Invoking a terrifying enemy

Fascism or socialism? A false choice to be sure, but one to which committed leftist-liberals are fixated. The fever swamp is buzzing with excitement because Naomi Wolf, onetime advisor to Presidential candidate Al Gore, has looked at the patterns of history and has found that Bush is Hitler! Who would have thunk?

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all

You see, history always repeats itself. Hitler took over during an election, there's an election coming up, therefore Bush will take over during the election. See?
Wolf began by diving into the early years leading up to fascist regimes, like the ones led by Hitler and Mussolini. And the patterns that she found in those, and others all over the world, made her hair stand on end. In "The End of America," she lays out the 10 steps that dictators (or aspiring dictators) take in order to shut down an open society. "Each of those ten steps is now under way in the United States today," she writes.

Since it has already been established that Bush = Hitler it makes perfect sense to assume that Bush will declare martial law if he loses the 2008 election. Oh wait, he can't run in the 2008 election. See! This proves that he will declare martial law because he's being forced not to stay in power for another term. It's all makes so much sense.
In addition, I'm concerned about the 2007 Defense Authorization Act, which makes it much easier for the president to declare martial law.

You see, Bush is an alpha male and Naomi understands alpha males like nobody's business. This is why she knows what Bush is going to do, (ahem, fascist dictatorship), before he even knows he's going to do it. By the way, Hitler was an Alpha Male too. Need we say more?

Of course, as we all know, the main tool of fascist dictatorship is capitalism.

But what I don't understand is why Klein would implicate the Clinton administration as fascists. Yeah.

One current warning sign is the e-mails that the White House is not yielding about the attorney general scandal. The emails are likely to show that there were plans afoot to purge all of the attorneys at once, like overnight. And then to let the country deal with the shock.

Now that's something that Goebbels did in 1933 in April, overnight. He fired everyone, focusing on lawyers and judges who were not a supporter of the regime. So you can still have elections ... in an outcome like that. If that had happened, if the bloggers and others actually hadn't helped to identify the U.S. attorney scandal, and they had been successful and fired them all, our election situation would be different.

The Clinton administration didn't just fire a few (8 out of to be precise) U.S. Attorney's, they fired them all. Clean slate. Kristal Nacht. Night of the long knives. Paving the way for a fascist state. "...that's something that Goebbels did in 1933 in April, overnight."

I know, I know, no one really believes what these 'progressives' say. It's all just exaggeration. And they have 'good' intentions. But I'm wondering if there isn't an obvious irony here. Wolf seems to be working on step one...

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

Like fascists.

Posted by Eric Simonson at November 22, 2007 12:17 AM
Comment #238999

There are extremists on the left and right. Wolf to the left, Limbaugh to the right. Its’ like a dosey doe square dance. Bush is not a fascist. He is a child at the helm of the most threatening power on earth. Hence, all of the myriad unintended consequences of the child’s actions.

Hopefully, but doubtfully, voters, will choose far more wisely in 2008. A responsible and experienced adult, instead of a child in an adult’s body, with only wishes and wants to guide his actions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 22, 2007 1:01 AM
Comment #239001

Do I think that we are on the brink of a fascist state? No. Do the actions of this administration that Naomi Wolf brings up concern me? Yes. So, instead of mocking the messenger, Mr. Simonson, why don’t you take each of her 10 steps and show us how you think she is wrong. I’d take you far more seriously if you had the cojones to do so.


Posted by: leatherankh at November 22, 2007 1:22 AM
Comment #239002

You can hardly read Wolf’s list without laughing.

One by one, she lays out features of “fascist states” and then comes up with some highly creative interpretation of something thats taken place in America to connect with each item on her list.

If you lack any sense whatsoever of the proportion, scale, and intensity of what happened in Nazi Germany, you can make the case that we have ALWAYS been a fascist state. Undoubtedly there are those who feel exactly that.

Though I wonder if Wolf, herself a Democrat, also believes that when Democratic administrations identify threats, criticize political opponents, attack “citizen’s groups,” attempt to manipulate the press, indulge in character assassination or any of the rest of it, they’re also taking us down the road to fascism. My guess is that she does not—that her side is somehow immune to such flights of fancy because they’re on the side of the angels.

