Are we ever going to retire the F-word? You know what I'm talking about: fascist. It seems that we can't go more than a few months without someone leveling this accusation at a president from the opposition party.
This is beyond moronic. The Bush administration did many bad things. But to call his administration fascist is both to completely abuse the term, and to belittle the millions of victims of fascism. Fascism is not just something of which you disapprove . . . nay, not even if that something involves the military. The things that the US did to its POWs can be very, very wrong without rising to the level of the Gestapo. And if you think that they are even close, I suggest that you reread the reports, and then go read some history of the Gestapo. Afterwards, tell me that you would be indifferent to being a captive of Nazi Germany or the US. Tell me whether you'd rather be a citizen of Iraq or Nazi-era Poland. That we even have to discuss this is ridiculous.
Similarly, the fact that Hitler liked government health care is really totally irrelevant to this discussion, thank you so much for not bringing it up. Hitler also liked cream puffs and dogs. Shall we get rid of anyone who shows similar predilictions? Not all forms of state intervention in the economy are fascist. Fascism is a particular thing, not the amalgam of everything you happen not to like. It is an embarassment to the right that anyone would even think of saying something so awful, much less put an effing Hitler moustache on a photograph of the man who is, when all is said and done, the president of the country you claim to love so much. Your fellow citizens elected him. Show some respect, if not to Obama, then to democracy.
Would it be too, too trite to say that some days I despair? Because I really do.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Funny that nobody ever likens a politician they hate to Stalin. Maybe they don't think of it as an insult.
And for a second there, I thought we could get along.
But thanks for proving the author's point.
I think your conflation of fascism and Nazism is slightly unfair to Mussolini (and Franco and Salazar, if you count them as fascist, which some would not). While Mussolini was very bad, the same comparison about "would you rather be..." applies to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, though less strongly.
And thanks to Barbara Boxer, we also know that Hitler was able to balance his checkbook.
Fascism is a much broader term than is Nazism. The vast majority of fascist regimes did not have gas chambers, the archipelago of which constituted the epitome of the Third Reich.
Megan McArdle conflates the two terms at her peril.
Furthermore, Saddam Hussein actually did do qualitatively more heinous things than either Hitler or Stalin. Hitler and Stalin made victims' families watch their loved-ones' torture and murder. Saddam Hussein took one unspeakable step further: he made them applaud this terror.
I came here to largely say the same thing. They aren't synonyms. They aren't even really a subset/superset.
People forget that a great deal of the Nazi economy was socialist. Centrally controlled in precisely the same way that Uncle Joe was running things. Thus the "Socialism" part of National Socialism.
You can state that Nazi-ism, Socialism (as practiced in the USSR and most other places), and Fascism are Totalitarian. That's a pretty close fit.
And Nazi-ism and Stalin-ism (and Mao-ism, for that matter) are much closer to each other than either is to Fascism, at least as commonly defined.
A minor quibble. When we say that a Fascist state has a centrally controlled economy, while there are definitely similarities to a communist state, the planners themselves are the very corporate elite who had always run the economy; thus Fascism is defined as a conflation of corporate and state power. Communist states on the other hand simply usurped the private planners, replacing them with party apparatchiks (hence, revolution).
Also, the socialist element of the Nazi party was systematically excised (Operation Hummingbird) at the behest of the German business elite.
Agreed.
And the "Marxist" socialists were most definitely purged. There was no "workers owning the means of production" in the Third Reich, for sure.
But the state most certainly controlled the means of production.
Please adduce some evidence that the planners were the very same corporate elite.
Here's the problem: when people accuse someone of being fascist or a Nazi, they aren't trying to make nuanced points about the philosphical aspects of Nazism or fascism -- they're trying to conflate their oponent with the horrible atrocities committed under those regimes.
Peter: To be fair, some do try for serious, non-hyperbolic comparisons. They just happen to be a distinct minority.
Not all forms of state intervention in the economy are fascist. Fascism is a particular thing, not the amalgam of everything you happen not to like.
OK Megan,
I know my history well enough to be able to distinguish, in magnitude and intent, the abuse of prisoners by the Nazis and the abuse of prisoners by the US since 9/11. The Nazis purposefully practiced widespread and systematic abuse in a way we did not.
I do not, however, know (despite an ABD in economics) how to t distinguish between a literally fascist intervention, such as, I suppose, Nazi health care policies were, and the current Democratic health care agenda.
I'd obviously agree that all forms of state intervention in the economy are not fascist, but compare and contrast what a fascist national health care intervention would like and what a non-fascist national health care intervention would look like.
I understand you dislike the inflammatory rhetoric being thrown around, but you're the one putting the argument out there by talking about fascism as a particular set of policies.
But it's also hard to distinguish it from a social democratic intervention. The problem with fascism is the enormous edifice, not one section of the sub-basement.
Isn't that the problem with socialism, too? Why was it OK for you to draw parallels between the thought that the state would be more efficient at running car manufacturers and the thought that the state would be more efficient at running healthcare if it's not OK for people to suggest that retaining the language and forms of private property while giving strategic control to the state, partly through threats and partly through a redefined economic relationship, is something that the US has historically been somewhat keenly opposed to?
It's not so hard to distinguish socialist intervention because, as you point out, the state is taking over explicit ownership and control.
The problem I guess Megan is alluding to is that it's hard to distinguish fascist and social democratic forms of the government coming in and taking things over because, as you put it, these methods are not explicit government takeovers.
The reality, I think, is that there's not much difference between a "fascist" intervention and a "social democratic" intervention because, in practice, there is little economic difference between a fascist and a social democrat.
That's going to sound inflammatory, but I'll stick to my guns and say they differences are largely political, rather than economic in nature. Fascist economics is tied to a nationalist politics and a nearly one-party state (Italy and Spain did have opposition parties, however).
Social democrats don't go the national greatness route or explicitly seek to impose a one-party state or similarly limit political freedoms. On the other hand, I do think many of them have knowingly sought to create a political economy regime that ensured their continued dominance of the state.
That, of course, is one of the big fears of Obamacare and much of the rest of his agenda. "Social democracy" seems to be a wonderful means of producing reliable voting blocs that lead to a de facto one party state. To consider the possibilities of this, for example, look around the various big cities in the US. No matter how terrible and fucked up those places have been over the last 50 years (and really beyond if you read their history), they continue to elect the same party, and often the same people, decade after decade.
