is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

In a recent thread, Monk poo-pooed several posters' suspicion and fears that the current NeoCon-controlled governement was leading the country towards a facist police state.What is everyone's opinion, and what evidence is that opinion based upon?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-26-2005 07:40 AM

The following is taken from one of my posts in the "O'Reilly Evidence" thread:The current presidency is the most secretive and closed we have seen in decades. The President gives no press conferences. The white house secertly pays journalists to promote it's ideas.This first Patriot act is a serious assault upon our civil rights, so much so that Americans no longer have a right to due process (habeas corpus). It is being abused by law enforcement as we speak.There is even a Patriot Act 2 which would go even further towards creating a police state, allowing secret arrests and secret trials (essentially making someone "dissappear"), the removal of citizenship and deportation of native-born Americans even if they have not done anything illegal. All police restrictions upon spying on citizens would be removed. Anti-war protesters and any dissidents, under the PA2, could be defined as terrorists.Furthermore, none of these activities would be under Congressional (or any outside) oversight.I absolutely do believe that the US is sliding into Facism, and I am heartbroken that we put these assholes back in power.Laurence W. Britt, Facism Anyone?For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francos Spain, Salazars Portugal, Papadopouloss Greece, Pinochets Chile, and Suhartos Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies / scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. Supremacy of the military
5. Rampant sexism
6. Controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and governmment intertwined
9. Corporate power protected
10. Labor power suppressed
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections

quote:

---

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?

---

Come on, are you really this naive, or do you think I am?Just because a politician considers himself a member of a particular Christian domination doesn't mean much. What matters is his or her voting record, and what they say and do.Frist just did a spot for the Family Research Council, a prominent right-wing group that seeks to enforce conservative Christian morality upon all US citizens through legislation. Hastert is a conservative evangelical Christian who was endorsed by Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, National Rifle Association, and National Right to Life.Pat Robertson is a religious nutcase, yet he is one of President Bush's informal advisors.By any measure, the people currently in power serve the Christian religious right in their efforts to impose their Christian morality, by law, upon everyone, and also to consolodate power and wealth among themselves.Give me a break.

quote:

---

Um, there are no Republicans who are Fascists. Then they would be in the Fascist party, not the Republican party.

---

Yes, there are Republicans who are Fascists.At least, there are Republicans who think that the military and the police should be much more powerful, and that morality should be determined by the government and enforced by law.There is no "Facist" party. It's the far right end of the political spectrum.

quote:

---

So it?s ok to call Republicans extreme fundamentalist fascists,

---

Only when it really seems to be looking like they support and desire fascist ideals.

quote:

---

but a Democrat is just a Democrat eh?

---

Except when they aren't.Can you show me any Democrats who would be the far left equivalent to the republicans in power?

quote:

---

You seem to think Democrats are the Mother Theresa?s of the political world.

---

No, I don't.But you are the one who has repeatedly made the claim that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, but has given no examples AFAICT.Show me some examples of how the Democrats have been just the same as the NeoCons.

quote:

---

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.

---

With the possible exception of Kennedy, ALL of those legislators ARE middle of the road moderates. Even Kennedy has become more moderate in recent years. Not a single one is an "extreme left winger".If you think they are, then you have a very skewed idea of what the "far left" actually is.For example, what makes you think that Howard Dean, the business tax-slashing, pro-death penalty governor is a good example of the political "extreme left wing"?

quote:

---

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.

---

You mean the same FDR that fought against Hitler and Mussolini in WWII?

quote:

---

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.

---

Economic policy is common to all governments.

quote:

---

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.

---

Please back up your claim that the idea that governments should direct anything was considered a no-no prior to the 20th century.I find this claim incredible.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, that is inaccurate.I do not claim we are currently a fascist police state.I wonder if we are in the process of sliding into one.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why is he resticting any lines at all?Is it because of his and others' religious views? You admitted that the answer is "yes" but that it's somehow not a big deal.Your information regarding Bush's views on internation family planning funding is incomplete.What do you think Bush's the "Global Gag Rule" does, monk? Although it was struk down by congress, it would have withheld international family planning money to any country or organization that provided services which offered abortion and/or openly informed women about their legal abortion rights.hy do you think he did this? Is it because of his and others' religious views?

quote:

---

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.

---

But laws can be changed, can't they, if enough like-minded people get into powerful positions as legislators, supreme Court justices, as Presidents?Why do you think these groups have become more vocal lately? Is it because they believe they will get a friendlier hearing in Congress and the courts as more people sympathetic to their cause are in power?Don't you see that this is what the right wing has been working towards ever since Reagan? They have gotten closer recently than they ever have before, except maybe during the MacCarthy Red Scare Era, or perhaps during the Japenese American interrment.

quote:

---

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.

