Is America turning into a Facist State?

Would a fascist leader permit the NYT to publish what Eric Lichtblau wrote exposing the tracking of foriegn funds, or wiretapping? Would he acceed to what the Supreme Court has ruled about trials for terrrorists? Would he allow opposition party authorship of extensive portions of the federal budget?

No. And use of the term in this discussion is headed toward the same definition of fascism communists and shallow youth use it for: anyone who disagrees with them.

Still no takers for my question above?

posted by aaaaa

To usurp is to take what does not rightfully belong to you. Count your selected Florida districts from 2000 and he's still President. [Edited by Don W]

My reference to “usurper” was the scary view he and AG Gonzales hold on the powers inherent in the Commander-in-Chief status that Bush43 claims for himself on an indefinite basis.

US Con. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1. “The president shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy . . “ He is not the C-in-C of America.

I believe the intent of this provision was 2 fold. First, that an elected civilian should be the supreme commander or commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the nation. Civilian control. I think Oliver Cromwell may have been in the minds of the Founding Fathers. And they were prescient in the case of France and Napoleon yet to come.

The second purpose was to stop the meddling and intervening in military matters by Congress which had happened under the Article of Confederation. In war, it is best to have one voice. You just hope Providence gives a voice that is coherent. Which Providence does not always do.

As for Florida in 2000. And Ohio in 2004. What lessons we ought to take away from those elections is that America does not have its electoral act together. We who are the supreme technologists cannot be sure of any state’s returns if the outcome is closer than about 5%.

In occupied Palestine, in war-torn Iraq and in poverty-ridden Mexico, those countries recently held elections in which the outcome was universally accepted to be honest and accurate. Instead of “exporting” democracy, maybe we would do better to “import” some?

aaaaa,

If it's a trick question and my answer is Karl Marx, are you going to loudly proclaim WRONG!

I've read several times recently that Bush43 (I'll never drink Blend 43 again) has signed 750 Presidential 'signing statements', more than all other President's combined, so that executive branch authority can remain undiluted by legislation.

Is this Bush hard at work or 'blow 'em away' Cheney. I agree with Justin. Governments are averse to willingly giving up authority once gained.

Is this part of globalisation, the growth of international trade and relations impelling governments to streamline themselves into tighter and tighter muscles of power. Governments and multinationals walking together down the aisle. Here comes the slide!

One source

posted by Soulstice

I've read that Bush43 has signed 750 Presidential 'signing statements' more than all other President's combined, so that executive branch authority can remain undiluted by Congressional legislation. Is globalization, the growth of international trade impelling governments to streamline themselves into tighter and tighter muscles of power. Governments and multinationals walking together down the aisle. Here comes the slide! [Edited by Don W]

One word describes it: Privatization.

It started in 1969, on March 12, after Richard Nixon had been sworn into office on January 20. Barely 51 days into his presidency. The Post Office, founded by Ben Franklin, had layer upon layer of inept political appointees who knew next to nothing about running such a large organization. By 1970, after a strike and an 8% wage increase voted by Congress, the United States Postal Service was born.

The Republican mantra since FDR’s New Deal has been to “reduce the size of government.” The GOP sine qua non. I wrote yesterday on another thread that the Department of Energy website says they have 18,000 employees. Further into the website, it says they have 112,000 persons under contract. So, at first blush, it looks as if the GOP has kept their word by reducing the size of government. OTOH, who do you think is paying those workers “under contract.”

We see this privatization especially visible in Iraq where formerly civilians were not used in the prosecution of war. Today, for various reasons, we are employing civilians to perform military functions. This is very bad. You cannot order a civilian to face death even if the mission is urgent. That is not because soldiers want to face death, it is because the civilians (mercenaries) have not been trained, nor prepared for the job. It is only money that gets their bodies present. That is no way to win a war.

The taxpayers are not saving money. The private contractors are making money from sources not even in existence before the Vietnam War. Then it was added to by the Iran Contra thing. And here we are today. Not saving taxpayers money but turning the taxing power of the state into a source of private gain by “contractors.”

This person, Bush43, will be our president until January 20, 2009. That is more than 2 years away. No matter how much more of the world he manages to muck up, he is still the president! Self-proclaimed Commander-in-Chief. Based on a war never declared. We need to change this situation. And we need to do it urgently. Only a constitutional convention can rid America and the world of the Bush-Blight.


[edit on 7/10/2006 by donwhite]

If the trend towards centralization of power continues, Don may get his wish for a Constitutional convention by the end of this century. We can't take more than 3-5 Presidents that expand power like W has. Going back to what I said earlier, any President who goes out of their way to destroy the linkages of government will eventually achieve Fascist ledaership.

