Is The Conservative Movment Flirting with FAscism?

First let me say that I think this is a worthwhile article to post and makes some good points. I do think that there are a few gaffes that say more about the author's worldview than the worldview of dubbya. Just as is inappropriate to judge Arabs through your narrow worldview, it is inappropriate to judge people of other eras out of context.

The above was really the thing that stood out to me the most as being silly. Exactly how many of the other world governments 50+ years ago when Mussolini coined the word Fascist, not to mention after the decline of Fascism were not sexist and homophobic?

A number of the other points are not exactly exclusive to Fascism and Fascist-like countries. Fascism as an ideology and not a pejoritive adjective can be best summed up by two ideas. A.)There is no such thing as class struggle, instead there is racial struggle, and B.)The state is an entities unto itself led by a dictatorial group or individual which is of primary concern, and which must be protected above all else.

My final verdict on the article would be worthwhile area to discuss, but executed poorly, mostly because Fascist has taken on a couple of other meanings and the definition vascilates depending on the user. I also think he wrote the article primarily to take a swing at Bush; these are not the words of someone who is looking to discuss fascism.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is like comparing Sinclair Lewis to Lenin. There are some basic philosophical similarities but in the final equation it is absurd to compare the two.

 

Democratic regimes might also be expected to endorse this - see WWII (Roosevelt was hardly a fascist). Being at war might also be a reasonable explanation for this - see 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq.

One of the main initiative of this regime is the strengthening of human rights - see criticism of China, see pressure for human rights with effect in Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, see pressure for HRs in Central Asia and programs to enhance HRs in Ukraine.

See the independent Judicial Branch dictate that detainees must be given rights according to Geneva Convention (fascist governments don't have independent branches).

Hmmm, maybe Al Quaeda is just threat construction? Maybe 9/11 was actually a plot by Cheney and Halliburton! Until 9/11 Bush was an inward looking President. That wouldn't appear to be part of the fascist agenda.

Wow. I hadn't realized a huge military budget was a recent phenomenon here in the US. As for the 'glamorization' of soldiers and the military service that's more reasonably explained as a by product of the Vietnam Syndrome where the public never again wanted to treat its soldiers like they were in the 70s.

Sure, which is why the President's closest advisor is a black woman. Why his personal counsel and Supreme Court nominee was a woman.

Seriously, this is silly. You can't infer from the examples given that a step down the road the government is going to control the mass media.

The ability to deal with national security has been a hot button issue of countless Presidential elections. This is hardly unique. And it is hardly suprising that security was an issue after....oh i dunno....9/11. With a non-fascist regime I really wouldn't have expected 9/11 or terrorism to come up at all.

One Nation Under God. Hmmm...even now there is a rising split with a many conservatives not wanting to align with the religious right.

Sure, just look at Ken Lay.

If labor power hadn't been in steep decline since the 60s this might be something to talk about - you can hardly lay it at the feet of this administration.

Haven't seen any professors arrested, nor do I think failing to give them carte blanche equates to fascism. As for the arts we have traditionally had low governmental support for the arts here. Again not a recent phenomenon nor one connected to this administration.

The police do not now, nor will they ever have limitless powers.

Good thing Ken Lay was the largest donator to Bush - er, well maybe not. Many of the contracts claimed to be cronyism and corruption also were the corporations that very well may have been picked by someone not in the administration (example: Halliburton reconstruction contracts). Further, it is recorded in time immemorial that large bureaucracies engender some level of mismanagment and fraud (remember the famous $700 hammer and $1000 toilet seat).

I won't deny there was some funny business with the elections. However I think that is more a symptom of Rove-ism than fascism.

Language used in pretty determinant of the content. I am both offended by the rhetorical conclusions of the article and I don't think there is a danger from a conservative led fascist revolution.

There is nothing wrong with critically examining what the government is doing, no. But if it is to be taken seriously then there needs to be an attempt to objectively examine the phenomenon, not a ham handed agenda guided cry of 'wolf.'

Read it. Don't see anything scary in there. Don't see the Gestapo around the corner. And don't see police with limitless powers. I see part of a bill to expand the Secret Service with uniformed officers to protect the President and foreign embassy personnel. It is exactly this outlandish extrapolation that so trivializes what the Gestapo actual did and only serves to desensitize us to the horrors of that organization.

In the end I am not really alarmed. I find it highly doubtful that there is a danger of a conservative led fascist takeover. There are many reasons why this is the case. The three branch system is a fairly large bulwark against this - while it may swing one way or the other (see McCarthyism), it always swings back. That we are not a homogenized populace also serves to prevent a swing to fascism - too many interests are divergent to have the single mindedness of a fascist regime. Even within the conservative 'movement' the interests are too fractionalized. Witness the Republicans abandoning Bush as his Presidency winds down and moving back to the middle.

 

FDR: nothing to fear but fear itself
Clinton: I feel your pain
Carter: I have sinned in my heart...

 

For those who like pictures:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e3ds-Eh_6oI"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e3ds-Eh_6oI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

glynch --

interesting. i agree the pendulum has swung way too far to the right...and many of the items he wrote about resonated with me. the americanization of christianity for the purposes of twisting it to mean something very different than what Christ spoke of freaks me out. i do not believe we've become nazi germany...but we should always guard against those inward tendencies.

 

What's interesting about that video is you could easily substitute the USA with any radical Islamic country (Saudia Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc) or even North Korea, China, or any Latin American country as well and it would fit them to a T.

God Bless our Nation!