With the same lack of scale and proportion that Wolf displays, you can also make the case why your local high school is also a fascist state and really no different from Auchwitz.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 22, 2007 1:32 AM
Comment #239003

Twice in one year, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Goebbels would have loved the “man-made” global warming myth.

Don’t think global warming is happening, come to Alaska right now, 46 degrees the day before Thanksgiving - unheard of. My yard is a lake. But Al Gore has everyone thinking the planet would just be this idyllic temperature were it not for SUV’s and big business. Show me REAL DATA on how our cars, and not the increased temperature of the sun is what’s behind it and I’ll consider the theory.

Bush isn’t a facist - he doesn’t profess to want a new society of elite Americans, nor does he profess misogyny as facists do, though his bumblings might make him look like a retard.

I love that comparison David, a child in an adult’s body, that’s exactly what he’s like. Under spelling bee pressure, no nap, and hasn’t had recess in months.

The left’s love of calling anyone who loves America and happens to have conservative values a facist is so tired. It’s the same as saying liberals hate America - though many on both sides certainly act the role well.

Naomi Wolf’s article is pure bunk. According to Wikipedia, you are a facist if:

1)You worry about sleeper cells in the US (often times referred to by facists as the ‘enemy within.’

2)You believe that national soverignty is important.

3)You believe in having one national language.

4)You believe newcomers should integrate into American culture, as opposed to American culture catering to their original nationality.

Watch out, by that litmus test, there are millions of little Mussoulini’s running around the US right now! Hide the women and children!

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 22, 2007 1:33 AM
Comment #239005

From the horses mouth,Mousilni….”Corporatism IS fascism.”Hard to argue that Bushco is not a corporatist. Coups like she imagines are messy and expensive. They also are filled with unknown threats and unintended consequinces. A much better strategy, for this country anyway, is to make sure the nominees from the major parties are both corporatist.It seems to be going nicely for them.

Posted by: BillS at November 22, 2007 2:43 AM
Comment #239006

source for the above quote

Posted by: BillS at November 22, 2007 2:47 AM
Comment #239008

Is Bush a fascist? Probably too strong a word, but I do know he’s started holding people without a trial, torturing people, listening in on Americans, and has put us in a war without end. Before Bush, historically, these were all things fascist regimes did, not the U.S. That’s a fact.

Honestly, I’m puzzled as to why these policies don’t bother conservatives. My very conservative grandfather would have had a big problem with the government listening in on his phone calls, or jailing anyone without telling them why. My conclusion is that today’s neo-cons aren’t conservatives at all, but another animal altogether that doesn’t give a whit for their rights.

Posted by: Max at November 22, 2007 4:04 AM
Comment #239012


A technical point. Corporatism is not what you are saying it is. Corporatism is a form of political organization where groups such as youth associations, business groups, womens’ groups even labor unions, represent their members to the government. In other words, group rights over individual rights. It is related to our term corporation only etymologically. Independent corporations in our sense were not allowed under fascism and under corporatism they would have to be in a government sanctions union or association.


This is silly. Take the Nazi example in other ways. There were Nazi doctors. Some did terrible experiments, but they used techniques modern doctors might therefore … Nazis built autobahns, they were much like our Interstates therefore…

If you and Ms Wolfe really believed we were headed to fascism, you would not write or speak out in such a casual fashion.

It is a little game the priveleged of America play. They pretend to be oppressed, because they have never experienced oppression.

I remember the rich kids in college. They were so interested in oppression because they had never seen any.

Posted by: Jack at November 22, 2007 9:33 AM
Comment #239014

Well, I guess I’m the odd man out here. I think we’ve had a facist regime since Washington, Adams and Jefferson.

Ask the Native Americans and the Negro slaves. Are they less important than the Jews or Russians?

They’ve been conquered. Now we are enslaving Mexican immigrants and poor white trash.

The corporation is just a facade for imperialistic elitism. Why is Mussolini a worse bad guy than the mass murders and property thefts of our forefathers?

Democracy is pablum for the masses. Real power comes from killing and revolution. Fear rules. Kill a few fat cats and it will take a while for them to reassert their power.

There have been momentary victories for the little guy, but fleeting. But where does the real control lie?

