I’ve seen other people who dismiss the Democrats and Republicans as being essentially two branchs of a single party. To do so ignores the reality of what a real one-party state is. But as long as you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, neither party can afford to be the leader in evil.
It’s true that the D&R’s have a lot of common ground between them; but that’s because that common ground is where most of the voters are. This country isn’t capitalist because the Democrats and Republicans have mandated it; the Democrats and Republicans are capitalist because that’s what the majority of people want. Those of you who are libertarians, socialists, communists, greens, or whatever have to accept this; in the United States you can have democracy or your political platform, but you’re never going to have both.
Were you at all concerned about a fascist drift in the US under Clinton? If not, then how is it that we are a one-party state?
I think some people are struggling with the degree of fascism issue that you have brought a few times. On the Fascism scale of 0 to 10 (Nazi Germany = 10), where was the US under Clinton and where is it now, under Bush? I’m just looking for your subjective sense here, since there isn’t a real scale or any defined criteria for the various points on the scale.
No. They must merely be two groups who are competing for power. As long as the competition exists, they are not a single entity and we are not subject to a one-party system.
Sorry. This is ludicrous. (First, who besides Larouche has actually accused Elizabeth of any such involvement?) The British Empire made a lot of money by forcing the opium trade on China. However, the Royal Family already had wealth long before that particular event and could just as easily have increased their riches solely off the exploitation of India and the West Indies (where no drug trade was encouraged), without the additional benefits of the opium trade. (In fact, the opium trade was much more the excuse to subjugate China than the actual money interest in the situation.) However, expanding that to charge the current queen with complicity (not to mention actual management) of the world wide drug trade, at a time when the royal powers are at their lowest since January, 1649 and when no one in the world besides Larouche (not even the Soviets or Chinese who could have used the propaganda) actually made any such accusation, is a clear sign of derangement. As to Larouche’s “huge number” of contributors: they are the people he was convicted of defrauding–and the Democrats had no need or desire to permit a known tax cheat and fraud to represent them.
I suppose that it is remotely possible. However, that would call for a different terminology, because it would not be fascsim, which already has a definition that does not include that scenario.
No. I am noting that fascism already has a definition and a history and that that definition includes Nazi Germany (which “perfected” it) and Fascist Italy (which invented it) and several other smaller countries that embraced it. Those countries that have already enacted fascist regimes have provided the defining characteristics. If you choose to say that fascism is simply any vaguely Right-wing government that happens to be “bad,” then the word simply becomes an ill-defined epithet of the Left (as it certainly has been used over the last 40 years). If, however, you are attempting to make a clear point that this administration is actually moving toward a fascist stance, then we should use the word as it is defined in the realm of political history, and characteristics such as the racist notion of the volk or the populi are, indeed, integral to that definition.
Equally ugly -ism, sure. But why fascism? Since hate can be used by all sorts of demagogues, why claim a “fascist” aspect for such hatred? Are we now going to redefine the speeches of Marcus Portius Cato (the Elder) as fascist?
Fascism has a definition and reshaping the meaning of every authoritarian phenomenon to turn it into “fascism” does violence to that definition and renders the word a useless epithet for “right-wing stuff we don’t like.”
The speech from the Lincoln (along with the “co-piloting” of the S-3) was clearly PR. That hardly makes it into the realm of fascism. I saw no trumpets from the National Review that “our fearless leader makes his own carrier landing.” I have not seen any articles in the Wall Street Journal extolling the virtues of Bush as the “premier American.” All leaders indulge in photo ops or favorable sound bites. Such PR does not even approach the “cult of the leader” that is manifested in a truly fascist state.
the problem with your post is that a dictionary needs some catchy, short descriptions, which in the case of actually pretty complex phenomenons don’t really do the issue justice. An article in an academic journal I read a while ago (Robert O. Paxton: The five stages of fascism, Journal of modern history Vol 70, No. 1, p. 1-23) pointed out that Fascism historically had very few common political traits and there were, in fact, considerable differences for example between Germany and Italy. There are a lot of confounding factors in, for example, regimes that were not fully fascist mimicking behavior of those who were in order to give themselves the glamour, the aura of force emanated by such regimes. Also, fascist doctrine practically routinely differed from fascist action in a rather opportunistic way. The words of fascist theorists are rarely matched by the actions of fascist regimes once in power. Most forms of fascism deny any universal principles to the extent that they do not want to proselytize: Their facsism is not for export, not for others, and if anything, that is the most obvious argument against fascism in a US which apparently would like nothing more than everyone else mimicking them. It gets more fishy, however, once we look beyond that.
