Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against
Alexander
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 257 (202752)
04-26-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by arachnophilia
04-26-2005 5:08 PM


Re: Nonsense?
Whoops. Supposed to be 70-80%.
This is a good example of why I don't see a totalitarian government on the horizon. Most Americans are apathetic to Bible-beating machinations most of the time, but when their policy clout is forcefully demonstrated, the silent majority is sometimes snapped out of apathy.
Unfortunately, this counterweight is exercised only when the issues directly impact the lives of middle class americans.

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 04-26-2005 5:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by arachnophilia, posted 04-26-2005 5:34 PM Alexander has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 32 of 257 (202756)
04-26-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jazzns
04-26-2005 5:09 PM


Re: Fascism?
While we certainly have 1-4 we don't quite have 5 which I think is enough to say we are not quite a fascist nation.
yet. i pray that we never do.
Luckily, there is enough sense on the right to see that totalitarianism is bad.
i'm not so sure. look at the president's grab for legislative powers: he now as the power to declare war whenever he FEELS the country may be in danger. this is not a presidential power. my congressman said to me, regarding his vote, that it was "his duty" to stand behind the president, and give him that power.
i'm sure a few more examples could be found. the legislature is basically in the pocket of the republican party, under the authority (leadership?) of bush. whether you like or hate bush, this is dangerous and not what our government is supposed to be.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jazzns, posted 04-26-2005 5:09 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 33 of 257 (202758)
04-26-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Alexander
04-26-2005 5:23 PM


Re: Nonsense?
Whoops. Supposed to be 70-80%.
still higher than it felt like. i suspect observer and question bias.
for instance, a lot of people i talked to felt that the government did the wrong thing, but thought terri should live. and a lot of the people who thought she should be allowed to die, thought it was done in an especially neglectful and inhumane way. so it's hard to draw a black and white figure on the incident. but either way, moving on.
Most Americans are apathetic to Bible-beating machinations most of the time, but when their policy clout is forcefully demonstrated, the silent majority is sometimes snapped out of apathy.
for about 15 minutes. then we turn back to "judging amy."

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Alexander, posted 04-26-2005 5:23 PM Alexander has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Alexander, posted 04-26-2005 6:17 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Alexander
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 257 (202769)
04-26-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by arachnophilia
04-26-2005 5:34 PM


Re: Nonsense?
Here's the link, just for public erudition. Bias is certainly possible.
http://www.usatoday.com/...hington/2005-04-05-gop-poll_x.htm
76% of Americans diasprove of the way Congress handled the case. Bush got off a bit better.

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by arachnophilia, posted 04-26-2005 5:34 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 35 of 257 (203013)
04-27-2005 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-26-2005 8:32 AM


