Fascism (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm) is presently ascendant, even mainstream in the USA. This is an easy statement to misinterpret, if the word "fascism" is excessively associated with Nazism or other despotism elsewhere and elsewhile. It's also a rather tired comparison of late (and I expect there are old dead threads on this) but dismissing the premise as discomforting or inconceivable avoids nagging realities that are filling our headlines and everyday conversations. Most Americans claim a passionate aversion to pathological excesses of power in government, yet we don't readily apply remotely stringent or objective standards in examining where our society is presently heading.

What's particularly insidious about American fascism is its respectable facade. We've supposedly had a more perfect union from the start, have supposedly reformed and refined our civil rights, and had our opportunities guaranteed in perpetuity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc: We're the Good Guys... Right?

But recently in our history, we have watched, or not watched, as the rising political influence of corporations and other special interest groups have far exceeded the influence of our citizenry and eclipsed our Constitution. Meanwhile our watchfulness and activism have been smothered by consumerism, consumptionism, contented apathy, and/or despondent resignation.

As a proclaimed nation of, by, and for the people, we've drifted so far into complacency that "the people" are clearly not minding the store. As a result, we are extremely vulnerable to the growing fascism within, far moreso than we are to the fascism-hyped threats from without. Our American fascism thrives on frightening us about outside dangers while our democracy is eviscerated right under our noses. If we drop the thread, change the channel, go to work, mind our own business, don't rock the boat, support the troops, ooh and aah at the 4th of July fireworks, and consistently fail to confront what is actually happening, we will inexorably meet our own tragic ending, as has every nation great or small that has taken this occluded path to a sudden and precipitous fall.

If there is to be an escape, it will require that Americans take an objective look at what fascism is, and with open eyes and minds compare it with the changes we are witnessing all around us in America. Then we are going to have to take personal risks to reputations and careers as we organize to correct the course of our nation. The risks of dong nothing are far greater, and far too great to be ignoring our disquieting Cassandras. A warning about fascism, if carefully considered, has much more substantiation than any wild conspiracy theories. If you need a little substantiation, and have not clicked on the first word in this post, please do so now.

If history has minimal reliability as a guide, then we have in probability less than a generation to sort this out before national disaster. Most challenging of all, reversing our fascism can only be a bottom-up, grass-roots movement- no Great Father will fix this for us. So let's get cracking. Here's (http://action.truemajority.org/welcome.asp) one place to start.

But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Well, I suppose reading Animal Farm (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/) could be helpful, for those that haven't yet. Thanks for your thoughts, Pangloss.

Oh you wanted MY thoughts? Well sure, I can help you with that.

See, I think you make some good points. The problem is, you're pushing so hard in the opposite direction that it's clear you're not going to be happy until everyone's living on a communal farm, sucking from the great teat of socialism.

1) That site goes on about Bush using fear as a tool of control. And yet, here THEY are, using fear as a tool of control. What's the difference?

2) "Rampant Nationalism"... as opposed to flagrant socialism. In the end the little guy gets screwed either way. What's the difference?

3) "Disdain for human rights" -- you mean like the rights of a human being who happens to own a business? Why is it that extremist liberals want freedom an equality for all, EXCEPT those who are actually successful and achieve something in life with their own bare hands. (Not that extreme conservatives are any better, mind you. You're both trying to sell us something.) What's the difference?

4) Patriot Act? You mean the one Kerry voted for? Sure that's scary, so long as you ignore the fact that it hasn't actually hurt *anyone*. More scare tactics by far-left bomb-throwers. Do I like the precedent it sets? Hell no. But again, you go too far. What's the difference?

5) "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause" -- You mean like blaming everything on Bush and the far right? And the far left is the epitome of all that is right and good in the world. What's the difference?

6) "Supremacy of the Military" -- (The point of the article being that the military receives a disproportionate amount of the budget, right?) Well let's see.... our fighters planes are already losing tests/mock combats to advanced european and even Israeli designs, while we purchase a whopping *24* F-22 Raptors (probably to be used to protect your liberal buddies in New York City). Our army can hardly manage to field a force a fraction of what it was a dozen years ago without exhausting the reserves. And we're facing greater anti-Americanism in the world than ever before, in spite of the fact that we're the "good guys" (your term).

