Can fascism be American?

[christibe]

Recently I, through some free-writing, came to the idea that fascism can be American, and that it is today in fact true.

My question is that 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'.

There is no proof that the elections held 2000-2006 were tampered with. I may personally believe that to be the case, as may many other people, but lacking proof we are unable to assert it as truth.

So, we have a democratically elected representative government in place.

Given this, and 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.

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 have many other points, but those are controversial and I only want to elicit response that considers Americanism literally and without subjective opinion.

I want to know if Americanism is defined by the times, or by the Constitution. But, if an elected government can either deny the Constitution, or can use Congress to reshape the Constitution, then the new understanding of the Constitution will hold as being true, and therefore, 'American'.

So, does the current trend of the United States at any time define what Americanism is, or, is Americanism only defined by the actual words and meaning of the original Constitution? (Then, would the Amendments 11-end be 'UnAmerican'?)

America is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Since we elected the government, and the majority of the People have not formally questioned the policies, then we accept it as representation of our desires. Even if these practices are contradictory to the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people as granted through inalienable rights, since the People accept them, it must be American.

So, is Americanism whatever the current People hold as American, or, is Americanism something that cannot be changed.

So then, would fasicsm ever be American, or would fascism always exist as a coup?

Thoughts?


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. I have other examples of how checks and balances led to this.

[Netopalis]

To address your concerns....constitutional amendments are accepted as law regardless of their time - that being said, the process is so difficult that we might see a constitutional amendment in 50 years. Usually, these amendments are sparked by some great change, such as the civil war or the civil rights movement, and are a result of changing public opinion, not the result of a power-grab by the government.

The constitution is designed not to give power to the government, but to restrict it. Regardless of presidential directives and laws, the courts of the United States have a responsibility to stand behind the constitution and precedent at nearly all times.

Finally, Americanism is not determined by the current President - it is defined by the will of the voters who elect the congressmen who hold the real power in American government. Realistically, the President's powers are highly limited - he can use the veto and he can initiate foreign diplomacy. Executive Orders have rarely been upheld by courts, signing statements have never been upheld. Instead, the real power in America is vested in Congress, a body to which it is much harder to attribute fascist values, because fascism requires the centralization of government to be effective.

Therefore, due to the statements above and due to the fact that Americans are generally socially conscious and tend to dislike government interference in their lives, I believe that the American government could not become fascist without a revolution or else a replacement of a majority of congressmen, the President and the Supreme Court. That is, after all, why we have checks and balances.

[christibe]

So, Amendments are to be upheld. Which I agree with.

However, the current President has expanded the powers of the President through the use of Executive Orders which can be upheld by law through the Act of Congress that allowed him to declare war with little to no limits. So, I would insist that the Congress has allowed the President to redefine Executive privilege. So, we have found a way to redefine the Constitution.

Also, considering the Congress pre-January 2007 consisted of a majority in line with the President's philosophies, and that since Jan-2007 we have not seen much in the way of change of legislation. This would seem that the new representation agrees with the former legislation, and the President. Then, the People agree with it. Then, even though it is fascism, it has become the new Americanism. So, it doesn't evidence your claim that the Congress itself cannot influence fascism's creation.

[christibe]

Quote by: Netopalis The constitution is designed not to give power to the government, but to restrict it. Regardless of presidential directives and laws, the courts of the United States have a responsibility to stand behind the constitution and precedent at nearly all times.

True. But, if in our understanding of the Constitution through law and legislation it becomes acceptable to have fascism, does it not then become American to be fascist in that form?

I am suggesting that the current Administration has used the tools of the system to create fascism.

[Netopalis]

Executive orders only become law when Congress approves them, therefore the system is not broken because we elected the people who made these laws. If anything contrary to the constitution were to be passed, it would be overruled, executive order or no.

As for why nobody has put a stop to certain policies, it's all politics. If a Republican breaks ranks, he or she will face censure and will lose funding and party backing. The democrats are interested in keeping Bush in power because he's an easy target - they can blame everything on him while they get a free ticket to the Presidency. Quite frankly, I'm sickened with both parties right about now, but there you have it...

[christibe]

So, is Americanism defined by the times, or by the Constitution? Americanism just means- what it means to be American and the practices thereof.

