Fascist America In 10 Easy Steps
The world fascism carries with it some pretty heavy baggage. It is a word that I use advisedly — and very seldom — in contemporary contexts because Hitler, Mussolini and their ilk were then and now is now, and mixing and matching can be perilous.
Having noted that, Naomi Wolfe dares to use the F-word in a commentary on the Bush administration in The Guardian. She writes that history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator takes to destroy constitutional freedoms and become a bona fide fascist.
Wolfe argues that George Bush seems to be taking all of those steps. From that perspective it is difficult to disagree and not shake one’s head over the man who presumes to lead us.
These are the steps:
(1.) Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
(2.) Create a gulag.
(3.) Develop a thug caste.
(4.) Set up an internal surveillance system.
(5.) Harass citizens’ groups.
(6.) Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
(7.) Target key individuals.
(8.) Control the press.
(9.) Dissent equals treason.
(10.) Suspend the rule of law.
It is especially important for Bush sycophants to click here and read the whole article before becoming apoplectic.
141 Responses to “Fascist America In 10 Easy Steps”
Nobody Says:
“Thou shalt not question the lefts motives on any political or social agenda. That is politically incorrect.”
Now let me pose this question to you, Nobody.
I question the motives of the right AND left…where does that leave me? Do you want to pigeonhole me right now, Nobody? Go ahead. Throw your best at me.
http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar7.htm
Hitler was a brilliant speaker, and his eyes had a peculiar power over people.  He was a good organiser and politician.
The George Bush defense team rests its case.
The “It’s not fascism when done by Christians” poster is over-the-top political theater. It is immoderate. Doesn’t mean I don’t like it…
I think this “theatrical poster” has distracted many people from responding to the core issues raised by Naomi Wolf: both Republicans and Democrats (led at this time by the Bush Administration) have passed laws that implement “the 10 steps toward fascism”.
The “thug caste”, in my opinion, was the only step Wolf failed to demonstrate.
My greatest fear is not that the Bush Administration will somehow hang on to power and become a Fascist Dictatorship. Keep in mind the fact that most people originally labeled “neo-cons” used to be big government liberals, but decided that Carter wasn’t doing enough to fight the communists. The current war in Iraq happened with the consent of most Democrats in Congress. The current foreign policy, of military control over oil and over Central Asia, was well-summarized by Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter’s National Security Advisor) and matched the thinking of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton (really, both Clintons). My understanding is that the Department of Homeland Security was a Democratic invention hijacked by Bush et al. for political purposes. Both parties continue to support a big-government, militaristic state that equates “national interest” with “military domination of strategic resources” and “ever-closer regulation of public speech and private life”.
We ought to look at Wolf’s argument, not as an anti-Bush polemic, but as a warning about the erosion of meaningful debate in our democracy, and the abuses we may allow future presidents (including perhaps another Clinton) to make in the name of National Security.
To me, the value in a blog like TMV lies in focusing debate away from the illusions of “left-right controversy” and toward questions about the underlying assumptions on what can generate for us and our kids a secure, wealthy, and functional democracy.
Sincerely,
NT White
“Both parties continue to support a big-government, militaristic state that equates “national interestâ€? with “military domination of strategic resourcesâ€? and “ever-closer regulation of public speech and private lifeâ€?.”
…and there you have it folks…FINALLY someone who isn’t bickering in this post gets it.
Nobody- Shaun published the post to stimulate debate- not to stifle it- he said so himself. But lets not be hypocrites about opposing presidential power when the lives of American troops are at stake. From think progress- Tom DeLay who declared that Pelosi and Reid were close to treason for opposing Bush’s Iraq policy and declaring that it had failed:
‘UPDATE: “I cannot support a failed foreign policy. … President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the US military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military-foreign policy precedent. Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing.â€? — Tom DeLay on the House floor in April 1999, when US troops were a month into their three-month mission in Kosovo’
Shaun,
There’s a difference between criticism and (mis)labeling someone a fascist. It’s equally bad to label Clinton or anyone else with extremist language. The accusation that Bush may be a fascist is, in my mind, an attempt to make him equal to the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Tojo. The “Bushitler” meme that seems increasingly common on the left only makes them look like stupid radicals. Despite the rather weak caveats in your post, you don’t disagree with what she wrote or her conclusions, so it looks like you may have joined that crowd which is a shame.
