So...is it fascism, or not?

[John_Corrado]

*Originally posted by kwildcat *
Do they no longer teach history in public schools these days? I’ve seen a slew of posts saying basically that while there may be some odds-and-ends parallels or isolated examples where the U.S. has behaved in a pseudo-fascist way, we’re not even in the same zip-code as the Nazis or the Brown Shirts. The whole point of studying history and comparing it to current events is to see to it that it never happens again! The fact that no, the U.S. most certainly is NOT a fascist nation today, December 30, 2003, does not mean that we are immune to the perils of a wide variety of “-isms”.

But not being immune does not, ergo, mean “constantly vulnerable”. If you were a student of history, you’d know full well that the history of the U.S. has been a constant expansion of rights, giving freedoms to new peoples, re-interpreting rights to extend to new ideas (Miranda, automatic defense counsel, no death penalty, etc.) and that a curtailing of a few rights in times of danger does not mean that this country is sliding down the slippery slope to dictatorship.

Is the difference between a crime and not-a-crime simply one of degree? Since we have yet to cross the 10-million-dead threshhold you’ve established, our actions are not actually criminal. What marvelously low standards of behavior for the self-professed “Greatest Democracy on Earth”.

Ah, therefore, because we sin, we are fascist. The point isn’t “is this right or wrong”- there are plenty of other threads on this. The point is, “is this fascist”? And it does not seem to me that to deny enemy combatants certain rights- while still providing and caring for them in a manner they never had before- is somehow fascist.

-American prisons are full of people whose only crime is being black

Name one. If his name is Mumia, I get to laugh at you.

-Fundamentalist religious organizations are on the verge of being granted federal dollars because their ideologies happen to jive with the ideology of an openly evangelical President

As are any religious organizations whose idealogies do not jibe with the President. Or do you not remember how the Salvation Army dropped their support of the idea when Bush refused to re-write the legislation to preclude ‘alternative religions’ like Wicca from being eligible?

-Legislation is already on the books across the country that criminalizes homosexuality, and conservatives are trying to stack the benches to see to it that challenges to such laws are struck down.

OK, that covers race, religion, and sexual orientation. What next?

Most of those laws were also written in the 18th and 19th centuries. Does that mean that Washington and Lincoln were fascists? Most of those laws are being struck down, and I am unaware of any serious effort to have sodomy re-established as a crime in any state.

You’re being ironic, right? Explain to me how Dubya’s recent foreign policy speech about bringing American-style democracy to all the poor benighted corners of the globe differs in any substantive way from expressions of Aryan supremacy. Oh, wait - is it because democracy and the American Way really is superior to everything else? Suuuure.

So, let me get this straight- working towards creating democratic societies in other countries, that is, ensuring that they are ruled by their own peoples and allowed to make their own choices, is the moral equivalent to conquering them and ruling them ourselves because of our inherent genetic superiority.

Wow. I… just… wow.

At the risk of being repetitive, you have only to look as far as the latest justification for the U.S.'s extranational military escapades - that we are on a Blues Brothers “Mission from God” to bring democracy and 7-Elevens to all the world. It’s depressing to realize that the immorality of Manifest Destiny has been forgotten.

Manifest Destiny meant conquering land in order to rule it for ourselves. Helping democracy grow in other countries helps those other countries and us in only marignal ways.

I’m amazed that you see an attempt to bring freedom to other countries as American arrogance and a sense of superiority. Are you saying that the Taliban were the moral equivalent of the United States?

Your cart and your horse are facing the wrong directions. In Nazi Germany, the media was a propaganda arm of the government. In America, the government is the policy arm of the media. The details differ, the substance is the same - no independent oversight, no resource for the elusive “truth”. If you doubt my conclusion, try reading the donor list of the RNC.

I’ll come back when this paragraph makes sense. “The government is the policy arm of the media”? Whoa, dude, stop watching the X-Files. There’s a whole real world out there to learn about.

Are you objecting to the methods of the Nazis or the results? You’re right - no Teamsters being put in gulags here. Why use violence today when you can get the same outcome with legislation? Just remove any disincentives (like equal-protection policies) to corporations sending blue-collar jobs overseas. I hate to point out, recent moves by IBM and Dell spell the same fate for your beloved white-collar workers, too.

So, a government that does not absolutely and completely support all unions and do whatever they say is, by definition, fascist? Let’s be honest- unions are, for the most part, irrelevant to the modern worker. Because our society has moved past the need for them, we have somehow become more fascist?

One might equally argue that because we have moved past the need for slavery, we are therefore communist.

Hmmm, let’s see - denial of federal funding to inner city or predominantly minority public school systems (surely you’ve heard of the “No Child Left Behind” Act?). Placement of anti-environmental political hacks as Cabinet-level administrators over government bureaus charged with protecting the environment (see Gale Norton et al). Post-hoc censorship and editorializing of hard scientific facts to damage the credibility of research (EPA reports on global warming, arsenic, CO2 as a pollutant, “new source” review, etc. etc. ad nauseum). Notable corporate donors and nepotism appointments to federal oversight commissions (FCC, SEC - do you really think a former banking executive is going to come down hard on Wall Street fraud? Or an oil company executive from Dubya’s beloved Texas can come up with a sound national energy policy?)

Again, you can try to dispute the parallel by claiming we don’t “eliminate” dissenters in the U.S. like the Nazis did. And again, I say methodology is irrelevant. The motivation is to achieve the same outcome.