Whether you call it fascism or social democracy or old style machine politics, creating that sort of system seems like a major point of no return for a polity. Better to not go down that road in the first place because you'll never get off it.
And with that McArdle jumps the shark.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32944.html
And now I'm unsubscribed.
Just a point of clarification, the prominent Hitler/Obama pictures are produced by the Lyndon LaRouche folks. I know because I was talking to them yesterday at the Town Hall in Reston, VA. These are not exactly “right” leaning people. There just freaking nutjobs trying to get noticed.
Wiki states that LaRouche "regards government as an expression of the highest aspirations of the citizenry. He believes that the material and cultural progress of humanity is the proper concern of government.”
But, if we can't call the opposition Health Nazis, what can we call them?
I have to echo the comments above; yes, many people invoking "fascism" have no idea what it means or are triggering Godwin's law, but many others actually mean it and aren't trying to draw false equivalences or invoke gas chambers at all. Unlike Hitler, whose invocation will invariably lead the discussion to his distinguishing characteristic -- his deliberate and calculated murder of millions, I think fascism is a sufficiently distinct superset of Nazism that it still deserves useful life on its own.
This is all muddled a bit by the fact that "fascism" doesn't have a really good definition -- it's kind of like pornography, it seems -- but "a far-right government, often characterized by a belligerent nationalism, merging of corporate and national economic interests, authoritarianism tending towards totalitarianism, intense indoctrination and propaganda, military aggression, and scapegoating of its own citizens" captures a lot of it. We need to be able to talk about fascist tendencies in government without being accused of hyperbole and slipping into accusations of accusations of Nazism.
Put another way, it can be completely reasonable to see fascism in a government that would never create death camps -- if we can't call that government "fascist", then what other term would you suggest?
I think you have your rough definition almost right. However, not to channel Jonah Goldberg too much --
I would strike "far right". The fascist governments in Italy, Germany and (kinda) Spain were also anti- democratic, anti-capitalism (both were considered as too messy and inefficient) and anti- religion as well (the State was supreme, not God).
All of which is a pretty stark contrast to the political right which highly values personal and economic libery.
All of which is a pretty stark contrast to the political right which highly values personal and economic libery.
Your proof for this is what? The right doesn't value personal or economic liberty. Republicans are the anti-choice party. And they want to make us all subservient to corporations. They also start wars and indebt future generations because of them.
You're painting with a large brush and wearing blinders while doing so. The right, the entire right - Republican, right leaning independents, libertarians, anarcho capitalists - doesn't value personal or economic liberty? That's a bold statement. Moreover, politicians and parties dedicated to preserving their own power are equally guilty of shilling for corporations because corporations can provide lots of money, etc., with which those politicians and parties can maintain power. The corporations just change with administrations. Back to choice - left/liberal/progressives are equally comfortable curtailing economic and personal liberties, they just prefer to curtail different liberties than those on the right. I'm pretty sure protecting us from ourselves is not in the Constitution. I'm pretty sure that taking our money to spend on us because we cannot be trusted to spend it wisely on ourselves is not in the Constitution.
I visit AI daily and realize you're way more partisan than I, but come on, Calvin. You've got to admit that both major parties and the representatives thereof are way more focused on themselves than they are on us.
If Stereotype and Parody had a lovechild, and that child then procreated with Ridiculous and had fraternal twins named Rhetoric and Ignominy, and those twins then inbred for five or six generations, they might produce the content of your post.
Seriously, you need to quit mixing the Quils recreationally, and maybe just switch to beer or something.
and the left so conclusively values economic and personal liberty?
the left's entire economic platform can be condensed into this: "we dont like the outcome of the collective choices of individuals as reflected in the market, so we need the government to fix it."
And in getting the government to fix it, they are happy to give expansive powers to a concentrated group in government.
What is a greater threat to your liberty? Walmart, where you can choose to shop or not---- or the IRS, which compels the institutions you do business with to send to them information in minute detail on your financial life.
Here's my proof: I highly value personal and economic liberty, but because I live in a very liberal community, I am viewed as being on the far right. And my analysis of all the candidates' viewpoints has consistently led me to vote for mostly republicans & conservatives for the last three decades.
The viewpoint of the liberals and democrats seems to be to value free speech for themselves but no one else, property rights for themselves but no one else, the equation of profit with greed, etc. Around here, profit is a dirty word.
And no, I won't tell you where I live, because it would have adverse effects on my job and my wife's job. We've already seen that in action.
"a far-right government"
Stalin's dead.
The USSR is gone.
Why oh why do people keep parroting Stalin's progoganda claims?
Because he had an awesome mustache.
Yeah... the Hitler moustache poster was a Larouche "Democrat", not a conservative or Republican. Not that that makes it okay, but his followers aren't really in the same category as conservative or Republican anti-"reform" protesters.
Indeed. How "the right" is responsible for, or should be embarassed by, the actions of the LaRouchies is a bit confusing.
The only ones who should be embarrassed by putting a Hitler mustache on a picture of Obama are those who actually did so. Attempting to use guilt by association on a completely different subset of American political thought seems a bit of a stretch.
Also, to my knowledge Obama still has fasces on his office door, and I still object to them being there.
Agreed, and I think the broader accusations of "liberal fascism" are ridiculous. It seems to imply that 1) fascism = authoritarianism = liberalism and 2) no right wing government can be fascist. You end up with a situation in which people are effectively arguing that WWII was entirely an internal squabble among the left. I'm still hoping to see an argument some day that the Civil War was a battle between two leftist, fascist governments.
"people are effectively arguing that WWII was entirely an internal squabble among the left"
Like to see you argue against it. Effectively.
In the Road to Serfdom, Hayek cited a variety of "progressive" writers who on a contemporaneous (1940s) basis concluded the fascism in Germany and Italy and the socialism in Soviet Russia were simply minor variants of the same philosophy.
The problem is that "left" and "right" are incredibly vague terms. They derive from the peculiarities of the seating arrangement of the post-revolution French parliament, they're not exactly well-suited to modern ideological disputes. Do you define them as secular vs religious? Socialist vs capitalist? Union vs corporation? Political correctness vs free speech(or free speech vs puritanism)? Hell, you could damn near devolve it to pot vs booze half the time.
