The Identifying Characteristics of Fascism

[Zebo]

This is a great thread. You want to bring the fascist out in one? Call them one and see the reaction

You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I was thinking the same thing HS but got distracted by real life. Way to sucker them in

As I thought your post is a total fabrication. Not only does "everyone" not want to immigrate to the USA people immigrat to other countries in far greater porportions than the United States.

Owned?

Add to the list:

15. Mathematical Illiteracy -- Fascists do not understand simple mathematical concepts like proportion. They promote discredited economic theories like trickle-down economics.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: GrGr
THE IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM

By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Free Inquiry Magazine / Spring 2003

Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article is titled 'Fascism Anyone?', and appears in Free Inquiry's Spring 2003 issue on page 20.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need". The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media-- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected-- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. [/u]Obsession with Crime and Punishment[/u] -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections-- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

---

Everybody now, let's sing God Bless...

Sounds like Dubya to me.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
I think it's obvious to all he's 6/7th's fascist.

What I'd like to hear from the Bush supporters is, what's the remaining 1/7th?

Chimpanzee

 

[heartsurgeon]

Baffle em with bullsh1t, ad hom, ra ra ignore all the questions raised change the subject this is my last reponse on the subject to this idiot.

your spelling is terrible.
your logic is worse.

Montserrat has a population of about 9000
it has an migration rate of +35%

that means 314 people/year migrate to montserrat

you're trying to say that more people want to migrate to montserrat (314 people/year) than the U.S (1,000,000 people/year)?

i am terribly sorry that you consider multiplication "baffling" and that comparing whole numbers is "bullsh!t"

i find it appalling that any factual basis for debate in this forum is just written off as "ad hom, ra ra"

typical liberal, can't debate the facts, so start calling people names.....

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Baffle em with bullsh1t, ad hom, ra ra ignore all the questions raised change the subject this is my last reponse on the subject to this idiot.

your spelling is terrible.
your logic is worse.

Montserrat has a population of about 9000
it has an migration rate of +35%

that means 314 people/year migrate to montserrat

your trying to say that more people want to migrate to montserrat (314 people/year) than the U.S (1,000,000 people/year)?

i am terrible sorry that you consider multiplication "baffling" and that comparing whole numbers is "bullsh!t"

i find it appalling that any factual basis for debate in this forum is just written off as "ad hom, ra ra"

typical liberal, can't debate the facts, so start calling people names.....

Your spelling and grammar are terrible.
Your punctuation is worse.
Your capitalization is nonexistent.

Do you know DragonMasterAlex? He is a pompous blowhard too. He loves attacking people too. He likes to call his drivel fact and accuse others of doing what he does, just like you. He changes the subject and dodges facts just like you. You could be twin sons of different mothers. Did your dad do drugs too?

 

[heartsurgeon]

lets try this one more time..

over a million people a year migrate into the untied states.
name one other country that has a larger influx of migrants/year than the u.s.

if the u.s. is so "fascist" a country, why are more people trying to migrate here than any other country in the world?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Just because we might be 'better' than any other country in the world doesn't mean we are as good as we should be. America isn't about being better than any other country, it's about being the best country we can be. And we would be much closer to that without Bush & Co.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lets try this one more time..

over a million people a year migrate into the untied states.
name one other country that has a larger influx of migrants/year than the u.s.

if the u.s. is so "fascist" a country, why are more people trying to migrate here than any other country in the world?

For the record, you said:

if it sucks here so bad, how come everyone wants to come here?

Zebo is right again. Your own statistics prove your statement is false, though it is obviously another over-the-top claim in any case.


I will also point out you avoided my comment:

I agree. That's one reason I have so little patience with people who cry about their taxes, or business regulations, environmental programs, welfare costs, or whatever -- especially since these things seem to be loosening lately, particularly taxes. They whine about how awful it is here, yet they don't want to relocate to some third-world hell-hole where they can indulge their unfettered capitalistic fantasies with abandon. No minimum wages, no safety regulations, no unions, no environmental constraints. It would seem every capitalist would be abandoning the U.S. on the first available corporate jet.