Bush just isn’t a very good liar. He’s rather stupid and looks foolish. Clinton was a much better one, but he sold out most Americans, as well.

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 22, 2007 9:53 AM
Comment #239015

I think we need to pass more socialist legislation so the next fascist can have even more control over our lives.

Posted by: Kruser at November 22, 2007 9:55 AM
Comment #239032

Kruser, in a society of 300 million people, some controls are required. Traffic lights are an excellent example. Criminal definitions and consequences are another. Any controls at all would result in at least some folks making the comment you just did. Control over our lives as in a military defense funded through mandatory taxation is generally regarded as a net positive, though certainly not all would say so.

Which is why our democratic republic form of control over our lives is by far the best form of control for us, imperfect and experimental as it may be. Ben Franklin said:

“…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.”

Franklin was right. Our democratic republic anchored upon Constitutional law, deliberated and overseen by elected leaders, is a far less than perfect system of governance. But, to date, it remains the best of all imperfect systems of governance. Our history stands as testament of that fact.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 22, 2007 1:05 PM
Comment #239035
Well, I guess I’m the odd man out here. I think we’ve had a facist regime since Washington, Adams and Jefferson. Ask the Native Americans and the Negro slaves. Are they less important than the Jews or Russians? They’ve been conquered. Now we are enslaving Mexican immigrants and poor white trash.

I think you’re talking more about the abuse of minorities here than fascism really. A political system doesn’t have to be a fascist one in order to persecute minorities. In fact, a pure democracy is probably as likely if not more likely to do that. What keeps our democracy in check when it comes to this is that we have a Constitutional system which can actually overrule the public mood. I guess it’s also theoretically possible that you could have a fascist government that doesn’t persecute minorities and used its centralized authority for the public good, although that that hasn’t been the historical precedent.

One thing that tends to get lost when talking about the history of fascism is that it has usually been a variety of socialism. The Nazis were the “Nationalist Socialists” and Mussolini was the leader of the “Socialist Party of Italy.” They were opposed to Communism (another version of Socialism), but they sure didn’t believe in anything resembling free markets and free enterprise. Centralized government control of the economy in the name of furthering the “public good” was central to everything they did.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 22, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #239036

I must disagree. Schindler as well as less honorable arms manufacturers(ie.Krupts,mitsubishi) ,held private corporations working closely with the fascist regime that supplied slaves etc.The state supported them.They supported the state.Independant corporations? Not exactly,true. Their relationship was like the oil oligarchies and MIC to our government,simbiotic.Hence a discription as fascist is not totally inappropiate.As for labor unions,or independant ones anyway,most of their supporters were put concentration camps.

Posted by: BillS at November 22, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #239037


It is just that corporatism is a specific form of government. It is specifically not free market in that all businesses are subordinate to the state, which calls all the shots and supposedly orchestrates a just and fair society. All fascists are a type of corporatist but not all corporatists are fascists. You could argue that most pre industrial societies were corporatist. It was not until only a few hundred years ago that anything like free enterprise emerged. Corporatism does not require socialism, but it gets along very well with it.

You can see the background on corporatism

It is the fear of abuse by both state and firms that makes me like to keep them apart. To paraphrase a famous line, render onto Caesar what is Caesar’s and let the free enterprise system take care of business. The free market thrives because it distributes power. If government comes to control too much power, we got troubles. The reverse is also true.

Essential tasks of governments include protection of property rights and rule of law. Nazis did neither. BTW - it is not protecting property rights when the state “allows” some people to have property or gives it to them. You either protect property rights across the board or not. Anything less is abitrary state power.

In Nazi Germany, Lots of people had their property stolen by the state. Any business owner or labor leader who opposed the power of the state ended up in prison or worse. Many of each of these groups also cooperated with the state and were rewarded. But the idea that it fascism is somehow a type of free enterprise just makes no sense at all.

Corporatism usually appeals to the opponents of the free market. It allows for significant state control and regulation, limits business freedom to compete and innovate and generally – in theory - protects the poor. Unfortunately, experience shows it usually ends in a bloody mess.

Posted by: Jack at November 22, 2007 3:25 PM
Comment #239039

This is silly…. … Nazis built autobahns, they were much like our Interstates therefore…

Who’s making that comparison? I’m just saying torture, spying on one’s citizens, arresting people without charging them and holding them in jail without a trial are all historically the types of things fascist regimes do, not us.