I could go on, but what's the point? You're not interested in discussion, meeting of the minds, or compromise for the greater good of mankind. You're promoting an ideology. Pure and simple.

When you're interested in what can REALLY be accomplished, when Americans work together towards a COMMON set of goals, as our founding fathers intended, you let me know.

Please explain why resisting fascism requires communism, and where I have advocated such a trade.

"When you're interested in what can REALLY be accomplished, when Americans work together towards a COMMON set of goals, as our founding fathers intended, you let me know."

That would be now.

I'll ignore the first request, because your political leanings are manifest in 132 search pages available to any viewer.

As to your second request, fine. My response to your request is that you're the one making suggestions. Suggest something palatable. Suggest something that doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Give me something to vote FOR, not against. CONVINCE me that if I don't vote for Bush, I'm not going to see this country turned into Animal Farm.

Your problem is that you're preaching to the converted. That's not going to accomplish anything. You need to convert people like ME. People in the MIDDLE. People with an OPEN mind.

Get this: I am an independent voter in one of the most hotly contested districts in FLORIDA. It could go EITHER WAY. Trust me: You WANT to affect my vote. And I know alllll my neighbors. I am easily one of the most influential voters on this entire discussion board. If you can change my mind you really will have accomplished something.

And I assure you, my mind is wiiide open. I may be currently planning to vote for Bush, but I also happen to be *campaigning* for Peter Deutsch (a Democrat) for Senate. I've voted for as many Democrats as I have Republicans.

Stop telling me my head is in the sand, and start telling me what I have to gain. Stop telling me I'm an idiot, and give me OBJECTIVE truth. OBJECTIVE fact. NON-biased information. Not editorials from radical left-wing web sites.

Show me OBJECTIVE people who aren't voting for Bush. Show me MODERATES who are opposed to the administration, and why. Show me CENTRISTS who want Kerry, and why.

You want to make a difference in this election? Convince ME.

You seem to want a quick and easy solution, where there is none. Also, your reasoning is clouded by an obsession with the Red Scare. But let's leave that aside, and get down to why you should vote for Kerry in your Florida swing state- a 3rd party candidate of your choice would be preferable for this fight if you were not residing in a swing state.

If you can recognize that fascism is growing in America, and also recognising that Kerry does not have the answers, there is still a reasonable conclusion that in the short term, incumbency must be denied. Although there is precious little daylight between the two major parties, juggling the two while we return our government to democratic responsiveness is a vital priority. This juggling also has advantages in the international arena, providing leadership with a more graceful mechanism for policy change. In the present case, Republicans like myself can see failed policy, can have confidence in our Congressional majority, and know when it is better for the Party to step back and cool off for 4 years with the Executive Branch. I know that you are reasonably intelligent, Pangloss, and cannot remain in denial about the collossal misteps that have been made by the Bush 43 administration. The first necessary steps involve damage control, and the neoconservatives have got to go.

But that's just the first emergency step. Then, the work must begin in attacking the power of special interest groups, and the unbridled growth of Big Government/Big Business, because a trend toward having these entities drown out the voices of American citizens is detrimental to the citizens' business, and to their personal prosperity in the long run. At the very core of American fascism are special interests that we must do battle with as citizens. This will require overcoming extremely oversimplistic notions that on one side of this fight are capitalists, and on the other communists. We must save our democracy first, and as you mentioned coming together, this means that the Cold War and Red Scare must be put aside, if not moved past. If you seriously believe that this opens up a greater vulnerability to communism than to fascism, then I want to hear your explanation, because that is complete paranoid bullshit to me. And I mean this ironically, but if the shoe fits- That paranoia has always been the favorite screed of fascists.

"Show me OBJECTIVE people who aren't voting for Bush. Show me MODERATES who are opposed to the administration, and why. Show me CENTRISTS who want Kerry, and why."