We can't take more than 3-5 Presidents that expand power like W has. Going back to what I said earlier, any President who goes out of their way to destroy the linkages of government will eventually achieve Fascist ledaership.

Thanks, Soulstice, as you correctly suspected, wrong answer.
I asked the question because it goes to the origin of Fascism, which, as pointed out earlier in the thread, had its origins in Italy in the early 1920's as a response to the revolutions Lenin was promoting throughout the world.

It was Lenin that changed Marx's "From each according to thier ability, to each according to his work" to "means. It was no small distinction or work of semantics, as people were executed in Russia and elsewhere for not following the Leninist line.

Fear of mass murder and collectivization was what made the Fascists "reactionaries" to Lenin's "progressives". Communism and Fascism ended up being both statist, bloodthirsty, and reliant on scapegoats and enemies, real and imagined, at home or abroad.

Thus, I believe tyrants like Castro, Kim, or Mugabe would have been equally comfortable spouting off against Jews if Hitler had succeeded as they are against capitalists and corporations now.

As to America, Presidents have assumed sweeping powers in the past that make Bush's use of executive authority look puny.

Consider:

Andrew Jackson closed the National Bank (the Federal Reserve of it's time), instituted a spoils system for government employment, and asked who would enforce Supreme Court decisions he opposed.

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, allowed the rich to buy thier way out of military service, and if not complicit, at least turned his back on the massive voter fraud being commited by Tammany Hall.

Woodrow Wilson jailed socialists like Eugene Debs for opposing his decision to go to war in 1917, supported the Klu Klux Klan and nationalized private industies.

FDR's rape of the constitution would run book length.

Kennedy ordered Hoover's wiretapping of political opponants.

Johnson. Vietnam.

Bush hatred can drive people to believing the worst things about government are true and promoting fear and paranoia as a rational outlook.

I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but it doesn't hurt to take the long view, either.

Originally posted by aaaaa
Would a fascist leader permit the NYT to publish what Eric Lichtblau wrote exposing the tracking of foriegn funds, or wiretapping?

thats a very good point

I wouldn't say George Bush is a fascist leader.
I don't even think he has any aspiration to be.

A relatively authoritarian President certainly - then again so were Lincoln and FDR, not to mention Clinton.

However I think some of his supporters wouldn't mind America turning into a fascist state at all. For all the calls to arrest Eric Lichtblau and others as "traitors", I'm coming to the conclusion that there are a lot of people around who will embrace fascism wholeheartedly when it comes.

[edit on 7/10/06 by xmotex]

"When it comes," it will most likely be the result of reaction to something very bad. I don't wish for it to happened at all, but I can see how a Fascist 'reacton' might occur if a sitting President were assassinated.

The bush administration is fumbling around for the right words to sell their authoritarian message. I think the next President will be able to find those words. I have heard it said that part of politics is making people demand what you already plan to do to them.

As the perceived threat level from overseas powers grows, we may very well see that 'demand' grow.

Every body who posted here is in denail.

George Bush is part of a facist addministration.

Lets face it though, the only way to go now in the world is Facist or Communist.

I said it in my first post you only have two choices.

I'm a common worker.. lower class in the U.S. but I am smart enough to know that Democracy-Republic doesn't work but I am smart enough to face up that for the better being of the world. Face it, you only have two choices.

I think you'd know it if we were really in a Fascist-run country. Your first clue might be the fact that we would NOT be having this conversation. In a Fascist country, we might have this conversation IF we happened to be in the same gulag.

posted by Justin Oldham

I think you'd know it if we were really in a Fascist-run country. Your first clue might be the fact that we would NOT be having this conversation. In a Fascist country, we might have this conversation IF we happened to be in the same gulag. [Edited by Don W]

Au contraire! Italian repression did not begin for several years after Mussolini took charge in 1922. Likewise, Hitler took control in 1933 but did not implement his draconian laws for a couple years. Dictatorships most frequently begin “softly” before they then turn hard. After all, it takes time to consolidate, and time to identify your enemies. I seem to recall this was also the chronology in the Russian’s October Revolution. And maybe also with Fidel Castro? I’m not sure how much repression there is in Cuba. I can’t believe anything out of W-DC or Miami.

But while I do not think we have “lost” our freedoms yet, J/O, we have lost some, both quantitatively and more, qualitatively. I challenge any Bush43 type to enumerate any freedoms he has introduced or added to.



[edit on 7/11/2006 by donwhite]

Our young friend was speaking as if we were already in chains. I was merely pointing out, in the same way, that we are not...yet. Message tailored to the audience, as it were.

This is a good point in the conversation to ask, how much longer 'till things get that bad? I say 3-5 future Presidents. Assuming that each serves two terms, that's 40 years or less.

