Is the U.S. in danger of becoming Fascist?

[techs]

In my opinion, yes.
The POLITICAL philosophy of fascism has made it's great strides in the US over the last 8 years as well as over the last 75 years.
I am defining and dicussing fascism in terms of the "leader" principle and the principle that the State or the People are more important than the rights of the individual. Also, that the People are incapable of effectively governing themselves thru parliamentary type Democracy. I am also discussing the political tactics used by political parties and how they are contributing to fascism.

Take the "special" limitations on our freedoms and the "special" powers we have given our Leader during what is claimed to be a time of war. Yet, this is a war that clearly will never end. Its like a war on poverty, a war on drugs, etc. There will always be some people or group of people who don't like something and are willing to engage in some overt act against it. Therefore these "special" limitations on our freedoms and these "special" powers will not end. Ever. So in effect, we have fundamentally changed our Constitution. We have given the leader the perpetual power to set his or her own powers as they see fit. That's fascism. And the "special" limitations on our freedoms may or may not be so bad right now, but we have set the precedent that our Constitutional rights may be infringed at any time by any one Leader. With no accountability or rules.

When Nixon was impeached one of the strongest reasons cited by Republicans who voted to impeach was the "abuse of power". This covered a lot of things, but the wiretapping of his political opponents was most commonally cited. Today, Nixon could have wiretapped any of his enemies, legally.

Today Congress has an approval rating of something like 12 percent. That's Weimar Republic approval. The overriding influence of big corporations and other special interests have pretty much screwed the publics idea of effective representitive government. And with both parties effectively setting a 60 percent bar in the Senate, the situation is not likely to change soon. In fact, I believe those who agree with the Leader principle are actively working to make Congress as least effective as possible.

Take the tactics of the political parties. Each accuses the other not of passing bad laws, but of destroying the country. Destroying our "way of life". And we all know that fascism has traditionally used this technique to gain power.

The entire voting process has now been brought into question what with the attempt to foist paperless electronic voting, and the cries of voter fraud.
Nothing like a "leader" to fix a broken system.

Lest anyone think fascism needs a majority of the voters to take over, remember the Nazis did it with barely 30 percent.

As long as Americans are presented a fiction that American is a democracy we could still have a fascist government. And we are certainly headed in that direction.
How close are we? Once we become a nation of men and not laws, then we are at the mercy of the next President who decides its in the national interest to bug his opponents. And in his interests to find some kind of reason to jail his opponents.
In effect, we are at the mercy of the kind of man who we elect to lead.
And that's fascism.

 

[BoberFett]

Great post, and I agree. We're in dangerous territory.

 

[Amused]

I would say less "fascist" and more "authoritarian socialist."

 

[Genx87]

Look around. How many trillions are bring plowed into private industry by the last administration and this administration?

 

[Phokus]

Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

Yeah, techs is a well-know right-wing fanatic. Good observation, Phokus.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

Yeah, techs is a well-know right-wing fanatic. Good observation, Phokus.

Interesting, since Fascism is not an economic system per se, but a political one. Stalin and Hitler were fascist dictators. One ruled a capitalist/socialist country and one a communist country.
I wonder why people keep bringing up economic systems?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

Yeah, techs is a well-know right-wing fanatic. Good observation, Phokus.

Oh yeah? Where were the mass tea parties during Bush term?

 

[herm0016]

who are you and what did you do with our regular techs?

and...

i agree. we are moving in that direction and have been for some time. we are becoming a nation about taking care of its people and not a nation that provides opportunities to its people.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: herm0016
who are you and what did you do with our regular techs?

and...

i agree. we are moving in that direction and have been for some time. we are becoming a nation about taking care of its people and not a nation that provides opportunities to its people.

For the security of the State I have him in a wonderful place I call a "camp" where he is getting plenty of water.....

and Mods, you are instructed not to check Techs i.p. until further notice.
Or else....

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

Yeah, techs is a well-know right-wing fanatic. Good observation, Phokus.

Interesting, since Fascism is not an economic system per se, but a political one. Stalin and Hitler were fascist dictators. One ruled a capitalist/socialist country and one a communist country.
I wonder why people keep bringing up economic systems?

My post was, I thought, obviously sarcastic. And yes, I somewhat agree with your OP, and yes, Socialism is an economic system. I don't know if I'd agree that we are moving in a Fascist/Socialist direction, put there does seem to be a push in that direction. However, there's a lot of enthusiasm pushing us in other directions as well. IMO, our problem, economically, is that we are attempting a mix of socialism and capitalism. And when it inevitably doesn't work, we tend to blame one or the other, and usually it's capitalism that takes the blame. But I'm getting OT here, so I will just agree, yes, we are moving towards Fascism, or at least some type of authoritarian government. IMO, our failure to understand economic freedom has been a major reason why we are losing our social freedoms. The other major reason, IMO, is the warfare state, but I believe the two are intertwined.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

Yeah, techs is a well-know right-wing fanatic. Good observation, Phokus.