There is much to criticize Bush for, but he is no fascist. Like every President before him, he will leave office in 2009 and American democracy will continue. Anyone who thinks Bush is a Fascist must believe that he desires autocratic control of the US Government, which is silly on its face.
Again, take a look at FDR and Lincoln among others and compare what they did to what Bush has done. It’s not even close.
Good comment Nathan, missed it while I was typing mine.
Why do the radicals and outright dirtbags on the Left so frequently and predictably abuse and misuse the words “fascist” and “fascism”?
Fascism is a tremendous overstatement and an insult to those who died during WW2 / were killed by the Nazis. If I were American I’d speak out very strongly against some of the things Bush et al. are doing, but to refer to them as “Nazis” is overdoing it a bit.
To put it mildly
O, and TMV isn’t turning into DU or Daily Kos or, whatever. TMV is TMV. We have a diversity of opinion which we cherish. Not one poster here agrees with any other co-blogger on everything.
Kucinich, an embarrassment even to fellow liberal Democrats, wants to impeach Cheney:
http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm
Yet even someone like this wouldn’t misuse “fascism” or “fascist” the way the Usual Suspects do, although typical nitwits supporting him do use the term.
http://kucinich.us/node/3801
Entropy- What about Bush’s signing statements- on the torture memorandum or his belief in the unitary executive? His use of Gonzales’ opinions to give him expanded presidential powers for warrantless wiretapping? Infiltrating the justice dept with loyalists who were willing to go after Democrats more harshly than Republicans? His intolerance of dissent within his administration? I’m not saying he’s like Hitler- but he does have authoritarian tendencies that are the precursors for fascism.
So, we can only use the term fascist to describe the Nazis?
It’s not as if there aren’t victims of our current government. Ask the Iraqi people about it.
First, to Nobody: People aren’t “hung”, they are “hanged”. Correcting this is admittedly childish on my part, but it’s the little things that bug me the most.
Ahem. Anyway.
Something did occcur to me while reading Wolf’s comment on a Thug Caste: I participated in a political campaign long ago (a Democratic nomination battle) where we were opposed by the local established union. We had some less-than-savory encounters with several union members, who we personally classified as “goons”. If you want to find an example of “thugs” in American politics, union enforcers fit the bill closer than any other, certainly far better than Wolf’s lame example of GOP protesters in Florida in 2000. (They were young! And loud! And similarly dressed! Well, say no more, they’re fascists!)
Also, wasn’t it a Democratic group of youngsters that slashed the tires of GOP get-out-the-vote cars during the last election?
Again, I think we should keep a wary and cynical eye on George. But try and keep some perspective. Activists always play their trump cards far too early in the game….
Boy, Shaun knows how to throw a party. I don’t like what’s going on in this country right now, but fascism is a reach. I don’t feel any more oppressed than under the Clinton administration. Of course, I am living amongst the lotus-eaters here in Ohio. As I read the post #8 reminded me of a quote from, Henry Wallace, the somewhat strange, near-radical, mystically-oriented and outspoken Vice President of the United States 1941-5.:
“The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.”
The thing this administration has been able to do is poison the public’s faith in a free press, science and our military. Not enough to achieve fascist control, but enough to get away with just about anything that didn’t raise taxes or interrupt programming.
This entire debate is being thrown out in the context of for the last 4 years the left has labeled Bush and the right and christians as:
Heir
Nazis
American Taliban
Oberfuhrer
Idiot-in-Chief
Emperor
King
Chimperor
and a whole lot of other names that I don’t even want to put on paper.
Convince me you wanted to have debate.
Michael:
Wolfe did not call Bush and his handlers Nazis. I certainly did not, either.
Does drawing on history to argue, as Wolfe did, that Bush seems to be taking steps in the direction of a fascist state dishonor those millions who died and were exterminated during WW2? No, but it’s a great way to try to stiffle discussion, which was the purpose of my post and something that you heartily endorsed in the second of your two comments.
