I don’t think it’s a good idea to start calling Republicans or conservatives “fascists.” It makes reasoned discussion and the search for consensus or compromise much more difficult.
You don’t hear the word much, but I noticed it in this lefty piece which purports to have identified “five fascisms in Wisconsin and Ohio,” obviously searching within the suddenly dominant Republican parties in those two states and especially in their assaults on public workers’ unions.
But I do wonder — at the same time that I worry about selective perception in matters such as this — why it has become acceptable for important leaders of the Republican Party to throw the world “socialism” around, at Obama, at the health-care bill, at progressive taxation, and really at most of the ideas of Democrats that suggest government may occasionally be able to make a positive contribution and is not just a vast conspiracy to kill jobs and devour freedom.
Socialism and fascism are both complex terms with many meanings but heavy baggage. In most of the developed world, “socialism” isn’t a dirty word and many advanced democratic countries have major parties with “socialist” or “social” in their names. But, let’s face it, in American popular discourse the “s” word is almost as big a stink bomb to throw at anyone to the left of you as “fascist” is to throw at anyone to the right of you.
Yes, it’s true that fascism, if it means anything other than “Hitler-Mussolini,” was pro-corporate, anti-union and hyper-nationalist. So there are opportunities to make those connections, as the writers to whom I linked above did, and I wouldn’t say their linkages are any more extreme and probably less tenuous than the linkages Michele Bachmann routinely makes between the Obama health-care bill and socialism (or between Obamaism more generally and socialism, which she believes he has already “ushered in on his watch.”
By the way, this one is lost in the time machine, but on the very day she was first endorsed for Congress, Bachmann described a vote for her DFL opponent, the crazy radical Patty Wetterling, as a step “down to the ant-heap of totalitarianism where government makes our choices for us.”
I agree with Godwin’s law, that as soon as someone brings up hitler, nazis or fascism to castigate their opponents, they have lost the argument. However, as Eric notes, there needs to be a corrolary that applies to allegations of socialism, communism and marxism.
We have non-Joe the non-Plumber to thank for attaching the “socialism” label to Obama. It was rather late in the 2008 Presidential campaign when John McCain latched onto this fellow, who said Obama had told him “we all do better when we spread the wealth around”, or words to that effect. Voila! Socialism! The McCain team ran with it. Even moderates like Arnold Schwartzenegger used it in a campaign appearance for McCain, saying “this is no time to experiment with socialism.”
After a brief moment in the limelight as a Republican mascot and Everyman surrogate, Joe the Plumber quickly proved himself an embarrassment and faded from public view. But the “socialism” label lives on, probably because it dovetails so nicely with the larger right wing theme of questioning Obama’s patriotism and national origin.
What should we do if some real Fascists show up?
I should mention that Jonah Goldberg has written extensively on the F-word. If you get beyond the title of his book (aren’t we supposed to move beyond labels), he has some really good history and insight.
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-fascism
No Eric, Jonah is not going to give you a link. Conservatives are hip to that trick!
The only actual Fascist state government (as opposed to political movement) that I am aware of is Italy under Mussolini, which was a totalitarian government.
The term is often tossed around (both to the Left and to the Right) as an insult, but I’m not aware of any other government that has adopted the term as a label.
So, I would say that Fascism is much more clearly tied to totalitarian government than is socialism.
The difference is liberals. For some reason liberals react negatively to labels. My experience is that it’s liberals who react the most negatively to the use of the term fascist. Conservatives on the other don’t mind labels, in fact they like labels. Conservatives don’t like being called fascists but they shut down if it happens.
I agree that the use of the term is counter productive, but I have to point out that it is nevertheless an accurate description of some republican politicians. It is yet another example of how Democrats have lost the battle for context. Republicans can hurl labels all over the place with impunity but liberals can’t call a Fascist a Fascist.
@Paul U–
As much as I dislike the current brand of Republican (unconservative) radicals, I would not lump them in with real Fascists.
Paul Udstrand nailed it. We on the left seem to instinctively run from any label the right wants to slap on us as a purported insult, even when it’s a label we’ve used ourselves. Why else would so many obvious liberals today refuse to describe themselves as such, and instead insist that they are merely “progressives”? Both words obviously have a long history in politics, but “liberal” is a word used across the Western world to describe a generic left-of-center view, and only in America has it become an epithet, with the seeming acquiescence of the left.
Similarly, many of today’s lefties freak out whenever a Republican references the “Democrat” party instead of “Democratic,” despite the obvious facts that a) there’s no discernible linguistic difference and b) we call ourselves Democrats. I’ve always suspected that Republicans secretly find this hilarious, and that that’s the only reason they keep doing it.
Liberal talk-show hosts and bloviators on MSNBC use “conservative” or “ultra-conservative” or “neo-conservative” as an epithet all the time. I’ve never yet met a conservative who seemed to think that the proper response was to invent a new word to replace conservative and start insisting that they were never really conservatives at all.
Eric, the word socialist is not nearly the stink bomb that Nazi is. The first one evokes high tax states like in Scandinavia. The second suggests widespread murder and genocide. And don’t think that this comparison didn’t occur to those protesting Gov Walker. Just because libs don’t feel comfortable standing up and defending the word (and their ideological brethren) doesn’t make the two claims equal.