Oh yeah? Where were the mass tea parties during Bush term?

The Democratic leadership simply wasn't there. They had the minority in Congress, and took all of the Republican agendas right up the ass. War in Iraq, Patriot Act, etc. The only protesting, and there was quite a bit, was done mostly without political leadership. If you are suggesting that the Republicans are being hypocritical in their opposition to today's leadership, then I agree with you, and it is a very obvious observation. But my reply to you above was sarcastic, as Techs is a very left-leaning poster here.

 

[whylaff]

How exactly are we becoming a nation of men and not laws? Did I miss something? Was there a press-conference on the dissolution of the Supreme Court?

It annoys me to see terms such as fascism so wantonly applied and thrown around. It loses its meaning. The truth of the matter is that everything you may regard as a liberty in life might just not be one. There are many things in the Constitution that have an inverse relationship. The challenge is finding the balance. When someone starts to trash our institution by blatantly ignoring and dismantling parts of it so that they can assume its responsibilities or remove its influence, let me know. Until then, just pushing the envelope doesn?t count, because it will never end. Someone will always try.

 

[LegendKiller]

I don't think we are in danger. The government isn't taking such an active role in order to control the companies for the long-term, but to provide a way out of this morass. It isn't a buy and hold strategy, it is a buy and sell strategy with the intent to cleanse and release in a better position. That isn't fascism, that is trying to manage a crappy situation.

Not to mention the other catalysts for a fascist government just aren't there.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

Yeah, techs is a well-know right-wing fanatic. Good observation, Phokus.

Interesting, since Fascism is not an economic system per se, but a political one. Stalin and Hitler were fascist dictators. One ruled a capitalist/socialist country and one a communist country.
I wonder why people keep bringing up economic systems?

Fascism is both political and economic.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't think we are in danger. The government isn't taking such an active role in order to control the companies for the long-term, but to provide a way out of this morass. It isn't a buy and hold strategy, it is a buy and sell strategy with the intent to cleanse and release in a better position. That isn't fascism, that is trying to manage a crappy situation.

Not to mention the other catalysts for a fascist government just aren't there.

The problem with your assessment is that the government caused this mess, and IMO, can't get us out of it. Not in the long run, because they attack only the symptoms rather than the disease. The more control the government has over the economy, the worse it gets, and the more control over it they seek.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't think we are in danger. The government isn't taking such an active role in order to control the companies for the long-term, but to provide a way out of this morass. It isn't a buy and hold strategy, it is a buy and sell strategy with the intent to cleanse and release in a better position. That isn't fascism, that is trying to manage a crappy situation.

Not to mention the other catalysts for a fascist government just aren't there.

The problem with your assessment is that the government caused this mess, and IMO, can't get us out of it. Not in the long run, because they attack only the symptoms rather than the disease. The more control the government has over the economy, the worse it gets, and the more control over it they seek.

The government didn't cause it, private industry did. The government isn't trying to control the economy per se, but limit the damage that a dysfunctional machine can do.

The government, through ineptitude, poor, under, and degregulation may have provided the gun, but private industry and consumers pulled the trigger.

 

[Double Trouble]

Unfortunately for all of us, I think most of your post is spot-on. Freedom for the country goes only as far as individual freedoms, and those have been getting steadily curtailed for decades, at an increasing rate. It's absolutely astonishing what we as a people have allowed our government to do in terms of imposing all sorts of restrictions and regulations on even the most minute details of our lives.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
Conservatives only asked this question AFTER bush went out of office.

Hypocrites.

Yeah, techs is a well-know right-wing fanatic. Good observation, Phokus.

Oh yeah? Where were the mass tea parties during Bush term?

The Democratic leadership simply wasn't there. They had the minority in Congress, and took all of the Republican agendas right up the ass. War in Iraq, Patriot Act, etc. The only protesting, and there was quite a bit, was done mostly without political leadership. If you are suggesting that the Republicans are being hypocritical in their opposition to today's leadership, then I agree with you, and it is a very obvious observation. But my reply to you above was sarcastic, as Techs is a very left-leaning poster here.

I wasn't specifically mentioning techs, there were enough rightwing hacks in this thread and in the US to point the comment to.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Unfortunately for all of us, I think most of your post is spot-on. Freedom for the country goes only as far as individual freedoms, and those have been getting steadily curtailed for decades, at an increasing rate. It's absolutely astonishing what we as a people have allowed our government to do in terms of imposing all sorts of restrictions and regulations on even the most minute details of our lives.