[Netopalis]

Well, if you're going to define it such as that, I would say that the answer is neither - Americanism is a set of ideals and cultural quirks that aren't necessarily found in the constitution or in our current laws.

[christibe]

? I do not understand.

Question, "What does it mean to be American?"
Answer, "Being American means accepting and adhering to the qualities of the Bill of Rights, valuing every individuals opinion, never taking away someone else's right to free speech, etc." things like that which point to what the Constitution, first 10 Amendments point to.

I argue that now the answer is still those things, as well as, "Being at war with the terrorists and that our country is the only one able to promote democracy in the world, and that if I don't have anything to hide, then I shouldn't care if the government looks into my phone and email records. Only a person with something to hide would care about that." That, to me, is not American because the Fourth Amendment states that The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. meaning- the government doesn't have the right to seize any person's phone records for no reason, because probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed

So, for Americans to accept that anyones records be seized by the government for any reason, either means that Americans are being UnAmerican, or that we have the ability to redefine Americanism because we are The People.

Does this follow now?

[Netopalis]

I really don't think that those things fit the definition of American, really. If they did, then it would no longer be logical to be an American ideologically, because it would be a contradictory position. I am as much for getting the government to stop reading my messages and such as you are - I simply don't believe that Bush is literally satan incarnate like some others believe.

Your later statements are not part of classical American ideology, but that being said, the general public has rather lost sight of what it means to be an American. That also being said, there is also a certain amount of personal interpretation in regards to how you view a correct American position would be towards a certain issue.

The problem is essentially this: Americanism is not a sealed set of ideologies, nor should it be - after all, we pride ourselves on being the melting pot of the world, adopting the best parts of other cultures and such. Therefore, arguing whether something is American or UnAmerican is rather counterintuitive.

[christibe]

Oops, I think I accidentally pigeon-holed you into making my point. crap.

I'm going to hope that other people respond. I really do need for myself to be proven incorrect, and for the fundamental flaw in my reasoning to be pointed out, because I do not see it.

[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?

[christibe]

Thanks rmnunez. I will consider your points.

Also, it's agreed that the level of Bush in uniform is not representative of typical Fascists states. But it could be that the constant propaganda of discussing the war in Iraq, though no longer Afghanistan, and the constant discussion of Democrats v Republicans, by the media as the focus since 2001, might be a replacement to the traditional view of 'the Leader'.

I am worried, on a very personal level, that my government may allow fascism, and am exploring those possibilities.

Thank you again for your well phrased response. Especially towards states' power... somehow I hadn't thought of them.

And, I believed it once that no threat should ever allow for the reduction in liberty, temporarily or not, and any government that would do so should be overthrown as a coup.

[rmnunez]

There is evidence of enhanced conflicts between state and federal powers in the US under Bush and there are federalist advocates in the US Congress and Senate who apply their arguments against federal encroachments. After the hurricanes governors decried their lack of means to address the emergency since their National Guardsmen, those helicopters, tents and trucks had all been sent to Iraq -this was a challenge to executive encroachments. In the immigration debate the same thing has happened as states clash with federal policy.

[christibe]

Thank you for pointing that out. You seem to be able to more objectively view this than myself. :)

It is the theory of the Federalists that if the Federal government were acting appropriately then there would be no need for the States to complain about anything.

Does this illuminate that there is a problem, the federal govt is acting contrary to Americanism, but the system is acting in the way it should. So, if it were aiming to fascism, then the system would deter that course?



Thank you.

[BobbyO]

Huey Long once said that if fascism came to America, it would be called "Americanism."

The problem is in defining fascism. It is NOT a conservative movement. On the contrary, fascists always call for programs and policies that are decidedly progressive in nature. It is NOT a millitary movement. Fascists tend to dislike the their country's professional millitary and either seek to supplant it with something like a people's millitia, or they place their allies in key positions in the millitary, so as to control. It is NOT a minority movement as it justifies its existence and power on the basis of it having majority support of the people. It is NOT a defender of capitalism, as it blames it for the miseries of people which fascism pledges to fix.

What it is IS, is a movement which seeks to use the power of the government to improve and better the lives of people through governemt action. It can certaily be racial and ethnic, as it often seeks to create a common bond with people along those lines.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO Huey Long once said that if fascism came to America, it would be called "Americanism." The problem is in defining fascism.

