Fascists Under the Bed By Patrick J. Buchanan http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_09_11/buchanan.html 09/06/06 -- “President Likens Dewey to Hitler as Fascist Tool.” So ran the New York Times headline, Oct. 26, 1948, after what Dewey biographer Richard Norton Smith called a “particularly vitriolic attack in Chicago” by Harry Truman. What brings this to mind is President Bush’s assertion that we are “at war with Islamic fascism” and “Islamofascism.” After the transatlantic bomb plot was smashed, Bush said the plotters “try to spread their jihadist message—a message I call, it’s totalitarian in nature—Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism, they try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom.” What is wrong with the term Islamofascism? First, there is no consensus as to what “fascism” even means. Orwell said when someone calls Smith a fascist, what he means is, “I hate Smith. ” By calling Smith a fascist, you force Smith to deny he’s a sympathizer of Hitler and Mussolini. As a concept, writes Arnold Beichman of the Hoover Institution, “fascism ... has no intellectual basis; its founders did not even pretend to have any. Hitler’s ravings in Mein Kampf ... Mussolini’s boastful balcony speeches, all can be described, in the words of Roger Scruton, as ‘an amalgam of disparate conceptions.’” Richard Pipes considers Stalinism and Hilterism to be siblings of the same birth mother: “Bolshevism and fascism were heresies of socialism.” Since the 1930s, “fascist” has been a term of hate and abuse used by the Left against the Right, as in the Harry Truman campaign. In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. claimed to see in the Goldwater campaign “dangerous signs of Hitlerism.” Twin the words, “Reagan, fascism” in Google and 1,800,000 references pop up. Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives, whose roots are in the Trotskyist-Social Democratic Left, who are promoting use of the term. Their goal is to have Bush stuff al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran into an “Islamofascist” kill box, then let SAC do the rest. The term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11. But Saddam was about as devout a practitioner of Islam as his idol Stalin was of the Russian Orthodox faith. Saddam was into booze, mistresses, movies, monuments, palaces, and dynasty. Bin Laden loathed him and volunteered to fight him in 1991, if Saudi Arabia would only not bring the Americans in to do the fighting Islamic warriors ought to be doing themselves. And whatever “Islamofascism” means, Syria surely is not it. It is a secular dictatorship Bush I bribed into becoming an ally in the Gulf War. The Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in Syria. In 1982, Hafez al-Assad perpetrated a massacre of the Brotherhood in the city of Hama that was awesome in its magnitude and horror. As with Khaddafi, whom Bush let out of the penalty box after he agreed to pay $10 million to the family of each victim of Pan Am 103 and give up his nuclear program, America can deal with Syria, as Israel did after the Yom Kippur War—for an armistice on the Golan has stuck, as both sides have kept the deal. America faces a variety of adversaries, enemies, and evils. But the Bombs-Away Caucus, as Iraq and Lebanon reveal, does not always have the right formula. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran all present separate challenges calling forth different responses. Al-Qaeda appears to exist for one purpose: plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world. Contrary to what Bush believes, the 9/11 killers and London and Madrid bombers were not out to repeal the Bill of Rights, if any ever read it. They are out to kill us and we have to get them first. Hamas and Hezbollah have used terrorism, but like Begin’s Irgun and Mandela’s ANC, they have social and political agendas that require state power to implement. And once a guerrilla/terrorist movement takes over a state, it acquires state assets and interests that are then vulnerable to the U.S. military and economic power. Why did the Ayatollah let the American hostages go, as Reagan raised his right hand to take the oath? Why has Syria not come to the rescue of Hezbollah? Why has Ahmadinejad not rocketed Tel Aviv in solidarity with his embattled allies in Lebanon? Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. They don’t want war with Israel; they don’t want war with the United States. “Islamofascism” should be jettisoned from Bush’s vocabulary. It yokes the faith of a billion people with an odious ideology. Imagine how Christians would have reacted had FDR taken to declaring Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy “Christo-fascist.” If Mr. Bush does not want a war of civilizations, he will drop these propaganda terms that are designed to inflame passions rather than inform the public of the nature of the war we are in. Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative
I'm prone to agree with Buchanan much of the time, but I kind of want to digress here. I understand the somewhat inflammatory nature of the term "islamo-fascist", but in my opinion the peace-loving Muslims should be inflamed at the nutjobs who are usurping and defaming their religion with their jihad rather than those who are being victimized by it. To my knowledge, neither Franco nor Mussollini had any particular religious (Christian or otherwise) underpinnings to their agenda, so there would be no reason to describe them thusly. What has the world come to? Pat Buchanan being PC....