William Ryan gets the prize IMO for actually commenting on one of the inanities of the actual article.
And sorry, Shaun, but to me this post does take the prize as one of the most immoderate of late on TMV. It’s not becuase you’re far left, but because of the way you attempt to provoke these types of discussions by quoting someone who’s incredibly immoderate and distancing yourself from the quoted viewpoint while also suggesting that you somewhat agree with it. If anyone doesn’t think that’s immoderate, try substituting something from the other side of the political spectrum and see if it would fly here: what if a right leaning TMV blogger wrote a post that linked to a right wingnut who made the case for the Democrats being traitors, and wrote the same line that Shaun did here:
“From that perspective it is difficult to disagree and not shake one’s head”. Even if the post had started off criticizing the use of inflammatory rhetoric, when it closes with such a weak criticism that implies a good deal of agreement, well, you’re not exactly condemning the extremism as one would think a ‘true moderate’ would do (or at least that’s what I think a true moderate would do).
Apologies to Joe because I understand why he tires of the criticisms of immoderation. It’s your blog Joe and you are the ultimate arbiter of what is ‘moderate’ enough, but at the same time I think you have to accept that your readers are going to hold your co-bloggers to certain standards whether or not you agree with them. I’m sure it’s tiring but I think it comes with the territory.
> I stand firmly behiind the
> comment that there are
> way more liberals here at
> TMV than conservatives.
It’s indisputable. The name of this site is obviously misleading.
OF COURSE it’s Fascism happening all over again but this time in America, there are just a lot of people who don’t believe it, blind to reality exactly like the “good Germans” of Hitler’s day (many Germans didn’t even learn about the concentration camps until the after the war). Maybe if Bush Jr. grew a gay little Hitler moustache, MAYBE THEN some of the right-wingers would begin to have some doubts? Nah, they’d still defend their man who so eloquently speaks to their inner bigot.
People don’t seem to realize that Bush Junior is a lot smarter than he appears, his ‘good old boy’ stupid-act is just an act. He learned this trick after his first run for office in Texas, when he emphasized his Yale education and got trounced by the rednecks.
The ‘Fascism or not’ debate extends to the latest flap over the fired federal prosecutors. What I think they were really doing is that they “tested” each prosecutor for their loyalty to Bush, so that they could identify and eliminate those that wouldn’t be corrupt for Bush. That suggests all the other ones did pass the loyalty test and did as they were asked ARE corrupt. Why would Bush need to do this? It’s not a secret; if you track the ideology of the Bushies, you eventually discover something called the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC for short (pardon me if most of you already know all about this). Some of the major criminals of the Bush administration like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and that especially slimy character Feith are all members of this neoconservative outfit. (“Neoconservative” sounds better than “Fascist” but they are the same thing). You can google PNAC to find their official statements, they amazingly come right out and say they want to change our government so that it can dominate the world and they want their President to dominate Congress and the Judicial branch too. In other words, though they don’t come right out and say it, they want to have their guy (Bush, at the moment) to be dictator of the U.S. and eventually the whole world. That’s Fascism pure and simple.
Well something has to change for that to happen, and in their own PNAC document they say it will probably take something like “another Pearl Harbor” to accomplish their goals quickly. Well guess what, that’s just what 9/11 was, wasn’t it? And who has benefitted the most from that? Bush and his cronies and all the war profiteers now making not just millions but billions of dollars. THEY PULLED IT OFF! But they’re not through yet of course, there’s still much work to do for Bush to gain the absolute power they want for him.