You like to whine about America too, only about different issues. If you find our tax burden and business regulations so oppressive, our humanistic sensibilities so offensive, why don't you go somewhere else? If it is so bad, why do so many want to come here?

 

[alchemize]

Zebo and Bow, etc., you are all being lawyers with your "proportion" and "everyone" statements.

The US is the most popular country in the world to migrate into. Period. That says something. But you are of course both welcome to help reverse that trend personally j/k.

So back to the original premise of the thread, if we are such a fascist state, why do lots and lots and lots of people, more than anywhere else in the world, like to come to the US? Sheep?

 

[heartsurgeon]

if it sucks here so bad, how come everyone wants to come here

this statement is wrong. i should have stated "if it sucks here so bad, how come more people come here than any other country in the world" - stand corrected, "everyone" is an exageration.

I will also point out you avoided my comment:

I have stated repeatedly that what makes our country great is the dynamic tension that we have in our political systems. everything is in flux, the debate makes us great. nothing is written in stone (except for the constitution) and the debate will go on long after we are all dead. the system works best when everyone advocates for their their point of view vigorously. what i object to is the liberal tendency to avoid or ignore facts, and then claim the moral high ground in an argument about something which they have many "feelings" about, but little in the way of factual knowledge.

the purpose of my posts, believe it or not, is to try and make some of you think a little more before you make fools of yourself in public. i am trying to encourage you to read articles, read what the other side believes in an issue, read historical facts, not someone else's interpretation of facts, read source material, and defend your positions with facts, not emotion.

plainly put, to claim that the U.S. is a fascist state is laughable. we are a republic, we have strong political checks and balances in place, we have a free press, we have freedom of expression (look at this forum). If you believe we live in a fascist state, than the only political system that would suit you must be anarchy, and quite frankly, i believe anarchy is much worse.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Bush & Co being a fascist regime does not mean the country is fascist. That will take time, and people like you are willing to give Bush & Co. 4 more years to work toward that goal.

the debate makes us great. nothing is written in stone (except for the constitution)

I'm shocked you say this considering Bush & Co
a) habitually avoid actively debating
b) habitually keep their actions shrouded as to avoid debate over them
c) habitually chip away at the stone of the constituion

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Zebo and Bow, etc., you are all being lawyers with your "proportion" and "everyone" statements.

I can't fully agree. Both sides need to learn to reign in their exaggerations; too often it is a sign the person making the claim pulled it out of thin air without any factual basis. Demanding support for such claims is the only way to separate nonsense from real information. Unfortunately, the resulting attacks are often counter-productive and divert from real issues.

Re. proportions, I think they are often critical to understanding the real picture. I also think people intentionally spread disinformation by ignoring relative proportions. Relative proportions provide the context necessary for understanding raw numbers.

In this thread, for example, the total number of people immigrating to/from a country is not terribly informative on its own. For example, is losing 300,000 people a year a big deal? It depends. It's huge if you're Cananda. It would be almost one person out of 100. It's less than a drop in the bucket if you're China, about one per 4,000. Similarly, is gaining 1 million people per year a big deal? Canada - yes, China - no, U.S. - somewhere in the middle.

Anyway, I agree a lot of people want to come to the U.S. I just want to make sure our statistics are presented intelligently, in context.

The US is the most popular country in the world to migrate into. Period. That says something. But you are of course both welcome to help reverse that trend personally j/k.

So back to the original premise of the thread, if we are such a fascist state, why do lots and lots and lots of people, more than anywhere else in the world, like to come to the US? Sheep?

Why? Because the U.S. is still a great country. Because the U.S. still offers great opportunities. Because the U.S. still has excellent infrastructure and a high standard of living. Because the U.S. has relatively loose immigration policies.

I don't believe we are a fascist state yet, nor do I remember anyone saying we were. The issue is that the Bush-lite administration seems to have embraced many aspects of a fascist ideology. We are concerned about the direction this country is taking. What was it Bush said about waiting until the terrorists strike? If we wait until everyone agrees the U.S. has become a fascist state, it will be too late. Our only recourse will be take the country back by force, not a prospect I relish.

