Has the US become fascist?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Gavik, May 1, 2007.

  1. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    You've probably seen this before, but let's take a serious look at it. This topic is not going to be a flame war, nor a Bush bashing thread. So leave out your terrorist sympathizer and dumb bush comments. I want this to be a debate over the validity of how these 14 signs of fascism apply to the US.


    We definately see this is the US, but this sign alone doesn't point to fascism, as many non-fascist states have this, but it does work to drum up support for the government.

    I don't think there's a question here. The Geneva convention has been violated many times with things like Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the CIA torture prisons around Europe.

    No question here either for me. Terrorists are indeed a real threat, but they're a threat to every country, and Bush uses the threat of terrorism to scare the population into following his policies (isn't that itself terrorism?).

    The US definitely has domestic issues, and definitely gives more money to the military than anything else. In fact, over half the budget goes towards the war budget while only 7% is used for education.

    While job discrimination in the administration based on gender isn't present, everything else on that list is.

    This one's questionable. I don't think you can specifically apply it to the US and keep a strong case.

    If you disagree with this one, I'd like to have some of whatever you're smoking.

    While the US is still technically secular, saying that religion doesn't play a major role for the Bush regime would be like saying Starbucks isn't a coffee shop. Bush is very religious, and so are his followers. An army officer even called Tillman's family "unchristian" for mourning the death of their son.

    Every government has some level of corruption, and that will never be solved completely, but that doesn't mean the rampant corruption that we see today is acceptable. I think you can find a lot of examples of this happening today.

    Again, you can finds lots of examples of this.

    Dixie Chicks anyone? This isn't really a big thing yet though...

    No contest here. See Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, illegal phone taps, Habeas Corpus and the reading of people's mail without a warrant of any kind.

    Yes, this also applies to Bush. If you want an example, just look at Gonzales' testimony, where he said 'no hablo ingles' over and over. He embarrassed himself and the administration, but Bush just told him he was doing heck of a job.

    This one can be proved to a conpiracy theory at best, but the people who accuse Bush of stealing the elections arn't few in number.

    So, how do you think they apply to the US? Discuss!

  2. LS1nut

    LS1nut Guest

    there, I fixed your opening statement for you.

    if you truly wanted intelligent debate and not a Bush bashing fest, you would have included an administration OTHER THAN THE BUSH administration in some of your questions.

    unless of course you are so partisan and naive in your thinking as to belive Bush is the only president to ever do some of the things you are discussing.
  3. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    No, you broke it. Want to go jump off a bridge together? Just because I only talked about Bush doesn't mean you have to stick with him if you believe other administrations have had fascist qualities.

    You could talk about the other administrations if you have good evidence, but Bush has been the focus of this for the most part, so that's why I wrote it that way.
  4. LS1nut

    LS1nut Guest

    its pretty clear why you "only" talked about bush.

    I didnt see you post any "good evidence"

    why is my burden of proof greater than yours? ahh yes, partisan politics....thats why.

    its your ONLY focus in this thread.......and just after you made an attempt to look bi partisan and failed misserably at it.

    I will leave your thread be now.

    sorry for derailing it, but I cant pass up a good opportunity to point out blind partisanship!!!!
  5. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    Oh yea, not that YOU, in all your bi-partisan infallibility, could be ever be biased. I pertained my posts to bush because I thought they applied to him. I didn't include others because it's my opinion that those 14 signs don't apply to others. If you think they do, then post!
  6. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    Well, aside from most of them not applying to the US, many don't even have anything to do with fascism. For example, fascists do not support liberal economics, and thus are not interested in protecting private corporations. Furthermore, there's one glaring omission among the criteria listed, namely totalitarianism. It almost seems to be a set of definitions designed to provoke an emotional reaction to make people think that the US is becoming fascist.

    As for his points:
    Sure, no argument here. The US has always been very strongly nationalistic.

    Even if everything the Bush Administration has been accused of thus far were to be true, only an incredibly twisted view of history could make it seem that the US or the Bush Administration actually has disdain for human rights.

    The abuse at Abu Ghirab was the actions of a few individuals. There was no order for prisoners to be abused, and when the military discovered what had happened, it investigated the allegations, and prosecuted those it found to be responsible. Nor does Gitmo clearly violate the Geneva Conventions, as they explicitly deny protections to those who violate the rules of war (this includes guerrillas by definition).

    Well, the key word here in the description is perceived or imaginary enemies. Since militant Islamic Fundamentalism is clearly a real enemy of liberalism, much as communism was in the 20th century, this doesn't apply.

    Not exactly as much a sign of fascism as it is a sign of a superpower.