Posted by: Max at November 22, 2007 3:45 PM
Comment #239041

Civic authority and the laws we use to maintain order are always seem oppressive when the opposing party is in charge.
I remember when the story being circulated was if Clinton was going to declare martial law and bypass the election.
The same spying, the same “torture” and holding enemy combatants without trial has been going on for years. The debate for definitions that always goes on in the background when war tactics change has just been made a public spectacle by those who want to grandstand their moral superiority not unlike a pious religious person would theirs.

Posted by: Kruser at November 22, 2007 7:06 PM
Comment #239042

A represenative republic takes care of the interests of the people, states, federal and business owners(commerce). The catch word “the people” is commonly used by tyrants to incite them to leave common sense. We wouldn’t want a poll driven society. That would give the most skilled advertisers the ability to run over the rights of others.
These concepts are spoken freely in the federalist papers and aren’t only a modern conservative ideal.
The point of the sarcasm is that liberals are always for more government control over every area of our lives yet are the first to complain about a politician who asserts control. (Health care, education, regulations) Maintaining order or securing our safety is a basic function.

Posted by: Kruser at November 22, 2007 7:37 PM
Comment #239043

I wouldn’t call modern Republicans fascists, but I would say they’re quite authoritarian in their thinking and in their recent actions.

Warrantless wiretapping. The notion that the president can rewrite the law, saying that he won’t enforce one part but will enforce another. The notion that in a time of war, the president can suspend habeas corpus for an American. Disregard for international norms that we ourselves helped found about treating prisoners well. The use of torture as an interrogation tool. Laws like the PATRIOT act. The whole notion of The Unitary executive. The defiance of subpeonas from Congress. The excessive use of classification for even “secrets” that are alread public domain or observable by ordinary means.

The way he and his followers blame the media for not falling in with their agenda and delivering their line. The way they equated dissent with disloyalty to them, even from people who like them, and disloyalty to them as treason to the country.

The worst part is that many Republicans don’t even realize how far they’ve departed from Democracy, Constitutionality, and open government.

The key stone that keeps this all up is a distrust of power shared between them and others. They have been taught to believe that everybody else is lying, everybody else is looking to destroy what they hold dear. This is where they are at their most protofascists- in that they are developing a need to, by any means necessary, keep power to themselves in a way that does not allow for others to hold them accountable and take power back.

The Republicans must learn to see their fellow Americans as their fellow Americans, to make peace with them and work with them for amenable compromise. The more they insist on separating and sequestering themselves from the rest of the country, the more they will put themselves in a position of hostility and misunderstanding with the rest of the country.

It’s not that you identify Democrats like us as merely threatening something, it’s that you identify us as sympathetic, even connected to those threats. We are identified with, alternatively, world government, communism, the terrorists, and Saddam Hussein. Have you forgotten what your party did with Max Cleland? Now you might rationalize that as communicating something about Max Cleland, but the rest of us thought an ad comparing a Vietnam War Hero, and a triple amputee at that to our worst enemies was… well, a little excessive. As for attacking citizens groups? Well, what are your people doing sending FBI agents into groups advocating for peace? Were you folks just too nostalgic for the good ol’ days of J. Edgar?

The astonishing explosion of state secrets, the authoritarian attitudes, the constitutional conflicts casually and carelessly instigated… for people who don’t want to be identified as fascist, you’re certainly giving people a lot of substantive ammunition to prove otherwise.

Yukon Jake-
Let me give it to you straight: we’ve got billions of tons of new carbon every year whose isotopic signature best resembles that of something buried for a few million years. We’ve got a constant, consistent increase in that carbon, with no other source that can explain the rise.

And we have a rise in temperature during years in which the solar irradiation of our planet was on its way down. Not to mention that times in which the planet should be radiating heat back to space, like nights, wintertime, and places that should cool more quickly, up high in altitude and latitude, instead have us retaining it.

The very fact that temperature has risen more profoundly in your backyard rather than mine (up near the arctic, rather than down near the tropics in Texas) is another indication. solar irradiation would warm both places in a more consistent fashion.