That's why we're trying to open eyes today, trying to call attention to the parallels so we don't let it happen. It cannot happen without our blind consent.

 

[DealMonkey]

People migrate here because we have MONEY. Simple as that. Green green dolla bill y'all. That has little to no bearing on whether we're led by a fascist regime or not.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I will also point out you avoided my comment:

I have stated repeatedly that what makes our country great is the dynamic tension that we have in our political systems. everything is in flux, the debate makes us great. nothing is written in stone (except for the constitution) and the debate will go on long after we are all dead. the system works best when everyone advocates for their their point of view vigorously. what i object to is the liberal tendency to avoid or ignore facts, and then claim the moral high ground in an argument about something which they have many "feelings" about, but little in the way of factual knowledge.

Please recognize there is a conservative tendency to do exactly the same thing.

the purpose of my posts, believe it or not, is to try and make some of you think a little more before you make fools of yourself in public. i am trying to encourage you to read articles, read what the other side believes in an issue, read historical facts, not someone else's interpretation of facts, read source material, and defend your positions with facts, not emotion.

A worthwhile goal, and one I share. We will both be more effective at it if we are more patient and treat our opponents with more respect. I know this can be frustrating at times. Some people here act like complete idiots, calling names and steadfastly refusing to understand simple concepts, recognize others' points of view, and accept simple, factual truths. Sometimes, you are one of those idiots. It would not surprise me at all to learn you're simultaneously thinking the exact same thing about me at those same times.

plainly put, to claim that the U.S. is a fascist state is laughable. we are a republic, we have strong political checks and balances in place, we have a free press, we have freedom of expression (look at this forum). If you believe we live in a fascist state, than the only political system that would suit you must be anarchy, and quite frankly, i believe anarchy is much worse.

See my response above to Alchemize. It isn't what we are today, it's our direction for the future.


Cheers,

 

[alchemize]

Bowfinger: We should have pissing matches more often. Conflict leads to understanding I concur that "both sides" like to do this, it's human nature.

The "fascist" and other analogies just irk me to no end, because they truly make light of fascism. Calling someone a nazi endlessly dilutes really what a nazi is. It is as absurd as calling Dean a communist.

Every single instance of "fascism" that has been fingered on the Bush adminstration can be 1) shown to have occurred in previous administrations 2) all have been subject to judicial review for constitutionality (and even some overturned). (and again, as I mentioned earlier even Dean can be called a fascist with this loose 14 point representation)

You say it cannot happen without our blind consent? No, it cannot happen without our open willing interactive consent. The vast majority of Bush's actions have been with open willing interactive consent (approval of congress and the public). That which has not, is being challenged in the courts, and by candidates who would like something different.

I don't fear our country becoming fascist any more than I fear it becoming communist (well, it might become socialist, but likely will go bankrupt prior to that).

 

[Rmex]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Zebo and Bow, etc., you are all being lawyers with your "proportion" and "everyone" statements.

The US is the most popular country in the world to migrate into. Period. That says something. But you are of course both welcome to help reverse that trend personally j/k.

So back to the original premise of the thread, if we are such a fascist state, why do lots and lots and lots of people, more than anywhere else in the world, like to come to the US? Sheep?

Europe gets alot of immigration to, just counting france alone - france has 6,000,000 muslims who have immigrated from the middle east and n.africa and continue to do so in record numbers. The UK, Ireland, Scandinavia and the rest of western europe have high numbers of immigrants to, especially ireland since 8% of its population is now of african origin since it opened its doors in the last 3 years.

So america isnt the only multi racial/cultural melting pot, europe is one aswell.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Europe gets alot of immigration to, just counting france alone - france has 6,000,000 muslims who have immigrated from the middle east and n.africa and continue to do so in record numbers. The UK, Ireland, Scandinavia and the rest of western europe have high numbers of immigrants to, especially ireland since 8% of its population is now of african origin since it opened its doors in the last 3 years.

\

please look at the facts, not your perception of the facts.