---

Give me some information that will insure that no religious charitable organization will be allowed to violate any US law against discrimination.

quote:

---

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.

---

Excuse me?You think the country was liberal under Clinton?It maybe moved left a bit, but remained firmly centrist and moderate.There was precious little which was at all liberal about Clinton's presidency. He reduced the size of government, created a large budget surplus, oversaw a huge, long-lasting economic boom that was very friendly to business (NAFTA), used our military strength around the world, and enacted sweeping Welfare reform.I wrote this in the other thread, and I'd like you to address it, and what you think this says about the current leadership of the US: the PA2 was authored by people currently in power in the US Federal Legislature.Does it not seem even a little "facist police state" in flavor to you?Also, I notice that the only two things you didn't address from my list of ways the US government is currently subservient to the Bible were the two most obvious ones; the gay marriage ban and the movement to overturn Roe v. Wade.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-28-2005 12:28 PM

The issue is if the US law is currently influenced by a particular stripe or flavor of Biblical interpretation, and the movements against gay marriage and abortion are certainly evidence of this.

quote:

---

Opposition to abortion and gay marriage is hardly limited to Christianity. Orthodox Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, and the Bahai all oppose abortion and gay marriage at least to some degree.

---

Please show me where anyone other than those associated with conservative Abrahamic religions have ever taken the stance that gay marriage and abortion should be outlawed in a secular governement.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-28-2005 04:00 PM

Monk, why did you not address the main substantive part of my points regarding the right wing extremists who are in power, which rebutted your claim that they were just mild-mannered Methodists and Presbyterians?Let me post it again. Please address it.I'll withdraw the robertson comment for now, but I think the part you ignored is more important. Will you concede that the people in these high, very powerful positions are very conservative, right-wing Republicans?

quote:

---

No, it is you dear scraffy who is skewing the world view. Your position is perfectly understandable, though. You just can?t see it.

---

CAN'T SEE WHAT?Give me specifics, monk. What, specifically about the records of those people do you consider to be worthy of putting them in the category of "extreme left wing" of the political spectrum?I keep asking (it must be 4 or 5 times now) for specific examples of the specific behaviors/voting records, etc., that "extreme left wingers" have done which are just as extreme as the NeoCons currently in power.I notice you didn't answer my specific question regarding one of the "extreme right wingers" you listed, so I'll repeat it here. Please address it.

quote:

---

Please provide a link to ?Global Gag Rule?

---

Gladly. Global Gag RuleYou also made an incredible claim regarding FDR and government that I asked you to support. Please do so.

quote:

---

Watch it tonight at 8:30 pm eastern time

---

Sweet Jesus, it's been a YEAR since his last press conference!A whole year, for goodness sake.And speaking of press conferences, and press people, and the White House, have you heard about this guy?Here's another look at his credentials hereI again ask you to address what I wrote, reposted below:

quote:

---

No, it is you dear scraffy who is skewing the world view. Your position is perfectly understandable, though. You just can?t see it. When a person is as left wing as you are, then there are no extreme left wing politicians because you view them as to your right.

---

Is that so?Well, why don't you tell me exactly how "left wing" I am, monk?Go on, you have me so pegged, you know me any what my political views are so very well, why don't you describe to me what my views are on a variety of political subjects?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-28-2005 09:29 PM

quote:

---

I don't recall Schwarzenegger, or Giuliani, or McCain, or Hagel, or even Hastert doing it either. Certainly DeLay has...but he's self-destructing.

---

Uh, paisano, many of those people are not in the top leadership of the party. In fact, most were only trotted out during the campaign to fool the American public into thinking that they were representative of the people in the Republican party who were going to be in power.It was false advertising, as it were.(Hastert is one of the Evagelical right wingers)Most of the people you mention are moderate, reasonable Republicans that I share quite a few values with.In fact, I likely would have voted for John McCain over Al Gore if the extremists in the Republican party would have allowed McCain, one of our most popular Senators who also has lots of appeal to Democrats, to become the candidate.But he wanted to get serious about campaign finance reform (remember when Gingrich and co said they would do that?), and he didn't bend over for the Radical Religous Right, so he was out.When the NeoCons start accusing Arlen Specter of being "too liberal", what does that say to you about what "liberal" has come to mean to conservatives in this country?And when Pat Buchanan comes out and says that the NeoCons have abandoned traditional republican values and aren't real Republicans, what does that say about the people in power, and the Republican party?Why aren't more Republicans screaming and yelling about what these people are doing to their party?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-29-2005 07:28 AM

Ted KennedyBarbara BoxerJohn KerryHilary(sic) ClintonNancy PelosiHoward Dean]Denny HastertTom DeLayRoy BluntGeorge W.BushJohn AshcroftJohn McCainGary Bauer, head of the Family Research Counciledited to shorten and add linksThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-29-2005 10:54 AM

I'd just like to note that every single one of the top republican leadership im my list above, including the president, are strongly in sypport of a constitutional ammendment which would allow publicly funded schools to include official prayers as part of each child's education.If this isn't evidence of the religious Right being in power, I don't know what is.

quote:

---

I'm sure I could carefully select a quote from an extreme leftist politician from some other constituency regarding some other piece of equally poor legislation.