Diplomats and Military Commanders For Change:
SciThread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37513)
Website (http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/)

Meet with Republicans Against Bush (http://repagainstbush.meetup.com/)

RAB Website (http://www.republicansagainstbush.info/)

The extremism and assumptions as well as outright fabrication and illusions exhibited here by Pangloss is sad. I'm afraid he exemplifies and underscores the very problem you address, hypewaders. I don't see this as a subject reducible to right verses left or conservative verses liberal. I believe what we are seeing on the planet is a struggle between those who place a high priority on the integrity of their information handling and those who are operating basically on the circumstance of their limited exposure to lies, lies and more lies. There are those who nurse a love for humanity and life in general and there are those who don't at least at the present. I hope the latter can come to see the error of their ways and not remain a part of the problem.

"The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.

Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill."

Rush "Witch Hunt"

The extremism and assumptions as well as outright fabrication and illusions exhibited here by Pangloss is sad. ... I hope the latter can come to see the error of their ways and not remain a part of the problem.


A perfect example of what I'm talking about. Thanks Chips!

You seem to want a quick and easy solution, where there is none.

Oh no, just the opposite.


If you can recognize that fascism is growing in America, and also recognising that Kerry does not have the answers, there is still a reasonable conclusion that in the short term, incumbency must be denied. Although there is precious little daylight between the two major parties, juggling the two while we return our government to democratic responsiveness is a vital priority. This juggling also has advantages in the international arena, providing leadership with a more graceful mechanism for policy change.

Seems like a reasonable and logical perspective.


In the present case, Republicans like myself...

(cof)



The first necessary steps involve damage control, and the neoconservatives have got to go.

Again, a reasonable position.

What is your definition of "neoconservative", by the way? I'm not familiar with this term. (I understand its basic meaning, just not what you mean in a socio/political sense.)



But that's just the first emergency step. Then, the work must begin in attacking the power of special interest groups, and the unbridled growth of Big Government/Big Business, because a trend toward having these entities drown out the voices of American citizens is detrimental to the citizens' business, and to their personal prosperity in the long run.

I agree with this.

What did you think of Zell Miller's book? He had some interesting and powerful points on this subject.



This will require overcoming extremely oversimplistic notions that on one side of this fight are capitalists, and on the other communists.

That's not my notion. My notion is that you have liberals and conservatives on one axis, and a less-mainstream axis of libertarian versus authoritarian. Along the lines of what VoteMatch/OntheIssues.org uses to rate politicians.

But for the most part, I understand that there are other points of view, and I'm not blind to Chips' points about that either. I've read plenty and I have a classical education, I'm 38 years old and I'm not slow. (Feel free to hook me up, I read 10-20 politically-oriented books a year.)

It's just that I don't see the relevence of out-of-mainstream positions. Most people flock to them because the mainstream positions don't provide them with positions they agree with. But it's unnecessary. The mainstream positions are perfectly adequte, so long as you understand one basic thing: This country was founded on compromise. It thrives on it, it progresses from it, and it needs it.

That's not to say that good ideas don't come from out-of-mainstream positions. One of the tennets of a centrist position is that good ideas are good ideas no matter where they come from. So I can accept that. What I can't accept is the *requirement* that one must move out of the mainstream in order to find "truth". That's not a reasonable position. (Not that you're necessarily suggesting that here, I'm just explaining my position.)

Anyway, back to the discussion at hand.


We must save our democracy first, and as you mentioned coming together, this means that the Cold War and Red Scare must be put aside, if not moved past. If you seriously believe that this opens up a greater vulnerability to communism than to fascism, then I want to hear your explanation, because that is complete paranoid bullshit to me. And I mean this ironically, but if the shoe fits- That paranoia has always been the favorite screed of fascists.

Sure, but paranoia and fear are tools of the other end of the spectrum as well.

I believe I understand what you're saying. You don't think I should view this as a simple left-versus-right debate, which I believe is a position that Chips says as well. You feel I limit my options by limiting my thinking to this "mainstream" (my words, from above) axis. Right? I'm certainly not unfamiliar with what you're suggesting. I've read plenty of libertarian and other alternate views. I've read Ayn Rand, and it was Neil Boortz who woke up my political interest in the first place, many years ago. So I understand what you're saying.

I just don't agree. I think there's enough room to maneuver in the standard liberal-versus-conservative model. And I think I've got enough experience and intelligence to defend that position. In fact, it's been my experience that people who claim to not live in this realm are actually just hiding extreme ideologies from that very same realm, they just don't want you to THINK so.

HOWEVER!