Not a police state.
Hi Schraffy,
I’d like to review the string of posts you made at the end of the O' Reilly thread, Message 98, before responding to your OP. But before I begin, let me say how much I dislike hit and run posters. It’s so easy to throw something on the wall and run for cover. So when I didn’t reply to you in the O’Reilly thread it wasn’t a dodge for cover, it was because we were off topic.
I also realize that my posts in this forum’s political threads raise the ire of many. The reason is that this forum is heavily weighted to democratic and often extreme democratic positions. The end result is a feeding frenzy on the minority positions. I’m ok with that, just be patient with me.
Monk writes:
The majority of republicans are not extreme fundamentalist,
schrafinator writes:
But who are the Republicans in power?
That's right, the extreme fundamentalists!
Republicans are in power, yes, but they are not extreme fundamentalist. Bush, Cheney, and House Speaker Hastert are Methodists. Senate Majority leader Frist is a Presbyterian. Do you consider Methodists and Presbyterians to be extreme fundamentalist?
Monk writes:
...just as the majority of democrats are not atheists communist.
schrafinator writes:
..Um, there are no Democrats who are Communists. Then they would be in the Communist party, not the Democratic party. Democrats are Democrats.
Um, there are no Republicans who are Fascists. Then they would be in the Fascist party, not the Republican party. Republicans are Republicans. I can always substitute your labels for mine, that dog won’t hunt.
So it’s ok to call Republicans extreme fundamentalist fascists, but a Democrat is just a Democrat eh? Spoken like a blind partisan. I at least recognize that my side has its faults and can stoop to lies and propaganda. You seem to think Democrats are the Mother Theresa’s of the political world.
schrafinator writes:
And let me just point out to you that we can point to many actual examples of real people in power which represent the extreme right wing of the Republican party, currently and past, but we cannot do that at all with the extreme left wing.
Yet another example of blind party line mantra. Let’s proclaim all Democrats to be saints and end the debate! C’mon, no extreme left wingers at all? I suppose all democrats in powerful positions have been middle of the road eh? The next thing you’re going to say is that Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Hilary Clinton have all been misunderstood.
But if you want to talk about fascism and the US presidency, then you need to look at Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt. He created the economic tools of fascism and organized capitalism under the influence of the State for the purpose of bettering society.
He was successful in doing that, and long after WWII ended, that agenda was still being followed. The agenda of using the State to direct the economy in ways that would benefit society. This was part of the development of fascism during the 20th century. Prior to that, the idea that the State should direct anything was considered a no no among western democracies.
Monk writes:
Our laws will not become subserviant to the Bible.
When I wrote this, you listed a variety of topics. Let’s take these one at a time. I note your tactic of connecting the Bible to any and all issues simply by tying a neat little ribbon to it. From this, your implication is that we are now a fascist police state. But let’s examine each of your issues a little more critically:
schrafinator writes:
Stem cell research is severely restricted because of Christian religious beliefs.
Research is moving forward unabated by the Bush Administration and is not severely restricted. Bush decided in 2001 to allow research to resume in government labs, but restricted researchers to use only 72 existing lines of stem cells.
quote:
It is not clear whether the existing lines of stem cells will be sufficiently robust and genetically diverse to continue research in government labs. If they are not, then the most competent government researchers will simply move to the UK or to private American companies to continue their work, but their research will not stop; it will merely be relocated. Link
Bush has only halted federal funded research. States can fund the research if they so desire. Embryo stem cell research continues in private US labs. Furthermore, around the world, stem cell research is moving forward.
quote:
Research continues in U.S. private labs and in both government and private labs in the UK, Japan, France, Australia, and other countries. On 2002-SEP, Governor Davis of California signed bill SB 253 into law. It is the first law in the U.S. that permits stem cell research.
Governor James E. McGreevey signed a stem cell research bill into law. Such research is now permitted in both New Jersey and California. Bills are pending in Illinois and New York.
Governor Jim Doyle (D) of Wisconsin announced plans to spend $750 million to build an embryonic stem-cell research institute on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He said: Other states, like California, are trying to play catch-up and build from scratch what we already have here. He added that Wisconsin has the best scientists in the world and first-class research institutions. The money will come from both state and private sources. Link
Besides that, stem cells can also be obtained from adult stem cells and they may offer more promise than previously thought.
quote:
Researchers began using adult stem cells from bone marrow back in 1960. It was only in 1998 that other researchers were able to isolate and cultivate embryo stem cells. Adult stem cell research thus has an almost four decade head start compared to embryo-derived stem cells. As of 2004-Fall, promising trials are underway using adult stem cells, while stem cells from embryos are still being experimented upon in the laboratory. Link
Bush is far from having universal republican support on this issue. Many leading republicans are urging the president to approve federally funded research.
From my perspective, I believe embryo stem cell research should move forward and it is moving forward in many areas in the US and around the world. Bush has opposed only funding research with US tax dollars. There is absolutely no prohibition against the research itself.
Bush is obviously catering to the right wing of the republican party but there is also a fiscal consideration in light of all of the concurrent research being done by private US labs and by private and government labs around the world.