---

You know, I don't think you can.The reason I don't think you can is because I do not think that there are any extreme leftist politicians in office.Like, where are the Socialists in public office? Where are the Anarchists, the Marxists?That's what an "extreme leftist" would be, right?Someone on the extreme right is easy to find. They're all over the place in our government, in the most powerful positions.

quote:

---

When Frist met with the FRC he didn?t mention religion, laws, or anything at all to do with religious legislation. His entire speech was about the obstructionist democrats who will not allow a simple vote on Bush?s nominees.

​

Here is the full transcript of exactly what Frist said and there is absolutly nothing about religion at all, nothing.

​

I repeat, he is going to talk about judicial nominees not religion.

​

The religious right is part of Frist constituency and every politician, democrat and republican alike cater to their constituency. It doesn?t mean the end of civilization. Now when Frist starts pushing religious legislation aimed at infringing on the rights of all citizens, then we have a problem. But I don?t see it, do you?

---

Monk, why is Bill Frist campaigning to Evangelical Christians via the Family Research Council, on a sunday, to be shown at churches, if it had nothing to do with religion, as in trying to get conservative judges appointed so that they will be more amenable to the conservative lawmaking agenda.Come on, what are you asking me to swallow here?Oh, and here's your link about the lobbying efforts of the FRC

quote:

---

Did you catch that? Never in 214 years has a vote been denied.

---

Wow, that is a bald faced lie, and you believed it.

quote:

---

Republicans have filibustered sure, but not to this extent and not with judicial nominees.

---

Here's some history for you: link

quote:

---

Yes, ok, but where is the legislation that you are so scared of?

---

Here's some, either passed, or proposed, or partially passed.The Patriot Act and proposed PA2
Gay Marriage Ban
Privitizing Social Security proposal
Restrictions on out of state abortions for teenagers passed by the house
Bankruptsy Bill
Tax cut for the wealthy
General weakening of environmental laws.
Weakening of paid overtime law for workers

quote:

---

Suppose that we gathered all democratic members of both the Senate and the House in a large auditorium. Now it is your task to pick the 5 most extreme liberal members of this group.

---

I am not talking about "relative" liberalism or conservatism.It's actually my point that "relative" to a true "extreme leftist", none of the Democrats you mention would qualify.I am actually talking about where these people fall on the entire political spectrum independent of what is represented in the legislature as a whole at the moment.So, to me, an "extreme leftist" would be a Socialist, or possibly a Marxist. Someone who wants to completely do away with all private business and personal wealth and redistribute everything through a central government which controls everything.Clearly, none of the people on the list advocate for that stance, or anything close to that stance, so they are not at the "extreme far left". If you look at voting records and views, Kennedy and Pelosi are probably the most liberal, Kerry is a centrist with a bit of left lean, and Clinton is also quite moderate.I can, however show you several legislators that are, objectively, pretty darn far right, the most right-leaning, hardcore conservatives in congress, and they are enjoying the most powerful positions in the country right now, even more powerful than the presidency.Guess who wrote the following: Barry Goldwater.Goldwater was seen as conservative as it gets back when he was in power, but can you even IMAGINE any republican (or democrat) saying anything close to this these days?(added by edit: If Goldwater was around today, there would be no place for him in the Republican party. He'd be considered a liberal Demcrat for some of his views, including his stance on gay rights, which he supported. He held the true conservative stance that it wasn't the government's business.Apparently, to be a powerful republican, you need to believe in a lot of govenment legislation of morality.You know, lots of government intrusion into people's personal lives.If this isn't clear evidence of a huge shift towards religious conservatives having a huge amount of control of our government right now, I don't know what is.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-29-2005 01:01 PM

Oh dear, now you are misquoting me, having cut off this sentence, thereby removing the context.Here is the full quote:

quote:

---

Because as I said, those people are part of his constituency. Do they not have a right to be heard? Aren't they intitled to representation in Congress? Is this a democracy?

