MyDD :: Is it Fascism? (with poll)

Is it Fascism? (with poll)

by aenglish, Wed Oct 13, 2004 at 03:25:50 PM EST

The stink wafting from Bush-Cheney `04 has a familiar odor. Paul Krugman has described the Bush regime as radical conservativism. Others have pointed out its authoritarian characteristics. But could it be the old enemy of the left from the 30s and 40s? Could it be Fascism in a new guise?

Fascism takes a variety of forms. The German, Italian, and Spanish versions were quite different. Some forms of fascism were more reliant on racism and anti-semitism than others.

The characteristics of classic fascism include:

Extreme nationalism and xenophobia
Militarism and a cult of war and violence
Search for scapegoats
View the world through lens of conspiracy theories
Subordination of the individual and all social groups to the political machine
Intolerance of dissenting views
Hostility to trade unionism
Personality cult around the single leader who is savior of the nation and also patriarchal father figure
Willingness to violate democratic legality for the sake of achieving total power (e.g. Florida 2000)
Eliminationist rhetoric toward political opponents

So far, Bushism has all of the above characteristics of classic fascism.

There are some differences. Classic fascism borrowed heavily from the rhetoric of its enemy working-class socialism, and used anti-capitalist themes (even while opposing class struggle as dividing the national community, and pandering to big business).

Classic fascism also supported state intervention in the economy and often resorted to Keynesian-style welfare state measures to retain popular support.

Bushism, on the other hand, is pro-market, pro-capitalist, pro-redistribution to the wealthiest, and favors privatizing the state and gradually reducing most welfare state measures to a bare minimum.

In Bushism, something else takes the place of the "social" component of classic fascism.

What takes its place is Christian theocracy. The appeal to the middle and lower classes is primarily through heavy use of evangelical religious right rhetoric. The right-wing churches, together with the right-wing radio talk show hosts, are the mechanism for mobilizing mass support for Bushism. Fundamentalist Christianity is what binds the mass base of Bushism to its big-business backers.

The last element of classic fascism would be the use of mass violence on a large scale to intimidate and destroy opposition, and consolidate a de-facto one-party state. To date, Bush supporters have only engaged in isolated and scattered acts of violence. The relationship of forces is still such that the Bushies are unable to go on to the offensive with these kind of tactics. However, the Bush base clearly expresses the physical elimination of all liberals and progressives (along with secular humanists, gay people, Muslims, and other minorities) as a desired goal. Web sites such as Free Republic are full of this kind of rhetoric.

In conclusion, it is possible that Bushism is evolving toward a new form of fascism, one geared to 21st century American conditions.

More on the new fascism:
David Neiwert's Blog - Orcinus - has been extensively documenting the parallels between Bushism and fascism.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_10_10_dneiwert_archive.html#109694976530359103

Poll

Votes: 39
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 1 Comment :: Post a Comment

why "evolves toward" (none / 0)

fascism: in some sense, this is incorrect, because the similarities between GOP and, say, Spanish Falanga, will go only so far.

However, I have a strong impression that GOP is evolving toward something yet nastier than we see today.

Item: some GOP ideological stalwarts, by no means restricted to Coulter and Hannity, more or less advocate elimination of Democrats from the political life as traitors to the country. These chaps and gals are regularly feted and invited, they are not at some loony margins.

Item: what is the true motivation for fighting for the principle that the President can incarcerate anyone for any length of time with no appeal to courts? Or what is the motivation for trying to set courts that would depend on President alone -- military tribunals seems to be a misnomer? The dire need to incarcerate one person or to try several captives does not look like a sufficient motivation.

Item: do you recall an attempt to whip anti-French hysteria? Not as succesful as planned, but what a tool to fight "objectively pro-French" opposition!!

Item: Southern tradition. In my opinion, the ante-bellum South was quite fascist. Not in the precise European sense, but it was a nasty piece of work, with censorship and extreme violence directed at the political opponents.

by Piotr on Wed Oct 13, 2004 at 06:58:20 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.