schrafinator writes:
Bush has cut out international family planning funding because of his opposition to legal abortion.
Another mischaracterization of the facts. The U.S. Congress had allocated up to $34 million in aid to support international family planning programs administered by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Bush withheld these funds because part of the UNFPA's total efforts deals with China. Sometimes, China forces women to have abortions or to undergo sterilization against their will in order to enforce the country's one-child policy.
Do you support China’s policy of sterilization? It’s a difficult subject given China’s population, but Bush felt that policy was extreme and did not want US funds to support that effort. Besides, Bush did not cut funding, he merely redirected the money to the USAID Child Survival and Health Program Fund. As the name implies, the mandate of this agency is to improve children's health.
schrafinator writes:
Revently, Creationists and other fundamentalits Christians have ratcheted up their demands that religion be taught as fact in public schools.
Those groups have been more vocal recently, but that won’t change any laws. Teaching religion in public schools does not happen and will not happen. It’s a violation of existing laws.
schrafinator writes:
The Faith Based Initiatives agenda clearly dumps a great deal of public money into organizations which can legally discriminate and also indoctrinate people into a particular religion.
Wrong. Faith based initiatives have been around for a long time and have been supported by both democrats and republicans. This is not legal discrimination. The fact of the matter is that faith based organizations are numerous and effective in reaching out and serving the needs of the poor and disadvantaged in many local communities.
Bush’s plan seeks to remove the barriers that has prevented faith based organizations from competing on an equal footing with secular organizations for federal grant monies. That is the true discrimination. Faith based organizations will be allowed to compete, it is not an unrestricted giveway.
Your implication which is consistant with your OP is that this initiative is driven by extreme Christian fundamentalist. Bush publicly says otherwise:
quote:
If a charity is helping the needy, it should not matter if there is a rabbi on the board, or a cross or a crescent on the wall, or a religious commitment in the charter, said Bush. Link
The specifics of the legislation regard competition and not blanket funding giveways:
quote:
The legislative portion of the president's plan -- which would allow religious groups to compete with secular organizations for federal dollars to pay for after-school programs, drug treatment counseling, meal assistance and other programs -- will be sent to Capitol Hill Tuesday, Bush said. Bush aides said safeguards would be in place to make sure the religious groups do not use the money to proselytize.
"This will not be funding religion," Fleischer insisted. "It is not the religious aspect of what they [are] getting funding, it is the community service aspect. These are not going to be programs that preach religion, these are faith-based programs that help people improve their lives."
Aides said some faith-based groups already receive federal funding under the 1996 [Clinton’s] welfare reform law, and that these groups have not violated the constitutional separation of church and state. Link
A little history is in order here.
quote:
In the 1880s religious organizations begin to get involved in social services and tend to the social needs of people in a systematic manner. Link
In recent times, it was the Clinton administration who was active in moving faith based initiatives forward:
quote:
President Bill Clinton and Congress enacted Charitable Choice into law on four separate occasions, beginning with welfare reform in 1996. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, also known as "Charitable Choice,"supports and encourages increased involvement of religious-based organizations and congregations in providing social services.
The law, introduced by then-Senator John Ashcroft and embraced by the Clinton administration, opened the door for faith-base organizations (FBOs) and congregations to get public funding for programs while preserving their religious nature. In 1998, the scope of Charitable Choice was expanded to include Community Block services; and in 2000, it was further extended to drug treatments. Link
Many democrats support the initiative including Al Gore:
quote:
The 'politics of community' will be neither government doing everything, nor the churches and charities picking up the slack when government scales back. A politics of community can be strengthened when we are not afraid to make the connections between spirituality and politics." Al Gore, part of an election speech in Atlanta, GA, on 1999-MAY-24. Link
These are just a few of the topics you raise, which are numerous. According to you, anything and everything under the sun is bad because Christian fundamentalists made George do it?
In summary, I believe the country has moved to the right under republican leadership, but not to the extremes you are so scared of. It certainly wouldn't be considered a "fascist police state". I don't think you understand what a true fascist police state would really be like. Besides, the move to the right should not be surprising after the liberal swing of the pendulum under the Clinton administration.
Some extremist, such as yourself, view this swing with great fear and loathing but fail to consider where the pendulum was before Bush took office. Don’t you remember how scared and critical the republicans were under the Clinton adminstration?
I’ll make a prediction for you. The republicans will lose the white house in the 2008 election and a democrat will be elected president. The only way that will not happen is if Hilary becomes the democratic candidate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-26-2005 8:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by dsv, posted 04-27-2005 9:33 PM Monk has replied
 Message 46 by nator, posted 04-28-2005 12:12 PM Monk has replied
 Message 143 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-11-2005 2:49 PM Monk has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 36 of 257 (203040)
04-27-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-26-2005 8:32 AM