---

You really aren't interested in having a real discussion, are you?Look, if the situation was that there was a super liberal president and congress that wanted to appoint some super liberal judges, and the minority conservatives threatened to block a couple of them because they had these super liberal descision records, and then the liberal leadership went to the annual Gay Ganja Tokers of America rally to talk to them about those terrible conservatives blocking the vote, but not about gay rights and legalizing pot, wouldn't you think that maybe there was a message there that if the voters put pressure on the minority conservatives to not filibuster they might get a better hearing with these liberal judges when they tried to pass another gay rights or pot legalization bill?

quote:

---

You're still dodging my hypothetical

---

Can you please address the question I asked you first?What actions taken by democrats are just as underhanded and extreme as the actions taken by the NeoCons?

Monk, I have jumped through your hoops.I have provided you with the evidence to show that the FRC is a group bent upon enforcing the conservative Christian moral agenda through legislation.Several of the most powerful people in our governemt, including frist, are very closely aligned with this organization.Why is it unreasonable to think that the most powerful people in our government are pushing hard for getting conservative Christian morality put into law, which includes appointing conservative activist judges which will be amenable to their cause?

quote:

---

Dealing with terrorist requires changes

---

Like trashing the Constitution and civil rights?Wow, you are a NeoCon Fascist, aren't you?.The ends justifies the means, no matter how much the police and FBI get to abuse their power, eh?

quote:

---

Gay marriage Ban

​

This is stupid and I disagree with it

---

So, do you then agree that the gay marriage ban is coming from the conservative christian agenda to legislate morality to all americans?

quote:

---

Bush want to allow part but not all of the social security payments to go to private accounts so that when a spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets at least some compensation for all the years of contributing. You don?t consider that fair?

---

What happens if the stock market takes a huge dive, or the particular investments made go south? Then they get nothing.The stock market is just gambling, you know.

quote:

---

There should be restrictions on teenage abortions.

---

There should be restrictions on many kinds of abortions.But what about this particular one?

quote:

---

The ACLU is supporting a 13 year old?s right to an abortion without parental consent. That?s extreme

---

What if her father is the one who got her pregnant, and her mother isn't around or doesn't believe her?The bankruptsy bill makes it more difficult for individuals (not millionaires, though) to declare bankruptsy while rewarding predatory lenders.Tax cut for the wealthy evidenceI'm running out of time, but...http://www.epinet.org/.../webfeatures_viewpoints_OT_pay_loss

I predicted this reaction from you.I don't think that those ratings at the bottom of the pages of that website are accurate.The issues that are rated to determine where they fall in the spectrum are not exhausive nor complete.Obviously, Howard Dean, who supports the death penalty, is pro-business, endorses not changing current gun laws, and strongly believes in a balanced budget is not a "hard-core liberal" like Ted Kennedy is a "hard core liberal", seeing as Kennedy would disagree with Dean's stance on the death penalty, gun laws, and much of his pro-business positions.OK, if you are done with this thread, but I must tell you that my general impression is that you refused to support your original claim that THEWRE IS NO DIFFERENCE between the behavior and tactics of the current NeoCon leadership and the Democrats.You gave only dismissive sentence fragments in response to the laws the NeoCons have passed which I have objected to. Some of the legislation you didn't even know about.You refused to budge one inch on even considering that the religious right just might have a good, tight hold of the leadership in congress right now, despite all of the evidence I have posted. You have ignored or dismissed nearly all of it without any explanation.I am disappointed, monk. You have behaved pretty much like every other republican I personally have discussed these things with.You really seem to me to be "defending the faith", or are being a good "team player", and not really considering issues from any perspective other than the one the politicians tell you to.I, like crash, don't feel like you are taking the issues seriously.

quote:

---

You didn’t predict anything. A prediction occurs beforehand.

---

You can believe what you want, of course, but just because I didn't say it to you doesn't mean I didn't predict your reaction.To be completely accurate, Zhimbo, my husband, predicted you would do that as he was looking over my shoulder this morning.

quote:

---

You got caught recommending a website that is contrary to your preconceived firmly held political dogma.

---

Well, no, not really.It showed that the people you mentioned as being on the "extreme left" were, in fact, not Socialists or Marxists, which is what an "extreme leftist" would be.However, it did show that the people on the "extreme right" were, in fact, in power at the highest levels of government, which you denied.You also ignored the point that all of the Republicans on the list advocated for a constitutional amendment to allow school prayer in publicly funded schools, showing that if they get the right number of like minded people in high congressional office and in the SCOTUS, they could change the constitution to allow that.You even misquoted me shamelessly, Creationist style, to misrepresent the context of my point.Did you admit to it?No.Did you ever even attempt to show where Democrats have behaved just as reprehensibly as the NeoCons, which is what I have asked for at least 6 times now?No.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-29-2005 08:19 PM