This term is thrown around a lot on political forums and in the general public. Then, lefties accuse everyone else of not knowing the true meaning and saying it's not true. Let's get this settled.
Post concrete reasons/examples why or why not this term applies to our current government.
Hawaii Marijuana Dispensary
A simple check of Webster's sheds a lot of light on this term.( Parenthetical statements are mine.)
1. A political philosophy, movement or regime(NOTE THE PROGRESSION); that exhalts nation and often race above the individual(redistribution of wealth...Joe the Plumber...illegal amnesty), and that stands for a CENTRALIZED, AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT headed by a dictatorial leader(Congress);
2. Severe economic and social regimentation(Auto industry, healthcare, etc)
3. Forcible suppression of opposition. (Dems not allowing Repubs in caucus).
****A TENDANCY TOWARD or actual excercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.
I'm glad that someone answered one of these finally. I was beginning to think that nobody has any way to back up what they are saying.
So, where's the rebuttal? Why are these things not fascist? Or are they undefendable?
Your parenthetical remarks are a bit off the mark. Fascism vests all it power in a single individual (ex. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Peron)who as supreme ruler has autocratic control. With Fascism the legislature is a sham. Often it serves at the pleasure of the autocrat.
Originally Posted by TXduckdog
There is an elevation of the "ideal ,true citizen" of the country to the disadvantage of those who are from a different or minority group. A racially pure populace is often the goal of a Fascist state.
The Fascist social regimentation makes everyone a cog of the state (who is in effect the supreme leader). All are expected to follow authority without question. In Fascism the economy is diverted to serve the state but the enterprises stay largely in the hands and the day to day control of the ownership (as opposed to communism where all production is owned by the state). The regimentation in Fascism is meant to serve the state where in present day America the economic stimulus is meant to shore up stressed industries and return them to full private control. The health reform is aimed at getting all Americans covered by a health plan so the rest of us who are covered don't have to carry those that don't. Health care was not a hot topic for Fascist regimes. The money usually was earmarked for the military.
Forcible suppression of the opposition is usually by jack booted thugs or paramilitary that carry off the opposition enmasse and then imprison, torture and/or execute them. I haven't seen a mass round up of Republicans by jack booted Liberals, yet. Nor have I seen a plan where Republicans will have to display a little pink elephant patch over their hearts in public.
Suppression of the opposition does not include things like excluding Republicans from caucuses. The parties in Congress have always excluded members of the opposite party from caucuses, which are in effect strategy meeting or meetings to choose the party leaders. They always have been private clubs.
Sarge.....historically the forms of fascism have been as you say...an individual, paramilitary, etc. You don't have to widen the definition hardly at all to catch what is going on today.
But if you look at what's going on right now....the basic elements of fascism are in place.....the methods are different.....HC is a perfect example because it represents government control which by nature is always autocratic. The socialistic "redistribution fo income" is absolutely social regimentation...ot it's goal anyway as is the "public option". So is the proposed level of taxation.
When one party excludes the other from involvement in actual legislative interaction, it most certainly is suppression of the opposition.....one step further....the townhall meetings.....the Dems don't want to hear from the people and if they could... AND DID exclude, or made it damn hard to get in to those meetings. The pervasive attitude of many dems, especially the leadership...Reid and Pelosi....they'd shut down the opposition TODAY if they could get away with it.
Marxism is extreme left wing ideology run amok. Fascism is extreme right wing ideology run amok. Some time their manifestations are somewhat similar to the effect that some observers see the political spectrum as circular.
Fascism is less about redistribution of wealth. It, however, savagely seeks to control public discourse to its own set of values that will again lead the country to a new golden age.
In the 50's the parties differed more by nuance--Democrats to side for labor, Republicans for business. It has always been a challenge for the minority party to "get its oar in the water". Congress in recent years has chosen the route of antagonism rather than dialog. Democrats complained bitterly they had no input during the Ginrich reign as the Republicans now complain under the Pelosi reign.
The country has become so polarized that it is hard to express a political opinion without "Marxist" or "Fascist" being hurled back at the opponent.
The fact that these labels are being thrown about so fequently are proof that we are in the grip of the greatest shell game in our political history. Manufactured discontent keeps all us sheeple from asking the right questions. I don't care how well read you are or what your source material is. If you are looking for answers to the questions raised in any mainstream media you are a pawn...but then, what else could we be?
Actually, it's not even close.
Originally Posted by TXduckdog
How can Congress be considered dictatorial when control and and does shift in any election. Exercising legislative power in accordance with the Constitution, subject to judicial review, and with the possibility of being thrown out by the next election cannot be termed a dictatorship. In the absence of laws permitting prosecution based on opposition, or legislation outlawing opposing parties, or other similar activities limiting free speech and the people's rights to vote, it cannot even be term authoritarian.
Social regimentation has nothing to do with ownership or control of businesses, it has to do with control of public behavior and activities. The closest we come as a nation to such action are activities such as morning recitals of the Pledge of Allegiance, pep squad assemblies at high schools, and the playing of the national anthem at sporting events. During the McCarthy period we pushed this further, forcing people to prove their allegiance through conformance to narrowly defined standards of patriotic behavior while proving that they did not support or participate in activities that were completely legal but deemed unpatriotic for the McCarthyites. We have no such regimentation now even if one throws in isolated incident such as the Obama song on one elementary school class.
Originally Posted by blind ambition
What manufactured discontent? I am disgusted with this gov't as are most of my friends.
You don't even live in the US!
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
So you think the Pledge of Allegiance, pep squad assemblies and playing the national anthem are social regimentation?