...............population.........migration rate......actual number migrating/year
U.K..........60,270,708.....+2.2/1000..............132,595
ireland.......3,969,558....+3.57/1000..............14,171
norway......4,574,560....+2.09/1000..............16,331
sweden.....8,986,400....+1/1000.....................8,986
Finland......5,214,512.....+.63/1000.................3,285
U.S.A....293,027,571 ....+3.52/1000.........1,031,457
france.....60,424,213....+.66/1000................39,879

in actuality none of the countries you mentioned by name even remotely come close to accepting the total number of migrants that the U.S does yearly. Only Ireland accepts as many people on a per capita basis as the U.S. Of all major Western European countries, France has the lowest migration rate, lower than even Switzerland!

the "muslims...in record numbers" have not all migrated to France...i suspect that more have been born in France, than have migrated there. We call those native born citizen's in the U.S., they don't count as "migrants". This statement lays open european rascism...not really French unless Catholic and born in France? Moslem and born in France isn't French enough?

 

[Rmex]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Europe gets alot of immigration to, just counting france alone - france has 6,000,000 muslims who have immigrated from the middle east and n.africa and continue to do so in record numbers. The UK, Ireland, Scandinavia and the rest of western europe have high numbers of immigrants to, especially ireland since 8% of its population is now of african origin since it opened its doors in the last 3 years.

\

please look at the facts, not your perception of the facts.

...............population.........migration rate......actual number migrating/year
U.K..........60,270,708.....+2.2/1000..............132,595
ireland.......3,969,558....+3.57/1000..............14,171
norway......4,574,560....+2.09/1000..............16,331
sweden.....8,986,400....+1/1000.....................8,986
Finland......5,214,512.....+.63/1000.................3,285
U.S.A....293,027,571 ....+3.52/1000.........1,031,457
france.....60,424,213....+.66/1000................39,879

in actuality none of the countries you mentioned by name even remotely come close to accepting the total number of migrants that the U.S does yearly. Only Ireland accepts as many people on a per capita basis as the U.S. Of all major Western European countries, France has the lowest migration rate, lower than even Switzerland!

the "muslims...in record numbers" have not all migrated to France...i suspect that more have been born in France, than have migrated there. We call those native born citizen's in the U.S., they don't count as "migrants". This statement lays open european rascism...not really French unless Catholic and born in France? Moslem and born in France isn't French enough?

Thats not counting illegal aliens. Illegals are a worse problem than mexicans are in the US - europe has the entire southern mediterranean being used as 'ferry ways' for people from all over Africa, the middle east and India. There are over 2billion people in Africa-M.EAST-and india compared to 120 million in mexico, so europes potential for illegal entry is 20 times higher and it shows to. Also europe has the eastern frontier, which includes central asia [200 million] and China [1.3 billion], alot of illegals come from there aswell. add it up.

Paris and london are litterally over run with foreighners, most of whom are undoubtedly illegal.



""the "muslims...in record numbers" have not all migrated to France...i suspect that more have been born in France, than have migrated there. We call those native born citizen's in the U.S., they don't count as "migrants". This statement lays open european rascism...not really French unless Catholic and born in France? Moslem and born in France isn't French enough?""

Yes, please send them home. France (and europe) were never intended to be melting pots, america was. If you love foreighners so much then maybe you wont mind inviting them over, since your the self proclaimed melting pot afterall.

And yes illegal muslims are coming to france in record numbers btw, you can send those home aswell.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bowfinger: We should have pissing matches more often. Conflict leads to understanding I concur that "both sides" like to do this, it's human nature.

Don't get used to it. I'll probably be cranky again tomorrow.

The "fascist" and other analogies just irk me to no end, because they truly make light of fascism. Calling someone a nazi endlessly dilutes really what a nazi is. It is as absurd as calling Dean a communist.

I think the difference is I am attempting to examine the political ideology of facism from an intellectual perspective while you are associating facism with specific brutal governments and reacting emotionally. (I mean this not as an accusation, but as a suggestion to help improve communications.) I agree the fascist governments I'm familiar with were brutal regimes. I do not believe brutality is a mandatory component of facsim, however. I also do not equate fascism with Nazism. While the Nazis were fascists, it does not follow that fascists are necessarily Nazis or neo-Nazis.