I've said I have an open mind, and I do. I'm not automatically countering anything you post, because I am not an ideologue. I am interested in finding the truth, and a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from.



"Show me OBJECTIVE people who aren't voting for Bush. Show me MODERATES who are opposed to the administration, and why. Show me CENTRISTS who want Kerry, and why."

Diplomats and Military Commanders For Change:
SciThread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37513)
Website (http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/)

Meet with Republicans Against Bush (http://repagainstbush.meetup.com/)

RAB Website (http://www.republicansagainstbush.info/)

Right, that's good stuff, and I've read it before. Harry's most effective page is this one:

http://www.republicansagainstbush.info/Promises/Promises.html

Just to clarify, what I'm asking is for you to do this whenever you're making your argument. It seems like most of the time you just throw up something from a far-left bomb-thrower type and I have to immediately dismiss it or at least read it with a heavy grain of salt. Give me stuff that's reasonable and you'll get a reasonable response from a moderate/centrist like me. Give me stuff that's ideological, a joker who's just trying to sell me something else, and you'll see me walk away.

As I've said before, I think Bush has gone too far in catering to the right and not supporting the moderates who put him in power.

By the way, just to make sure I'm being clear, you haven't lost me, I'm still listening. This was refutation, not rejection.

I have an open mind about who I'm planning to vote for in November, and I was reconsidering my decision to vote for Bush before I came here. In fact it's a big part of why I'm here, and why I'm reading so many political books and why I'm hitting so many web sites.

Lol, I should start a web site called "the crucial vote" or something, and put up a little meter indicating which way I'm leaning at the moment. Exemplifying all the crucial "swing voters" out there like me. Of course, my house would probably be firebombed within the week....

Also I think I owe you a bit of an apology. Some of what I said above that was aimed at you was, in retrospect (reviewing the board) actually was a reflection of my reads on Undecided and Mr. Chips. I seem to have transferred some of my reaction to their posts onto you.

Sorry about that.

Good show Pangloss. I do see one figurative use of speech still that is technically incorrect. This is an online forum. As far as I can tell no one is throwing bombs. Maybe since this is not really a formal place its okay to use the figurative alluding which is not a literal interpretation of the words that are used. I do find though, that the integrity of our thoughts depends on the integrity of our basic assumptions. Over simplifying, lumping complex issues and stances into figurative speech and subsequent thought will not give a person the foundation they need to pursue a more viable world view.

Human society is a second order cybernetic system which means that bias is the norm, we cannot observe society from an objective stand-point. Does this mean we should give up on finding utilitarian understanding? I don't think so. This observation of the inherent cultural, linguistic and geophysical biases pressing upon us just emphasizes that we should take care in our labeling if we truly want to maximize our ability to make useful sense of our lives.

Over simplifying, lumping complex issues and stances into figurative speech and subsequent thought will not give a person the foundation they need to pursue a more viable world view.

Fair enough, I'll drop the "bomb-thrower" metaphor. It's just a goofy Bill O'Reilly-ism anyway, and I can see how it might come across as antagonistic.

Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" explains well how American working/serving/paper pushing class was dupped into electing their archenemies for 30 years already.

Secret is simple: use "moral values" crusade as a carrot to get votes - cash government seats into pro-corporation legislations - get richer - cry about moral decline while making lots of $ on it (think TV, etc.) - blame almost extinct, mostly powerless liberals for everything - make an illusion that evil liberal conspiracy keeps USA from being a moral beacon for the world - make more $ on "moral decline" - cultivate new types of "moral decline" (big brother and crap like that) - cultivate a sense of losing a war against evil liberal consiracy among conservative voters - do nothing to win "moral values" battle (otherwise, moral value voters will notice their 8$/hr,no insurance jobs; they'll notice who's made it big on the "moral crusade" and start asking questions) - cry "moral decline" again - get elected -get richer...... I do not know for how long this circle of stupidity will last.

business does not care much more about "moral values" than it does about ruins of Detroit, jobless people, environment, sweat shoops, etc. It's time for middle and lower than middle moral crusaders to get that simple truth and pull their heads from asses.