Peder – Mr. Black didn’t mention Nazis, just fascists. We already know we are not supposed to talk about Nazis.
This is interesting:
[from wikipedia/fascism/definition]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
“Since the 1990s, scholars including Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton have been gathering a rough consensus on the ideology’s core tenets.
For Griffin, fascism is “a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism” built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist “armed party” politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence.[36]
Paxton sees fascism as “obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity”. In Paxton’s interpretation, fascists are “committed nationalist militants”, working uneasily alongside traditional elites and abandoning democratic liberties in pursuit of “internal cleansing” or territorial expansion.”
[from Conservapedia/fascism/Beliefs]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Fascism
“Fascists believe that all actions should be done for the good of the state; they reject classical liberalism, which upholds the rights of the individual. Fascism ignores or rejects Christianity, though some fascist leaders such as Franco have exploited organized religion for political gain. This definition expands to economic policy as well, with government and business working together for this end – this is called “corporatism.”
Characteristics of fascism include a belief that the state is more important than the individual; a leaning towards authoritarian government and violence; preference for centralized economic planning; an emphasis on nationalism and national traditions; militarism; information control and censorship; media propagation of the Great Leader which demonizes and trivializes his critics; and a rejection of both free enterprise and Socialism in favor of corporatist economic policies.
Fascist regimes have often concentrated on a “scapegoat” to push their agendas, such as the vehement Nazi attack on the Jews.
The characteristics of fascism also include rampant cronyism and corruption, as well as rigged elections and a general disdain for human rights”
[Conservapedia then launches into an extended description of the New Deal as essentially fascist, ending the article with the statement that “…America, Australia and Canada have never had significant fascist movements….”
re: republican usage of democrat vs. democratic, I thought it was an unconscious adoption to cover up someone’s incorrect usage, as in every Republican’s mis-pronounciation of the word nuclear to cover for our former President’s continual rendering of it as(nuke-U-ler).
Eric, re your comment:”
“I don’t think it’s a good idea to start calling Republicans or conservatives “fascists.” It makes reasoned discussion and the search for consensus or compromise much more difficult.”
I agree it’s not a good idea to use the “F” word; use of that term, like the “S” term by Republicans and right-wingers means that reasoned discussion and arrival at any agreement is over with, not that it’s made harder. But I’d submit that the right has brought this on themselves. Is there any “reasoned discussion” in Congress (including the Senate) where the only ones throwing those terms around are on the right? I’m talking about you Michele Bachmann. But there are others. There was absolutely no effort by the right to engage in “reasoned discussion” about health care. No, it was all about “socialism” and nothing about real needs for real people. It’s the right who routinely makes false comparisons between Obama and Hitler, or Stalin or Lenin. But it’s the right which raises the phony concerns about “voter fraud” to suppress voting rights. It’s all very anti-democratic. The right wing including the Republican Party has no interest in reasoned discussion” or actual compromise. What would you call a movement which is controlled by a few rich people who own more than 50% of the wealth, virtually all the media and are consistently opposed to democracy?
Th only proper tag for the actions of the current batch of Republicans under the influence of the tea party, is “Libertarianism” at its best.
Paul B.
Dick Cheney is a real Fascist. I have no problem calling him one. Were it not for the fact that we have an enforceable constitution Cheney and Bush would have run a Fascist government.
One of the biggest problems with American liberals is that they refuse to recognize the true nature of their adversaries, it’s kind of a form of political denial. Democrats are repeatedly caught off guard by Republicans that actually follow through on their rhetoric because they refuse to acknowledge the true nature of the Republican agenda. You think you can work with them, but they have no intention of working on anything other than dismantling liberal democracy, something they simply don’t believe in. You thought Pawlenty was a “moderate”, you thought the Wisc. Republicans would negotiate, you thought Tony Sutton would respect the electoral process… and so it goes. My problem is that you people are my champions, so I’m basically screwed.
I guess I should qualify my point a little. I’m not saying that all Republicans are fascists, and I’m not saying the Republican party is a an American Fascist party. But Fascism is conservative phenomena, and there are clearly some conservatives/Republicans that qualify as Fascists, just as there are liberals that qualify as communists and socialists. What’s interesting is that we have “liberals” right here, denouncing the use of the “F” word while no one on conservative side is denouncing the use of the “S” or “C” word. We have self censored legitimate political observation out of the political landscape.
It’s not an accident that you have Fascist Republicans, but you don’t have Socialist or Communist Democrats. The Republicans have sought out and capitalized on extremism while the Democrats have sought out “moderation” for the last 40 years. What’s interesting is the liberal reluctance to acknowledge Republican extremism. So you have a liberal writer, writing a liberal news venue, complaining about the use “F” word. You don’t have Republican complaining, it’s “liberals”. That’s what I think is interesting.
Which labels are acceptable and what do we imply when we use them? If some labels are suspect, then all labels could be considered suspect in their undefined state as a generality?
Democracy also?
