing. While certain events and manifestations have indicated real movement in that direction, it is all relative and doesn’t qualify as full-blown Nazi-style fascism right at this juncture. Are we clear yet?
**
You really are stretching, huh. I’ve seen all sorts of threads on the most vague of subjects like “what is a lie” and “does the big-bang discount the existence of god” etc This is all about exchanging observations. If there is DNA evidence to support an idea, great, but to say that an argument must have such to be worth debating is just silly. People are free to make suggestions and debate it and it doesn’t make the debate any less worthwhile. Extrapolation of current events into future consequences and speculation on unseen forces behind visible events can be interesting. Try it out sometime.
Does this mean you’ll actually take up something that relates specifically to the question posed in the OP, or are we just going to stick to “what I meant when I said….” or “an argument must be based upon hard evidence” or “grammatical correctness.”
Or maybe it’s best that you leave it to others while you start your own thread on the virtues of good grammar.
**
Fair enough. I will incidentally point out one more time that the thread is about fascists using Bush as a puppet, not Bush per se. (Damn I’ve had to say that a lot of times!)
**
You really need to read up on Bush. The guy is a wacko who goes to some pagan cultish meeting over in Bohemian Grove each year to wear robes and participate in mock human sacrifices. Not to mentions the Skull and Bones weirdness.
LaRouche isn’t the only one that has suggested that the Q of E is into drugs. Apparently the British Royals originally made their fortune selling opium to the Chinese so it’s a pretty reasonable conclusion to come to, really.
See, you can drum up whatever propaganda you like. It doesn’t change the fact that LaRouche had more election campaign contributors than any of the other democratic candidates and ranked fourth in total contributions, and yet they wouldn’t let him in on the debate. Does democracy not count if your opinions aren’t politically correct now?
Also, that long list of elected officials seem to think LaRouche is worthy despite any dig he has had at her majesty.
**
Alright if the two parties are so distinct, then there must be basic ideology underlying their policies, right? I understand that one of the basic guiding principles of conservatism is small government. If republicans stand for small government, why has each and every conservative president expanded government during their tenure—right in line with leftist ideology?
**
True. At least we’ve established the potential for the suppression of opposition under recent measures. If it does go ahead and happen it sure won’t be in the news.
**
Fair comment. Do you believe that a kind of corporate fascism can evolve where a centralization of industry comes under private hands?
If so, can that small group of industrial dictators (so to speak) gain heavy influence over the government and effect essentially the same result as standard state fascism?
**
You’re limiting fascism to the specific brand of it seen in Nazi Germany. I think racism is simply an attendant trait seen in the fascist mentality.
Again, no announcement of the race intentions could ever be announced (nor is it essentially necessary) but “bringing the American way of life to the world” could be argued to be a similar sentiment. Since America is so multi-cultural one could not bind Americans into an us-and-them with race. However the economic “American dream” does serve that purpose.
Also note the “they hate us because of our freedoms” statements. Laughable, yes. But also telling.
**
We see this quite differently. IMHO hate mongering is the life-blood and fuel of fascist-style militarism. Without hate-mongers, militaristic “we must defend ourselves and kill them” is dead in the water.
I will concede that hate mongering can be present without fascism but not the other way around. In fact hate mongering seems to be a clear sign that fascism or some equally ugly –ism is on the rise.
You make some good points. I will agree that it doesn’t stretch to the degrees of the Mussolinis of the world but then again I have said that America is not under a full-blown fascism as Italy was at the time.
There are degrees however and it would be appropriate to note Bush’s recent trip to the carrier. Yes, yes, I know; that was to thank the troops. But maybe, just maybe, there was a little Bush aggrandizement there? Add that to the Dixie Chicks style madness and my case rests. It is not as extreme as some cases that can be found in history but I don’t think it is non-existent.