Some of those definitions regard Hitler as a leftist, others as a rightist. I'm a free marketer whose primary concern is with economic policy, so I consider Hitler to be leftist(though not as extreme as Stalin), but for someone who is a leftist whose primary political identity is equality between groups, Hitler is almost the definition of rightism.
Come up with a coherent, generally agreeable, definition for the spectrum, and we can have this debate again.
Equality between groups? Ha, ha, ha.
Hitler based his forcible eugenic sterilization programs on American leftist programs.
Orwell had interesting thoughts on the use of the word "fascism"
"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
Orwell subsequently observed, in his 1946 Politics and the English Language (1946)
The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."
Basically... the words has been meaningless for more than 60 years... let it go.
The things that the US did to its POWs can be very, very wrong without rising to the level of the Gestapo.
Except that this is exactly where many of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the Bush torturers were derived from. Sullivan's blog is hardly that far away, Megan:
.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html
.
Other than that, well of course, proposing to reform health insurance is precisely parallel to torturing prisoners, murdering prisoners, disappearing prisoners - all of which we know to have happened.
The things that the US did to its POWs can be very, very wrong without rising to the level of the Gestapo.
The three that were waterboarded were not POWs. POW is a special legal status that does not apply to terrorists and pirates.
I see, tsotha, so we now have to rely on legalistic evasions to justify torture? The fact remains: the US tortured, murdered and disappeared people whose status was unclear, who were not given an adequate trial, and whose human rights were persistently violated. If you think that ginning up some nonsense about their POW status justifies following the Gestapo, I'd suggest that you have some pretty obvious moral deficiencies. But go ahead, torture away. Just remember that you and Gestapo Muller are on the same moral plane.
I was simply pointing out the designation POW is a legal designation to which KSM and the others are not entitled. They are not entitled to visits from the Red Cross. They are not entitled to "name, rank and serial number"-only interrogation. They are not entitled to protection from prosecution. They are not entitled to release after the duration of the conflict.
Your contention about a connection between the Nazis and anything the US did post 9/11 is, quite frankly, bullshit. I would think Sullivan's Trig-trutherism would have clued people in regarding his reliability, but apparently not.
'Unlawful combatant' is a legal designation developed by torturers to designate 'people who have no rights'. This is particularly ironic in that these torturers are from a country founded on principles articulated in their Declaration of Independence. You may be familiar with the following words even if you don't fully grasp their meaning:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I'm not sure how the legal designation of torturers is suppose to supercede the designation and rights of 'all men' endowed by their Creator.
I sure hope that Megan isn't also advocating that we retire the E-word because I, for one, know evil when I see it.
For one man to hold another man prisoner, 'entitled' to no rights, simply because they have the power to do it, is the very essence of evil. Any apology for, or rationalization of, these kinds of acts is the true 'bullshit'.
A true American would know this.
This is just silly hyperbole. As a society we deny people their rights all the time based on their actions. If you commit a felony you're denied your right to liberty for some length of time and then denied the protection of the second amendment for the rest of your life, in most cases.
Either you're just ginning up fake outrage to score political points, or you really are this ignorant. I can't decide which possibility I find more disturbing.
Fake outrage it is.
What a complex argument. I find it almost impossible to respond to the retort that everything I write is just "silly hyperbole".
Citizens of the United States are acknowledged to have all kinds of rights BEFORE they are convicted of a felony. After conviction some rights are denied, temporarily or even permanently, but this is because we, as a society, live under a system of laws and punishments that we all agree to abide by. What person, or group of persons, would agree to live under a law that says they have NO rights before EVEN being convicted of ANYTHING?
In addition, if you believe in a Creator, as our founding fathers did, there is a higher set of laws that supercede man's laws whether we agree to them or not. It is these laws that address true evil and not legal technicalities designed by the powerful to justify what they want to do.
Laws that designate that a group of people have no rights are not only evil but hypocritical because they are written by people who want to appear moral while they commit immoral acts.
Once Blacks and American Indians had virtually no rights in this country. Was that moral?
If it is ignorant to believe that the powerful shouldn't be allowed to trample the weak just because they can then I am most assuredly ignorant.
Great. As soon as you can prove what God thinks I'll take it under advisement. Shall we use the Christian God that says "love they neighbor", or the Muslim one that says "do whatever you want to non-Muslims"?
I don't think it's reasonable to try to extend constitutional protections to every adversary of my country around the world. Shall we instruct our soldiers to read miranda rights to terrorists? Do they get out on bail while we adjourn proceedings to determine whether or not they're guilty of a crime? Do we hold off on air strikes until we get twelve Afghan goatherds to convict someone?
These protections were never intended for and never extended to foreign citizens on foreign soil. It would be foolish to start now.
Who are these 'men' that the founding fathers talk about in the Declaration of Independence? What do you make of these 'rights endowed by their Creator' that they speak of? Do you really think they believed that people of different countries have a different Creator?
Why do you believe that some men are deserving of more 'rights' than others? What is your definition of a 'right' anyway?
Do you really need to figure out what God thinks before you know that torture and imprisonment without trial are wrong?
These 'truths' are supposed to be 'self-evident' but yet here I am trying to explain the fundamentals of humanity.
Are you a human being first or an American first?
I think I see the problem. Here you are trying to "explain" the fundamentals of humanity when you don't know any more than the other six billion people on the Earth. Perhaps you should consider not everyone shares exactly the same values and priorities as you do.
I don't know why you're trying to hold the Declaration of Independence up like it's some kind of religious document. It's not. It's a document that was written for a task, and that task wasn't the formation of a government. It's not part of the constitution. You would be well advised to consider the way the same people who signed that document dealt with the Barbary pirates.
So now you don't agree with the Declaration of Independence, one of the defining documents of our Republic? It is this document that lays out the reasons we should even be a country!
You say that I should "consider not everyone shares exactly the same values and priorities." These are such fundamental values that even most dictators around the world at least pretend to share them.
You must be one of those 'my country, right or wrong' kind of people who believe that Americans are God's chosen people and thus can do no wrong. It is hopeless to try to discuss issues of human rights with people who are that dogmatic.
I repeat, are you a human being first or an American first and do you even know why the question matters?