The only real fascist state to have existed is Mussolini's Italy in the 20s and 30s. Mussolini invented fascism, and the other far-right dictatorships of the twentieth century are merely imitations.
Mussolini wrote an explanation of Fascism for the 1932 edition of the Italian Encyclopedia. If we go through Mussolini's text (at Internet History Sourcebooks) and compare it to the philosophy and practices of the US state, then we can decide whether Bush's government is fascist, whether it approaches fascism, or whether it is something different.
Mussolini writes:
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace...War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death
I'm not sure that the US state believes in this. Now I'm not saying that they aren't willing or able to have perpetual war. But what they say they want is peace.
Bush (state of the union) writes:
America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom.
I take this as a statement that stability is what the US government wants. It wants a stability that is in its own interest, and with callous disregard of the human rights of others, but it wants stability. It doesn't appear to glamourise perpetual war in the way that Mussolini did. I can't imagine Bush writing in favour of perpetual conflict, and i can't imagine Bush writing the statement I just quoted from Mussolini. He just wants to win the conflict, and leave it at that. I have no doubt that he will continue to fight perpetually if he feels that is necessary. but if he's a fascist, he has abandoned the romanticism of fascism and turned it into utilitiarianism.
Mussolini writes:
The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide
Bush is definitely with Mussolini on this one. He's about as pro-life as they come. Along with Mussolini, he shares no interest in human self-determination (i.e. the right to commit suicide). "Life" as a romantic symbol is more important. Bush wants
Bush (2005) writes:
a culture of life
what about economic injustice?
Mussolini writes:
Fascism [is] the complete opposite ofMarxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect
I think Bush is pretty close to this. All of his rhetoric is about "humanity", and he shows a distinct lack of willingness to talk about economic injustice. In fact he shows a distinct lack of willingness to countenance the idea that different social groups in society might have differeng economic interests.
Bush (state of the union) writes:
We are living in a time of great change -- in our world, in our economy, in science and medicine. Yet some things endure -- courage and compassion, reverence and integrity, respect for differences of faith and race. The values we try to live by never change. And they are instilled in us by fundamental institutions, such as families and schools and religious congregations.
This quote shows how Bush believes that the unifying institutions of society are stronger than the class divisions. in fact if you read his state of the Union address you will see that the interests of "entrepreneurs" are made to equate with the interests of "workers".
Bush (state of the union) writes:
My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers -- to create jobs for American workers
So Bush is with Mussolini when it comes to internal economic conflict - this conflict just doesn't exist.
Mussolini writes:
Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage
Bush at least pays lip-service to democracy. he is elected. Although his cronies are accused of manipulating votes (i.e. especially in the first election) it doesn't look like he will be suspending elections any time soon. The question of whether the US election system is fair, or whether it has been manipulated by his cronies is open to debate, but I don't imagine that Bush could have written the quote attributed to Mussolini. he would never do it so openly, though perhaps his government would do it if they had the opportunity. I honestly believe that if Bush felt he could suspend elections, then he would do so. His legalized patriotism (Patriot Act) is probably a more sophisticated and gentle means of controlling the population than outright dictatorship.
As for the fruitfulness of inequality - Bush is extremely silent when it comes to discussing inequality in society. We have already noticed that it doesn't exist in the US... His policies appear to reward the wealthy at the expense of the poor. So he is probably with Mussolini in spirit, but not quite at the level of overt policy just yet. Certainly his record doesn't suggest any interest in reducing inequality.