I think simplistic thinking like Ann Coulter's fits the bill of "fascist."

Consider this decidedly modest quote of hers:
"Liberals hate America, they hate 'flag-wavers', they hate abortion
opponents, they hate all religions except Islam. Even
terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."

Replace the word "liberals" with some other word, like maybe "Jews," and there you go--fascist, stereotyping rhetoric identifying people she disagrees with, with obvious intent to ostracize them.

More specifically fascist is her statement on Muslims that "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

So yes, fascism can be American. Also, consider the fact that the US government supported fascist creeps like Klaus Barbie.

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa I think simplistic thinking like Ann Coulter's fits the bill of "fascist."

Gee grandpa, in all the other posts we have clashed on, you have repeatedly stressed as to how "simple" in practice and execution your proposals really are...

[christibe]

So, individual Americans may be fascist, but that doesn't identify America.

I was considering today that fascism couldn't actually take hold because of states' powers, as rmnunez pointed out. As much as the federal government could get out of whack and crazy, the states would always eventually come in to straighten the mess out. So, if the fasicst control continued, it would be nothing other than a coup.

But, I couldn't think of the exact mechanism in the government regarding states rights that would sort of 'automatically kick in' in the case of fascism. For example, many states have signed a petition to impeach the president and vp, however those are considered the more 'liberal' states, and somehow, despite opposition control in the Congress, impeachment proceedings have not begun. And it is unlikely they will. Why is a formal investigation so bad? I don't know... my guess is fascists don't take kindly to transparency in government?

Anyway, those minority of states may want something, but it really has to be an equally concerted effort by the states to really swing the federal government. So, if only a minority protested the fascist federal government, we would be left with the system itself supporting the fascism; that is, those states can still contest it all they want, but they aren't strong enough to change anything. And if the People still don't change it, then the fascism would stand. And, Fascism would be the new Americanism.

I think it is rather unlikely that it could happen, now that I have considered states rights and the unlikely set of circumstance that would make them all somewhat agree that the new direction was ok. The states are really the best representatives of who the people are. So while I admit it is unlikely, it still is possible.

And, I don't think I can really identify myself as American anymore if the very ideals I was so proud of can't even prohibit fascism, despite the contention that individual liberty is the catalyst to our nation.

[Alive]

christibe,

My problem with calling America "fascist" is that all elements commonly mentioned as "fascist" are in fact continuations of American trends that existed long before "fascism" ever did. The US has its own unique dark side that is not like German or Italian "fascism" except superficially but evil in it's own form.

Given this, and 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

The US does not, I think, do this. "The state" is explicitly attacked even by "the state" itself, in the media. The worship of "the state" as the highest ideal never really permeated American consciousness; we have a basic (though not very strong) dislike of government. When have you heard a politician even talk about "the state"--the greatest authoritarians attack the state and highlight their outsider cowboy image. We talk about a country, a people, an amorphous blob. The American ideal is the independent, the cowboy, the individual, and even the greatest haters of freedom use the talk of these ideals to encourage their authoritarian agenda. Witness GWB. This has, of course, been going on since this country was founded with words of freedom by a bunch of slave-owners.

As has authoritarianism. As I have pointed out before on this forum, in virtually every war in our nation's history the state took away rights. So it's hardly fair to call it "fascist" when it happens then if you didn't consider it fascist then. It's an American trend going back all the way to Alien and Sedition. Was John Adams a fascist? Such attribution makes the term meaningless.

So no, the US isn't fascist, and never will be fascist. The US is in some ways worse than fascist, because no truly fascist state has survived longer than 2 decades. The US, on the other hand, has been committing evils on the world for centuries.

[christibe]

Thank you, Alive.

I accept your answer. And I have convinced myself out of my proposal.

I am now wondering if it is possible to reconcile the ideals of the United States with the actions taken throughout the country's history. And could it ever be possible to bring the two in accordance? But I guess that is a matter of personality...


I have somehow found a way until recently.

I wonder what it is that is so different from the Bush 'regime' than from those in the past. That makes it so much worse. Maybe just that it's the one I am living through? Or maybe relative to the rest of the world we are now the backwards-ass nation?, because we are unconcerned with higher values and are still looking to colonize?