But here’s how it has to work: Bush needs to stage another big emergency or terrorist event so that he can declare martial law and void the Constitution. He couldn’t do it right after 9/11 in 2001 because he hadn’t sufficiently propagandized Americans to be fearful of terrorism. And he has to have all his ducks in a row to be ready to deal with everything and everyone that will tend to resist him. That’s why there are now hundreds of concentration camps in America, empty but ready. That’s why there have been many Executive Orders, some secret, detailing exactly who will have what powers to do what (FEMA plays a big role in this) when Bush does declare martial law. One of the most important things that Bush needs is the backing of law enforcement, and that’s where the Federal prosecuters come in. He’s already got his perfect flunky as Attorney General who’ll do anything he asks, no matter how criminal, but Bush also needs the backing of ALL the Federal prosecutors in each state so they’ll all be singing from the same hymnal when Bush does declare martial law so they’ll ALL say it’s legal and okay for him to trample our Constitution. If even two or three were to stand up and say “wait a minute, America’s not supposed to work that way”, then there’ll be controversy and people will question it, and Bush can’t have that. So in my opinion, that is why Bush needs to have ALL the Federal prosecutors be the same kind of bootlicking sycophants that he has in Gonzales. The scary part is we’re nearly there, and Bush could declare martial law any day now.
Are you ready, have you thought about this? Martial law and the suspension of the Constitution will mean their Gestapo (FEMA, Homeland Security, probably others) can come kick down your door without any kind of warrant, for any reason they want or no reason at all. It means they will be able to arrest you and throw you in prison (or in one of the concentration camps they’ve already got set up ready to go) and they won’t have to ever give you the opportunity to have a lawyer or go before a judge, just like they’re already doing with prisoners at Guantanamo and in Iraq and all the secret prisons they have around the world. And it means they’ll be able to torture you too, just as they’re already doing, and they’ll consider it perfectly “legal”. It won’t be of course, since we are supposed to be governed by our Constitution, but if they have all their top cops in every state saying it’s legal, who will be able to say it isn’t?
It’s important that you think long and hard about the possibility of Bush declaring martial law, and talk about it with everyone you know, because it’s nearly here. While we’re all distracted worrying about why and how some of the Federal prosecuters were replaced, Bush has now got his loyal replacements all ready to back him up. All he needs to do now is stage another scary terrorist event, and it doesn’t even have to be in the U.S.! It could be something as simple as a “dirty bomb” going off near one of our many military bases around the world, or worse a nuke attack somewhere. Something significant enough for Bush to be able to say “I need to protect you by suspending the Constitution”. When that day comes, and it isn’t going to be far off judging from how Bush has pretty well got his ducks in a row and of course he has to do it before he leaves office, well when that day comes it won’t be America anymore, it will be like Nazi Germany all over again.
To doubt any of this you have to believe the PNAC Fascists didn’t really mean what they put their signatures to in their official policy statement, you have to believe that Bush’s public agenda is his real one (such as his War on Iraq having nothing whatsoever to do with oil), you have to believe Bush is honest even if he is somewhat misguided (despite the many times he’s now been caught in lies) and you have to believe the SOB is not inherently evil too. But if you haven’t already seen the massive evidence of his evil intents in the Loose Change video, you must, it is terribly important. See http://loosechange911.com
TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS TOO SO THEY’LL KNOW WHAT WE’RE ALL DEALING WITH, WHO KNOWS WHAT BUSH MIGHT DO NEXT.
DON’T BELIEVE THE DISSEMBLING RIGHT-WINGERS WHO’LL TRY TO POOH-POOH THE EVIDENCE, THERE IS JUST TOO DAMN MUCH OF IT TO DENY.
The funny thing is that the gist of the Bush police state forming by now was predicted back in 2000-2001 by a fellow named John Titor (see http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com) who claimed to be a time traveler. He didn’t have much credibility then because it didn’t seem possible (although he did present good theory and diagrams about how his time travel machine functioned, which many physicists believe might actually work), but here we are just a few years later and Titor’s predictions are beginning to come true. So EVEN WITH ADVANCE WARNING there are still people who have trouble seeing what’s plain as day in front of their faces: Bush Fascism. It’s here already. And the only reasonable expectation is that it’s going to get a lot worse unless he’s stopped. Don’t be a “good German” in the face of so much evidence!
The Commenter known as “Nobody” has failed to answer me calling him out. I’m still waiting, man.
Kritter,
If I listen to Barbara Streisand, live in San Francisco, and wear loafers everyday, does that mean I have the precursors for being Gay? Of course not. Is Bush more authoritarian that past Presidents? Some, yes; others, no. Frankly, the kind of stuff I hear about Bush today I remember hearing about Reagan in the 1980′s. Was Reagan a Fascist too? Or did he just have “precursors.”