Mussolini writes:
if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State...The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State...the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State
Bush has certainly increased the power of the state with respect to the individual. He has suspended judicial procedure on US territory, for example. He's definitely with Mussolini on this one. Though, interestingly, his statism is dressed up as individualism. This is just a propoganda exercise as far as I'm concerned. He loves big government, that's for sure. Look at the corporate welfare programs. But his rhetoric is definitely distinctly difrerent from the fascist rhetoric of Mussolini.
Mussolini writes:
The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential
Yup, useless things like healthcare, freedom from being imprisoned, education, ability to have abortion, and one's own life (he rather likes the death penalty). Bush is definitely with Mussolini here.
Mussolini writes:
For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence
Bush has increased the US overseas military presence, and his imperial credentials are impeccable.
Chicago Tribune (2004) writes:
In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has dramatically expanded its military presence in the Middle East and Central Asia, building a vast network of bases designed to counter what military officials call an "arc of instability." U.S. military installations in the region extend from Turkey to near the Chinese border, and from former Soviet republics in the north to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. The facilities surround Iran; are situated in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and are close to Syria and Lebanon. Several were created to address the confrontation with Iraq, and continue to support operations there. "No one could have anticipated in the summer of 2001 that the United States would be basing forces at Karshi Khanabad, Uzbekistan, or conducting a major military operation in Afghanistan," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Congress last year. Experts fear the ubiquity of U.S. forces may fuel belief in radical Islamic claims that America is bent on controlling the oil and politics of the Islamic world.
what about the political authority of Bush's policies?
Mussolini writes:
never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it
Replace "Fascism" with "freedom" and I doubt we could tell whether this quote was written by Bush or Mussolini.
so what are the similarities between Bush's world view and Mussolini's world view? Both are extremely anti-theoretical. They are interested in synthesis rather than analysis. They gloss over domestic divisions in favour of big concepts like life, faith and unity. They are anti-intellectual. They are in favour of state power, big business, and individual sacrafice to the grand national cause.
What are the differences? the contemporary US state lacks a cult of the leader. I cannot imagine that Bush would deign to write an Encyclopedia article about his politicial beliefs. In fact he is even more fascist than Mussolini in this respect - he would probably deny he has a political program at all. Furthermore, there are also democratic means for the removal of Bush from office. Whether the US government is "sliding into fascism" will be revealed by the extent to which democratic freedoms are eroded in the US over the coming years before the next general election.
This message has been edited by mick, 04-27-2005 03:01 PM
added in edit:
In summary, the US government is NOT fascist. But it shares important ideological similarities with fascism. It's too early to tell whether it's sliding into fascism or not.
I suspect not.
This message has been edited by mick, 04-27-2005 03:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-26-2005 8:32 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-27-2005 5:11 PM mick has replied
 Message 144 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-11-2005 2:53 PM mick has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 37 of 257 (203081)
04-27-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mick
04-27-2005 2:57 PM