I want to make quite clear that I do not consider the US a fascist nation. (I lived there until very recently). What I want to point out that traces of fascist attitude are not as absent as one would like them to be, and that a case can be made, depending on one’s perspective:
Paxton lists the following ‘mobilizing passions’ as being given in fascism, even if sometimes only implicitly:
*The primacy of the group, towards which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual *
A case could certainly be made here seeing the arguments that the war effort needs to be supported no matter what, that individuals should accept curbed liberties for the sake of national safety, etc.
*The belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action against the group’s enemies, whether internal or external *
This, too, could be seen as given, both in the Patriot Act, the defiance of the UN and in the war against Iraq.
*Dread of the group’s decadence under the corrosive effect of individualistic and cosmopolitan liberalism *
Standard right wing republican fare.
*Closer integration of the community within a brotherhood (fascio) whose unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence, if necessary. *
One of the least obvious, though some traits of it can be seen in parts of the religious right, and, of course, what’s left of the KKK.
*An enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur of the group reinforces individual self-esteem *
Standard fare of ‘true patriots’ denouncing any dissenter as un-american.
*Authority of natural leaders (always male) throughout society, culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny. *
Once more a bit less obvious, but if we go from one leader to an inner circle, the neo-cons are pretty close.
*The beauty of violence and will, when they are devoted to the group’s success in a Darwinian struggle *
can once more be seen in admiring the defiance of the UN and having the ‘guts’ to have the Iraq war even without their consent.
Once more, I do not want to say that the US is fascist, or on the road to fascism. I merely think that the points you cite were too concrete, on specific examples of fascism, and that a lot depends on perspective and cases can be made a bit easier than you make them to be. Vigiliance is certainly (always) justified.
These are related to the “racism” angle as I have outlined it and I do not believe the U.S. (or the Bushista neo-cons) have come remotely close to this point.
Except that I see no reason to extend the highly visible “natrional chieftan” (that I have described as the “cult of the leader”) to some vaguely identified shadowy group. The greater number of Americans are only vaguely aware of Wolfowitz and do not perceive Cheney or Rumsfeld as “leaders” (or “chieftains”). I consider this an indispensable aspect of fascism and moving it out of the forefront to a shadowy cabal of back room plotters voids the fascist definition.
Certainly, some on the Right like to harp on similar issues. However, that has not been any part of the Bush administration’s campaigns. Like Reagan, before him, Bush has claimed that the American people already have the wisdom/integrity/character to “do what needs to be done” without any demonizing of the “liberal” elements of society. (If anything, Reagan played to the “anti-liberal” crowd much more openly than Bush II ever has. Bush does not attack liberals–aside from some specific assaults on the Democrats in Congress–so much as he assumes that the people are behind him and that the liberal opinion is irrelevant.)
Personally I think there is no need to suspend the elections. Given the money W & Co will spend on the elections, and given the support of the media for the Iraq war and given the fact that criticism is regarded as being unpatriotic, I don’t see how they can not win in 2004…
It is specifically your focusing on the racism angle that I had in mind when I spoke about your points being too concrete. The racism angle is often stressed by outsiders because it came to be the most horrible. But it was in fact one that arose pretty late. The racism angle is one of many manifestations of this point, but it is not a necessary case for this point. Long before there was mass persecution of Jews, Nazi brownshirts had battles in the street with socialist youths, or invaded pubs where socialists held their meetings. Long before Jews were arrested en masse, concentration camps were filled with social democrats, communists, and anyone would did not want to be part of the group. Race or creed were entirely irrelevant for that. Rather, it was the ‘You’re either with us or against us’ mentality that is not alien to Bush at all.