i think "fascism" is a just a buzz word
another one that the radical left has cynically hijacked

those 14 points in the article may very well be true for "fascism" (whatever it stands for) and the dictators that are mentioned in the study, but the examples mentioned in the article, that suggest that America is on its way there, they are very weak

for example, in a fascist society, the arts are restricted... as 'proof' of America's rising fascism an article is mentioned how some artists are denied entry to the US based on security concerns

how does that even make sense?

lefty wackoloons, newsflash for you: a fly is not an elephant, and an elephant is not a fly.

what would contribute to the rise of fascism, is bigger government. republicans are for smaller government

so the whole thesis of the mentioned article is flawed and illogical from the get go

by the way... (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL)


"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."


http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/Unmasked-X.gif

Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" explains well how American working/serving/paper pushing class was dupped into electing their archenemies for 30 years already.

Secret is simple: use "moral values" crusade as a carrot to get votes - cash government seats into pro-corporation legislations - get richer - cry about moral decline while making lots of $ on it (think TV, etc.) - blame almost extinct, mostly powerless liberals for everything - make an illusion that evil liberal conspiracy keeps USA from being a moral beacon for the world - make more $ on "moral decline" - cultivate new types of "moral decline" (big brother and crap like that) - cultivate a sense of losing a war against evil liberal consiracy among conservative voters - do nothing to win "moral values" battle (otherwise, moral value voters will notice their 8$/hr,no insurance jobs; they'll notice who's made it big on the "moral crusade" and start asking questions) - cry "moral decline" again - get elected -get richer...... I do not know for how long this circle of stupidity will last.


This would be a good example of how to turn me directly away from your message. Pure demonization. Every single thing I bolded above can be equally and oppositely counterpointed. Which renders the entire post useless to someone like me (in terms of my search for whom to vote for -- I'm not trying to dis dixon's opinion here, I'm just reinforcing my point above).

....radical left.... lefty wackoloons....cynically hijacked......
It's healthy to turn off O'Reilly factor from time to time.

what would contribute to the rise of fascism, is bigger government.

Fascism does not need big government. What for? It needs big army and modest police/secret service force. Fascism does not offer welfare state, which would require bigger government. Every citizen in a fascist state is a potential informer about anti-American activity (for example). Principles "Betray neighbor first or be betrayed. Those who have not betrayed first are not to be trusted" allows fascism to function without creation of "Big Government". KGB/NKVD never was huge. There was no need to.

republicans are for smaller government
You must be dreaming. Modern day republicans are working hard to create all permeating big brother. Classical republicans are/were against governent meddling into economics (or rather, rich-get-richer-at-all-cost thing). They never were against government control of the sheep's minds though. Instead of policing corporate offices they would gladly police private bedrooms, pledge recitations, classrooms ...... unions, etc.

Of course, otheadp has waded just as far into the deep end as dixon has, above.

I don't understand why extremists find it so hard to understand what moderates/centrists are looking for, and why we find that kind of thing so repulsive and pointless. Polarization at its worst. We were having a good conversation here and in come tromping the ideological hordes.

Mind you, I've been in online debate for 20 years, so it's hardly unexpected, and I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. Again, just making the point.

The US is not a democracy that's a certainty after the appointment of Bush. Of course the US is going to the lunatic fringe of the O’Reilly’s and the Fox gang. The US I think is finally slowly pulling back from the fringe here, and I agree with accredited columnist writer on his excellent article about F-9/11:


Core supporters of George W who study whose understanding of geography was formed at the International House of Pancakes, and whose knowledge of world affairs through Chuck Norris movies, Rush Limbaugh's eructations, and the Bible's book of Revelations, are unlikely to rush to see `Fahrenheit,' which their pastors will warn them is the latest manifestation of `liberal' evil to menace America.
-------------------------------------
Ironically, Bush supporters are angrily accusing Moore of over-simplifying, using meaningless slogans, emotionally rabble-rousing, and concocting false accusations — all of the things the current administration did in spades.------------------------------------
By contrast, Moore did a smashing job in capturing the zeitgeist of the Bush Administration's fear-mongering that terrorized unworldly Americans into believing they were in mortal peril, and only the president could save them. Moore clearly smells the first rank whiffs of proto-fascist behavior coming from the White House. I wish he made the disturbing contrast between 9/11 and the ensuing anti-democratic Patriot Act, and the Reichstag burning of 1933 that led to the Emergency and Enabling Acts ending Germany's civil liberties
--------------------------------------
Until recently, American have heard only one side of the story, which, we are discovering, was a tapestry of lies worthy of Dr Goebbels. Kudos to Moore for helping bring some bright light into the propaganda darkness.
---------------------------------
http://www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm

Good article…see it tells the truth of the US today, ignorance breeds fascism, fear breeds fascism, and all the ingredients are present in the US. Fascism is really designed for advanced western states that are in some trouble, and what is more comfortable then the comfortable boob of jingoistic nationalism?

