Gentle Readers will be aware that Your Humble Blogger is generally pretty serene about the political big picture, and although I feel that Our Only President is doing a lot of harm in this country and the world, I try not to exaggerate what’s going on. It’s clear, for instance, that those of us who live in the US are still pretty fortunate to do so, and that our government does not engage in the totalitarian excesses that are common now and have been common throughout history. And, although some of the cadre now in power may actually be fascists by belief and action, it seems preposterous to me to even suggest that we are currently living under a fascist rule. Most, if not all, of Mr. Madison’s lovely brakes are still working, and if the country is descending into madness, it is still a lot further away than most.
On the other hand ... Gentle Reader david points out the latest from the Pentagon, which is (see “Pentagon Strategy Aims to Block Internal Threats to Foreign Forces”, by Bradley Graham, in this morning’s Washington Post) that it is advised that our foreign policy be to choose leaders of foreign nations, to stabilize those leaders we determine to be good actors, and to eliminate internal threats to those leaders, and to do that through the Pentagon. Not through the State Department, but through the military. Now, we could argue back and forth about whether those tactics are (a) useful, (2) ethical, and (iii) already in place, but it seems to me absolutely clear that in anything approximating the America I am part of, such things would be run by civilians. The whole genius of Mr. Madison’s magnificent constitution is deciding who runs what. OK, not the whole genius, but most of it. And the whole idea of having foreign policy run out of the Pentagon (and that is what is being proposed) is screwing with the most basic parts of that.
Well, you say, but seriously, is there a bright line being crossed here? Maybe not. Maybe it’s an arbitrary limit I’m imagining here. But think about it this way: if you were writing a novel about how the US fell to a tyranny, where the ruling class used the military to enforce its power (and, by the way, reduced the status of most women to mothers-of-soldiers), how would you push us down that slope? What sorts of people would you invent to be put in charge of what, and how would they manipulate public opinion to accept, piecemeal, an abandonment of those constitutional principles and the social constructs they give rise to that tie the hands of the powerful? How would the first thirty years look like between now and Starship Troopers?
“Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak focusing on international fora, judicial processes and terrorism.” -Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.
No, I have to say that again: “international fora, judicial processes and terrorism.”
So, isn’t a statement like that one of Feith’s the sort of thing that ought to lead for calls for the man’s resignation, followed swiftly by his resignation, with abject apologies for his tarnishing his government with appearances of thoughtless jingoism?
… it seems preposterous to me to even suggest that we are currently living under a fascist rule
What do you believe are the keystones of fascist rule, and how are they measurable?
[statements redacted]
it’s certainly exactly the sort of comment to give wolfowitz the proper launch in his new career as a financial strongman.
Dang, I hope the World Bank isn’t an international forum.
Wait a minute … I subscribe to International Forum; it’s delivered in a brown paper wrapper.
By the way, [name redacted], I am still thinking about an answer to your question. I’ll try to write it out in the next [time redacted] or two.
Thanks,
-V.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
Fascism. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Federalism is naturally opposed to fascism, because power remains with the individual states. States retain their power through several methods: national guard units (currently federalized), local and state police forces (increasingly working with and under federal law enforcement), policy control over local issues such as education or voting (dwindling under No Child Left Behind, federal civil rights laws, etc.), budgetary control over local issues (dwindling due to unfunded federal mandates), and taxation (the lion’s share of which is now done federally and redistributed to the states with conditions attached). The current balance of power between the states and the federal government looks nothing like what Madison envisioned.
For all the talk of the American dream, socioeconomic controls are getting more stringent. Tax policy, bankruptcy laws, welfare policy, and monetary policy all are reinforcing existing class structures. Most rich people stay rich, most poor people stay poor, and there is little movement between the classes. In the name of creating an ownership society, we are creating unimaginable levels of personal debt and reducing options for opting out. If you buy a house, mortgage it to the hilt, and the market plummets, you lose your house and still owe the bank. Your options are then bankruptcy or indentured servitude. We’re “reforming” bankruptcy.
Terror, censorship, and belligerent nationalism? Isn’t that where your post started? Racism was, of course, cured 30 years ago. That’s why the terror alert system now uses primary colors, rather than Arabs on airplane, Chinese approaching Boston, and Pakistanis near a playground to denote our current government-sanctioned level of paranoia.
How much does the definition of fascism hinge on having a dictator, and how different is a strong Presidency? Some people might find little comfort in a society that implements an elected rotating dictatorship if that’s the largest difference from fascism.
Our Constitutional safeguards are critically important in keeping us from fascism. We need free speech and a free and independent press, strong states, a Presidency whose powers are balanced by the rest of the government, an independent judiciary, and rotation in legislative representation rather than an entrenched political class. I’m glad our Constitution provides all of that, but the Constitution does not enforce itself. And sticking pretty names on damaging policies doesn’t actually change their nature, though it may fool us into changing ours.