And speaking of evasions, I note that we are continuing with rendition. The only thing more cowardly and morally disgusting than torture is outsourcing it. After all, if it happens in a Syrian or Egyptian jail, it doesn't count - right?
I find it very telling that we haven't officially stopped this practice. Just a few pious words about 'more oversight' - whatever the hell that means.
Since when are POWs subject to trial? And why would we grant that to combatants who broke the rules of war and thus do not qualify for the status in the first place.
This is what drives me nuts about the anti-torture crowd. On the one hand they rant on and on about the rule of law. On the other handm they don't seem to have a damn clue about the actual, codified law that exists on the subject.
the geneva convention is broadly misunderstood -- its really a two way street that says:
if you conduct warfare in a certain manner -- for example: in uniform, carrying arms openly -- you get the Geneva Convention protections of being a "lawful enemy combatant" and are a POW.
In WWII, Germans in uniform captured were considered POWs and treated accordingly.
However -- also in WWII, four germans were landed on Long Island in from a U Boat for purposes of espionage and sabotage. They were captured in civilian clothes, given a summary trial and executed.
Was Roosevelt guilty of criminal acts?
Yes, but I hardly see what the National Recovery Administration has to do with this.
I was right. Nobody hates Stalin. But you should never waste a villain.
Obama's policies to date resemble fascism more so than any other president before, except perhaps for FDR. This does not mean his policies are like the Nazis, who are just one example of fascism.
FDR is probably the only president whose policies can be said to be close to Nazism, if you consider his national socialism economic plans combined with his use of concentration camps for certain racial minority groups (codified in our law and upheld by a Supreme Court largely packed with his supporters).
It remains to be seen whether Obama's fascist-resembling economic policies will combine with other fascist policies; but the fact that he has now expanded rendition and created a torture regime targeting white collar criminals is certainly not promising:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rendition22-2009aug22,0,1840939.story?track=rss
A Lebanese citizen being held in a detention center here was hooded, stripped naked for photographs and bundled onto an executive jet by FBI agents in Afghanistan in April, making him the first known target of a rendition during the Obama administration.
Unlike terrorism suspects who were secretly snatched by the CIA and harshly interrogated and imprisoned overseas during the George W. Bush administration, Raymond Azar was flown to this Washington suburb for a case involving inflated invoices.
I hasten to add that although the Nazis disliked Stalin, and vice versa, to despise Stalin is not to approve of the Nazis. The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.
Imagine the following scenario: Your daughter goes swimming. A friend calls her 'Big Blue' (fat in her blue suit); later a teacher laughs at her being called a 'dumb blonde' (perhaps for not responding to insults). Now, when the daughter writes to the teacher to say that she felt personally insulted by the teacher's behavior, are you going to say to her, 'Don't send that. Insults should stop'? This seem to be the point of view you have been seeing from recently. It gives preference to one party over another not based on the merits of the positions. You have to expect an insult to be followed by a counter insult or correction. The party which gave the first insult should be corrected first, perhaps on the next iteration, otherwise the effect is to put the second party, inequitably, in lower rank.
Certainly, there is more accurate terminology for the Bush administration:
"Incompetent", "Deceptive", "Incendiary", "Myopic", "Hypocritical", "Petty", "Selfish", "Partisan", "Reckless", "Corrupt", "Obtuse", and "Unreasonable"
And those are only the adjectives.
Heh. Funny how they all fit Obama after only seven months.
Heh. Funny how after only two comments you already qualify for an even half dozen.
Heh. At least it took me two.
Seven months? I think that might actually make him better than most politicians.
I just want to take one more opportunity and say that the "socialist" aspect of National Socialism was NOT what made the Third Reich special. What made that barbaric regime different was its Aryan and Occult mythology, its dream of Großdeutschland, and its gas chambers. If you think anything else really matters, you don't really understand the supreme and eternal significance of the Nazi regime.
Meh, Lysenkoism is more weirdly mystical than Thulism, Communism more nightmare-like than Großdeutschland, and engineered famine more deadly than gas chambers. If Hitler had lived he would have seen himself outdone by his neighbor.
But by what means did they gain the power to accomplish their darker motives? What did they promise? To whom? With what rhetoric?
How did they consolidate this power?
You can't just take an open Democracy to war with the whole of Europe without squelching the opposition inside your own borders, can you?
The Aryan occult would have never been so lethal had it not gained legitimacy by some other means. Hitler made it stick because of his charisma, a fertile audience and the systematic removal of political opposition by co-opting every important constituency.
It is the means that we should concern ourselves with. We know the ends.
Eliminate the means by which Fascism metasticizes into whatever comes next.
Fascism was not violently xenophobic until it had total control and freedom to be so.
Economic policy and egalitarian rhetoric was the means.
Well, its chief tool is to say, "Look at them! They're dangerous! We have to eliminate the means by which they get into power!"
which means we should keep both eyes on one. . . mfsheldon.
Interesting: Nobody mentions Uncle Joe
What would have happened if he and Adolf
had been switched at birth, Tovarich ?
MM, totally serious here: Despair is a sin.
Megan:
Show some respect, if not to Obama, then to democracy.
How much respect does a system that gave us Bush and Obama back-to-back deserve?
Come to think of it, isn't democracy the system that put Hitler into power?
If you had your choice, who would you prefer as President?
Okay, probably not Hitler.
Ah, no. To be precise (or at least more precise), Hitler lost a race for the Presidency. He entered into a coalition government as chancellor, and was the parliament's consensus choice to replace President von Hindenburg upon the latter's subsequent death. He then established himself as dictator. Hitler was never legitimately elected to lead Germany, at least to my knowledge.
So, democratic forms were followed, but "the system that put Hitler into power" was only incidentally democratic.
FWIW, Megan, modern political science has more or less abandoned the use of the term "fascism", for all of the reasons you mention and then some.
Nowadays, the term of art for an authoritarian, nationalistic, xenophobic, militaristic regime in which the economy is closely controlled and regulated by the state, but without actual state ownership, is "corporatism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism). This actually falls in line with Musso's own nomenclature for his system of government, which was "corporativismo".