 

For social conservatives:

How can you both be the "party of god" and at the same time call Democrats "bleeding heart liberals"? Wouldn't Jesus be a bleeding heart liberal?

In my opinion, religious social conservatives who hate gays, minorities, the poor, etc. are nothing more than hypocrites.

 

No? And to the article. No?

 

Riet,

First, Christ was tortured and killed to pardon your sins. I doubt He would be okay with the selfish act of abortion.
Secondly, I doubt He would support a movement that contradicts many of His basic teaching.
Finally, pragmaticly speaking, Christ would never be a liberal since your programs tend to fail.


Honestly, I don't understand why you consider Christians hate-mongers. We preach against SIN, not SINNERS. We are all sinners. The difference is admitting and repenting.

 

Honestly, I agree with you to an extent on this one.

Are you talking about the "liberal" movement or some specific subgroup within it? There are certainly some "liberal" programs that Jesus may not have agreed with, but if you look at the life of Christ, he was definitively in the "liberal" group of the time. He was persecuted by two of the most powerful groups, the Roman government and the Pharasees. He was persecuted, in part, because he believed in things that at the time were the most radically liberal ideas out there.

Dude, you are seriously talking out of your a$$ here. Christ never made comments about failing government programs, he made comments about lifting up the common man, taking care of the people in society who were most vulnerable, respecting and caring for our elders, and loving all people.

I don't consider Christians hate mongers until self professed "Christians" start hating on things that I think Jesus would have supported. Jesus would have LOVED Social Security. He would have felt the same about Medicare and Medicaid, though I am not so sure about the prescription drug benefit.

 

Lets look at the so-called "Christian" demographic?

Who would most people say are more religious? The "Left coast", the "NE liberals" or the Southern church going Republicans?

In the 60's out of these groups, who believed in separate but equal? Who believed an entire race of individuals were below human?

When you talk about Jesus and failed government programs, what you're really saying is you don't believe the government should support those who are poor.

Somehow I believe Jesus gravitated towards the poor and the disenfranchised much more than the wealthy.

Not being religious myself, I would think Jesus would be more of a socialist than a pure capitalist.

I would think jesus would support government programs for the poor and tax the rich like Canada (which has a fairly high standard of living as does Sweden - not exactly examples of failure)

That wouldn't be in my best interest, but that would better the common man. But I suppose if we Americans were taxed a few extra dollars to take care of those who couldn't, whether by choice or otherwise, that's not a good thing and would be anti-Christian?

Makes a lot of sense to me now Wild Bill.

When I support more government funding for the poor (without making judgments about whether or not they should receive that money), I assume based on your comments that Jesus would be against it.

Makes a lot of sense.

 

It's not surprising to see it here at JihadFans.net.

 

In this day of terrorism, keeping the "pendulum" to the right is a great thing IMO...God bless us all in destroying terror...

 

For the Unofficial Scrooge of the BBS, you make a damn fine post cutting your signature to ribbons, REIT. And before someone makes the point that the, "Southern church going Republicans," were Democrats at the time, Democrats are very aware of it. After the Equal Rights Amendment, pushed through by that rough and tumble S.O.B., Lyndon Johnson, who carried out one of the dreams of JFK, one Johnson believed in himself, over the howling of Southern Democrats, those Southern Democrats began to leave the party and joined a party more in tune to their inclination towards bigotry, based on ignorance... the GOP. They warned LBJ it would happen, if he insisted on getting the ERA passed. LBJ and those "hated," liberal and moderate Democrats, thought it was the right thing to do for the country, and it was.

I'm not religious myself, but all I've read of Jesus tells me that he would have supported the Great Society programs, the New Deal, of FDR, and JFK/Johnson's Equal Rights Amendment, and would have been angered by policies favoring Big Business (the money lenders), over programs designed to assist the poor, the sick, the elderly, and others in need.

Does anyone seriously think that Jesus was a "one issue," Son of God, if that is in fact what he was? I don't think so, not in my opinion. And I believe Jesus existed, was a radical and a liberal for his time, and was a great man and a great philosopher, a man I admire very much.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Liberal programs tend to fail? We have seatbelts in cars, health standards on the foods we eat, elctricity in all parts of our nation, minority citizens with the right to vote, security for our senior citizens, all because of liberal programs. Which ones failed?

For that matter where did Jesus say the goal was to win more than the other guy? Someone has perverted Jesus message when it was imparted to you.

Do you believe Jesus would support starting an unnecessary war? Was Jesus in favor of starting wars and attacking nations that weren't a threat?

 

I don't think jesus wanted his message enforced through a police state and a prison industrial complex.

 

Fascist? Certainly some tendencies there...

I think the "Conservative" movement is more authoritarian. Here's Glenn Greenwald reviewing Dean's book...

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

(The whole thing is worth a few minutes of reading time.)

What is evident to me, particularly in their denial of reality and monstrous response to the ME is that while this administration may be flirting with Fascism, and may be based on Authoritarianism, they have fully embraced idiocy.

 

[rquoter]
Matthew 5:43-44

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

[/rquoter]

Stopping terrorism is something that needs to be done, but it's not some holy crusade and it's definitely not fun or righteous and killing people, even bad ones, is not something to be proud of. Your comments read creepily like the very arguments used by the people who you are so keen to kill.

 

"Your" programs? My understanding is there are both liberal and conservative Christians. Anyway under the very definition of "liberal" and "conservative" Christ was a radical liberal since he opposed the prevailing power structure of his day.