Defining fascism


This editorial in the Los Angeles Times raises a point that, coincidentally, we were discussing with some of our guests in Vermont last week. That is, to what extent is the term "fascism" (as in Islamofascism) applicable to Islamic terrorists, other than as a content-less word of derision. My position is that it is not applicable . My handy-dandy computer dictionary defines fascism as: "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization", ...Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach, which sounds just about right, except that I always understood it to also have an element of a melding of corporate power with the government as well.

In any event, the "Islamo-fascists" appear to be the opposite of nationalistic-their focus is on religion rather than nationhood. To what country, for instance, does Osama bin Laden claim allegiance? Also, to the extent that their program is political at all, it does not seem to line up neatly on the right side of the traditional right-left dividing line. This is not to minimize their crimes. They scare the crap out of me, because I think in many ways they are more destructive than fascists. After all, no fascist government has survived more than 50 years. If Osama gets his way he could institute another Dark Age that would last for 500 years. So, we need a new name for them. They are something else than fascists. Don't look for the Republicans to come up with the appropriate term, because it will be necessary to incorporate some reference, at least inferentially, to the intolerant religious fundamentalism that Osama shares with George's base.

On the other hand, let's see if the term applies to a government a little closer at hand, let's say, present day America. Authoritarian, nationalistic, right-wing, a belief in the supremacy of both one national (American) and secondarily one ethnic group (White fundamentalist Christians), contempt for democracy (Florida, Ohio, the unitary executive, etc.), an insistence on obedience to a strong leader (well, strong is in the eye of the beholder, but they certainly do insist that we obey Dick and George), and a strong demagogic approach (can you say Karl Rove?). Add some of the secondary features, such as a docile press, and things aren't looking so good.

The fit seems too close for comfort, unfortunately. We're not there yet, but George If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator Bush certainly isn't trying to avoid it. The Republicans are fond of saying that the events of September 11th changed everything. One change they don't mention is the change in our form of government. Perhaps the events of September 11th only hastened the change, allowing the Republicans to institute the type of government they have been aiming for all along. In any event, this is one of the major, almost never mentioned issues of our time. We are the new Rome, played out in fast motion, and our Republic and our Empire are crumbling at about the same time.
Posted: Monday - August 21, 2006 at 07:37 PM          

©