There's a fairly extensive literature on the subject, but you might start with Philippe Schmitter's classic essay (from the 1970s, it was required reading when I was in the poli sci program at Columbia in several of my courses), "Still the Century of Corporatism?" (http://ceses.cuni.cz/CESES-118-version1-3_1_1_Still_Century_Corporatism.pdf) which was originally published in Pike and Stritch's _The New Corporatism_ (1974) (http://www.amazon.com/New-Corporatism-Social-Political-Structures-International/dp/0268005389/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251334270&sr=1-1).
"corporatism"?
Ick.
Makes it sound like it's about big corporations, not about working together cooperatively. (And since that's Stalin's propoganda about it, that's a real danger.)
Well, it *is* about "big corporations"...just not necessarily big *business* corporations.
In the current usage, "corporation" has become synonymous with "business corporation", but it wasn't always so. Any form of organized activity is "corporate" in the sense that it is engaged in by a group of people working as a body (the root of "corporation" being, of course, the Latin word for "body").
Because Italian (in particular) fascism was based on the notion that people should be treated as members of groups rather than as individuals (hmm, where have we heard *that* before?), it took the form of a government in which the leaders of various economic sectors--big business, small business, farmers, doctors, lawyers, etc.--were moderated by the government. Indeed, the argument has been made (by Theodore Lowi, in "The End of Liberalism"), that this form of governance (which Lowi called "interest-group liberalism") was one of the potentially pathological forms of liberal democracy.
Meh, the same thing happened with "torture," which is now applied to pretty much everything about the level of polite inquiry.
Nobody wants to claim fascism- leftists say it is a movement of the right, rightists say it is a movement of the left. Neither is strictly correct but "left" is closer.
I like to use the term "white socialism" for fascism. More to the point, white socialism is a political force even today. Nazis and fascists wanted the exact same thing communists and socialists did, government control of the economy for the benefit of certain groups, only they wanted it for traditional whites rather than minorities and non-traditional whites. Today the "far right" is hard to distinguish in terms of desired policy from the "far left." The far right hates "neoconservatives" much more than they hate the left, with which in many ways they are quite sympathetic, and vice versa. In western movie screenplays by leftist Hollywood writers, Confederate veterans are always the good guys, and Yankees always the bad guys.
Some large portion of the Republican party is people who as recently as 25 years or so ago would have been conservative Democrats, that is people eager for lucre from the federal treasury, just not comfortable with the "social" agenda. The entire political culture of the South reflects white socialism.
This is complete nonsense. Leftist ideologies and socialism in general have always promoted egalitarianism. Standing in opposition to this were the fascists and the Nazis, both of whom believed in degrees of racial hierarchy and the survival of the fittest in the economy. Both Hitler and Mussolini took control of trade unions and insisted that they and their henchmen assume control over the economy and subvert egalitarian democratic participation. Not to even mention the reality that capitalism itself imposes a hierarchy on society.
Come now. The only egalitarianism promoted by the Leftist equivalent of the Nazis--the Communists--was a Procrustean egalitarianism in which all were entitled to exist in equal poverty and terror.
Nor should it be so clear that the Communists are so easy to distinguish away from other, more moderate Leftists. After all, it was one of FDR's own subordinates who famously described Stalinist Communists as "liberals in a hurry."
As to hierarchies, there's plenty of them in so-called "egalitarian" Leftist societies, particularly under Communism. That's why some lived in dachas and others lived in crowded apartment buildings.
And as to the particular invidiousness of racial hierarchy, I quote the late, great Leszek Kolakowski, who observed that a Jewish shopkeeper would be killed by the Nazis for being a Jew and therefore a race enemy, while the Communists would only kill him for being a shopkeeper and therefore a class enemy: and while this distinction might have some intellectually abstract significance, it was of little practical value to the hapless victim himself.
Joke from the Soviet Union:
A Jew goes into a store and asks if they have caviar. The clerk ignores him. So he asks again, and again. Third time, the clerk explodes: No we don't have any caviar, you filthy miserable Jew -- and on in that vein.
So the Jew walks out of the story and observed it was just like in Czarist times -- except that in Czarist times, they had caviar.
If you listen to Hitler's speeches, or read the manifesto, you'll find a very heavy focus on equality, whether equality before the law or in a broader sense. Hitler and Mussolini, like the leaders of the Soviet Union and the PRC, oppressed independent unions and demanded that the state took over their functions.
In terms of survival of the fittest in the economy, their conduct and their rhetoric is at odds with your claim. They massively expanded welfare systems and included claims like this in their manifesto. "16 We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities." Or this "18 We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race." 19 is also pretty strongly against the idea that the most efficient businesses should always prevail.
There is more truth in your objection that in Fascist thought generally, but particularly in Nazi thought, a limit to the equality, an in group and an out group. This does not provide the contrast you imagine, however.
Stalin's chief disagreement with Trotsky was over whether the USSR should have this, too. Trotsky thought that it should not (international socialism). Stalin won the debate. Spend any amount of time in China and you will be left in no doubt whatsoever about the Maoist view of equality between the Chinese and those not lucky enough to be Han. If you haven't, Tibet is the most widely discussed aspect of the view. This equality within the tribe is mirrored everywhere on the left, from feminists who spout hate against transgendered people to the ugly history of unions and race.
Ethnic minorities could get it pretty hard in the USSR, too.
"Leftist ideologies and socialism in general have always promoted egalitarianism"
So that's why progressives in the USA implemented forcible eugenic sterilizations -- sometimes not even telling their victims that they had been sterilized. Their promotion of egalitarianism!
The Nazis' sterilization programs were intentionally modeled on the US programs. And in a prime example of victor's justice, doctors who participating were convicted despite citing Buck vs. Bell -- while doctors went merrily on, sterilizing, in the USA.
I see. So what year was that?
Not before "always."
After reading the comments, I join you in near-despair. Rather than reaching a consensus that just maybe NO US Presidents are comparable in villainy to Hitler (or Stalin, for that matter), we have people arguing about whether Naziism is a leftist or rightist ideology, and whether it is more fervently embraced by Obama or Bush.
I detested the Bush administration for almost its entire existence. It committed heinous crimes against the US Constitution and the rule of law, and the fact that the citizenry and the rest of the government mostly went along with it remains a national disgrace. I am deeply disappointed by the Obama administration's mushiness on these issues, even as I understand the need for realism.
But I don't think Bush is a facist, or a Nazi, or a Communist. Neither is Obama. Or even Cheney. And maybe if we could all agree to drop the name calling we could have some kind of reasonable discussion of what to do about [insert pet issue here.]