Add a prefix like ‘social-democracy’ and an ‘ultra-conservative’ yells ‘bloody socialist’ even as I myself foul the issue with another hyphenated expletive…wheee…but doesn’t necessarily destroy the argument, but agitates the issue as we speak in labels to simplify or distort understanding of another idea or idealist?
We want the Mid-east to endorse Democracy for our benefit more often than theirs, yet…can tribal societies become democratic in at least their basic intent? I suppose so, they can as easy as we endorse capitalism as a prefix; another label that may energize or downsize the democracy we embrace in a representative republic?
What does any word simplistically define if we fail to define beyond its popular, labeled simplicity?
Certainly as tribalism and tribes seek to find liberation from a dictatorship crying for freedom/democracy, is it no more or less acceptable or unacceptable than democracy in all its hyphenated variations in our own society…leaving ‘democracy’ as a label that merely suggests freedom and the good life by-and-for-the-people; yet hopefully actuates so much more?
Use and abuse of a word:
Democracy is used at times as commodity in the marketplace.
Even in the public square with vaguely implied definition…and of course it’s pretty hard when you’re fighting for survival, to stop and define…but then too, how does one consistently not abuse the use of a word with any consistency, to eliminate loose labeling?
Tribalism: Can tribes endorse democracy if it means merely freedom-from-dictatorships? Does it really matter once it becomes a process?
…and then on the other hand, when any group tries to pin down democracy as exclusively theirs to endorse, and all others are wrong in use of the term, have we not watered down or limited the meaning and turned it into an exclusive term recognizing but one acceptable label…who knows?
#14 Jerry: I’d agree with except that these “libertarians” are very selective in their “libertarianism.” How do you explain the reauthorization of the “Patriot Act”? Or the attack on reproductive rights?
Jerry,
There’s a mish-mash ideological tendencies floating around the Republican party. Some elements are definitely more libertarian, but others, the ones that draw on the old Nixon Law and Order imperatives combined with hyper nationalism and pro-corporatism lean fascist.
Beryl,
I think you might be making a false distinction between democracy and tribalism. North American Indian tribes for instance are are closer to the classic Anarchist system which is actually a form of direct democracy as apposed to our system of representative democracy. These tribal systems were based on a complex system of relationships that achieved many of the same personal liberties delivered by liberal democracy. It was a sustainable system that lasted for thousands of years until it was largely obliterated by force.
@Paul U
I assume that you’re referring to the Iroquois Federation.
I agree that things like the Patriot Act are certainly on the slippery slope to Fascism, but Bush II and Cheney are two different people, and rather than labeling them, I’d rather point out the likely consequences of specific actions.
FWIW; I would not have been surprised (I somewhat expected it) if Bush II had declared martial law and suspended the Constitution after the 2008 election.
Now THAT would have been Fascism!
Paul B,
Yes, Bush and Cheney are different people, that’s why I don’t call both of them Fascists, and yes that would have been a Fascist regime. Understand ideology makes a Fascist, not the regime. Bernie Sanders is a Socialists, despite the fact that we don’t have a Socialist regime. There are Republicans who would implement a Fascist regime if they could, I think it’s important to acknowledge that. Remember David Duke? Remember the guy who wants to put violent over-through of the government on the table?
In addition to the Iroquois federation, the Navajo, Ojibwe, and Sioux amongst many other North American tribes have/had structures that were run on consensus, and elder leadership rather than a anti-democratic hierarchical structure of some kind. My only point here is that one should not assume that “tribal” systems are somehow anti democratic or non-democratic. They may not look like 18th century European liberal democracies, but weren’t totalitarian states or Autocracies.
“North American Indian, anarchism”?
I was thinking Libya here I suppose, and its tribal-cultural roots, seeking a way out of a dictatorship and wondering what will evolve…of course tribalism exists subtly or blatantly in any society democratic or otherwise…think war hawks and peacemakers; political parties with their power brokers; rituals and ceremonies.
Men have been carrying spears/guns essentially to retain, protect their tribal agenda. Tribal that is, if it is accepted as a word that defines a group sharing one central focus, ethnicity, whatever…so flip a finger,where any group goes from there?
Then guess what… sequentially the ‘tribe’ may consider it productive to divide into committees…but beware of the committee, for soon politics will shuffle or sneak into the picture with all its varied flavors and attendant good and evil?
Now we’re back to words and weapons again…and I’m out of here because cyclical determinism is a terrible thing to contemplate…
[footnote: in a representative democracy we elect those who will represent us, but corporations- even more so, now, with their acquired person-hood – too often corrupt the elected representative and the system and its intended process with their brazen abuse of money and power.]
// Men have been carrying spears/guns essentially to retain, protect their tribal agenda.
I’m just pointing out that there are actual tribes in the world, and here in the US. For the most part they have been the targets of the kinds of aggression your describing, not the perpetrators. I realize you’re using the term as a general description but I would point out that the word “tribe” or “tribal” is not likely to conjure an image of Columbus, George Bush, Stalin, or Adolf Hitler. Nor does it conjure an image of BP or Halliburton. Perhaps your simply referring to a “primitive” behavior, you suggesting we become civilized. Where have I heard that before?