How easy/hard would it be for the US to become an authoritarian regime?

Great Debates
1

Greetings, Dopers. This is my first post it’s taken me ages to write and I’m pretty much going into the deep end with the subject matter so please be aware of my n00bitude and excuse any gaucheries.

As a non-resident non-American with a keen interest in politics and current affairs I’ve been alternatively amazed, captivated, baffled and terrified (not neccesarily in that order) by the United States, its people, beliefs, polity etc., never moreso than in the last seven years or thereabouts. During this period I have heard arguments or sentiments raised from many quarters to the effect that the United States is, is becoming, or is at risk of becoming a one-party/totalitarian/authoritarian/fascist/vegan state. This idea has been raised and arguments made by people of various political beliefs and backgrounds (two crude examples being the: ‘Bush=Hitler!1!@11’ and ‘OMG Globalists want teh North American Union!!1’ crowds) and has been given a sober and judicious examination by David Neiwert at his excellent blog Orcinus , in an essay entitled ‘The Rise of Pseudo-Fascism’.

Neiwert argues that the trend towards authoritarianism and exclusionary ‘eliminationist’ rhetoric within the US body politic, elected and unelected, is best explained not by a crude stapling of the collapse of the Weimar Republic onto current events (if Bush is Hitler, who’s Hindenburg? where are the Rotfront and SA?) but by a general - though very pronounced in some areas - deterioration of the institutions and organisations (particularly the media) that were previously effective in safeguarding democracy. Journalists and the media used to ensure at least a degree of accuracy in reporting, oversight of political organisations and institutions and thorough objective (not ‘balanced’) investigation; watchdog and regulatory agencies have been consistently defanged at the behest of various interest groups, etc, etc. An informed populace is a healthy democracy, and by that standard, he argues, US democracy is seriously unwell. One point Neiwert is keen to make is that the current* political atmosphere in the United States, while divisive and charged with strong authoritarian rhetoric is not of itself ‘fascist’ or indicative of an imminent totalitarian takeover, nor are the current Administration’s policies of the unitary executive of themselves; though he characterises them as symptomatic and contributive to the aforementioned erosion of safeguards. **

I bring up Neiwert’s essay in part because I think it’s bloody awesome and more people should read it before they discuss this and similar topics but also because while events (Katrina, the gradual wakeup of policymakers/populace re:Iraq, last November, etc,.) have passed some of it’s conclusions and arguments by, I haven’t noticed any serious abatement of the trends he observed in ‘the Rise of Pseudo-Fascism’ viz. eliminationist rhetoric, compliant media - nor have I seen any sign that the reversals and outright failures of the past few years have had a serious effect on the thinking of senior Administration figures. The idea that the administration can and will ‘create its own reality’ seems untouched and still extant, as does the ‘the president can do whatever the hell he wants’ school of executive policy.

Given the legal and consititutional precedents established by this administration, the expansion of domestic surveillance programs and the still pervasive climate of fear concurrent with the Global War on (some) Terror(ist Groups that have attacked us as well as anyone else we don’t like) I find the idea that a future US Government - Democratic or Republican - stung by another domestic terrorist attack or an overseas disaster, could declare martial law, suspend the constitution, the judiciary and the legislature and rule by fiat until a sufficiently compliant new system of government with some vestiges of democracy (cf:Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān) is established remains bleakly compelling.

So, Dopers, I ask you: How plausible is such a scenario? more specifically: what are the conceivable obstacles to a hypothetical post-2006 US government, be they Democrats, Republicans or the Warmongering Anarchist Nazi KKKlintonite Envrionmental Revivalist Party tipping the scales past the point of no return, and would they be enough?

Yours concernedly,

Bora Horza Gobuchul
NB: I don’t intend this is as a partisan exercise - I have my own opinions on the merits of the two big parties, their ideologies and various politicians within them and I’m comfortably certain that they’d be alien to supporters of both. I have no dog in that race.

  • Essay written pre-November 2004.

**This is my potted summary, the essay is much more reflective and thoughtful and well worth checking out.

2

I think the USA is in a unique position in history because of the diversity of cultures now occupying the land. The November elections made me optimistic about our country again, and not just because I’m a Democrat.

Unlike my fellow Dems, I do believe that our nation had swung too far in the direction of entitlements and federal activism under the long rule of a Democratic congress; the people responded by giving control of Congress to the Republicans. They were also acting on their increasing discomfort at the take-no-prisoners attitudes displayed by everyone from gay activists to the ACLU. While most Americans generally admired the good job Bill Clinton did as president, they voted for George Bush the first time because they were disgusted with the spectacle of sexual scandal that, for all the ham-handedness of his Republican persecutors, Clinton brought into the White House. Bush might not be very bright, but it’s doubtful that he’d ever cheat on Laura. This past election was again a response to a level of discomfort about more than just the war in Iraq, although the war probably was a tipping point for a lot of votes. It was also a response to the growing perception that “Republican” and “Christian fundamentalist” were becoming synonymous.