HArrumph.
Nazis were fascists, but not all fascists are Nazis.
In spite of this, MM irrationally insists on promoting the inductive fallacy and thus inadvertantly (and ironically) promotes extended conversation on the topic every time she comments on the issue. Frankly, I think she deserves it, at least until she reveals to us which fascist kicked her dog, so that her irrational clinging can be understood in context by the audience.
Thank you, your comment is very sensible. Which doesn't happen much here, so it seemed worthy of note.
Katherine, in general I agree with you. I do find it a bit amusing that the very same folks who thought depictions of Bush-as-Hitler were A-OK now think it is oh so disrespectful and undemocratic, not to mention racist to depict President Obama in a similar manner. In both cases, I think that the comparisons were overblown. Of course such turnabouts are to be expected, but it is funny.
At the same time, I do think that Andrew Sullivan has a point, even if he makes it with the emotional maturity of a thirteen-year-old girl. The Bush administration really did torture people as a matter of policy, using many of the same techniques -- and indeed euphemisms -- as the Gestapo. I'm quite certain that other Presidents looked the other way when people were abused in various ways, but the Bush administration is probably the first American administration that actually embraced torture as a matter of policy. It's fair to point out that these practices were (and are) common amongst totalitarian regimes.
Likewise, I agree that President Obama is probably not Hitler either. However, I do think that it's fair to point to the dangers of marrying of state and corporate interests that result from his apparent political philosophy. That sort of corporatism was the hallmark of fascist states, and it's fair to make that observation.
And it's also fair to observe that Obama's political style does have a certain creepy subtext, one reminiscent of Third World and totalitarian states. I refer specifically to the extremely creepy "HOPE" poster, which makes me think I'm in North Korea every time I see it. President Obama certainly can't stop enthusiastic supporters from making posters like that, but during the campaign he actually sold that poster from his campaign web page. He seems to like the cult of personality that has grown up around him, to positively bask in it.
And just today there was a report that the Obama administration is using the NEA to get artists to advance his political agenda. http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche/#more-209182 This really is reminiscent of the way totalitarian regimes use the arts, and it is perfectly fair to point that out.
All I remember for 8 years was the left saying "Chimpy McBushHitler" a 1000 times a day. No, lefties I have not forgotten and will not forget it. You can count on it. Obama is WORSE then Hitler.
First, I don't know why you hate left-handed people.
Second, I forgot, what will you not forget?
Third, I tried saying "Chimpy McBushHitler" 1000 times, but got tongue tied.
Fourth, you're a moron.
I don't know which of those comments makes me facepalm more...
There you go again, Megan ... attempting to set the terms of the debate by declaring certain words off-limits (except by your side).
Facism comprises an authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology and seems like the perfect definition for what Barack Obama is trying to achieve.
He is nationalizing companies left and right, with no defined strategy for dis-entangling the government from the economy. If you disagree with those facts, please do tell me what the plan is for Obama to separate himself from his corporatist economic ideology.
His attempted takeover of our national health care system harkens to socialism, but the death panels he envisions which would decide what medical procedures would be available to an aged person, or a chronically ill person, are authoritarian to the nth degree.
The cult of unquestioning adoration hat has developed around him is downright scary and isn't good for the future of the United States. It is reminiscent of the power Hitler had over the German people.
Is Obama a facist? No, but only because we're not without the power to remove him from office one way or the other.
That he deigns to fascism, however, seems indisputable.
The "death panels," also knows as health insurance companies, which already decide what medical procedures would be available to persons of all ages, are authoritarian to the nth degree.
Don't you think?
I'm happy to get rid of "fascism" outside its proper historical context. But can we also ditch "socialism" and, for that matter, "fundamentalism", two other slur-words that are vastly misued?
Re: He is nationalizing companies left and right
Nice to hear from alternate universes. In our world however Obama has nationalized nothing. You can make a point that the GSEs were nationalized, but that happened last year under Bush.
Who owns General Motors?
Who owns Chrysler?
Because the terms of that ownership are indefinite, right?
"Because the terms of that ownership are indefinite, right?"
What is the question? Because the first statement was that Obama hasn't nationalized anything.
And then, when I point out that of course he has nationalized some companies, the statement becomes "well, that's not indefinite."
Obama has announced NO plan for the government divestiture of General Motors or Chrysler. Those are nationalized companies that he nationalized - and until divestiture, they remain prima facia evidence of the fascist nature of the Obama presidency.
Obama hasn't sent political opponents to concentration camps, he hasn't murdered six million Jews, and he has no plans to conquer the rest of the world. Otherwise, he's just like Hitler. It's indisputable.
Isn't the charge that Obama (or Bush II) is fascist, not that he's Hitler? Most fascist states (Franco in Spain, Park Chung-hee in Korea, etc.) don't seem to have been all that expansionist. Mussolini and Hitler are obvious examples, but even Mussolini's efforts at expansionism seem to have been kind of half-hearted (or just completely incompetent -- maybe that's it) and not particularly out of line with the kinds of expansionism countenanced by democratic states shortly before the advent of fascism. Look at Britain in Tibet, or the US in the Philippines. Nor is it the case that repression at home was absolute -- there were opposition politicians under Park, and I think it's reasonable to characterise him as essentially fascist, with occasional nods to democracy. Nor was it the case that repression involved mass murder on the scale of Hitler (although it did always involve some murder, and a fair bit of thuggery).
.
What distinguishes the fascists from other violent ruling systems at the time they arose -- primarily socialists . . . well, other than the fact that the socialists drove their economies into ditches and killed millions of people, rather than just thousands. What distinguishes the fascists is, I think, (1) the way they interacted with existing institutions, coopting them and bending them to will of the State and (2) the modernist aestheticisation of the imagery of power. The incident under Bush II, where Paulson locked the heads of the major banks in a room and told them they wouldn't be getting out until they signed an agreement Treasury had drawn up? Yeah, I think it's fair to call that fascistic. The authoritarian imagery exploited by the Obama campaign -- especially those videos where people vowed to serve Obama, or gave the special Obama "O" salute? Yeah, also fascist. And super creepy to boot.
.