The primacy of the group, first and foremost, has very little relationship to racism. It has more to do with restrictions of civil rights, rounding up the usual suspects and ‘You have to break an egg to bake an omelet’ mentality. Even the second point does not require racism. All it requires is an ‘Us vs. them’ mentality that has been catered to by the Bush administration and their supporters in the French-Bashing, in the complaints about the UN etc.
That is dangerous, in my opinion. For one, it was a ‘vaguely identified shadowy group’ that put Hitler in place, believing him to be a willing puppet. They were seriously wrong, but by the time they realized it, the train had already picked up so much speed that to jump off would have meant death. Second, the office of the president, if filled with a Republican, can be enough of a chieftain when you look at ‘Support the President’ calls. If you look at the degree to which Republicans take for granted that they should lead the US because only they can ‘lead America’, then the difference is really minuscule. As pointed out, not all of the factors need to be explicit, they can be implicit, too.
Ashcroft did attack them as supporting terrorists, and you should not forget that fascism is first and foremost a POPULAR movement. In many countries, it never got to be in government. Focusing on the government would mean realising fascism first when it is already in power. It is healthier to stop it before that. Yes, the topic of the thread is ‘Facsim in the White House’, however, public pressure into that direction can easily bring it there.
Again, I do not say that all points are fully given, but one can see some dangerous trends when looking around with a certain perspective.
Racism was the word that showed up in lander2k2’s defintion. At each point I turned it from actual racism to the same group identity that you are pointing out and I do not believe that anything the Bushistas have done matches the level of identity that is associated with any of the fascist movements in history.
However, the hallmark of their efforts was to have a charismatic leader out front to champion the cause. Bush is simply not perceived in the same light as a JFK or even a Reagan and makes a very poor “chieftain.” (In addition, I would say that your “shadowy group” scenario in Germany misses the very active role that Hitler played in putting himself forward as the leader. Certainly, he was able to co-opt various military and industrial leaders to support his cause, but that cause as it developed would never have proceeded as fast or as far without his very visible leadership.)
And I have opposed Ashcroft’s rhetoric and have opposed several related efforts to stigmatize “those people” when we establish our enemies. Still, I do not find the efforts of Ashcroft (or even Bush) to rise to the level of fascism. (If creating imaginary enemies is the hallmark of fascism, then we have to identify all the anti-communist demagogues of the 1930s-1960s as fascists–and that dilutes the word to meaninglessness.)
Are the Bushistas nice, ethical people who should be given a free hand to run the country without the constraints of the Constitution or even logic and decency? No. However, the thread is discussing any threats they pose in terms of fascism and I do not believe the case has been made to associate them with that political movement. Demagogues, haters, power-mad ideologues, historically ignorant meddlers too short-sighted to see the danger they are bequeathing to our children? Sure. But not fascists.
I think that the problem here is that you address full-fledged fascist regimes at the height of their power whereas I am talking from an early ‘principiis obsta’ point of view. As I stressed before, I do not think there is facism at work in the US. The OP obviously disagrees with that, but it is not my position.
You’re ignoring one important point: If the choice between the lesser of two evils is a choice between tweedledee and tweedledum, there is effectively no choice but one between the guy wearing the red tie and the guy wearing the blue tie. Doesn’t make any difference in practical terms. And if you factor in the fact that candidates from both parties serve that small minority who fund election campaigns, you are looking at a single group of cronies.
Sure there’s two parties in an election. But if both parties stand for the same thing and serve the same masters, it renders the partisan argument largely null and void. If the lesser of two evils, as you put it, are equally evil, the choice making of voting becomes impotent.
You can justify this with the notion that the majority want the same thing, but what the majority wants is secondary to what they have a choice between. If the candidates are screened by the campaign contributors and essentially stand for the same thing, the voters can only “want” the same since there’s nothing else to want.