I look at some of that differently. Take countries we in the US call socialist like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.
They have very strong parliamentary democracies, perhaps more so than the US, since their campaign laws strongly limit the amount of money corporations and the wealthy can contribute, hence making them more representitive of individuals than of single individuals with money or corporations.
Yet, the countries mentioned have chosen to pass laws that we in America see as socialist.
But for purposes of a political system, they are not facist.
In America we have speed limits on hiways. Is that socialist? yes. We have artificial economic constructs we call Corporations that have special protections under law intended to encourage investment for the purpose of encouraging growth of corporations because we as people feel it is in the best interests of the greater good, i.e., socialism.
But these "socialist" laws and creations are not part of our political system.
I understand your argument that personal freedoms are important, but to me its a matter of degree of personal freedoms. And that in many cases they are more ubiquitious, but not as important as the types of freedoms taken away by fascism.

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Unfortunately for all of us, I think most of your post is spot-on. Freedom for the country goes only as far as individual freedoms, and those have been getting steadily curtailed for decades, at an increasing rate. It's absolutely astonishing what we as a people have allowed our government to do in terms of imposing all sorts of restrictions and regulations on even the most minute details of our lives.

I look at some of that differently. Take countries we in the US call socialist like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.
They have very strong parliamentary democracies, perhaps more so than the US, since their campaign laws strongly limit the amount of money corporations and the wealthy can contribute, hence making them more representitive of individuals than of single individuals with money or corporations.

The US does not have a parliamentary system. Many of the countries you mentioned use proportional representation in their elections as opposed to a majoritarian (winter takes all) style. Limits on contributions has very little to do with the makeup of their legislature.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

No. One of the major catalysts for fascism is a severe economic recession with very high unemployment (25-30% +) and skyrocketing inflation of several thousand percent. For example, this was the situation in Germany in the 1930s when Hitler took power. While the situation may be bad here, it's not even on the same scale.

As well, fascism is known for a complete suppression of dissent. While there may be limits on free speech and association, people can still write and speak as they please for the most part. Religion (Christianity) still holds a major influence over society; in a fascist state it would be outlawed.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Unfortunately for all of us, I think most of your post is spot-on. Freedom for the country goes only as far as individual freedoms, and those have been getting steadily curtailed for decades, at an increasing rate. It's absolutely astonishing what we as a people have allowed our government to do in terms of imposing all sorts of restrictions and regulations on even the most minute details of our lives.

I look at some of that differently. Take countries we in the US call socialist like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.
They have very strong parliamentary democracies, perhaps more so than the US, since their campaign laws strongly limit the amount of money corporations and the wealthy can contribute, hence making them more representitive of individuals than of single individuals with money or corporations.

The US does not have a parliamentary system. Many of the countries you mentioned use proportional representation in their elections as opposed to a majoritarian (winter takes all) style. Limits on contributions has very little to do with the makeup of their legislature.

Yes, Parliament does tend to refer to the Westminster System, modeled on the U.K.
Perhaps I should have used the term Republican Congress or just Congress or Legislative Democracy.
But I think my point still comes thru.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
No. One of the major catalysts for fascism is a severe economic recession with very high unemployment (25-30% +) and skyrocketing inflation of several thousand percent. For example, this was the situation in Germany in the 1930s when Hitler took power. While the situation may be bad here, it's not even on the same scale.

As well, fascism is known for a complete suppression of dissent. While there may be limits on free speech and association, people can still write and speak as they please for the most part. Religion (Christianity) still holds a major influence over society; in a fascist state it would be outlawed.

I would slightly modify it in that major catalysts may be anything, with economic recession one thing, though you can make just as good a case for threat of Communist takeover, like in Spain.
I think major threat would be a more general term, as it would be more inclusive.
Although to be most accurate it would be any serious issue facing a country, where the people lose faith in democracy.
And, fascism actually co-existed with Catholicism in Italy and Spain to the extant the Church did not oppose fascism outright.
It was only in Germany where the heritage of dissident Protestantism coupled with Hitlers and the Nazis parties mystical beliefs where anti-Christianity was a major focus.
Although clearly in a communist/fascist state anti-religion doctrine was at its most extreme.

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Unfortunately for all of us, I think most of your post is spot-on. Freedom for the country goes only as far as individual freedoms, and those have been getting steadily curtailed for decades, at an increasing rate. It's absolutely astonishing what we as a people have allowed our government to do in terms of imposing all sorts of restrictions and regulations on even the most minute details of our lives.

I look at some of that differently. Take countries we in the US call socialist like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.
They have very strong parliamentary democracies, perhaps more so than the US, since their campaign laws strongly limit the amount of money corporations and the wealthy can contribute, hence making them more representitive of individuals than of single individuals with money or corporations.

The US does not have a parliamentary system. Many of the countries you mentioned use proportional representation in their elections as opposed to a majoritarian (winter takes all) style. Limits on contributions has very little to do with the makeup of their legislature.

Yes, Parliament does tend to refer to the Westminster System, modeled on the U.K.
Perhaps I should have used the term Republican Congress or just Congress or Legislative Democracy.
But I think my point still comes thru.

In this context, the US would be a presidential system. This is why you have to acknowledge the differences in institutional design when discussing fascism. There is very little, if any, separation of power in a parliamentary system, specifically between the executive and the legislature.