POTM to you
Kudos for the research efforts.
Of course, I'm a cynical anti-Bush person, but my impressions of the various statements are:
1) Like the statements or not, Mussolini gets high marks for honesty.
2) The Bush comments seem to contain a lot of "double-speak". What he says and what he does conflicts. Low marks for honesty.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 2:57 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Alexander, posted 04-27-2005 6:09 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 39 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 6:15 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Alexander
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 257 (203107)
04-27-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Minnemooseus
04-27-2005 5:11 PM


Re: POTM to you
Good research, but the segue from "culture of life" into economic injustice doesn't quite fit. I would have juxtaposed the hypocracy of anti-abortionism with unflagging support for the death penalty and a lack of support for intervention in Darfur, N. Korea, etc., where life was being actively snuffed out.
I agree that the Bush administration does promote policies that disproportionately affect the poor--like the bancruptcy bill, I still can't understand why any rank-and-file republican would support that. But, I don't see the Dems as a superior alternative on this issue. (Not really on topic.)
Also, a fascinating (and surprising) entry by Mussolini .

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-27-2005 5:11 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 39 of 257 (203110)
04-27-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Minnemooseus
04-27-2005 5:11 PM


Re: POTM to you
Thanks for nominating me for the post of the month! I tried to keep my post to the facts, and leave my person opinions out of it.
Here is my chance to give my personal opinons!
I think everybody would have to agree that Mussolini's article was more honest than Bush's State of the Union address. This is probably because Bush knows he hasn't won yet. Mussolini writing in 1932 has all the rhetorical flourishes of history's winner (little did he know...). I suspect that Bush felt rather like a winner when he presented his State of the Union address, but he isn't quite comfortable enough to make his position completely clear.
I think it is a big mistake to think that Bush and his allies are a bunch of country yokels; these are people who are VERY skilled in propaganda, and who have learned history's lessons. They have also read Mussolini's article, much more closely than you or I, and they have worked out where the mistakes were made. This might be why I find it difficult to imagine Bush writing an encyclopedia article. Wait until there is a small exchange of nuclear weapons in the middle or far east, and I see no reason why this shouldn't change. If that happens, I have little doubt we will get enough triumphalist Bush articles to make us sick, and to make Mussolini's efforts look puny by comparison.
I think one important comparison between Mussolini and Bush is the question of the role of the economy, and the leader's control over it. When Mussolini came to power, he didn't have any big-money allies. He was just a romantic/heroic figure with ties to the military. It was a year or two after he was made president that Mussolini came to an agreement with the major italian industrialists. His decision was to basically give control of the Italian economy to the businessmen's confederation. Mussolini was in charge of civil law, and the business confederation was in charge of the economy. This was key to the success of italian fascism. Mussolini was a rabble-rouser and a rhetoricist, not an economist.
This looks very similar to what is happening to Bush right now. Bush initially came to power with rather strident comments on the economy and the importance of free trade, but now he is the "war leader" who is in charge of the country's civil law and its morality. The economy doesn't seem so important in his later speeches. All we hear are speeches about morality, freedom and the historic role of the US in world affairs. It makes you wonder whether the economic system is no longer considered something that the president should be involved in. It makes me think that the president is a spokesperson on morality that happens to appeal to a big US constituency, and the economy is a completely separate entity, in the charge of those politicians with industrial connections.
If that is the case, then we ARE maybe seeing a slide into something similar to fascism, and it's pretty scary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-27-2005 5:11 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 04-27-2005 8:53 PM mick has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 257 (203162)
04-27-2005 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by mick
04-27-2005 6:15 PM


Adding a couple points.
G.B. has a couple other advantages. One is having a confidential advisor who was Senator, President, Vice-President and head of the CIA. The value of that particularly when it comes to indepth knowldge of the behind the scenes players shouod not be underrated.
A second major advantage is the change in demographics and outlook of Industry since the 1930's. Today's industry is completely anti-nation. It is truly international in scope and sees the existence of nationhood, any nationhood, as simply a hinderance to efficient commerce.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 6:15 PM mick has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 41 of 257 (203175)
04-27-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Monk
04-27-2005 1:09 PM