Does Hillary, who supports nationalized health care, have precursors for socialism/communism? Be careful with such “precursor” arguments – they can, and will be, aimed at everyone and anyone.
Shaun,
Stifle debate? Calling someone a Fascist is encouraging debate, but bringing up a legitimate difference between Bush and historic Fascists is stifling debate? Please.
Geez Louise, this thread is sinking fast………..
Not to deviate from the point too much.. but did Joe seriously say that my comment elevated the debate?
“Daniel’s comments above (whether every reader agrees with them or not) is EXACTLY the kind of discussion that enlightens and advances a debate.”
I’m equal parts shocked, awed, honored, and Vitamin C fortified.
And, on yet another side note, does anyone know the origins of “Geez Louise”? I’ve hunted online but had little success. No Wiki entry or Google definition for the phrase.
>Kritter
>Ya sure-No, pushing back against authoritarianism prevents it from >taking root. That way we don’t become a fascist state.
That is what normally activists would believe. It is however, not a chicken and the egg kind of thing. It’s our freedoms and rights that give you the opportunity to “push back”
>Shaun
>Does drawing on history to argue, as Wolfe did, that Bush seems to be >taking steps in the direction of a fascist state dishonor those millions who >died and were exterminated during WW2? No, but it’s a great way to try >to stiffle discussion, which was the purpose of my post and something >that you heartily endorsed in the second of your two comments.
That’s a 2 headed snake Shaun – you certainly should have been well aware of that.
Those from the Right criticize the Left for Moral Relativism, when one idea is put into a broad context of ethical considerations. Evil is evil, good is good, and no blurring of absolutes is allowed.
Then they use histoical comparisons to point out how a current phenomenon RELATES to others in the past. Today’s evil is not really as bad as yestersay’s evil, it turns out.
I’m all for relativism, in the sense that no one thing can be understood without context. It is equally important, however, that the context should not overshadow the thing itself.
Some things that the current administration has done are not as bad as some things in the past. True.
Some things that the current administration has done reminds us of worse things in the past. Equally true.
ChuckPrez says:
“Both parties continue to support a big-government, militaristic state that equates “national interest� with “military domination of strategic resources� and “ever-closer regulation of public speech and private life�.�
…and there you have it folks…FINALLY someone who isn’t bickering in this post gets it.
Chuck Prez gets it. Its now suddenly all about National Interest and domination of strategic resources. A left talking point and any refutation by the right is met with strawmanner or politically incorrect to discuss.
This is the type of distortions the left has perpetuated to try and build a case against the war on terror.
I’m not going to argue against it because I will be classified a strawman and my debate discarded as irrelevant and politically incorrect.
ChuckPrez said:
I question the motives of the right AND left…where does that leave me? Do you want to pigeonhole me right now, Nobody? Go ahead. Throw your best at me.
I dont have to pidgeon hole you chuck. The right asks for debate because we honestly feel we can win most of them. Therefore there is no stiffling of debate only the accusations of strawmanning to limit the debate by the left.
The left on the other hand when you criticise them demand that you stop because it is politically incorrect to have such a debate that questions their motives and reasons for their moral and social programs and their views of the war.
Strawman is the new lefts catch phrase. Any discussion that brings up sincere debate is pidgeonholed as a strawman debate and dismissed.
Newt Gingrich said you wont even talk about it anymore.
Hes right they don’t have to they just pidgeon hole everything the right says now as strawmanning and irrelevant.
Who’s a lefty here that’s demanding that you stop, Nobody? We’re having a debate aren’t we? And yes, we definitely should listen to Newt because his ideas usually pan out, don’t they?
Turn on any right wing radio station and they talk about how liberalism is the slippery slope to socialism- but its not fair to point out how a power grab by a conservative could put us on the road to fascism?
domajot,
I think yours is a common misinterpretation of the right’s complaint about moral relativism. It’s the right that DOES want to compare things and hold things as ‘more good’ or ‘more evil’. We reserve the right to say, for example, that Iran isn’t just as capable of having nuclear capability and using it wisely as the US or other nations are. We reserve the right to say that Israel may not be faultless but there’s a big difference between the legitimacy of her govt and her actions and those of Hamas.