    With more women graduating from college than men, I don't think this is any longer a significant problem, and institutionalized sexism hasn't existed in the US for decades.

    I always thought that Dan Rather guy was a bit of a sycophant for the Bush Administration...

    Sure, since 9/11, but traumatic experiences tend to do that to a nation's psyche.

    Religion's always been an important part of public life in the US. For example, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" is said before each session of the Supreme Court, yet I doubt John Jay was a fascist.

    The fact that the US protects private enterprise is in fact an argument against it being fascist.

    Sure, labor unions have grown less powerful, but this is a direct result of losses in blue collar jobs, not because of government attacks on them.

    I can't remember too many academics being censored or imprisoned for criticizing the government...

    Sure, this fits, though any objective analysis would conclude that any infringements upon liberties have been minor and fairly unharmful. Certainly they've been no worse than anything done when the nation was under similar stress under Lincoln and FDR, and neither of them was particularly fascist.

    While Bush clearly demands public unanimity from his Administration, and rewards this with firm support, I'm not sure it quite qualifies as rampant cronyism. And as for corruption, I think the last election showed the patience of the American people for parties which ignore corruption.

    While gerrymandering is a serious problem in the US, it'd be one hell of a stretch to say its elections are fraudulent.
  7. blenderboy55

    blenderboy55 Guest

    As long as "unpatriotic" liberals and the mass media exist, we won't be fascist.

    We will become the North American Union though, and quickly.
  8. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    Well, the problem with the elections in the US is the lack of will, at least among the majority, to actually look at the problems. Unless it's somehow a campaign issue ahead of the elections, of course, when it's too late to actually enact a bill anyway. So noone really minds if there won't be any change.

    In other words, the problem is how there is no way to see the extent to which the elections may be fraudulent, through both lack of interest and sloppy legislative work. There are also a number of legal ways to affect the elections through government channels, and they are used as if that is largely unproblematic.

    So when the Bush- administration now finds itself having endorsed filling the USDOJ with state attorneys who are political operatives, and then using their influence and legal power to indict and prosecute in order to help one party. While they have also been caught using government assets to plug one particular party. That is just a description of how far things have slipped.
    Imo, they apply in the way that if there truly were someone without restraint sitting on the top, they could successfully take over right now and install someone as emperor. The point is that it is not necessary for those in power to do, in order to advance their agenda.

    And as we've seen, a democratically elected government, with full legal backing of it's counsel, as well as meager opposition, and with the blessing from Congress - in many ways. And at least there were no ultimatums made on the administration's interpretation of the authoritsation for use of force - unlawfully attacked a country that had not attacked the US. It was called the "Bush- doctrine", and was hailed and welcomed as a visionary plan to "remake the middle east" and spread democracy, in an effort to protect the United States from evil.

    But how does this square with ordinary democratic theory? Does that authority come from an established platform that the party in power was elected on? As many republicans say themselves - Bush was elected, and now he's the decider. In other words, one suggests that if you win the election every four years, you are entitled to rule without restraint of any kind, if not in theory and apperance, then at least in practice. That's what their democratic theory dictates. Win the elections, by any means necessary - and then you're free to do what you want.

    So it's true as it's said - if fascism comes to america, it will be draped in the american flag. But more to the point - it will not look like fascism in Germany, or in Chile, or in Spain, England, Italy or Greece. It will look like something that is original to the US.

    (Nasty autoedit..)

    ... exibit A:
    The Case for the Strong Executive
    Under some circumstances, the rule of law must yield to the need for energy.

    Wednesday, May 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT"

    [FONT=Verdana, Times]

    via Glenn Greenwald's blog. (..I really fear for the man's sanity sometimes, if he willingly exposes himself to this kind of thing on a regular basis...)
  9. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    Nope, America has not become fascist. If it had, you wouldn't be able to ask this question without being punished by the state.

    That said, I believe America's political culture has indeed derived into a most ugly form of populism, and Bush's policies and attitude is dangerous and shares some similarities with fascist forms of populism, fueling and appealing to "law-and-order" ideas, rah-rah patriotism and jingoism, and a division of the country (suggesting dissenters are no real patriots, but somehow supporting the enemy). All this conservative spin is very similar to the Nazi's propaganda points.

    But America is still far from being a fascist country. There is still free media, free elections and most civil rights remain untouched.
  10. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    The US has gotten noticably more authoritarian as of late. This, however, does not translate to the country becoming in any way facist. I am uncomfortable and often embarrased by some comments by leaders and people of esteem in America, however I find them to be more general bigots rather than calculated malicious facists.

Share This Page