Another reason we know its not solar irradiance is the cooling of the stratosphere. Solar irradiance would warm both, since much of the warmth of that layer of atmosphere comes from absorbing hard radiation. Carbon Dioxide, below a certain temperature, helps the atmosphere radiate more heat, rather than retains it, so the stratosphere cools with CO2 warms the surface.

So, to sum up, we’ve found that the carbon in the atmosphere best resembles that of fossil fuels, which we’ve been burning billions of tons worth on a consistent basis. We’ve found that the areas that would warm if CO2 were the cause are warming, and the parts of the atmosphere that would cool are cooling. The results that would be the implications of Human-created global warming are present.

to all-
Oh, and on the subject of the fired US Attorneys, it is the specificity of the firings that’s important. Most other Presidents cleaned the slate of US Attorneys, then had new ones confirmed by the Senate. Bush picked a few, and these few just happened to be doing things that didn’t benefit the party. This included Carol Lam. As one person pointed out, if you were operating under the principle of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, you would not ditch a US attorney investigating politicians in your own party.

On the subject of the free market? As our economy goes downhill at the moment, we should take a moment to reflect on how the proper valuation of goods, equities, and services is necessary to the performance of that market. The Republicans have created a system that penalizes those who remain accountable by giving advantages to those who play the dishonest games. Now we got lead in our toys, crap in our beef (literally), companies still playing Enron games with their balance sheets, and a healthcare system that’s taken the best care in the world and turned it into a sick joke.

The market is a game. How you set the rules determines who wins and who loses. We should be mindful to leave the players alone at some point to win or lose as they may, but only after we have made sure that the people winning aren’t the cheaters and those who get too clever by half rather than doing something truly productive and inventive.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 22, 2007 7:54 PM
Comment #239044

Kruser said: “That would give the most skilled advertisers the ability to run over the rights of others.”

As opposed to the liars, deceivers, and sophists running our country today, right?

Kruser said: “The point of the sarcasm is that liberals are always for more government control over every area of our lives yet”

I thought it was conservatives in DC who interjected themselves in the Terry Schiavo case, conservatives who led this country into Iraq, conservatives, who elevated the taxpayer’s debt 3.35 Trillion dollars in less than 7 years, conservatives who tried to tell people who could they live with in matrimony, conservatives who wanted to take choice over becoming a mother away from women, conservatives who want to declare America a one religion nation, conservatives who champion the death penalty, conservatives who did and end run around rights to privacy of America citizens.

Sorry, you are just not going to convince me that conservatives are any better than liberals when it comes to limiting choice and attempting to control the lives of citizens. Not in light of the history I cite above.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 22, 2007 7:55 PM
Comment #239052

David, your list of outrages committed by what you call “conservatives” has a couple good points on it—especially the part about their failure to curtail (and to actually worsen in some cases) government spending.

But Terry Schiavo? Come on. I happen to agree with you that a kind of mania took hold during that episode and that some bad decisions were made, but the “conservatives” you mention included Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, and Harry Reid, all of whom were vocally opposed to pulling the plug. Even if we don’t agree with them, we can at least respect the legitimate moral reservations some people have about euthanasia. And the same goes for abortion. The death penalty? That is supported by a clear majority of Americans, not just conservatives. I happen to be against it myself, but don’t see it as a “conservative” issue at all. Conservatives and liberals alike know damn well how the American public feels about it. Look at what happened with Bill Clinton in Arkansas. The man wanted to become president, and he wasn’t about to start staying executions.

The same goes for the question of same sex marriages—most Americans oppose it. Also, please inform me of which conservative politicians want to “declare America a one religion nation?” That is pure bunk.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 23, 2007 1:03 AM
Comment #239055


It is the mark of intelligence to make reasonable distinctions. All countries will need to arrest and question criminals, engage in self defense, sometimes imprison people and sometimes employ lethal force. How that is done is what makes the difference. You as an American citizen obviously do not feel personally threatened by these things, despite your publicly stated views. Your real assessment (revealed by your actions) is correct. If you really lived in a fascist state, you would be more circumspect and all those people complaining loudly that they are being silenced would actually be.

When I was in college I recall a radical women who used to stand in the middle of campus and give speeches about how the CIA would kill anybody who criticized them. When I graduated she was still giving those speeches. I suppose maybe they will get around to taking care of her in around 80 years.