Re: Not a police state.
Monk writes:
Republicans are in power, yes, but they are not extreme fundamentalist. Bush, Cheney, and House Speaker Hastert are Methodists. Senate Majority leader Frist is a Presbyterian. Do you consider Methodists and Presbyterians to be extreme fundamentalist?
Yes I do, when they're not Methodists and Presbyterians. I can call myself whatever I want, that doesn't mean I actually subscribe to it. Hell, some of GW's policies aren't even Christian-like. He's a fundamentalist, a fundamental power junkie. He doesn't act based on his morals, he acts based on his opinions and general asshatery. Just because his campaign "architect" blatantly used people of faith to gain power doesn't necessarily mean he's really a man of faith. What's scary is that he's now continuing to pander to them because of pressure from the rest of the republican party since they all want to use the evangelical vote for their own gain as well.
Yes, I said USE, as in a tool.
Monk writes:
Research is moving forward unabated by the Bush Administration and is not severely restricted. Bush decided in 2001 to allow research to resume in government labs, but restricted researchers to use only 72 existing lines of stem cells.
Oh excellent! Well at least we can rely on other countries to pick up the slack and help further humanity while we continue to roll back the times in an effort to bring back mass superstition.
Monk writes:
Bush’s plan seeks to remove the barriers that has prevented faith based organizations from competing on an equal footing with secular organizations for federal grant monies. That is the true discrimination. Faith based organizations will be allowed to compete, it is not an unrestricted giveway.
This is grossly short-sighted. That separation is there for the faith not for the secular organizations. Yes, they want to be able to compete, but they don't want to play fair. If they are put in the same grouping with secular organizations they have to observe the same non-discrimination laws as secular organizations. Oooh but wait, that goes against our religion! It's utterly ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Monk, posted 04-27-2005 1:09 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Monk, posted 04-28-2005 8:19 AM dsv has not replied
 Message 145 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-11-2005 2:57 PM dsv has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 42 of 257 (203219)
04-28-2005 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jazzns
04-26-2005 5:09 PM


Re: Fascism?
IMO, the US government lacks all 5 conditions, but conditions 2 and 3 are most easily refuted.
2. uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress
political opposition
For this condition to hold, we would need to observe systematic and regular use of police authority to imprision, exile, or eliminate political opponents and media expressing opposing viewpoints to the government.
Unless I'm missing something, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi continue to serve in Congress without police interference. Howard Dean is still DNC chairman. The Nation, Mother Jones, and the Village Voice are still publishing. Liberal talk radio has been a relative market failure, but has not been interfered with by the state. Various liberal blogs and Internet sites are fully operational.
Evidently, condition 2 fails.
3. engages in severe economic and social regimentation
There is no state-sponsored paramilitary political youth organization in which participation is mandatory for ages 12-18.
There is no system of mandatory political indoctrination or paramilitary training of adults.
There isn't even military conscription.
And we're just getting started on essential elements of historically fascist states which are lacking.
Evidently, condition 3 fails.
The likelihood of the US becoming fascist is approximately equivalent to the likelihood of the US becoming a state in which Christians are persecuted.
In other words, both of the above are ideas of reference of the fringe elements of the political left and right, respectively, unsupported by empirical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jazzns, posted 04-26-2005 5:09 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 04-28-2005 10:08 AM paisano has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 43 of 257 (203265)
04-28-2005 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by dsv
04-27-2005 9:33 PM


Re: Not a police state.
quote:
He doesn't act based on his morals, he acts based on his opinions and general asshatery.
Unreasoned Bush bashing, ok, that’s to be expected. I particularly like asshatery hehehehe. Your ranting is original, I’ll give you that.
quote:
Oh excellent! Well at least we can rely on other countries to pick up the slack and help further humanity while we continue to roll back the times in an effort to bring back mass superstition.
Didn’t you read my post? The evil and fascist corporate America is on the vanguard of stem cell research. But they are evil so we don’t consider their effort, right?. What’s wrong with other countries contributing to further humanity? When the US takes the lead in the world they are criticized and when they step back they are criticized.
"Mass superstition??" Your extreme prejudice against any and all things religous is patently obvious. Your rhetoric is virolent even when those organizations have proven to be an efficient participant in government programs, proven to maintain the separation of church and state, proven to have wide spread bipartison political support, and proven be an effective and much needed servant to the those in need.
quote:
This is grossly short-sighted. That separation is there for the faith not for the secular organizations. Yes, they want to be able to compete, but they don't want to play fair. If they are put in the same grouping with secular organizations they have to observe the same non-discrimination laws as secular organizations.
Again, another case of not reading my post. Faith based Organizations (FBO’s) have been receiving federal grant money for years. The program began as a Clinton era initiative. Were you against it back then? Many democrats and republicans were in agreement with this, it’s one of the few times there was true bipartisan support. During all the intervening years there has never ever been an issue of separation of church and state.
You are creating a problem were none exists. It's not a matter of "if" they are put in the same group. It already IS. The program has been in place for years. These FBOs continue to do what they do best and serve the needs of their local communities. Do you deny the positive effect these organizations have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dsv, posted 04-27-2005 9:33 PM dsv has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 44 of 257 (203269)
04-28-2005 8:27 AM