Does this make sense, i.e., is it clear what I mean? Are there any Poli Sci experts here who can either reinforce or refute the difference between facism, the ideology, and the implementation of facism by specific governments? Can anyone recommend good on-line resources that might address this sort of topic clearly and without partisan bias?

Every single instance of "fascism" that has been fingered on the Bush adminstration can be 1) shown to have occurred in previous administrations 2) all have been subject to judicial review for constitutionality (and even some overturned). (and again, as I mentioned earlier even Dean can be called a fascist with this loose 14 point representation)

I agree this is largely true if we view each criteria as absolute black and white. I'm not convinced that this holds up when you look at the whole picture, considering both scope and scale, i.e., both the number of examples we find in the Bush administration and the extent to which they are present.

For example, while all politicians appeal to patriotism at times, how many have so continually taken positions like "you're either with us or you support the terrorists," or hidden behind the claim that it's un-American to question their actions? As I went down the list, time and again I was struck by how many blatant examples one can find for the Bush administration. I don't have the same reaction when I consider other administations, Democratic or Republican.

I recognize this may be due to my dislike of Bush. It is also undoubtedly influenced by the slanted presentation of the items on the list. That is the purpose of the thread, to discuss the list and its applicability to the Bush administration.

You say it cannot happen without our blind consent? No, it cannot happen without our open willing interactive consent. The vast majority of Bush's actions have been with open willing interactive consent (approval of congress and the public). That which has not, is being challenged in the courts, and by candidates who would like something different.

I don't agree that many of them were open at all, but I think that begs the point. I'll use Hitler as an example, only because it's easy and fairly well understood. Wasn't Hitler's rise to power achieved with public and lawmaker consent, through arguably "legal" means (initially, at least)? When was the appropriate time for German citizens to recognize what was happening and act to stop it? Ignoring emotional and paritisan considerations for a moment, what makes us different from the German people then? What do we have that they didn't that would prevent our government from becoming more and more fascist?

Let me emphasize again, I am trying to discuss this from an intellectual perspective. This is intended as questions, not accusations.

I don't fear our country becoming fascist any more than I fear it becoming communist (well, it might become socialist, but likely will go bankrupt prior to that).

I wish I shared your confidence. As I mentioned in the Hitler thread, while I don't think Bush is a Hitler-wannabe, I am concerned with some of the people around him. I also have little confidence in any professional politician's willingness to turn away from additional power if it's offered.

 

[Bitdog]

The USA being a good place compaired to other places in the world,
and specific problems in the USA are two completely different subjects.

If our government allowed your daughter to be legally raped,
and when you complained about it, some one stood up and said that
America is the best place in the world, love it or leave it.
You would clearly see the flaw in them stopping you from correcting the problem.
But you would never be able to communicate with those kind of people,
they will never understand, they care about you as much as they care about dog poop on the side walk.
And they might even like dogs better than people.

Nothing is perfect so there is always room for improvement and that includes USA.
Those who have no complaints should not stand in the way of those who do.
The oppressed have ligitimate complaints, the oppressors don't, and their always the ones in power.
About like the 14 points of Fascism article indicates.

Bush has opportunized on 911 in ways that makes the Fascism article look applicable.
We should not forget that many countries around the world don't have a death penalty,
and view us a quite flawed in civility because of it.
Bushes home state of Texas is the worst death penalty offender of all our states
and was when President Bush was governor of Texas.

 

[Bitdog]

oops, double post.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Yes, please send them home. France (and europe) were never intended to be melting pots, america was. If you love foreighners so much then maybe you wont mind inviting them over, since your the self proclaimed melting pot afterall.

now we are getting somewhere! A liberal euro speaks the truth: We don't like foreigners, even if they were born here "send them home"...

i want every american liberal to carefully read what this poster wrote above, and what it really means. this is some of the most rascist stuff i've ever seen written.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bowfinger: We should have pissing matches more often. Conflict leads to understanding I concur that "both sides" like to do this, it's human nature.

Don't get used to it. I'll probably be cranky again tomorrow.

