Fascism in America

Not Nazism, but fascism. Two similar but actually different political ideas. The Nazis got the wide-eyed, crazy racial fantasy and fear of Jews while fascism managed to survive well into my lifetime. Francisco Franco died (finally) in 1975 and General Pincochet only died last year.

Oddly, I had fascism on my mind last night. I was brought up to think of D.C. Stephenson as a terrible and dangerous man. Stephenson lead the Indiana Klu Klux Klan during the 1920's. During this time, the Indiana Klan subsumed the Indiana Republican Party. Eric Miller reminds me of Stephenson and his Klan - taking what seems perfectly good ideas and using them for very bad means. The Stephenson Klan was anti-liquor, pro-family, and for all those old fashioned American values. Sound familiar? This got me thinking about Kurt Vonnegut's piece in Palm Sunday about the anti-German bigotry in Indianapolis during WW I. So far as I can recall, Indiana had no great Bund movement during WW II. That may be due to having German-Americans like the Vonneguts and it may be due Hoosiers having had their fill of fascism. I seem to recall that Milwaukee and/or New York had a Bund prescence but they did not have anything like the Stephenson Klan. Maybe, too, hearing on MSNBC that the Bush Justice Department targeted Democrats for political corruption investigations made me think a bit about fascism.

Today's Guardian published an article by an American, Naomi Wolf, with the headline: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps. Personally, I really do not think that George W. Bush has enough smarts or ambition to become another Mussolini. Dick Cheney might lust in his heart for the sort of control promised by fascism but is so obvious in his views that only the wacko brigade would nominate his The Leader. On the other hand, my views just might be the kind of self-delusion Ms. Wolf writes about:

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have.

Using the word homeland did raise bells in my head and still strikes me as an unAmerican word. Ms. Wolf strikes to what I consider to be the heart of fascism: the desire to be protected from our fears. We do not want to confront our fears. Sure, Islamic terrorist blew up the World Trade Towers. They lack any ability to overthrow this country - only we, the citizens, have that ability. Does anyone think that George W. Bush and his version of the Republican Party capable of the competence to run this country as a fascist state? Supposedly order was the benefit of Mussolini, Dolfuss, Pinochet and all those others fascists. To date the Bushies' have only demonstrated a talent for gross incompetence.

This article compounded my gloomy thoughts of last night. A piercing shaft of light came from The Nation. Impeaching Cheney: Step One from John Nichols.

Cheney has, for decades, argued for an expansion of presidential powers that far exceeds anything intended by the founders of the Republic, and with his calculated moves to disempower Congress, to keep official meetings and documents secret, and to get the president to operate by executive orders and signing statements, he has dramatically and intentionally undermined the rule of law and the Constitution.

The list goes on, but the point is clear: Never in the history of the Republic has a member of the executive branch been so ripe for removal from office as Richard B. Cheney.

And, as of Tuesday, Congress will have an opportunity to begin the process of holding the most powerful -- and the most powerfully abusive -- vice president in American history to account.

Could we get so lucky as to remove this dangerous embarrassment from our government? Let us hope.

Finally, because I do need to get back to work, something I found while trying to find a link to a definition of fascism (thank you, Google). Umberto Eco wrote this:

...Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play (When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun) to the frequent use of such expressions as degenerate intellectuals, eggheads, effete snobs, and universities are nests of reds. The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference.

Ecowrote that in 1995. Does it not bring to mind scientific creation is, the gay marriage faux controversy, describing Democrats as car bombers, the whole Bush criticism of the anti-war movement? The remainder of the Eco article can be found here.