It would be very funny if it was not so annoying that the children of priveledge like to wear the clothes of either oppressed victims of revolutionaries and anybody who has a computer and the freedom to write what he wants without REAL fear is a child of priveledge, BTW.

Posted by: Jack at November 23, 2007 3:50 AM
Comment #239056


II think we need to pass more socialist legislation so the next fascist can have even more control over our lives.

Except that the first ones will be to restore strong check and balance and powers separation, so people can have even more/back control over their government.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 23, 2007 4:10 AM
Comment #239057


If you really lived in a fascist state, you would be more circumspect and all those people complaining loudly that they are being silenced would actually be.

Usually, people speak out *until* they can’t anymore.

Some people are speaking out that US is *heading* toward fascism. None are speaking out that US *is* facist because 1) it’s not true (yet?) and 2) indeed if it was true, they wont be able to speak out.

The last soviet being able to freely say Staline is a fascist before Staline became one actually was not wrong because he could said it. He said it ahead of time because he knew it wont be allowed after.

Waiting fascism to install to speak out about its coming seems incredible stupid. Too late.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 23, 2007 4:21 AM
Comment #239058


One thing that tends to get lost when talking about the history of fascism is that it has usually been a variety of socialism.

One thing that tends to get lost when talking about the history of socialism is that it doesn’t turns each time into fascism. Today people living in the mixed economy social-democrat nations are there to prove it.

But keep repeating enough fascism were socialism first and people will think socialism always leads to fascism. Who care it’s not bijective actually?!

What about China communism, a radical form of socialism, who is now both fascism *and* capitalism?

What about former socialist nations who are not a mixed economy with both socialism *and* capitalism?

Mind blowing, uh?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 23, 2007 4:39 AM
Comment #239059


Unfortunately, experience shows it usually ends in a bloody mess.

A very good definition of Life, isn’t it?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 23, 2007 4:45 AM
Comment #239060


We wouldn’t want a poll driven society. That would give the most skilled advertisers the ability to run over the rights of others.

Looks like today reality to me, sadly.
Even in France.

The point of the sarcasm is that liberals are always for more government control over every area of our lives yet are the first to complain about a politician who asserts control. (Health care, education, regulations) Maintaining order or securing our safety is a basic function.

Since when health is not a basic safety issue?!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 23, 2007 4:52 AM
Comment #239061


The death penalty? That is supported by a clear majority of Americans, not just conservatives. […] The same goes for the question of same sex marriages—most Americans oppose it.

Two great examples of the tyranny of majority that a well-working democracy is supposed to avoid in order to protect minorities rights.

But, contrary to what Kruser think, we’re indeed more and more driven by poll, spin doctors are everywhere from market advertising to lobbying up to top White House political “consulting”.

Also, please inform me of which conservative politicians want to “declare America a one religion nation?” That is pure bunk.

Maybe it is, but “Argumentum ad populum” and majority ruling could easily allow it to happen.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 23, 2007 5:11 AM
Comment #239064

“..a bloody mess.” Indeed. I would submit that we suffer from that exact problem to a degree. Large cartels in energy,defense etc. have undue influence on matters of state,futhur they are not proponent of the free market by any means.Thanks for the link as it proves my comtention.Surely you must realize that oil concerns have an undue influence on forign policy for instance.

Posted by: BillS at November 23, 2007 11:05 AM
Comment #239069

Fascism is one of the most overused words in politics as is “Nazi.” The two words often get confused. Let me enlighten you.

Fascism: forcing your views/opinions on others

Naziism: believing that one race is superior to all others

Calling people fascist is a partisan war tool. It seems in today’s society, if someone is in power that you do not support, you call them “Hitler, Stalin, Fascist, Nazi, the devil,” etc. Radicals are not always in power. Before we call politicians names, let’s look for proof.

America cannot become a fascist regime that easily. (Although the government is becoming larger: fast food fat laws, forcing businesses to hire workers no matter what language they speak, etc.) In order to become a fascist, you must destroy the Constitution. The American People are not that blind nor are we fools. We shall see any violations to our document.