The "fascist" and other analogies just irk me to no end, because they truly make light of fascism. Calling someone a nazi endlessly dilutes really what a nazi is. It is as absurd as calling Dean a communist.

I think the difference is I am attempting to examine the political ideology of facism from an intellectual perspective while you are associating facism with specific brutal governments and reacting emotionally. (I mean this not as an accusation, but as a suggestion to help improve communications.) I agree the fascist governments I'm familiar with were brutal regimes. I do not believe brutality is a mandatory component of facsim, however. I also do not equate fascism with Nazism. While the Nazis were fascists, it does not follow that fascists are necessarily Nazis or neo-Nazis.

Does this make sense, i.e., is it clear what I mean? Are there any Poli Sci experts here who can either reinforce or refute the difference between facism, the ideology, and the implementation of facism by specific governments? Can anyone recommend good on-line resources that might address this sort of topic clearly and without partisan bias?

Every single instance of "fascism" that has been fingered on the Bush adminstration can be 1) shown to have occurred in previous administrations 2) all have been subject to judicial review for constitutionality (and even some overturned). (and again, as I mentioned earlier even Dean can be called a fascist with this loose 14 point representation)

I agree this is largely true if we view each criteria as absolute black and white. I'm not convinced that this holds up when you look at the whole picture, considering both scope and scale, i.e., both the number of examples we find in the Bush administration and the extent to which they are present.

For example, while all politicians appeal to patriotism at times, how many have so continually taken positions like "you're either with us or you support the terrorists," or hidden behind the claim that it's un-American to question their actions? As I went down the list, time and again I was struck by how many blatant examples one can find for the Bush administration. I don't have the same reaction when I consider other administations, Democratic or Republican.

I recognize this may be due to my dislike of Bush. It is also undoubtedly influenced by the slanted presentation of the items on the list. That is the purpose of the thread, to discuss the list and its applicability to the Bush administration.

You say it cannot happen without our blind consent? No, it cannot happen without our open willing interactive consent. The vast majority of Bush's actions have been with open willing interactive consent (approval of congress and the public). That which has not, is being challenged in the courts, and by candidates who would like something different.

I don't agree that many of them were open at all, but I think that begs the point. I'll use Hitler as an example, only because it's easy and fairly well understood. Wasn't Hitler's rise to power achieved with public and lawmaker consent, through arguably "legal" means (initially, at least)? When was the appropriate time for German citizens to recognize what was happening and act to stop it? Ignoring emotional and paritisan considerations for a moment, what makes us different from the German people then? What do we have that they didn't that would prevent our government from becoming more and more fascist?

Let me emphasize again, I am trying to discuss this from an intellectual perspective. This is intended as questions, not accusations.

I don't fear our country becoming fascist any more than I fear it becoming communist (well, it might become socialist, but likely will go bankrupt prior to that).

I wish I shared your confidence. As I mentioned in the Hitler thread, while I don't think Bush is a Hitler-wannabe, I am concerned with some of the people around him. I also have little confidence in any professional politician's willingness to turn away from additional power if it's offered.

Anyone?

 

[alchemize]

Ooops missed this one



Alch:

The "fascist" and other analogies just irk me to no end, because they truly make light of fascism. Calling someone a nazi endlessly dilutes really what a nazi is. It is as absurd as calling Dean a communist.

Bow:

I think the difference is I am attempting to examine the political ideology of facism from an intellectual perspective while you are associating facism with specific brutal governments and reacting emotionally. (I mean this not as an accusation, but as a suggestion to help improve communications.) I agree the fascist governments I'm familiar with were brutal regimes. I do not believe brutality is a mandatory component of facsim, however. I also do not equate fascism with Nazism. While the Nazis were fascists, it does not follow that fascists are necessarily Nazis or neo-Nazis.

Does this make sense, i.e., is it clear what I mean? Are there any Poli Sci experts here who can either reinforce or refute the difference between facism, the ideology, and the implementation of facism by specific governments? Can anyone recommend good on-line resources that might address this sort of topic clearly and without partisan bias?

