Is the US becoming more of a fascist state?

[Pangloss]

That wasn't a response I was expecting. Are you positing that there is zero gray area in expressoin of fascist tendencies by government? If so, I'd challenge you to support that, or at least define fascism as you see it.

 

Thanks also for the on topic post. I do appreciate it.

 

Well thanks for prompting me to think more about it. I guess to answer your question, I think that usually the intention of a phrase like "becoming more of a fascist state" is to scare people into thinking that the policy being discussed is a bad one, and therefore something to fear. Clearly the only definition that matters in those cases is the ultimate fascism of no civil liberties, including freedom of expression.

 

I suppose it's conceivable that someone might use it in a positive sense, trying to convince people that the US should become fascist, and might therefore define fascism in a more positive light. I don't think that's the usual usage, but it might make for an interesting discussion.

 

Anyway, hence the comparison with "being a little bit pregnant" -- you either are a fascist country or you aren't. Though to a certain extent this point is moot, because I agree that it's reasonable to worry that we might be headed in that direction. It's just fear-mongering that I have a problem with (though the subject of fear-mongering is interesting food for discussion, e.g. this thread).

[Sisyphus]

Pangloss:

 

I don't think something like fascism is simply a black or white situation. You can be more or less fascist. How could it be otherwise? Is there some fundamental difference, a huge, "irreducibly complex" change that takes place that makes the difference (like conception, if you want to stick with pregnant thing)? Alternatively, can you say that you are closer or farther from fascism, where fascism is defined as a particular point on a spectrum? Ultimately it amounts to the same thing, no?

 

I do agree, of course, that making that comparison is usually an unhelpful political statement. To most people, fascism and everything associated with it are simply synonymous with "evil," and so admitting that your position is closer to fascism is basically equivalent to admitting you are wrong. That is a pretty obviously silly perspective if you think about it at all, but the problem with throwing the F-word around is that it tends to incense people before they have a chance to think about it. It can be a useful (or at least interesting) comparison, but it so often isn't for exactly that reason.

 

For the record (in order to preempt some foreseeable stupidity), I am not a fascist , and anything that I would actually call fascism would be a very undesirable state. But I believe that what is intolerable in extremes can often be desirable or necessary in moderation. I also believe that a good way to safeguard that moderation is to be aware of what the extremes might look like. We should therefore keep something like fascism in mind in order to safeguard against plausible routes to something similar, but also not let mere associations scare us away from a reasonable course of action.

[Pangloss]

I see your point. Certainly a society can have varying degrees of freedom, and be more or less like a fascist state. As I said above I don't have a problem with people casting a wary eye on events. It's unfounded fear-mongering for ideological gain that I have a problem with.

[pcollins]

Well, the question is pretty well summed up in the thread title. Here's the proverbial rock dropped into the pond of water. Let's see where the ripples go and what they hit.

 

In response to the thread title: compared to when?

[iNow]

In response to the thread title: compared to when?

 

Before now.

[pcollins]

Before now.

 

And after when?

[iNow]

And after when?

 

Good. Now you're learning. One of these days, you might just ask a well-formed question in a single post, and remove the venom from your tone.

 

This is a good question. The intent for the dialog was to be purposefully vague such that the reader was not constrained and could express their thoughts in more of a raw form, and without rigid requirements.

 

However, I can tell you are a man who requires structure and guidance, and is uncomfortable with gray areas. For you, I will share a time period to make this more measurable.

 

After January 1, 1947.

 

Unfortunately, I am unable to make the "now" (as the other bookend) more static. That's a very dynamic variable, and will be continually emcompassing more past events with each moment. If you know of a way to stop it, let us know.

[pcollins]

After January 1, 1947.

 

So you're asking if country is more or less fascist since before the end segregation of the military, let alone Jim Crow?

[iNow]

So you're asking if country is more or less fascist since before the end segregation of the military, let alone Jim Crow?

 

So, I presume that since you offered these two examples across the 60 year time period identified that your intent was to answer the thread title as, "no."

[pcollins]

So, I presume that since you offered these two examples across the 60 year time period identified that your intent was to answer the thread title as, "no."

 

I'm trying to figure out how anyone can possibly answer yes to this question, at least now that you've qualified it with a time gate.

[DrDNA]

Is the US becoming more of a fascist state?

 

Yes.

[pcollins]

Yes.

 

Compared to 1947?

[DrDNA]

Compared to 1947?

 

I can't speak personally for 1947 since I was born in late '59.

Careful what you read, it has a way of rewriting itself. Besides, I don't know if that would be a fair comparison. It was likely a different world with a different kind of paranoia. I assume you are refering to the percieved internal communism threat and Soviet nuc/spy threats. But I believe that the gov had fewer ways to act on fascism then. That said, still not sure....

 

But, I can speak personally for my lifetime.....since the late 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's?

Definitely, YES.

[pcollins]

I can't speak personally for 1947 since I was born in late '59.