As for the Bush phone calls, I have nothing to hide, but I disapprove of the tactic. If we had an IMPENETRABLE WALL on BOTH sides of the border, we could know who is in here easier. Then phone tapping wouldn’t be necessary.

Posted by: Stubborn Conservative at November 23, 2007 3:01 PM
Comment #239071

Stubborn, by your definition of fascism, America has been fascist at many periods. The Volsted Act, the war on drugs, safety belt laws, and myriad of others constitute imposing will upon those who would rather not comply.

It is not a workable definition. ALL GOVERNMENTS are fascist by your definition. Back to the drawing board, or dictionary, whichever is easier.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 23, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #239072

Phillipe and LO, as long as a democratic nation allows exit visas from the country for their citizens, there is no such thing as tyranny of the majority in a democratic society. The minority always has the choice to remain a member of that democratic nation or elect another nation less democratic to reside in.

There are a number of American laws I don’t agree with, but, I comply with them as the price to be paid for living in a democratic nation with all the other benefits and liberties it provides. This is why it was so important that the Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution as amendments, to secure a core of liberties and process of redress that would make the price of living under majority rule worth paying.

Democracy is not a perfect form of government by any means, but, it has so far, proven to be less imperfect than any other form of government. Which is why we have far more wanting to immigrate than emigrate. A little over 7 million Americans choose to live elsewhere for a variety of reasons, but, many times that number elect to come here for a variety of reasons, democratic government being one of them.

China, nor Cuba, nor Russia, nor Iraq, nor Afghanistan have the problem of immigration for permanent resident status that we do. I would venture to guess that there isn’t a single stable and integral democratic nation in existence today that doesn’t have at least a potential immigration problem to deal with. Such is the tyranny of democratic nations.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 23, 2007 3:28 PM
Comment #239079

David, so African-Americans who lived in the segregated South were not victims of a “tyranny of the majority?” How can you say that no such thing exists? After all, African-Americans could always have immigrated to Liberia I suppose.

SB, your definitions of fascism and Nazism leave a lot to be desired. For example, the actual definitions of fascism and Nazism.

There isn’t a system of government in the world that doesn’t involve people forcing their opinions on others, and “beliefs” about the superiority or inferiority of races don’t equal a government. Those are just simple prejudices.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 23, 2007 5:08 PM
Comment #239117

Fascism is primarily an economic ordering. The bells and whistles used to sell it to the masses include rascism,or hated of some subgroup or another. The basic idea is to create fear in the populace. Apparently people do not notice when they are getting screwed as much when they are terrified. Hence the other consitent reoccurance of agressive,constant, warfare in a fascist state.Its part of the underpinning. We at least have that in common with them.Sometimes democracies fight wars. Fascist states ALWAYS fight wars.

Posted by: BillS at November 24, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #239135

It is true. Are not all governments fascist? In the elections, do you not vote for the candidate that has the most similar views as you? (Or at least you hope so if the candidate is honest.) America is a democratic-republic. In a republic, you elect officials to represent you. So isn’t every voting American indirectly fascist by trying to get the most officials that have common views into office? That brings up a philisophical question: is fascism necessarily wrong, depending on the person and the views?

Posted by: stubborn conservative at November 24, 2007 4:17 PM
Comment #239138


I guess I don’t consider America to be “any” country. Guess your bar is pretty low for our standard of behavior.

Posted by: Max at November 24, 2007 5:06 PM
Comment #239175

“liars, deceivers, and sophists” They need more to do. How about turning over our health care to them ?

Conservatives are for innocent human life, strong families and good morals. Nothing we are ashamed of. The growth of our government over the past fifteen years is a disappointment and contrary to our views.

Posted by: Kruser at November 25, 2007 11:02 AM
Comment #239364


as long as a democratic nation allows exit visas from the country for their citizens, there is no such thing as tyranny of the majority in a democratic society.

When the rule of majority is unbalanced, it sounds more like a mobocracy than an healthy democracy to me.

Plus being able to exit a set to escape the set’s majority oppression doesn’t make it less oppressing. It just make it not an absolute dictatorship, that all.

But anyway. Protecting minorities from the majority oppression needs the will and some courage (as odds are at start against you). Today, most politicians lacks both.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 27, 2007 11:46 AM
Post a comment