reichstag fire, enabling act ----> 911, patriot act.
any questions?

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 45 of 257 (203300)
04-28-2005 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by paisano
04-28-2005 12:21 AM


Re: Fascism?
2. uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition
For this condition to hold, we would need to observe systematic and regular use of police authority to imprision, exile, or eliminate political opponents and media expressing opposing viewpoints to the government.
Unless I'm missing something, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi continue to serve in Congress without police interference. Howard Dean is still DNC chairman. The Nation, Mother Jones, and the Village Voice are still publishing. Liberal talk radio has been a relative market failure, but has not been interfered with by the state. Various liberal blogs and Internet sites are fully operational.
Evidently, condition 2 fails.
I have one friend who was shot by a police officer in a legal protest. Another was arrested in a legal protest at the RNC. They are not alone in this regard. This is direct violence and censorship toward dissenting citizens engaged in peacefull protest.
Habeas Corpus has effectivly been suspended.
Opposition views are directly barred from participating in Bush's "Town Hall" meetings (i.e. Read "Big, 'Gimme a reach around' groupthink Bush worship meetings")
The absurd failures of members of the executive branch are either ignored or rather rewarded (i.e George Tenent) to mask the abject failure of the administration to conduct itself appropriatly in international relationships. If this isn't propaganda I don't know what is.
Direct measures are currently being taken to ensure the impotence of the minority party in Congress.
Zero accountability for anyone for the anyone regarding civil and human rights violations of both citizens of this country and others.
With specific regards to:
Liberal talk radio has been a relative market failure, but has not been interfered with by the state. Various liberal blogs and Internet sites are fully operational.
Why then the conservative assault on independent public radio and TV? Certainly they are not an arm of liberalism. Why the recent legal precident that blogs are not protected under the same rights that protect journalists? (i.e. Apple vs. Bloggers)
3. engages in severe economic and social regimentation
There is no state-sponsored paramilitary political youth organization in which participation is mandatory for ages 12-18.
There is no system of mandatory political indoctrination or paramilitary training of adults.
There isn't even military conscription.
All the things you listed are military regimentation. Certainly economic and social regimentation can occur without conscription activities.
That being said, I may have to give you this one because I can't think of any good examples of this. In particular, the areas concerning social issues and the economy have been neglected rather than regimented. I don't really think this makes it any better than regimentation though since at least regimentation is in pursuit of stability while the abuse of said by the Bush administration is simply leading to the destruction of our nation.
So there you go; 3 out of 5 plus 1 which is in particular worse off then what we would happen if we were a true fascist nation.
Like I said before, I have changed by views on this because I don't feel that we are really on the road to fascism. Rather, I think that we live in a greed saturated, self-serving, short-sighted, imbecilic bastardization of American values for the personal gain of the few. While some if not many of their tendencies are fascist, they lack the actual idealism for a particular social system but instead are only interested in keeping the age old immoral balance of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
This is in particular WORSE than fascism in my opinion.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by paisano, posted 04-28-2005 12:21 AM paisano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024