The fact that we're getting a kinder, gentler "soft" fascism makes the current authoritarian moment less disturbing than it otherwise would be, sure. But that doesn't mean it's not fascist. It is.
"isn't democracy the system that put Hitler in power". No, it wasn't. Read a little history.
Here's how Barack Obama is dominating culturally - reminiscent of the way Joseph Goebbels did - by utilizing state-controlled artists to advance Administration propaganda:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_23-2009_08_29.shtml#1251360555
I don't see how we can avoid having a debate about how the Obama Administration is reminiscent of Nazi Germany when so many of the tactics seem recycled from that era.
I bet you can probably make comparisons to any regime anywhere throughout time if you really tried.
Andrew Sullivan has been doing this WRT Bush, Cheney and torture for over a year- 'Dolchstoss right' and all that crap. It's so historically retarded it makes me want to ignore American war crimes. And this from a guy who belongs to a key Nazi target-group.
"Here's how Barack Obama is dominating culturally - reminiscent of the way Joseph Goebbels did - by utilizing state-controlled artists to advance Administration propaganda ... "
Actually, I think Obama is more reminiscent of Augustus. Barbra Streisand is his Maecenas, and Garrison Keilor is his Virgil.
movertyperguy, get a grip on yourself. You've got plenty of real targets to aim at. There's no need to keep on making a fool of yourself.
Stan, one of the arguments made by libertarians who oppose government support for the arts is that the state will inevitably use its purse strings to enlist artists for propaganda purposes. Now I grant you that this conference call is fairly minor league, and that in fact efforts along these lines are likely to be ineffectual. But it does rather prove the libertarian point.
And it's creepy. Leaving aside the precise comparisons and the ever-present question of whether Obama is more like Hitler or Stalin, the use of the arts in this way is a technique used by most totalitarian regimes in human history. Obama's attempt to harness artists in this way is reminiscent of regimes that did not end well, and we should be cognizant of that fact. As we should be cognizant of the way that the sort of Big-Manism that he and his more devout followers seem to embrace has a very Third World vibe to it.
Obama's attempt to harness artists
Um, how many artists do you know? Where do feel most US artists fall on the political spectrum? I guess groups of people where large percentages almost certainly favor a particular candidate or political ideology are now being "harnessed" by said candidate or ideology due to... brainwashing and coercion? I'm sure most of these folks would not have adopted certain beliefs or rose to action empowered by their own free will. I mean, that's an inherently conservative response.
If it is tied to NEA funding, then this is state-funded propaganda. This is akin to giving Federal Funding to the NRA to manage federal game reserves.
How many Obama-as-joker lithographs will get NEA funding?
Acorn already gets federal money and that is outright criminal.
Co-opting non-political groups for political purposes reeks of totalitarian fantasy.
Why even go there? The names of these czars is unreal.
We ought to call Cass Sunstein Chief of the Thought Police or Commissioner of Newspeak.
It is unreal.
Artists ought be careful what they wish for. Free expression is a very slippery slope if you are not careful.
Hitler took over a traumatized 1st world nation
whose culture had a core sickness, brought to the
surface by the post WWI privations caused by the
Treaty of Versailles.
The US psyche is much healthier, and will _probably_
survive the Hard Times ahead without giving in to
a social psychopathology such as Fascism.
Oh, Hell, Cheerful Iconoclast, they all do it. Charles De Gaulle, a classical French conservative, brought Andre Malraux into his cabinet. Willy Brandt, a classical German social democrat, cultivated Gunter Grass. Back when Americans read books, both parties worked hard to get endorsements from noted writers. I remember the glee in conservative circles when John Dos Passos supported Barry Goldwater. I think you're over-reacting.
Concerning the "ever-present question of whether Obama is more like Hitler and Stalin", it's not present to me. He doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to either Hitler or Stalin, or to Attila the Hun or Jabba the Hut. He's a slightly left of center pragmatist. If you don't like his policies, that's fine. But don't start making ridiculous statements about how much he's like Hitler and other mass murderers. It just makes you look foolish.
I'm not sure whether you'd consider this a quibble, but Obama's a pretty-far-left (by US standards) pragmatist. Bill Clinton's a slightly left of center pragmatist.
Which Bill Clinton?
Post 1994 he was slightly right of center.
1. Welfare reform
2. Capital gains tax cuts
3. Fiscal restraint
4. Banking deregulation
5. Medicare/Medicaid entitlement growth flatlined
Clinton was a Blue Dog.
True, a pragmatist. He would have gone left of center with full control of Congress.
Stan, there is a difference between buttering up a writer or artist on a retail basis and using a government agency to organize a coordinated propaganda effort.
You are probably right that it will come to nothing, or even be counterproductive. I doubt that most Americans are all that interested in seeing the naked Karen Finley shout "Yes We Can!" and "Health Care For All!" as she smears herself with chocolate. Nonetheless, Obama's apparent attempt to harness the NEA to advance his agenda is creepy and totalitarian-esque.
And Stan, the Hitler/Stalin thing was a joke. I thought the tone made that obvious. I do not think that Obama is as evil as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or even Jabba the Hutt, though I do think that Michelle Obama would probably look pretty fetching in the iconic Princess Leia outfit. I don't actually think he is likely to commit evils at that level, even though I do think his policies will probably lead to undesirable consequences.
But his apparent comfort with the sort of big man iconography found in totalitarian regimes is a worrisome sign, as is the personality cult characteristic of his most devoted followers. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, after all.
And Shelby is right -- he is on the far left by the standards of American political culture. That he got elected at all is the result of a confluence of factors, including a very unpopular incumbent, a very weak opponent, a fortuitously-timed financial crisis, and a fawning media.
Megan-
First principles: get the basics right.
The Obama-as-Hitler posters are products of Lyndon LaRouche. This has been widely noted. Why did you not research this?
After the fake hate crime perpetrated by Democrat activists in Colorado and the gun-at-a-rally publicity stunt by a radio jock, your first question should always be "who is really behind it?"
LaRouche ran the National Labor Party, and ran as a Democrat 8 times for President.
To call him right wing simply is not fair or responsible to your readership.
The right thing to do is to correct this oversight in an upcoming post.
I agree that Fascism has taken on too many meanings to be a serious term in a serious conversation. It simply carries too much baggage for serious conversation, which is too bad.