All of this is simply illustrative of the fact that, despite hand-wringing by people out of power at the time, the American political system works well in preventing authoritarianism. We have a long tradition now of free speech, egalitarianism and gun ownership, three things that were absent in the rise of despots in the past. I’ve just finished reading Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” and hope to write about comparisons and contrasts between it and “1984” for a summer seminar. Both books imply a gradual erosion of personal liberties as sheeplike populaces opted for security rather than freedom a little at a time. But the U.S. doesn’t really work that way. Everyone from libertarian activists to stand-up comics have taken on the Department of Homeland Security, and DHS has become a favorite bad guy in popular entertainment media. This is historically the first step in rendering a federal agency toothless. An agency’s own activism will usually spell its downfall; witness congressional retaliation against the EPA and Department of Education, and the near destruction by a liberal Congress of the FBI and CIA after their indiscretions. DHS can expect a similar fate at some point in the future.

The U.S. Constitution provides protection for a number of carnaries in the coal mine – activists of every stripe who are more than happy to scream when they feel pinched. Because they are most emotionally wedded to their ideals, they are most willing to use the legal system and media to fight their fights while the rest of us live comfortably far behind the barricades.

3

I’m not familiar with the former, but my recollection of 1984 is that Winston Smith remembers* a period of war/revolution leading up to the rise of the Big Brother state.

*Personal memories have their limits, but it’s a bit difficult to be mistaken about something on that scale, and in any case personal memories are more reliable than the systematically falsified official histories of that world.

4

Watching my “fellow Americans” and their reaction to Bush’s and other’s right wing agenda has convinced me that it would be very easy to install a fascist regime. IMHO, another 9-11 would have been all they needed to push things over the edge, or possibly they could have managed it if they had ignored Iraq and concentrated on ripping up the Constitution. The biggest defense against that sort of thing is the people, and deep down most Americans want fascism, I believe.

As it is, given the constant slide to the right of this country, I consider some sort of collapse into a Christian-corporate authoritarian state very, very probable.

5

The best defense against America turning into a fascist regime is an informed populace that votes. And given the rise in media consolidation, one-sided “news” reporting, and unverifiable voting machines in the last decade or so, I think the risk is great.

6

Whoa! Did you guys see the same election results I saw? Time to retool that pessimism, boys. Let me put some of this in words my redneck neighbors might use: The Americans I know here in the middle of the country are pissed off. This is not a complacent electorate out here in the hinterlands. There is anger, and a goodly amount of it (if not all of it) is aimed at Washington, D.C. I recently attended a Kiwanis meeting at which the speaker was a local legislator recently returned from his first trip to the U.S. capital. His “burning question” to the Kiwanians was, “Think hard about this: Which is more important to you, your safety or your freedom? Because you will have to choose, and in the near future.” Yes, it’s inflamatory rhetoric, but in the silence that followed, I heard rifles cocking.

By the way, when I mentioned in my first post above “gun ownership,” what picture did you get in your mind? A bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles? Fellas, there are hay barns and equipment sheds scattered across America with all manner of ordnance stashed under them. I’ve seen them. I know these guys. There is a reason why the NRA installed a demented old actor as its titular head. There is a reason why that organization fights so hard for every inch of territory. And you and I are that reason.

I’m not saying totalitarianism isn’t possible – one man’s freedom can be another man’s tyranny. But I’m saying that, if it happens, it won’t be because of complacency, and it won’t happen without a hard, bloody fight.

7

Big whoop. The Democrats have slid far the right over the years; they are somewhat less crazy and incompetent, but hardly bastions of freedom. Nor do I see any reason to believe that it’s the Republicans’ assault on civil rgihts that lost them the election. If Iraq wasn’t such an embarrassing mess, I expect the Republicans would have won.

So ? A ruthless enough govenrnment would crush them. It’s no coincidence that Saddam kept the peace in Iraq but we’ve failed; a fascist governent in America would use the kind of brutal tactics that actually work for oppressing people. Nor do Americans have the kind of guts necessary for a guerilla war; we are a nation of bullies and thieves.

No, it’s because they are fools who grossly overestimate the power the power of personal weapons, and who have essentially become tools of the gun industry.

8

It’s traditional to insert some filler between two statements (e.g. Assertion A: “Private gun ownership is useless against a ruthless government”; Assertion B: “The US government is insufficiently ruthless to suppress an insurgency”) when they clearly lead away from your desired conclusion (Assertion C: “Private gun ownership is useless as an ultimate check against the US Government”).

9

With media spin as pervasive and finely developed as it is today, who’s to say the gun nuts won’t unite behind any strongmen who may arise? Especially if said strongmen play them just right – they’d be ideal allies in a civil war.

