[rmnunez]

The system of government and principles guiding it are two different things. Fascism is a form of government favoured by people of very conservative perspectives. The structure is usually organized along military lines, hierarchically and with subordinate jurisdictions. I believe the federalist system of government in the US is so structurally secure it will not admit as centralized a government as fascism requires. But fascism is a system embraced by all sorts of leaders with very different ideologies. Castro and Peron would be fine examples of fascist rulers with very different ideological platforms

Fascism must include a powerful martial element and whenever the head of state assumes commander in chief attributes the opposition decries fascism. The term comes from fasces (latin for “bundle of rods”) which emblematically were wrapped around the symbolic axe of authority preceding a military commander. Fascist governments always feature the head of state in uniform, in the more fascistic models the executive cabinet features lots of military officers. Often fascist governments emerge with strong military involvement which wanes over time a they become more technocratic.

if America relies on the principles of democracy and rights as expressed in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, then any government elected would be following the rules and would be 'American'.

A rundabout way to say a fascist regime in the US would deserve Macarthyesque epithets, something I might call “un-united statian”. But to what degree would fascist ideology be opposed to the Bill of Rights and arent these and other Constitutional preclusions compromisable? Cannot rights to freely asemble, of the press or expression be temporarily limited in some extraordinary circumstances? Does the US cease to be, if constitutional principles are sacrificed at all? Has the US somehow diminished as a country because due process or privacy guarantees appear to have been curtailed? The corollary is that righteous united statian patriots have a duty to rise up and overthrow any regime jeopardizing such inalienable rights.

the definition of fascism being authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

Fascism does feature this “corporativist” element whereby individual choice must be sacrificed, for the national good. What is unique in fascism is the level of sacrifice induced from individuals and how this is accepted based on trust in the leader’s appreciation it is necessary, due to some dire predicament. Emphasis on national unity is an inherent feature of fascism, but not unique thereto as many decidedly democratic and representative governments are led by proud patriots. Hitler and Mao both were strong nationalists, and this should be differentiated from patriotism. Nationalism may be premised on ethnic and cultural identity issues, but not well when the country is populated by very diverse groups. Fascism does not have to include a racial supremacist element. It did for Hitler, but wasn't part of Franco's platform. Some fascists are ethnically repressive and others rather inclusive and embracing.

Fascism always emerges from a 'coup' which may take various forms but has invariably involved the sudden intervention of the military in government due to some sort of emergency. Bush was elected in democratic processes and we haven't seen the proclamation of some special authority suspending constraints upon his power. His critics point to the 911 emergency and note the trascendance of military considerations in government, but I think they have 'tunnel vision', they ignore the other aspects of government, the way powers are apportioned and the competing state sovereignties.

Have we elected a fascist government, considering that our government desires to promote the USA as being the greatest nation, the legislation proves that individual rights regarding property are subordinate to the needs of the government, and has used the 9/11 tragedies to tie us together in a secnario of us vs. the terrorists, and by consequence, the practice of the religion of Islam.

I don’t see how promoting the US would be symptomatic of fascism. Whether legislation excessively subordinates individual rights is a subjective consideration. I think due process, as well as assembly, press and expression rights could be compromised, but I think this can only be a temporary measure of limited application and a compelling justification needs to be shown for the exception. I strongly disagree with and dismiss as unfounded the suggestion any sort of racially supremacist anti-Muslim doctrine premises Bushian foreign policy.

I believe that currently we have fascism, and since nobody challenges it, fascism has become Americanism regardless of the Constitution. And I believe that the system of checks and balances itself have created this conundrum. Since the majority rules and the minority has rights, but those rights cannot overthrow the rule of the majority, that we cannot overthrow the fascist government since it was elected on a majority.

Bush doesn't wear a uniform in public often enough to qualify as a fascist ruler. Interventionism has heightened the military’s authority, and the executive branch has made all sorts of encroachments against states and citizens. But the US still features three independent branches of government which are generally representative and reflect the diversity of political views there. US states have specific areas of exclusive jurisdiction and in different ways maintain their individual sovereignty which would be inimical to any fascist state. If you were right the Bush administration would be overwhelmed with strong state claims in federal court challenging abuses of executive power. The threat of terrorism has been the justification for restricted curtailments of individual rights in particular cases, is it held the threat is not worth it?