I hesitate to point this out, but the people weren’t limited to two choices in the 2000 Presidential election (or any other Presidential election within the last 150 years). If people wanted to vote for the Libertarians, the Greens, the National Socialists, or the International Workers parties all of them had candidates on the ballots. But the people routinely cast 95% of their votes to Democrats or Republicans.
So you can do one of the following; realize that the majority of people in this country disagree with your beliefs and accept this as a consequence of living in a democracy, or decide that the majority of people are wrong and a small group of people who know what’s “right” should take over and run things. It’s people who believe in the latter that pose a danger of Fascism.
Some of the ill-conceived comparisons between current U.S. policies and fascism could be eliminated with a bit of knowledge of American history.
The concept of “supporting our troops/President” was well-ingrained at the time of the Vietnam War, and the source of a lot of friction between war backers and antiwar activists. You can look back at those days and detect a “militaristic fervor” if you wish to read that.
Suspensions or abrogations of civil rights have been common to numerous wars in our history - including the Civil War and both major wars in the 20th century.
If you start making lists of vague principles that “lead to fascism” you essentially make the whole exercise meaningless, and risk Godwinesque comparisons.
"Fascism has a definition and reshaping the meaning of every authoritarian phenomenon to turn it into “fascism” does violence to that definition and renders the word a useless epithet for “right-wing stuff we don’t like.”
Very true.
BTW, bigotry was not a late-breaking development in the development of German fascism. It was a central tenet of the Party, and one that attracted many followers in the early days.
And that is an innocent observation? Fascism was built on the shoulders of trends that had been around for quite a while. It took them, used them to cater for support and turned them against their originators if they became expendable. It pushed them further than their originators wanted them to go, but by that time, they could -and would- do nothing to stop it.
Actually, it isn’t. Saying “Fascism has a definition” is oversimplifying a complex phenomenon, as I pointed out and referenced in detail.
Sorry, but closing one’s eyes, repeating mantra-like “It couldn’t happen here” is the best way to ensure that it does happen. It’s a shame the Strasser book ‘The Wave’ is essentially a book targeted at children. It should be required reading for everyone.
Alternatively, running around shouting “The Fascists are coming! The Fascists are coming!” is liable to get one’s message turned into white noise and ignored when people realize that the fascists are not coming–leaving the door open for some other authoritarian damage to be inflicted on the republic.
I think that we do, indeed, need to watch the actions of Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, and Bush (who is not the idiot that some detractors wish he was) as they create scenarios that could lead the U.S. to become simply a feared bully in the world while impinging on the rights of its citizens. We do this best when we note that their actions violate the American spirit, not when we lump them into an older political movement that they are clearly not following.
People screaming “fascist” at Bush and company are no more realistic–and provide no more public service–than Robert Welch screaming “communist” at every administration from Ike through Clinton (with minor reduction in rhetoric for Reagan).
You hit the nail right on the head, Nemo. Good luck with this, though. I used the exact same argument on Lander in another thread, but to no avail.
Note to Lander: I don’t think you’ve gotten a single person to agree with your thesis. Does that in any way make you reflect on whether or not it is valid? I’m not saying it’s definitely wrong just because no one agrees with it. But does it at least make you consider that possibility?
Give lander credit - seems to me that one of the things that prevents the rise of true fascism is the presence of people like him to warn against it when the wind is blowing that direction.
Yes, I was. I’ve been concerned about it ever since it occurred to me that election campaign contributors actually run the show in a general sense. If economic players have a controlling influence on federal policy-makers, you risk fascism. As I see it the essential key that unlocks fascism is the use of government to control and influence economic factors by force, and when economic interests control government, that becomes a real proposition.
Since I don’t think which party is in office had anything to do with general policy trends, I don’t think there is any change in the fascist scale simply because a new suit walked into the oval office. However, since specific developments like the Patriot Act and an invasion of a sovereign nation that violated international law which was, for mine, launched for economic reasons, the scale has climbed from a 4 to a 6 IMHO. My perception of what seemed to be an increase in fascist tendencies is what prompted my suspicion of fascists in the White House. The issue of which particular puppet is in office is of little import to me. The White House is more than one man.