Careful what you read, it has a way of rewriting itself. Besides, I don't know if that would be a fair comparison. It was likely a different world with a different kind of paranoia. I assume you are refering to the percieved internal communism threat and Soviet nuc/spy threats. But I believe that the gov had fewer ways to act on fascism then. That said, still not sure....

 

But, I can speak personally for my lifetime.....since the late 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's?

Definitely, YES.

 

COINTELPRO didn't end until 1971. American involvement in the Vietnam War persisted until 1973. FISA wasn't enacted until 1978. Care to revise your position?

[DrDNA]

COINTELPRO didn't end until 1971. American involvement in the Vietnam War persisted until 1973. FISA wasn't enacted until 1978. Care to revise your position?

 

No. My position is fine the way it is.

[Pangloss]

Maybe I should rethink my position here. We are increasingly under the thumbs of liberal political correctness on one side and conservative political correctness on the other. The conservative responsibility cops versus the liberal it's-Bush's-fault-not-yours cops. I guess if I'm forced to acknowledge varying degrees of fascism (still a non-sequitur in my opinion), I guess I'll go with that.

 

One thing that's always interesting about fascism discussions, by the way, is that liberals see them as a conservative problem and conservatives see them as a liberal problem. I've always seen fascism as kinda wrapping around behind the pole. In other words, if you go far enough to the left, you come to fascism, and if you go far enough to the right you come to it as well. The opposite pole of where the two extremes meet, you might say.

[DrDNA]

One thing that's always interesting about fascism discussions, by the way, is that liberals see them as a conservative problem and conservatives see them as a liberal problem.

 

Being a libertarian of sorts, I tend to view it as a liberal and a conservative problem.

They are all running towards the cliff like a pack of lemings.....please help us get out of the way so we don't go over with them.

 

I've always seen fascism as kinda wrapping around behind the pole. In other words, if you go far enough to the left, you come to fascism, and if you go far enough to the right you come to it as well. The opposite pole of where the two extremes meet, you might say.

Exactly!

[Saryctos]

I assume you are refering to the percieved internal communism threat and Soviet nuc/spy threats.

 

Percieved nothing, there were plenty of actual soviet agents.

[DrDNA]

Percieved nothing, there were plenty of actual soviet agents.

 

I'm sure that was the case and I certainly will not dispute it.

Since I have only read about Soviet spies, heard about them in a classroom, or seen them on TV, etc ....... this is still correct .

Perception is very often accurate.

[Reaper]

One thing that's always interesting about fascism discussions' date=' by the way, is that liberals see them as a conservative problem and conservatives see them as a liberal problem. I've always seen fascism as kinda wrapping around behind the pole. In other words, if you go far enough to the left, you come to fascism, and if you go far enough to the right you come to it as well. The opposite pole of where the two extremes meet, you might say.

[/quote']

 

Interesting isn't it. Also, the various military dictators out there today are either on the far left or on the far right of the spectrum...

 

The political parties here in the US have become extremely polarized in recent years, and often are going to extreme ends to get themselves into power.

[bascule]

One thing that's always interesting about fascism discussions, by the way, is that liberals see them as a conservative problem and conservatives see them as a liberal problem.

 

Well, that's a blanket assertion. I think fascism starts out liberal and ends up conservative. Fascists attempt to connect to (liberal) labor movements, institute bleeding heart social programs, etc. etc. to win the hearts of the people.

 

Then, once they have power, it turns into a marriage of business and government, where the business and government leaders become members of a totalitarian oligarchy.

[Pangloss]

Also, the various military dictators out there today are either on the far left or on the far right of the spectrum...

 

Yes and not only have they run the spectrum, they've also shown us that social and economic freedom aren't necessarily connected. Witness Pinochet's bizarre combination of brutal repression and market economics. Conservatives don't like to be reminded of that one because they like to run around implying that conservatism = market economics = success, and liberalism = social economics = failure. But in fact there's no particular reason to equate social freedom with individual economic purchasing ability. That's hardly the only example, either -- China has become the premiere example of this, and they're not alone either (Cuba seems to be heading that way, for example).

 

The harsh reality of the modern world is that the fact that you can buy "Freedom Fries" at a local McDonalds says little about whether or not you can stand on the street corner and complain about their saturated fat content without being arrested.

 

All of which greatly complicates the question of whether or not the world is becoming "more fascist".

[pcollins]

Well, that's a blanket assertion. I think fascism starts out liberal and ends up conservative. Fascists attempt to connect to (liberal) labor movements, institute bleeding heart social programs, etc. etc. to win the hearts of the people.

 

Then, once they have power, it turns into a marriage of business and government, where the business and government leaders become members of a totalitarian oligarchy.

 

Wow, those are just a whole bunch of blanket assertions.

[bascule]

...

 

You should hook up with Ann Coulter. You two are perfect for each other.

[pcollins]

You should hook up with Ann Coulter. You two are perfect for each other.

 

She calls you out on the BS, too? Cool. Either way, the fact remains you responded to Pangloss' one blanket assertion with a bunch of your own.