That said, if you look at Fascist economic policy (which has little to do with the Gestapo or Holocaust), it is profoundly left-of-center.
A more palatable term would be Crony Socialism. The private sector is ostensibly intact, but de facto they are servile to the whims of state policy. At the sane tine, they are protected from the dangers of the marketplace. Big business and the business elite trade state control by regulatory fiat for de facto protection for real competition.
Starting a new car company in Nazi Germany would have been near impossible. Creative destruction ceases to discipline behemoth industry.
This is not so different from the current state of the finance and auto industries in the US.
We should be able to acknowledge that without suggesting Obama is Hitler.
That said, it seems the left started this with outlandish claims about Bush. We reap what we sow. The problem for the left is that in the context of economics the last 9 months look eerily like Weimar Germany and the potential for a collapse of the dollar under these massive deficits would seal the deal. Fall 2008 will fell like the good 'ol days if that happens.
What would the mood of the public be in that scenario?
Who knows? Scary.
Megan - have you read Jonah Goldberg's book, "Liberal Fascism The secret history of the American Left from Mussolini to the politics of meaning" (2007)? It's worth the trouble. I scanned the comments, but didn't see any commenter bring it up. The book has sold maybe 200,000 copies. It's a serious work.
American Progressives were fascinated with fascism in the 1920s, especially Mussolini and his Italian brand. A main point that Goldberg makes is that it is a movement of the Left and not of the traditional American Right. It is a Big Government movement, not a movement of individual liberty and limited government as American conservatives have mostly embraced down through the years.
Of course, once the true nature of Hitler and the Nazis became known, American Progressives ran away from their history of openly flirting with a wide variety of fascist ideas as fast as they could: "Mussolini? We never knew thee! Hitler? Never heard of him!"
Goldberg partially wrote the book because he got tired of being called a "Fascist!" over and over in his appearances on college campuses. He wanted to point out the basic fact that fascism had a lot closer relationship with statists than with American conservatives. (And yes, R's have not always embraced limited government throughout its history. Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover embraced activist government. But it surely didn't approach that of Woodrow Wilson or FDR. Putting the federal government at the center of society, subordinating much of the private sector to government goals was - and remains - a D Party theme much moreso than an R Party theme.)
A telling note in "Liberal fascism" is that a leading British Progressive thinker, H. G. Wells, said that "liberal fascism" is in his considered opinion the best description of what his own political philosophy was. Wells gave a speech at Oxford University in 1932 to Britain's Young Liberals organization in which he expounded on this theme (see pages 21, 134 - 136). A few quotes,
"Fabian socialism had failed, he explained, because it hadn't grasped the need for a truly 'revolutionary' effort aimed at the total transformation of society. His fellow Socialists understood the need for socialism, but they were just too nice about it. Their advocacy of piecemeal 'Gas,Water and School-Board socialization' was simply too boring. Conventional democratic governments, meanwhile, were decadent, feeble, and dull. If the liberals in 1930s were going to succeed where the Fabians had failed -- abolishing private property achieving a fully planned economy, violently crushing the forces of reaction -- they'd have to learn that lesson.
"Wells confessed that he'd spent some thirty years -- since the dawn of the Progressive Era -- reworking the idea of liberal fascism. 'I have never been able to escape altogether its relentless logic,' he explained. 'We have seen the Fascisti in Italy and a number of clumsy imitations elsewhere, and we have seen the Russian Communist Party coming into existence to reinforce this idea.' And now he was done waiting. 'I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.'"
Goldberg documents numerous cases of American Progressives, including important members of FDR's administration, openly embracing the Italian Fascisti. Goldberg also points out that European fascism was quite different from country to country, so it is harder to accurately describe. The Italians, for instance, did not share German fascists strong anti-semitism, and in fact, protected the Italian Jewish community from the Nazis until the German Army finally took over the country in the later stages of WWII.
I realize that this doesn't negate the thought R's should forbear from screaming "fascist pig!" at any D who embraces ObamaCare, his cap-and-trade program, etc. It may be a poor tactic - won't do our cause much good. Admittedly, giving the insane frequency of D's screaming "fascist pig!" at we R's and conservatives, it's hard to always turn the other cheek! An occasional lapse surely can be forgiven.
There were also numerous cases of the American Right fawning over Mussolini and Hitler since they were seen as bulwarks against Communism-- the Right back then was certainly not confused as to what side the Fascists and Nazis were on. To this day Pat Buchannan opines that the US did not have any natural quarrel with Hitler and should have stayed out of WWII.
Megan, if you're going to call someone a moron for using the word 'fascist,' then it would be wise to understand the word lest you wind up being the moron. And in this case, you are.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
GM, AIG...that's fascism.
I agree that it is absolutely ridiculous when someone from an opposition party starts calling a president "facist". And even though I was not a fan of Bush (to say the least) I would never feel the need to call him "facist." I find it very ignorant that people so casually toss the word around. It takes away from the intensity of the "f-word." Also, I agree that Obama deserves a little more, well a lot more respect that a Hitler mustache. That's embarrasing.
Interesting discussion. A couple of points:
I love it when the left gets defensive when called fascist. I loved it when the right reacted the same way.
In my thinking all governments are evil and fascist, and it is up to them to prove otherwise. Most do.
More importantly, Hitler and Mussolini were very popular among the populace. Worshiped in fact. Why? Quite simple.
When Hitler came to power, the streets were dangerous, unemployment was very high. Inflation was awful. The infighting among politicians and intellectuals was similar to what is happening today in the US. The populace were suffering without anyone seeming to pay any attention to them.
I had a german friend who was in his late 20's in 1933. He was living with his father, unemployed. He was a tool and die maker, and a high pressure welder, skilled trades. He said that two weeks after Hitler gained power, everyone like him got letters telling them where to report to work. A german woman told me that there were gangs on the street, it was dangerous to go out, and when Hitler came to power, it was safe again.
We know the atrocities that were perpetrated by the regime, and the experiences described above had roots in evil.
The benefit, if there was any, of the fascist regimes was as example of how not to be.
The lesson of fascism is that Obama has to prove that his health care proposal doesn't contain 'death panels'. Bush and co. have to prove that they were not doing what the SS did. The question 'in what way is this different than Nazi Germany' is a valid one, and if the politician can't or won't answer, then start throwing things.
Derek