In other words, it’s because we believe that black and white do exist that we believe we can see the shades of gray in between. Our criticism of some on the left is that they won’t accept a definition of black or white which means that everything is so gray that you can no longer distinguish one shade from the next. When all values are defined as being equal, then none can be compared or contrasted (interestingly, this analogy works well when you apply it to visual arts because if you don’t use dark and light values you end up with a very uninspiring painting.)
You are under the impression that we ONLY see black and white, which simply isn’t true (or at least, the burden is on you to show how this is the prevailing viewpoint of the right rather than just asserting that our claims that good and evil do exist mean that we don’t see anything in between).
Shaun, you are not European, your country was not conquered by the Germans so you have a slightly different view on these issues. To Europeans (look at Lynx’ comment) fascism equals Nazism. When we say ‘fascist’ we mean ‘nazi’. The Guardian is a British newspaper, fully aware of this. When stuff like this gets printed, it is fair to point that out, what Europeans mean by it.
I encourage you for posting opinions I don’t agree with, but I hope you encourage me to publish posts / comments pointing out how certain things are interpreted in Europe and meant by Europeans.
Make no mistake about it – when Europeans say this, they mean that Bush is an American Hitler.
Daniel: in Joe’s defense: it was probably a typo
Well, Kim, if you want a discussion that is of the quality of talk radio, then by all means go for it. Some of us were under the impression that that sort of thing wasn’t desirable though.
No its not fair to point that out Kritter and the fact you dont understand why shows that this debate has accomplished nothing.
The article is
It’s not fascism when Christians do it.
Christianity has not even been discussed in this. Yet the implications are very real in the context of what has transpired in the last 4 years. Christians are evil. The RR has caused us to go to war. Everything is implied as the RR’s fault.
Yet this debate is not even addressing that. It is addressing Bush and Republicans while not touching on the grand REASON for the article itself. God must be removed because his proponents are Fascists.
The left/liberalism wants to banish God in America. So what better way to do it then Say Its not fascism when christians do it and then talk about Bush/Republicans instead.
Its guilt by association. Make everyone HATE BUSH and by ASSOCIATION they will hate Christians. Its a sublte way of losing a battle but winning a war.
This is not discussion this is hate mongering in subtle form.
CStanley:
I am trying to see your point of view but cannot quite make it past the notion that you are suggesting that I am using a variation on the old “bait and switch” scam under the guise of promoting debate based on wingnuttery.
And while you are always thoughtful and one of the less addicted labelholics to comment here, I get hung up on being referred to as “far left” when I cite and agree with bloggers and commentators from the right. I dunno. Maybe it’s that 60′s hippie thing that Cosmoetica refers to.
LOL, well, that is why I specifically noted that I don’t consider you ‘far right’, Shaun. My point is that (as also noted by AustinRoth), there are two different ways to define “moderate”. One definition involves relative placement on the left-right scale, which is probably a more correct definition of ‘centrist’ than ‘moderate’. When most of us define moderates, though, our definition includes the denouncing of extremist rhetoric (maybe I shouldn’t speak for others, perhaps the majority doesn’t agree with me on that point, but I have a hard time figuring out how it could be otherwise.)
Oops, I meant to say that I don’t consider you ‘far left’ (though it probably goes without saying that I also don’t consider you ‘far right’.)
No its not about hating Christians or God- its about keeping religion private- out of public life- don’t generalize that all lefty’s are atheists. The poster is saying that Christians are capable of evil – just like anyone else is. Most Germans that lived under Hitler were good Christians that didn’t mind ridding the continent of its Jews. Bush bills himself as a good Christian- that’s why the poster says that. It shouldn’t be generalized to all Christians- you are making huge generalizations.