This would be a good example of how to turn me directly away from your message. Pure demonization. Every single thing I bolded above can be equally and oppositely counterpointed. Which renders the entire post useless to someone like me (in terms of my search for whom to vote for -- I'm not trying to dis dixon's opinion here, I'm just reinforcing my point above).

I see my blue color acquaintances voting Republicans namely because of the alleged "demonizations" + horse dose of "USA, USA uber alles" stuff. They get little satisfaction and feel under siege by liberals trying to destroy "traditional values" and put the USA under French control. Being an underdog and being in power simultaneously, what could be sweeter from politician’s standpoint? Power with little responsibility rocks. There could be grains/chunks/.... of truth in a "demonization". Why demonization, btw? There is nothing demonical about the political tactics which does work. There is something demonical about working people willingly and gladly digging their own economical graves. It would be interesting to hear your explanations of the conservative success among working class Americans. It would be interesting to read one or two equal and opposite counterpoints of yours too.

Pangloss, I do not consider myself an extremist. However, I do not consider being in the middle as a culmination of the human development either. It's temping to proclaim oneself moderate "salt of the Earth" and wait to be swept off one's feet by somebody else. There is something disgusting about that too. Being in the middle have lots of negative points. We would still have lived in caves/owned slaves/.... had everybody been in the middle.

otheadp: "what would contribute to the rise of fascism, is bigger government. republicans are for smaller government"

Me thinks that this is part of the propaganda, such as Bush claiming in a pre selection speech about his not going to participate in foreign regime changes. I guess you would also consider Republicans as being for state rights such as the US Supreme Court nullifying Florida's calling for a recount or the decriminalization of marijuana in many states and the Feds still prosecuting.

According to some reckoning, Republicans are the "big government" honchos despite the misleading claims to the contrary, http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=895&FS=Republicans+and+Big+Government

Myself, I believe political distinctions are a "divide and conquer" ploy. See things as "us verses them" and we are all weaker to allow the sociopathic opportunistic to take from the poor and the middle class to feed the greed of the alienated rich.

Pangloss, I do not consider myself an extremist. However, I do not consider being in the middle as a culmination of the human development either. It's temping to proclaim oneself moderate "salt of the Earth" and wait to be swept off one's feet by somebody else. There is something disgusting about that too. Being in the middle have lots of negative points. We would still have lived in caves/owned slaves/.... had everybody been in the middle.

Well I don't think it's the "culmination of human development" either, but more to the point, who's "waiting"? I'm here, aren't I? The down sides of moderacy that you mention pertain only to those who sit back and observe without participating. I don't advocate that.

BTW, I agree that "Republicans want smaller government" is part of the accepted propaganda. Some conservatives may want that, sure, as do some liberals, moderates, and probably all libertarians.

Dixon, since you asked, here are my counterpoints to your generalities which I bolded earlier.

(Bear in mind that I'm not debating specifics with you, I'm just supporting the point that both sides do the same thing.)


Secret is simple: use "moral values" crusade as a carrot to get votes

Sure, just like the Democrats pander to minorities, union workers, and the poor and working poor by promising more income redistribution, rights of minorities over majorities, and so forth. What's the difference? Both are just playing to the crowd.


- cash government seats into pro-corporation legislations - get richer - cry about moral decline while making lots of $ on it (think TV, etc.)

Actually plenty of Democrats are pretty familiar with how to sell out to companies. You don't really need examples, do you?

As for the rich getting richer, Kerry is the same. Both Yale grads with more money than sense. Whatever.

Haven't you ever heard the term "limosine liberal"?

- blame almost extinct, mostly powerless liberals for everything

You've never heard a Democrat blame something on a Republican? Really?

