Identifying Fascism--Has America Become a Fascist State? - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Angry American · #1 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

I know there are a few out there who have trumpeted the alarms about how they feel America has turned into a fascist state; and I tend to agree. Yet many dismiss this notion as complete nonsense, without acknowledging the signs of fascism. We can still live with relative freedom and liberty, so how could America be a fascist state? I understand the reluctance to acknowledge the notion, but one has to keep in mind that America is a Federal Republic, unlike any other recognized fascist states; which in and of itself insulates most of us from the impact of fascism during times of relative prosperity; which may not always be the case.

I came across an interesting article that explores this notion (Fascism Anyone? by Laurence W. Britt).

So I would like to discuss some identifying factors based on Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia; in order to explore the notion that America, in fact, has become a fascist state. Let's see if these sound familiar to you.

Quote:

Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

While discussing this topic I would like to keep it simple, let's try to stick to the topics within this post, and address the 14 points above, referencing them by number during discussions.

Let's keep this a civil discussion, our future depends on us.

MattLarson · #2 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

In my opinion, those points are so over-broad that one could apply them to just about any nation on the face of the earth.

Matt

Angry American · #3 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

In my opinion, those points are so over-broad that one could apply them to just about any nation on the face of the earth.

Matt

Then maybe everyone from every nation should take a harder look at their own governments.

I think it would be more productive to discuss how we can rout these characteristics out of our governments, instead of dismissing them.

Porras · #4 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

I absolutely think that America is fascist. I don't, however, view being fascist alone as a bad thing. The abuses should be checked when the arise(some are a little overdue) but so long as the citizenry is treated well and given opportunities I have no problem with it.

metalted · #5 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

lol stupid.. what you are describing are elements of humanity and of our culture, and political opinions you disagree with. the complete absense of many of the things you describe would actually be worse then the alternative.

Dilettante · #6 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

Then maybe everyone from every nation should take a harder look at their own governments.

I think it would be more productive to discuss how we can rout these characteristics out of our governments, instead of dismissing them.

If your goal is honestly to discuss how those characteristics can be removed from (or at least limited in) our government, then I suggest you abandon this thread at once and start a new one without the historically obscure and blatantly inflammatory term "Fascist".

In my experience, no discussion that begins with accusations of "Fascism" ever goes well, and people who want to have thoughtful discussions about policy and practice almost never use such a loaded term.
Even if it is accurate, it immediately puts people on the defensive or invites them to make hyperbolic comparisons. And really, the true concern should be whether the government's policies are good or bad, not whether they happen to fall into the limits of a particular political-science definition.

You said you want a "simple" and "civil" discussion. If so, I strongly encourage you to limit it to less than 14 distinct points (for the sake of simplicity) and to utterly avoid the oft' abused and inflammatory term "Fascism" (for the sake of civility).

But that's just my .02

metalted · #7 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

the exact opposite of all applied would be communism.
i also fail to recognize how supression of artistic and intellectual expression is applied? or sexism and a few other things..

erikvv · #8 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

In my opinion, those points are so over-broad that one could apply them to just about any nation on the face of the earth.

Matt

not mine

there are 3 points in there I dont think apply to the US, those are
"Obsession with crime and punishment": ofcourse there is the usual gun control discussion and the big population in prison but that seems to be nothing new
discrimination of women: i dont see it happening but maybe it isnt so necessary in modern day fascism
"Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts": dont see this either

Cat Burglar · #9 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."

Creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive, evil - is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation of a communist threat to the nation's security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the "global conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.

It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain - which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks - than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.

2. Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders - opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

3. Develop a thug caste

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode - but the administration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.

Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for "public order" on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station "to restore public order".

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China - in every closed society - secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state programme to wiretap citizens' phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about "national security"; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

5. Harass citizens' groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 "suspicious incidents". The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track "potential terrorist threats" as it watches ordinary US citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as "terrorism". So the definition of "terrorist" slowly expands to include the opposition.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

7. Target key individuals

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.

Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking a fascist shift punish academics and students with professional loss if they do not "coordinate", in Goebbels' term, ideologically. Since civil servants are the sector of society most vulnerable to being fired by a given regime, they are also a group that fascists typically "coordinate" early on: the Reich Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil Service was passed on April 7 1933.

8. Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened "critical infrastructure" when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy - a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.

You won't have a shutdown of news in modern America - it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.

9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

Conason is right to note how serious a threat that attack represented. It is also important to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and "beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death", according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade.

In Stalin's Soviet Union, dissidents were "enemies of the people". National Socialists called those who supported Weimar democracy "November traitors".

And here is where the circle closes: most Americans do not realise that since September of last year - when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 - the president has the power to call any US citizen an "enemy combatant". He has the power to define what "enemy combatant" means. The president can also delegate to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the right to define "enemy combatant" any way he or she wants and then seize Americans accordingly.

Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we turn out to be completely innocent of what he has accused us of doing, he has the power to have us seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow, or have us taken with a knock on the door; ship you or me to a navy brig; and keep you or me in isolation, possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why Stalin's gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo's, in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)

We US citizens will get a trial eventually - for now. But legal rights activists at the Center for Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration is trying increasingly aggressively to find ways to get around giving even US citizens fair trials. "Enemy combatant" is a status offence - it is not even something you have to have done. "We have absolutely moved over into a preventive detention model - you look like you could do something bad, you might do something bad, so we're going to hold you," says a spokeswoman of the CCR.

Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder: it is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every closing society, at a certain point there are some high-profile arrests - usually of opposition leaders, clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet. After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts, TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There just isn't real dissent. There just isn't freedom. If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.

10. Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers to declare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.

Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears's meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna Nicole's baby, the New York Times editorialised about this shift: "A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night ... Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any 'other condition'."

Pogo · #10 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

If your goal is honestly to discuss how those characteristics can be removed from (or at least limited in) our government, then I suggest you abandon this thread at once and start a new one without the historically obscure and blatantly inflammatory term "Fascist".

In my experience, no discussion that begins with accusations of "Fascism" ever goes well, and people who want to have thoughtful discussions about policy and practice almost never use such a loaded term. Even if it is accurate, it immediately puts people on the defensive or invites them to make hyperbolic comparisons. And really, the true concern should be whether the government's policies are good or bad, not whether they happen to fall into the limits of a particular political-science definition.

Are people so prone to defensiveness really capable of reasoned discussion? I would have to say no, because anything which even hints at fascism will be deemed offensive or dismissed out of hand, irrespective of reality, not just the word itself.

Dilettante · #11 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

Are people so prone to defensiveness really capable of reasoned discussion? I would have to say no, because anything which even hints at fascism will be deemed offensive or dismissed out of hand, irrespective of reality, not just the word itself.

I've just noticed that in most cases (outside of poli-sci or historical discussions) people use the term "Fascist" as a pejorative term rather than a technical description. Accusations of Fascism are often found along side wild comparisons to Nazi Germany (which in almost any context are hyperbolic). Thus, people have understandably become sensitized.

Unless you're particularly interested in political classifications, the question isn't whether or not a policy or system is "Fascist", it's whether or not the policy or system is good or bad.
Throwing the word "Fascist" in there doesn't help that discussion and it does seem to immediately set people on edge. Or so I've noticed.

Pogo · #12 (**permalink**) 05-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I've just noticed that in most cases (outside of poli-sci or historical discussions) people use the term "Fascist" as a pejorative term rather than a technical description. Accusations of Fascism are often found along side wild comparisons to Nazi Germany (which in almost any context are hyperbolic). Thus, people have understandably become sensitized.

Unless you're particularly interested in political classifications, the question isn't whether or not a policy or system is "Fascist", it's whether or not the policy or system is good or bad.
Throwing the word "Fascist" in there doesn't help that discussion and it does seem to immediately set people on edge. Or so I've noticed.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to how interested a person is in getting at the truth. Either said interest is strong enough to override bias or it isn't and if it isn't, where is the latitude for genuine reasoning?

Angry American · #13 (**permalink**) 05-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porras

I absolutely think that America is fascist. I don't, however, view being fascist alone as a bad thing. The abuses should be checked when the arise(some are a little overdue) but so long as the citizenry is treated well and given opportunities I have no problem with it.

That's all well and good, as long as the government is benevolent. It's also shrewd for a fascist state to keep a majority of it's population sufficiently pacified to prevent a rebellion. First you have violations of liberty for the sake of security, but when the barriers which protect our liberties are removed for the sake of our protection, they aren't there to protect us from abuses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

lol stupid.. what you are describing are elements of humanity and of our culture, and political opinions you disagree with. the complete absense of many of the things you describe would actually be worse then the alternative.

How so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

If your goal is honestly to discuss how those characteristics can be removed from (or at least limited in) our government, then I suggest you abandon this thread at once and start a new one without the historically obscure and blatantly inflammatory term "Fascist".

In my experience, no discussion that begins with accusations of "Fascism" ever goes well, and people who want to have thoughtful discussions about policy and practice almost never use such a loaded term.
Even if it is accurate, it immediately puts people on the defensive or invites them to make hyperbolic comparisons. And really, the true concern should be whether the government's policies are good or bad, not whether they happen to fall into the limits of a particular political-science definition.

You said you want a "simple" and "civil" discussion. If so, I strongly encourage you to limit it to less than 14 distinct points (for the sake of simplicity) and to utterly avoid the oft' abused and inflammatory term "Fascism" (for the sake of civility).

But that's just my .02

I appreciate your insight, but I don't expect everyone to be able to discuss this topic, I'm really not interested in what people who are offended by this feel, maybe they should refrain from commenting. I'd rather this be a clinical discussion examining the merits. There's no reason to get emotional, is there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

the exact opposite of all applied would be communism.
i also fail to recognize how supression of artistic and intellectual expression is applied? or sexism and a few other things..

That's a most ridiculous analysis; communist China applies all of these points.

One example of suppression of artistic and intellectual expression:

Quote:

On December 20, President Bush installed via a recess appointment TV producer and National Review Online contributor Warren Bell on the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Bell's appointment only intensifies the widespread and longstanding concerns regarding the partisan makeup of the CPB leadership under Bush and their apparent efforts to compromise the political independence of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), and other public broadcasting outlets. Indeed, while Bell appears to have no experience in public broadcasting, nor interest in the service, he is an avowed conservative and Bush contributor with a record of inflammatory remarks regarding Democrats, women, minorities, and underprivileged people. For instance, in May 2005 he wrote, "I could reach across the aisle and hug Nancy Pelosi, and I would, except this is a new shirt, and that sort of thing leaves a stain." Remarking on using a TiVo to shield his children from birth control ads on television, Bell said, "A little vigilance is all it takes -- well, that and a couple hundred bucks for a TiVo. Sorry, poor people, your kids are going to be asking you awkward questions about condoms."

On June 26, Bush nominated Bell to the CPB board along with two other individuals, former Sen. David H. Pryor (D-AR) and Bay Area public broadcasting official Chris Boskin. The public broadcasting community quickly objected to the White House's action on Bell. Many cited Bell's divisive comments as well as the recent controversy surrounding another partisan Bush appointee -- former CPB board chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, whose efforts to apply political pressure on PBS and NPR were extensively documented by Media Matters for America. Following Bell's nominat