CS- I already said that I don’t think the Bush administration is anywhere near as evil as the Nazis- but they have dealt with dissent in an authoritarian way, have bypassed Congressional approval quite often, and have fanned the fears of islamofascism to ingratiate themselves with American voters. They used signing statements more than 800 times – more than all previous administrations put together. They have used authoritarian tactics. There’s nothing wrong with looking at it that way- if you keep in perspective how much worse the Nazis were.
CStanley:
A very wise man by the name of Paul Silver once spoke these words during a discussion on labelholics:
“You are, and I am, moderate independents. We sort issues on a practical basis rather than an ideological one. Ideologues may see us as philosophically rudderless, arbitrary, expedient. I see them as stubborn. Some of us need labels and affiliations to establish our identity. Some of us are free agents looking at the world as a magical ever-changing buffet. Some embrace change and evolution, Some are terrified of it and losing their sense of self. It is what keeps the world goin’ ’round.”
Shaun,
I realize that your post was in response to the Ms. Wolfe’s column in The Guardian, but I think before we go throwing the word “fascism” around, we ought to put things in context.
America, in my opinion, is drifting towards authoritarianism. Economic populism from the Left has driven our government to wield increasing authority in economic/fiscal matters while social conservatism from the Right has driven our government to wield increasing authority in social/personal issues. Meanwhile, ongoing war has accelerated the growth of government and given our politicians an excuse to erode our civil liberties. As the classic liberal Randolph Bourne said during World War I, “War is the health of the state.”
However, it is important to point out that this is a trend that hardly started during the George W. Bush administration.
It was Republicans William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt who got us into the imperialistic war known as the Spanish-American War–aided and abetted by militarist propaganda from William Randolph Hearst’s newspapers.
It was Democrat Woodrow Wilson who ran on the campaign pledge of keeping us out of World War I, only to go back on his word and enter the war on the side of one group of imperialist powers (Great Britain and France) against other imperialist powers (Germany, Austria, Turkey). During the war, Woodrow Wilson had people arrested for nothing more than protesting the draft. Among these people were Socialist Eugene Debs, who ran a presidential campaign against Wilson from within his prison cell. It wasn’t until President Warren Harding, a Republican, pardoned Debs that he finally got back the freedom that was so wrongfully taken away from him by Wilson.
It was Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt who ran on a fiscally conservative platform (cutting taxes, lowering federal spending) when he initially challenged Herbert Hoover for the presidency, and then, once in office, completely flip-flopped on his positions and went on to create the modern day welfare state. Franklin D. Roosevelt consolidated power within the Executive Branch, paving the way for the “Imperial Presidency” that would come to characterize later presidential administrations. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who attempted to pack the Supreme Court with justices sympathetic to his agenda–causing the conservative wing of the Democratic Party to join with Republicans in challenging him. It was also Roosevelt who, at the prodding of Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson”, ordered the internment of INNOCENT Japanese-Americans during World War II.
It was Democrat Harry Truman who used the Korean War as an excuse to nationalize the steel industry.
It was Democrat Lyndon Johnson who escalated our involvement in Vietnam, leading him to send tens of thousands of Americans to their deaths. Meanwhile, he continued to grow government at home, leading to a “guns and butter” warfare-welfare state.
It was Republican Richard Nixon who declared a “War on Drugs”, and a solidly Democratic congress signed off on the legislation which implemented this new era of prohibition.
It was Republican Ronald Reagan together with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil who ramped up the War on Drugs, paving the way for crack cocaine laws, asset forfeiture laws, and the police-state tactics that have made a mockery of the Bill of Rights.
It was Democrat Bill Clinton, together with a Republican congress, who enacted Project Columbia, which expanded the War on Drugs to Colombia. It was also Bill Clinton whose Justice Department began prosecuting people for growing medical marijuana in California, despite the fact that it this state had passed a popular referendum making medical marijuana illegal.
Yes, the Bush Administration has done its part to accelerate our drive towards authoritarianism, what with the USA PATRIOT Act, NSA electronic surveillance program, detaining American citizens without charging them with a crime (Jose Padilla), and prosecuting people for growing medical marijuana in states where it is legal to grow medical marijuana. But this is just the latest step in what has been a long journey towards authoritarianism.