buchanan is not as extreme as some people want to paint him to be. obviously i don't read everything he writes or says since i don't know all of his extreme views, but when i see him on the mclaughlin group he is usually pretty insightful. his articles that i read are usually spot on and offer good criticism. another good argument for buchanan.
no he just states his mind and he puts forth pretty rational and factual arguments most of the time. this is something all politicians should do. he may not always be 100% PC, but the guy is a good commentator.
I think he became more sensible (same with Newt Gingrich) once he quit running for office and actually analyzing and speaking with reason rather than to gain votes. He's still a staunch isolationist, though.
Buchanan has joined the group of true conservatives who are speaking out vehemently against the President. But he's dead wrong on this one. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascism fas·cism -a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition Let's use Iran or pre-war Iraq for an example: Exalts nation and race above the individual - check. Centralized autocratic government - check. Dictatorial leader - check. Economic regimentation - no. Social regimentation - check. Forcible suppression of opposition - check. Sounds fascist to me. The Islamic part isn't always true. Pre-war Iraq was about as tolerant to other religions (Not including Judaism) as any overwhelmingly Muslim country. This was primarily because Saddam wasn't devout at all. But the fascism part of the title is dead-on.
not sure, but did you even read the article? i think this speaks directly to what you are saying. he is saying the term is abused and used far too loosely. and pre-war iraq DID NOT exalt the nation and race above the individual.
Franco at least used public religiosity (Christianity) like Bush does. You might like to be inflamed against some Muslims, but you fail to make your case. ************** "Once established as Head of State, and with the eyes of Nationalist Spain now upon him, Franco's propagandists built him up as a great Catholic crusader and his public religiosity intensified. From 4 October 1936 until his death, he had a personal chaplain, Father Josi Maria Bulart.[61] He now began each day by hearing mass, a reflection of both political necessity and the influence of Dona Carmen. In order to please his wife, when he was available he would join in her regular evening rosary, although, at this stage of his career at least, without any great piety."' No one can say with total certainty what part Carmen Polo played in encouraging her husband's ambition nor how much he had been affected by Bishop Pli y Deniel's declaration of a crusade. Dona Carmen believed in his divine mission and such fulsome ecclesiastical support made it easier for her to convince him of it.[64]"{188} The Catholic Church was pleased at Franco's savagery, but the [atheist] Musolini and his Fascists were far more humane, and appalled: "Away from the pomp of Salamanca, Roatta, Faldella and other senior Italian officers were shocked by the relentless repression behind the lines.' Cantalupo requested instructions from Rome and on 2 March Ciano told him to inform Franco of the Italian Government's view that some moderation in the reprisals would be prudent because unrestrained brutality could only increase the duration of the war. When Cantalupo saw Franco on 3 March, the Caudillo was fully prepared for the meeting. Cantalupo appealled to him to slow down the mass executions in Milaga in order to limit the international outcry. Denying all personal responsibility and lamenting the difficulties of controlling the situation at a distance, Franco claimed that the massacres were over 'except for those carried out by uncontrollable elements'. In fact, the slaughter hardly diminished but its judicial basis was changed. Random killings were now replaced by summary executions under the responsibility of the local military authorities. Franco claimed to have sent instructions for greater clemency to be shown to the rabble (masse incolte) and continued severity against 'leaders and criminals' as a result of which only one in every five of those tried was now being shot. Nevertheless, Rome continued to receive horrifying accounts from the Italian Consul in Milaga, Bianchi." http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/franco.htm
He makes two points, tries to defend one and throws the other out there with very little support. The first point is that there is no agreement on the definition of fascism (not true) so we shouldn't call these countries fascist. There is a well-known definition for fascism, and many of the countries that support terrorism have fascist governments. Syria might not, but most of them are. (Saudi Arabia leans this way, too, but I digress.) The second point is that it is unsensitive to use the name of the Islam religion in that title. I agree with him here.
