Bush Administration Facist by definition?...Perhaps?

I'm not saying the administration is facist, or upholds facist principles, but it seems like they're in many ways similar to a facist state whether they realize it or not...according to this guy, these are the 14 characteristics of a facist regime.


Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, wrote an
article about fascism which appeared in Free Inquiry
magazine -- a journal of humanist thought. Dr. Britt
studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany),
Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto
(Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the
regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls
these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The
article is "Fascism Anyone?," Lawrence Britt, Free
Inquiry , Spring 2003, page 20.









1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist
regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos,
slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on
clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security,
the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human
rights can be ignored in certain cases because of
"need." The people tend to look the other way or even
approve of torture, summary executions,
assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, and
the like.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying
Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying
patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a
perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or
religious minorities; liberals; communists;
socialists, terrorists, and the like.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are
widespread domestic problems, the military is given a
disproportionate amount of government funding, and the
domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military
service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations
tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under
fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made
more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is
homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national
policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media are
directly controlled by the government, but in other
cases, the media are indirectly controlled by
government regulation, or sympathetic media
spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in
war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as
a motivational tool by the government over the masses.


8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most
common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate
public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is
common from government leaders, even when the major
tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to
the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and
business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the
ones who put the government leaders into power,
creating a mutually beneficial business/government
relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing
power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist
government, labor unions are either eliminated
entirely, or are severely repressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist
nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to
higher education and academia. It is not uncommon for
professors and other academics to be censored or even
arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly
attacked and governments often refuse to fund the
arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under
fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless
power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to
overlook police abuses and There is often a nationaleven forego civil liberties
in the name of patriotism.
police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist
nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes
almost always are governed by groups of friends and
associates who appoint each other to government
positions and use governmental power and authority to
protect their friends from accountability. It is not
uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and
even treasures to be appropriated or even outright
stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in
fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times
elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against
or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of
legislation to control voting numbers or political
district boundaries, and manipulation of the media.
Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries
to manipulate or control elections.



Just some provocative insight, draw your own conclusions.

 

As tempted as I can be to refer to the Bush administration as fascist (especially John Ashcroft), I generally try not to as I think it's too often a cop-out term, like how right-wingers may call all liberals communists. The Bush administration may have some elements that the fascist governments had, but nowhere on the same extreme magnitude. The archetype of a fascist government is also generally led by a very charismatic demagogue (Mussolini, Hitler), and George Bush's image is nowhere near that.

 

I thought one of the hallmarks of Fascism was they were Socialist. In fact the word Socialist was imbedded in the full name of Nazi, National Socialist German Workers Party. I don't believe the Bush Administration can be considered remotely close to being Socialist.

Glancing over the list, Lawrence Britt is more closely describing North Korea and Kim Jung Il than Pres. Bush.

 

Has any facist government actually been socialist? No. Also important to note that much of Bush's rhetoric could be seen as socialist in nature. He celebrates the worker in his speeches, but of course stabs them in the back in truth. Facist dicatators were similar in that they praised the worker for making the economy strong while disinfranchising them at the same time.

 

well if you read it, the U.S. has the first 13 points down, even tho the U.S. isnt nearly as bad as Germany or Italy was

 

and you could kinda fit last presidential election under point 14. the voters didnt pick bush, the fucked up electoral college system did

 

My thoughts exactly

 

The government controlled the economy in Nazi Germany, so yes it was socialist.

 

Wrongo... at least, it wasn't anywhere near socialist in the general meaning of that term. The government simply collaborated closely with big businesses. The Nazis and other fascist governments loathed socialists and communists.

 

You are confusing Fascism with Naziism. Naziism is a political platform of a particular political party which adopted the fascist model of governance, Fascism refers to a system of totalitarian state control.

 

if ordering them to produce weapons of war is collobaration, then yeah they collarborated. But i wouldn't call us facism, we still have free elections and dissent.

 

Well, technically we don't have free elections. Our elections are a facade. The electors at the electoral college elect the president, and they can vote any way they choose. It just happens that none of them are stupid enough NOT to vote for who thier state chose. In 2000, the damn supreme court, stacked with bush sr. and Raegan appointees, decided the election.

 

Without the electoral college, somoen would only have to win a few big population states, thus not representing the entire nation.

 

Um, that's not terribly different from the way it is now, the big populous states are still the ones that really matter. The electoral college somewhat lessens the gap between voting clout of the big and small states, but it's not a huge difference in my opinion.

The reason why the electoral college was created was that the founding fathers considered the fact that the vast majority of the new American populace were agrarian and not terribly bright, and so installed the electoral college just in case the citizens decided to vote a squirrel into the White House or something. I think it's kind of an anachronism now, the only purpose it really serves now, as you've said, and it's not a real big one, is to give the smaller states a little more representation.

 

I completely agree with you on this one. I do believe, though, that there should be modifications. I do believe in rescinding a "winner take all" scenario in which if a candidate wins a given state, he automatically receives all the electoral votes in that state.

Before I explain this, understand that a state is given only the number of electoral votes as they have congressional representatives (including Senators). What I'd like to see is a situation whereby the two electoral college votes are representative of the state at large are given to the winner of the entire state, unless there is a less than one-half percent margin of victory in which case the two votes would be divided between the winner and runner-up respectively. The remainder of the state's electoral votes would be decided upon who the winner was in the respective congressional district(s).

For example, say my home state of Maryland (which has ten electoral votes) were to go for Kerry this fall, yet there was a(were) congressional district(s) that did not go for Kerry, then Kerry would be awarded the electoral votes representing the state at large (unless, again, the margin of victory was less than 1/2% whereby those two votes would be split) and only the electoral votes for those congressional districts in which he won.

Let's not forget that this was one of the checks and balances that was put in place when the constitution was written.

 

Glad to see someone agree with me, most don't.