Well I guess since Fascism is really a definition of how people have behaved in a government, rather than a defined political idealogy (i.e. communism, libertarian, socialism), it isn't something that really can be spelled out.

Kind of like "neo-cons" & "liberals". There is no "neo-con manifesto", nor is there a "fascist" manifesto (Michael Moore is trying to write a liberal manifesto ). At least none I'm aware of.


Alch:

Every single instance of "fascism" that has been fingered on the Bush adminstration can be 1) shown to have occurred in previous administrations 2) all have been subject to judicial review for constitutionality (and even some overturned). (and again, as I mentioned earlier even Dean can be called a fascist with this loose 14 point representation)

Bow:

I agree this is largely true if we view each criteria as absolute black and white. I'm not convinced that this holds up when you look at the whole picture, considering both scope and scale, i.e., both the number of examples we find in the Bush administration and the extent to which they are present.

For example, while all politicians appeal to patriotism at times, how many have so continually taken positions like "you're either with us or you support the terrorists," or hidden behind the claim that it's un-American to question their actions? As I went down the list, time and again I was struck by how many blatant examples one can find for the Bush administration. I don't have the same reaction when I consider other administations, Democratic or Republican.

I recognize this may be due to my dislike of Bush. It is also undoubtedly influenced by the slanted presentation of the items on the list. That is the purpose of the thread, to discuss the list and its applicability to the Bush administration.

Pre-9/11, Bush wasn't doing much "nasty stuff". He was trolling in relatively safe waters of abortion, fetal tissue, tax cuts, etc.

Most "fascist" references against Bush has come post 9-11. Consider the circumstances, then the reaction. How would Reagan have reacted, and was he a fascist? How would Bush senior have reacted, and was he a fascist? (remember, they both had Cheney, rummy, etc. on staff).



alch:

You say it cannot happen without our blind consent? No, it cannot happen without our open willing interactive consent. The vast majority of Bush's actions have been with open willing interactive consent (approval of congress and the public). That which has not, is being challenged in the courts, and by candidates who would like something different.

bow:

I don't agree that many of them were open at all, but I think that begs the point. I'll use Hitler as an example, only because it's easy and fairly well understood. Wasn't Hitler's rise to power achieved with public and lawmaker consent, through arguably "legal" means (initially, at least)? When was the appropriate time for German citizens to recognize what was happening and act to stop it? Ignoring emotional and paritisan considerations for a moment, what makes us different from the German people then? What do we have that they didn't that would prevent our government from becoming more and more fascist?

Let me emphasize again, I am trying to discuss this from an intellectual perspective. This is intended as questions, not accusations.

We could probably write and read 20 books on how our politcal and legal system is different than Germany's of 193X. Germany wasn't much of a democracy prior to Hitler. What do we have that Germany didn't? Two term limitations. Veto override by congress. Judicial Review. 2/3 states to amend the constitution.

alch:

I don't fear our country becoming fascist any more than I fear it becoming communist (well, it might become socialist, but likely will go bankrupt prior to that).

bow:

I wish I shared your confidence. As I mentioned in the Hitler thread, while I don't think Bush is a Hitler-wannabe, I am concerned with some of the people around him. I also have little confidence in any professional politician's willingness to turn away from additional power if it's offered.
Anyone?

Well, barring another 9/11 type attack or worse, I think Bush has gotten all he's gonna get Bush took a big gamble on the WMD claim. It's biting him in the butt.

And I don't think the folks around him are hitler-types as well. You have to remember that Hitler and his cronies weren't lifelong politicians and "princeton grads". They were thugs and anti-semites. They all made it very well known. I believe that all Americans in goverment have the deceny to know that tossing Muslims into ovens is taking things a bit too far...

But as I've said before, I think the true psuedo-fascist threat to the world is the 1 billion mostly uneducated muslims being hypnotized by the islamic fundamentalist movement. IMHO, we aren't going to win them over with love and flowers. Kill or sidetrack the fundies. Hope maybe some Ghandi figure will emerge. I'm not blind enough to think we can establish much of a democracy in Iraq, but maybe we can get a Turkey-esque one to give folks some hope.