- make an illusion that evil liberal conspiracy keeps USA from being a moral beacon for the world

Right, I agree, just like the Democrats make an illusion that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" keeps the USA from being an ethical beacon for the world. What's the difference?

I think I've made my point. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong on any of that stuff. I'm saying it's simplistic in the extreme to say that Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong. The middle position is superior. But what's really superior about it is the desire to keep an open mind. To recognize that good ideas can come from either side of a debate.

Whether Democrat or Republican, I am an ideologue's worst nightmare: A moderate with a brain.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
and sorry that I could not go to any extremes,
I slammed into the tree between them at fatal speed.

Pangloss, and everyone, great posts, good points from all. I think that we've cleared up that we don't need to categorize ourselves or each other. It's very interesting how in controversy everyone starts marking territory like dogs. But let's get back to he subject.

America is undergoing a fascist trend.

Fascism:

An authoritarian form of statism that advocates private property, a
state-centralized economy, militarism, and nationalism.



The point of this examination not where do you stand, it is where do we stand. Evidence abounds that the American Zeitgeist is in a fascistic mode, and instead of confronting this, we are squirting piss on various political hydrants. I will be happy to dig up more substantiation for American fascism for anyone who requires it. Otherwise, I am going to assume that we have agreed to acknowledge this trend.

There has been no strenuous denial of American Fascism, and we have not seen one American fascist stand up to be counted (I was expecting one to interject with something about people being too stupid to govern themselves). I was also expecting those who say "Bring it On!" to the fall of America to chime in.

Since we're all so agreeable, I would like to read some thoughts on what to do to reverse this trend America is undergoing, even as Americans seem highly averse to confronting it. Obviously, we must take back control, even exercise control as has never before, as (small d) democrats. As I already stated, the first priority IMO is to head off Bush 43 re-election, and prepare to halt continuity of a Kerry Administration as well.

The American public has immense freedom to remodel their government constitutionally , but it requires situational awareness and concerted activism. This is where I find my main point of disagreement with pangloss. We may not have time for the "moderate" middle road of incremental change, and politics as usual. Events may require our radicalization, in order to stave off a national disaster.

I remember participating in the largest antiwar protests in human history on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, and returned home to find major media all but ignoring this unprecedented public expresssion. If fascism is ascendant in America and we wish to subvert it, then our situational awareness, organizing, concensus-building, and collective command of our political destiny must kick up another notch, and another, until the desired results are achieved. Anything less is not just half-hearted, it is to become a cog, if even a nice open-minded moderate cog... in a fascist machine.

We may not have time for the "moderate" middle road of incremental change, and politics as usual. Events may require our radicalization, in order to stave off a national disaster.

It's an interesting thought, and one I'm not totally adverse to. I must also admit that, prior to this thread, I had not considered the possibility of sacrificing my support for Bush specifically for the greater good. I was way too obsessed with the idea that doing so was an extreme rebound and therefore probably a poor choice. Now I am more open to that possibility on long-term, big-picture grounds.

The more I discuss politics these days, with friends, family members, and on discussion boards, the more convinced I am that the issues are not simple nor easily addressed with ideological rhetoric. But at the same time I grow more and more convinced that the solution to the present crisis may, itself, be a simple one.

Getting back to the point of the thread (fascism), I will agree that the danger is always a real one. I'm not convinced it's a present one. Specifically (at great risk of changing the subject here):

- Was the election fraudulent, or was it valid? Even if one conceeds that Bush didn't win the popular vote, one can't help but note various activities by both Democrats and Republicans. The waters were successfully muddied, I'm sorry to say. Jokes about the Gnomes of Zurrick aside, I have to throw my hands up at some point and say that sooner or later somebody has to make a decision, and once that decision is made, that person deserves our support.

But I'll acknowledge the concern. We can't keep having elections like that, or it'll rip us apart like a Federation starship full of redshirts caught in the Subspace Anomaly of the Week.

Rather than parse the whole article again, I'll just stop there, having made my point I think. I'm stipulating the concern, as you pointed out, as something to be wary of. I'm tentatively acknowledging a move in that direction. (I have to admit the similarities here with my own recent expressions of concern over the Padilla and Guantanamo cases.) So yeah, I'm there.