Ah. I see. The government does not do things you like, ergo it is fascist because it is not listening to you. Should Dean get elected, is it therefore fascist when it does not listen to me?

The only thing you should be scared of is your own myopia. I can imagine a similar group of proto-Dopers in a gersthaus in Stuttgart nattering about how frustrated they were by their unemployment, by the contempt they endured from the rest of Europe, and how that guy Hitler sounded so positive about the future of Germany despite the Fatherland’s present deplorable state. Do you think if they had been able to see 10 years down the road they would have voted differently?

You’re right; I am completely misinterpreting the current facts. I am ignoring that George Bush was elected in 2000 on a “Restore the lost honor of the American people through violent conquest of the world!” platform, and that he openly promised to stop future elections and disband the Congress if he was elected.
Hitler campaigned and was elected on a platform that called for the dissolution of the government, a national dictatorship which controlled industry, and aggressive war in order to restore German honor and take back that which had been lost. Of course the people who voted for Hitler knew that these things were coming- he was open about that being his desire. Hell, ‘10 years’ before he was elected, he was in the middle of attempting an armed revolt against the government. Y’know, Beer Hall Putsch and all that?

If you think Hitler slipped in in the middle of the night and suddenly popped out as ruler, having slowly manipulated the system into supporting him, you need to go back and read your damned Shirer, because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Jackmannii]

Trade ya Carrie Nation for Comstock, Olentzero. :dubious:

[John_Corrado]

originally by kwildcat
Hmmm, let’s see - denial of federal funding to inner city or predominantly minority public school systems (surely you’ve heard of the “No Child Left Behind” Act?). Placement of anti-environmental political hacks as Cabinet-level administrators over government bureaus charged with protecting the environment (see Gale Norton et al). Post-hoc censorship and editorializing of hard scientific facts to damage the credibility of research (EPA reports on global warming, arsenic, CO2 as a pollutant, “new source” review, etc. etc. ad nauseum). Notable corporate donors and nepotism appointments to federal oversight commissions (FCC, SEC - do you really think a former banking executive is going to come down hard on Wall Street fraud? Or an oil company executive from Dubya’s beloved Texas can come up with a sound national energy policy?)

Again, you can try to dispute the parallel by claiming we don’t “eliminate” dissenters in the U.S. like the Nazis did. And again, I say methodology is irrelevant. The motivation is to achieve the same outcome.

Okay, wait, wait, I didn’t realize the full import- and stupidty- of the argument you’re making.
So you’re saying that it is the responsibility of the Federal government to dissent against the actions of the Federal government?

Because, see, that’s what you’re saying- that because the EPA does not actively and aggressively push for stricter environmental standards even under a conservative President, said President is squelching dissent. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club- the fact that these organizations are healthy and prospering and constantly advertising and spreading their viewpoint- that does not matter, because the Government itself is not advocating that same viewpoint, and therefore squashing dissent because it is not dissenting from itself.

So, then, in your point of view, if the government is not constantly advocating the liberal, government-expansionist point of view- that is, the Education Department supports vouchers instead of increased funding, or the EPA loosens regulations rather than taking out full-page ads decrying current environmental policy- then the government is squelching dissent?
I am in awe of what you think the responsiblities of this government are. Combined with your already stated opinions on labor unions, and the sheer evil of attempting to bring democracy to other countries… wow. I am in complete awe.
Have you ever been anything other than a college student?

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by John Corrado *
So, let me get this straight- working towards creating democratic societies in other countries, that is, ensuring that they are ruled by their own peoples and allowed to make their own choices, is the moral equivalent to conquering them and ruling them ourselves because of our inherent genetic superiority.

Would you please explain how the installation, by the US government, of the Iraqi Governing Council (or whatever it’s called) is ensuring that Iraq is ruled by its own peoples, and that a no-bid contract to Halliburton, awarded by the US government, for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry and control of sales of Iraqi oil, is allowing Iraqis to make their own choices? Moreover, would you please explain how democracy can successfully be brought to Iraq via the weaponry of the US Army?

[Olentzero]

Jackmanii - I can see how Carrie Nation falls under the obsession with crime and punishment, but Comstock was much more than disdain for arts and intellectualism. He viewed any discussion of human sexuality - right down to reproductive health and birth control - as morally, if not legally, criminal and fought like hell to keep such things out of the public forum. If it hadn’t been for him, Margaret Sanger would have been just another nurse.

[John_Mace]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
Would you please explain how the installation, by the US government, of the Iraqi Governing Council (or whatever it’s called) is ensuring that Iraq is ruled by its own peoples,

It’s called a provisional governement. What do you suggest-- holding elections the day after the invasion?

and that a no-bid contract to Halliburton, awarded by the US government, for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry and control of sales of Iraqi oil, is allowing Iraqis to make their own choices?

How does this ensure the control of the sale of Iraqi oil?

Moreover, would you please explain how democracy can successfully be brought to Iraq via the weaponry of the US Army?

Well, there was the small matter of one Saddam Hussein who, unless I’m mistaken, was not exactly on the verge of holding free elections. It made democracy possible, though not certain. That will be largely up to the Iraqis themselves, as it should be.

[John_Mace]

I forgot to add… If anything had “fascist” overtones, it was the support of S.H. 20 years ago. Getting rid of a dictator who ran a regime that was nothing if not fascist, corrected that mistake.

Perhaps you would care to rank S.H.'s gov’t against the pts in the OP?