The scenario, as laid out in my book, only requires the activities of one President (serving two terms). Even that isn't a full on police state.

What might we expect from the next President...whoever that is...to move us a few steps closer to the nightmare?

Of the Corporate; By the Corporate; For the Corporate

Visionis always 20-20 in hindsight. Thats what scares me the most about our march to fascism.. most will not see it for what it is until it is over. But by then, it will be too late to stop it. I have been complaining about the corporate takeover of America since the early 90's. After all, they are the true power behind the thrown today.



[edit on 11-7-2006 by TONE23]

Over generalization. Business and government have always had a close working relationship. That has always been very true here in the United States. Some are more concerned about the corporations, while others are more upset over the governmental aspects.

posted by Justin Oldham

Business and government have always had a close working relationship. That has always been very true here in the United States. Some are more concerned about the corporations, while others are more upset over the governmental aspects.

You’re right, J/O. Whatever Bush43's plan, it is not fully implemented yet. Let me bring up a couple points.

1) Privatization. We have never before had the degree of that which we are seeing now. Usually in the past, when we did go private, it was offered as a way to save money. Today, we spend more on “privates” that on publics. Or should that be pubics.?

2) We never had - to my knowledge - a president who claims Commander-in-Chief powers are unlimited. Nor have we ever been engaged in an undeclared war which the President say will last - perpetually once but now - decades.

3) The Bush43 tax plan is to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor. Current deficits have the dual advantage - to the rich - that they are getting government services today but charging it to be paid tomorrow as their tax share declines. Bush43 claims his prior tax cuts are bringing more money into the Federal government. Not really, it is smoke and mirrors.

Much of our overall Federal income is SS and Medicare money. It is not correct to use a surplus in that account to show how the overall budget has a smaller deficit unless that part of the budget is funded from Non Entitlement Money.



[edit on 7/11/2006 by donwhite]

Everything Don just said is on the mark. The long range consequences of tehse actions and policies motivated me to write a book. I really don't think most people comprehend what we're in for.

I give you the following example to back up my prediction:

2005 Essay

Then I'm afraid you are also wrong aaaaa.

Marx wrote it, and the correct quote is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his NEED." Lenin may have changed it but he didn't write it. Your 'trick' was not part of your question.

My understanding is that Andrew Jackson did what he did because he was primarily an excellent soldier and not a politician and certainly a most reluctant President. He filled a vacuum. Who else was willing at such a damaged time?

The 'tyrants' you mention, though we're quibbling over academic questions here, would not have had to 'spout off' about Jews if Hitler had succeeded, for the Jews would be the most underground of undergrounds, if anything at all if he had. Thank fate, the allies and the Jews that he didn't.

It's the KU Klux Klan is it not? Now I'm really quibbling for points. I read that one killed another not long ago by firing a bullet in the air. What goes up must come down, and it did, on another KKK's head.

I doubt that Bush's actions are less authoritarian in terms of his time compared to the other Pres's you mention. The advancement of education and awareness should position people to resist authoritarian rulers, but it doesn't and that is because we haven't left our primitive, club wielding, flag waving minds behind. Not under Demo's or Repu's. Better to be a peaceful anarchist!



[edit on 12-7-2006 by Soulstice]

JO wrote "Don may get his wish for a Constitutional convention by the end of this century."

By that time, after 20 odd more elections we'll all be dead (unless we've been d'loaded into some Greg Mars styled central computer) and the leading party will be the Democrublicans and Ralph Nader IIII Jnr will plead with people to vote with their biochipped backsides! (I've toned some language down for an easily offended American audience.) Is the FCC reading this forum?

Would, in 2006, a fascist leader allow free journalism and an 'activist' Supreme Court? You can bet your last dollar GWB and his Dept of Justification people are plotting around it. Wasn't it a conservative dominated Supreme Court decision that allowed the airborne Presidency on GWB's, read Dick C's terms? And didn't the access desiring media clap until the backside stuff from Iraq hit the domestic fan? The very moment that the paths of ideally dispassionate, law interpreting judgement go against Bush43 and mildly toward the illegalised combatant and what happens? The Wizard of the US becomes a pearl shut into a curtained clam? Now where's the yellow brick road? In a yellow submarine?

Perhaps a new definition of fascism is in order to match this new terrorised perception of the still new millenium. Maybe a new term altogether. How about Western Elite versus Eastern Fanatic? How about hyper-techno-arrogation? Too wordy? Not clicky enough for the work bound driver flashing past on the blooded expressway?

I look forward to the Senate elections. Does Bush?





[edit on 12-7-2006 by Soulstice]