Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush Authoritarianism: Blackwater+Amway=GOP, Pt. 2 (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fascism and Bush. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inky, james risser, Neon Vincent

    Fascism differs from communism in that it was not an ideology that was clearly defined.  Mussolini, the first to call his system fascism, defined it in this way, "Fascism was not the nursling of a doctrine worked out beforehand with detailed elaboration;  it was born of the need for action."  Thus, fascism differed dramatically in the countries that we tend to describe as fascist.  I guess the things they all had in common were extreme nationalism, hatred of anything remotely connected with socialism or government control of business, and leadership by a strong leader who in Italy was called Duce or Leader and in Germany was called Fuhrer.  Granted that in the United States what we have now is not exactly what existed in Italy or Germany, it still has many of the major characteristics of the fascist state.  For example, our version includes adoration of a strong and militaristic leader, worship of private property and hatred of anything remotely connected with socialism, partnership with big business, and a view of life as a constant battle between good and evil with war the perpetual solution. There are many contradictions in Bush's thinking, as there were in the thinking of the other fascist states.  For example, Bush has done all he can to build the power of the chief executive into a kind of Duce, while at the same time he has continued the deregulation of big business and generally given them a free hand.  While this may not be exactly what happened in most European fascist states, we still know that fascism was not a strict or clearly defined ideology.  In its view of life, its nationalism and militarism, its hatred of any government control of something that can be privatized, its desire to paint itself in the strict father image, what we have is our own version of fascism. Even if we give business more of a free hand than Mussolini did, the partnership is clearly strong in both.  Fascism is not a strict doctrine, but more of a way of life or even personality trait than communism or democratic socialism.  It is a fair way to label what's happening to our country.  Anyone who doesn't believe that we're extremely nationalistic should count the flags rolled out when our politicians make a speech or the flags that some of us actually wear. The extreme nationalism, love of war, desire to turn the presidency into some kind of dictatorship, and need to prove one's toughness or "manhood" can fairly be called fascist.  Mussolini tried to prove his manhood by jumping through flaming hoops, and Bush tries to prove his by wearing military attire, starting wars, and hiding behind men in uniform.  Also, modern economic and political systems combine free market principles with things like public education and economic regulation to do what works best.  The notion that any system can by "pure" and successful at the same time is false.  Unfortunately, Bush is much like a fascist who yearns for ideological purity by privatizing everything, and in Iraq, using war to achieve his ends.  

    •  Um, No (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Vincent

      its hatred of any government control of something that can be privatized,

      Actually, no.  I don't have a problem with most of what you wrote, but fascism in control of the state did not parcel out power or functions of the public sector to for-profit entities, and it sought to bring all institutions under the control of the state.  Germany was the extreme version of this, and there was great latitude in the other countries on how much freedom was granted to the Church or big business.  But fascist in control of the state apparatus did not give away power or direct control, they only increased it.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 05:44:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, yes. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inky, james risser

        If you follow my sentence to its conclusion, you'll see that I am speaking about the U.S. version of fascism:  ". . . its hatred of any control of something that can be privatized, its desire to paint itself in the strict father image, what we have is OUR OWN VERSION of fascism."  Also, it's difficult to understand how what we have in the U.S. can be called authoritarianism and at the same time claim that it is giving power away to anyone.  Bush wants to increase the power of the president, and his fanatical desire to privatize and deregulate are examples of the inherent contradictions in his muddled thinking that at the same time wants to ignore our system of checks and balances and increase the powers of the president.  And yes, our version of fascism is not a mirror image of Germany's anymore than Germany's was a mirror image of Italian fascism, but in both Germany and the U.S., we have governments who used propaganda to sell a message of fear and demonizing of the enemy, in Germany it was Jews and in the U.S. it's Islamo-Fascists or Muslims.  Unfortunately, the key ingredients of nationalism, militarism, and a view of life depicted by Hitler as a world of hammers and nails in which its much better to be the hammer, I'm afraid that we cannot escape from seeing fascist values gaining the upper hand.  I don't think this is a permanent condition, but I do believe that the fascist way of thinking is always out there.  It's why we have to pay attention and work for a better country and world.    

        •  Let me clarify further. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          james risser, Neon Vincent

          Bush wants to give power to corporations while at the same time increasing his stranglehold on all decision making.  In short, he wants an imperial presidency in a kind of partnership with "free" enterprise.  The problem is that it's not free enterprise when it depends on the government for handouts.  The defense industry is certainly not free enterprise or anything close, and why would corporations spend billions on lobbyists if they knew they were not going to be rewarded many times over?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (28)
  • Law (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site