10

I don’t follow your argument. A fascist government wouldn’t have nearly as much trouble in Iraq with the resistance there, either.

11

You’ve offered no evidence, other than your own grumpiness and disillusion. This is not debate, it’s a pitting of the American people.

12

Lately I’ve been rereading Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and I’ve actually found it rather heartening. Germany in the 1930’s didn’t just bumble into fascism. Hitler and the Nazis were committed from the very start to eliminating democracy and establishing a dictatorship and even then it was stroke of luck that they pulled it off. Even with them working single-mindedly toward that goal there were half-a-dozen different crisis points where if events had fallen out a little differently the whole Nazi movement would have collapsed or been swept away by a different party. The Wiemer Republic was probably destined to be replaced by an autocrat, but authoritarianism was NOT inevitable.

I don’t think an overtly anti-democratic party will ever gain significant traction in the United States. Democracy is too thoroughly ingrained in how we identify ourselves. The Nazis could be anti-democratic and at the same time claim to be the purest expression of Germany national identity. No American political party could do the same.

If the Nazis, who were rabidly anti-democratic, only managed to squeak their way into power in the middle of a perfect storm of economic collapse and national despair I don’t see any way for a similar authoritarian movement to succeed here.

I think a better model for the collapse of American democracy is the fall of the Roman Republic. The Empire maintained the trappings of the Republic for centuries and for most citizens life continued much as it had before. It was not an authoritarian state, merely a dictatorship. The end of American self-government will come not with a revolution, but a very gradual increase of the power of the executive over the legislative branch. Eventually we’ll effectively be a dictatorship, but most of the citizens will still think we’re a republic.

13

I think that the Christian Right is an antidemocratic movement that is builiding a political base in the US and it is doing so in the same way the fascist movement did: by appealing to the disenfranchised and marginalized. There is a book on the subject that sounds interesting American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by a NY Times reporter who is also a seminary graduate. What would make a Rightwing Christian Fascist movement appealing in the US is that it could accomadate any racial/ethnic background, unlike an German Aryan movement. I think it was Upton Sinclair who said after visiting 1930s Germany that when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

14

Thanks all for the responses so far.

My concern wasn’t that the US was likely to become a totalitarian state (hence ‘authoritarian’ in the title). I don’t think it likely that an anti-democratic party will rise up a la the nazis or the fascisti, what I’m more worried about is an existing party taking advantage of the current weaknessess in American political institutions and media to create an effective hold on power i.e. the PRI in it’s heyday in Mexico, Suharto’s Indonesia or for a superpower version, Putin’s Russia.

I’m curious as to what Dopers think about the current political climate, and how it would change in the face of a major disaster or terrorist attack - would the effect be ‘rally around the president/flag, do whatever they say etc’ or would people be more skeptical of their authorities given their poor record?

15

Yes, of course the people would rally around whatever leadership is available. That’s only natural – when a community is under attack, it looks to its leader for … well, leadership. And I think most Americans did approve of the leadership our government provided after the 9/11 attacks. Had the Bush administration stuck with the struggle to bring Osama bin Laden to “justice” (whatever that means) the election results this past November would have been different. Der Trihs was at least right about that.

But I am heartened by the fact that the Bushies did over-reach their approval rating and did suffer the repudiation of this past November. The president wasn’t running for re-election, so we couldn’t vote him out of office, but we could toss his party out, and that’s what we did. Maybe not to extent some of us liberals would like, but it was a nice start.

In addition, the media have been sending out warnings for years about the growing power of the White House. FDR’s New Deal caused some grumbling in Congress about over-reaching executive power, and when Eisenhower became president he found himself bound up by a fractious and belligerent Congress intent on keeping him in his place. Nixon tried to introduce an imperial presidency and ended up being hounded out of the White House – not by the media, as journalism schools erroneously teach, but by Congress. Now the authoritarian Bush faces a Democratic Congress intent on bringing him to heel.

And then there is the Supreme Court. Despite what most media folk see as a conservative, Bush-friendly Supreme Court, the SCOTUS slapped the POTUS down for attempting military tribunals for the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, and sent back to Republican state legislatures two redistricting plans (one in Texas, one here in Colorado) with instructions to follow their own laws. [Yes, I know, everyone wants to hang the Supremes for the Gore-Bush Florida election decision, but when you study the facts, you see that the court had little choice – the majority opinion contains more than a little contempt for the way Florida election officials screwed up that election, but there just wasn’t any hard evidence of it.]

We already have, and have always had, a strong, centralized federal government, despite early attempts to prevent that. People want strong leadership because we desire safety and comfort, and strong leadership provides that with minimum effort on our part. It’s human nature. But we’re not children, and the president isn’t Superdaddy. We’ll allow a certain amount of authoritarian power, for the sake of safety, but I believe that we’re also willing troop to the polls and do what we have to do to retain our individual liberties.