But we’re not a police-state yet. In a closing remarks in a debate he had with Republican Chris Shays and Democrat Diane Farrel, Libertarian Phil Maymin pointed out that it’s important to keep things in perspective when lamenting the loss of freedom that has taken place in recent years:
We’ve been moving in the wrong direction for some time, Shaun. We can still correct some of mistakes that have been made, but we have to keep our eye on the prize. This issue goes well beyond the Bush administration.
“One goal that Americans have traditionally considered important is to have a government that is ‘of, by, and for the people’ — meaning that it involves the people and represents them. In your opinion, do we have a government today that is ‘of, by, and for the people?’”
Yes 39%
No 54%
Not sure 7%
Council for Excellence in Government poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). May 21-28, June 1, 1999.
PollingReport.com
C.S.: that is correct My Lady. Moderation is not the same as Centrism. I do not think that Shaun is a Centrist, but he is a Moderate.
Also: I am growing a bit tired of people, when they don’t agree with someone, immediately saying that that person is not a moderate.
Lastly: Shaun, I would not be afraid that anyone stiffles debate here – you’ve got 90+ comments right now. If that’s stiffling debate then, well, then I think we would all embrace non-debates.
For the record: I am not a Centrist either. I am right of center. But I do consider myself ‘moderate’ as in your definition.
This blog is also not called “The Centrist Voice” but “The Moderate Voice”.
On balance, the blog, though, is centrist, because we have centrist, left-of-center and right-of-center contributors.
No its not about hating Christians or God- its about keeping religion private- out of public life
So the LEFT is demanding that Christians keep their faith private. That we cannot pray in public. Have images in public. Have any outward expression of our faith.
Gays can march down the street but I cant pray in public? People can drive drunk and kill 1000′s every year but I cant demand accountability because of my Christian values.
And this is not about attempting to remove God from America?
I beg to differ.
Well, the point is Kim, that perhaps you might use the term “authoritarian tendency” instead of “Nazi”. You can see the reason for that perfectly well when the shoe is on the other foot (remember all those discussions about how moderates were so angered at the Bush administration for saying that oppostion to the war amounted to treason, or that people who didn’t want to take a hard line against our enemies were appeasers?) Well guess what? It angers people when you insinuate that they have similarities to the citizens of Nazi Germany who enabled Hitler’s rise to power too. It’s not a good way to discuss your differences with political opponents to show how you think they have some things in common with a group that was so despicable.
Nic:
Thank you, as always, for the history lesson. You are absolutely correct that the march toward authoritarianism has been a group effort.
Nobody-
“Gays can march down the street but I cant pray in public?”
——————
Yes, you can pray in public. Get a permit, like the gays, and march praying.
Walk down any street and pray as you go.
Sit praying on any bench in the park.
Go to the church of your choice and pray.
I just don’t want praying to be mandatory for those not so inclined (schools) any more than I want being gay to be mandatory for those who prefer the opposite sex.
So now your saying Domajot I need a permit to pray in public?
This is not attempting to remove God from America?
Bush isn’t an American Hitler. He’s an American Margaret Thatcher. Rove admitted back in 2004 that he based the entire concept for Bush’s campaigns on Thatcher’s time in UK leadership.
I personally believe Thatcher to be a batshit-insane wannabe-totalitarian who was only prevented from announcing martial law (as she saw election defeat staring her in the face) by an internal party coup. That’s just my opinion.
Like Michael, I’m a European. We invented fascism and we know it when we see it. As one commenter put it, Bush is “nibbling around the edges”.
Regards, C
CS-
You have a very nice, polite way of explaining the Right’s definition of moral relativism. But that’s not the way this slogan is used in debate, which is:
1. Define what evil and good are in a particular context by your own moral compass
2. Label anyone else’s moral compass as ‘moral relativism’
My comment addressed how debate by slogans distorts any exchange of ideas. We might get further along if we just talked about specific cases. Then, at least, we could save time and energy by skipping the preliminary debate about what the slogan means, implies or infers. Lets talk about Iran, e.g. without labeling.
Slogans obscure ideas rather than clarify them. I prefer clarity.