Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[latent aaaack]

No, it's more like pointing out that whatever the bloody USA is, it's not developing in any such genuinely fascist direction, and that the entire train of thought is an absurd over-stretch. It did look a bit like that under Nixon, but the USA has improved a hell of a ****ing lot since Nixon. Whatever ills the USA has, in all plentitude, they don't include national fascism or any direction towards it at this time.

</End of reality check>

You can say there are nasty developments. True. You can say surveillance is getting really bad over there. True. You can say they're a pack of bloody bloodthirsty incompetent twats. Often or sometimes true. But you cannot meaningfully say there is any direction towards organised, national fascism.

Not without looking like a bloody idiot, anyway.

Right because however bad it gets we can just vote in a new candidate in that isn't taking the country in an authoritarian direction and is less extreme than the current president. Have you watched the republican debates? In your opinion are the leading candidates more, less, or equally idealogically extreme compared to Bush?

The damage the Bush administration has done to the country is much worse than what Nixon's did. That suggests the trend is in fact away from improvement.

Serious question: how long would 'nasty developments' have to sustainably go on accross different administrations before you would accept that it's not a coincidence and that successive administrations are getting worse, without any percievable mechanism to stop it?

 

[Gurdur]

Right because however bad it gets we can just vote in a new candidate in that isn't taking the country in an authoritarian direction and is less extreme than the current president.

No, actually it's a hell of a lot more than that, including the fragmented sociopolitical nature of the USA. Pointing only to POTUS elections would be simplistic. The USA simply is too fragmented (or democratic, whichever you prefer) at this time politically for any such national fascism.

Have you watched the republican debates?

Some. In case I missed any of my brain cells when I squirted malathion up my nose, just to kill the rest.

In your opinion are the leading candidates more, less, or equally idealogically extreme compared to Bush?

Depends. Mostly they're simply different. Too many differences to make an easy comparison of extremism. BTW, Bush, while a total twat, is not such an extremist. Do compare him with Mussolini one day. Bush is far less of a danger.

The damage the Bush administration has done to the country is much worse than what Nixon's did.

I completely disagree, excepting on the economic level.

That suggests the trend is in fact away from improvement.

I completely disagree, excepting on the economic level.

Serious question: how long would 'nasty developments' have to sustainably go on accross different administrations before you would accept that it's not a coincidence and that successive administrations are getting worse, without any percievable mechanism to stop it?

12 years, or 5 very dramatic years, on considering all practicable possibilities.

And it's still not fascism. Have you ever actually visited a genuine police state or similar? I have. The USA, for all its faults, is not there and not going there yet no matter how many wetdreams Cheney or various posters have.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sorry, Gitmo hardly counts. Thats a POW camp, pure and simple...

I thought the point was that they were not prisoners of war?

 

[latent aaaack]

12 years, or 5 very dramatic years, on considering all practicable possibilities.

Again "Bush is as extreme as Mussolini" isn't in my post, only that Bush is extreme.

12 years starting when the "nasty developments" begin or starting after the initiator of the developments has left office? The frontrunners of the Rebuplican candidates and the war and terrorism prognosis makes it likely that the next four to eight years will contain at least as many "nasty developments" so maybe your opinion isn't that different from mine.

 

[Gurdur]

Again "Bush is as extreme as Mussolini" isn't in my post, only that Bush is extreme.

Whereas my point is that as disgusting as he is, he is not as extreme as you think.

12 years starting when the "nasty developments" begin or starting after the initiator of the developments has left office?

From when events begin.

The frontrunners of the Rebuplican candidates and the war and terrorism prognosis makes it likely that the next four to eight years will contain at least as many "nasty developments"

Not really. As gawdawful as some of their policy wants are, on the road to fascism they're not.

so maybe your opinion isn't that different from mine.

I suspect we differ greatly indeed, more than you think. You see, I see far more danger from large business in the USA than from the government. And I prefer my analyses less based on fashionable but false equations, and more based on concrete and specific aspects.

 

[latent aaaack]

Whereas my point is that as disgusting as he is, he is not as extreme as you think.

From when events begin.

Not really. As gawdawful as some of their policy wants are, on the road to fascism they're not.

I suspect we differ greatly indeed, more than you think. You see, I see far more danger from large business in the USA than from the government. And I prefer my analyses less based on fashionable but false equations, and more based on concrete and specific aspects.

A boundless progression towards worse presidents in the same vein as Bush/Cheney is in my view indiscernable from a direction towards the break down of our system of government.

The speaker of the house ("Bush administration is the closest to a dictatorship the US has even been"), General Tommy Franks (a Bush supporter who believes the consitution will not survive a WMD attack on a US city), the Comptroller General of the US ("us government is facing long term collapse"), Al Gore (believes American democracy in jeopardy), and Newt Gingrich ("the way we elect leaders is bordering on insane" and believes a wmd attack on a major city would cause massive erosion of civil liberties), are all stupidly fashionable and wrong that America's democracy is in danger?

Note I don't believe any of this is definitely going to happen but the movements that have already been made towards it mean that one should take notice and process it honestly.

 

[Gurdur]

A boundless progression towards worse presidents in the same vein as Bush/Cheney is in my view indiscernable from a direction towards the break down of our system of government.

Yeah, well, we bloody differ in opinion.

Al Gore (believes American democracy in jeopardy),

Al Gore has a point. But it's not fascism which is the pressing danger.

and Newt Gingrich ("the way we elect leaders is bordering on insane"

Quoting Newt on this is more than a bit of shooting yourself in the foot, seeing as to all the anti-democratic measures Newt took in various practices around Congress back when he possessed some power.

Note I don't believe any of this is definitely going to happen but the movements that have already been made towards it mean that one should take notice and process it honestly.

Oh, I process all the information honestly. I hope very much that you are not trying to insinuate that I am being dishonest in any way, otherwise I shall say something very sharp indeed about that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, basically, you don't want us to dispute your evidence? Stunning assertion

ETA: I should really run a spell check on my posts when I'm sleepy. I could have SWORN it said dispute.

Excuse me? Where do you see anything about not wanting the evidence discussed?

I don't want wasted thread space with unsubstantiated denials of the evidence if that's what you mean.

 

[Pardalis]

I don't want wasted thread space with unsubstantiated denials of the evidence if that's what you mean.

The evidence must be presented in the first place.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have skeptigirl on ignore because her opinions on politics are rarely skeptical and honestly remind me of those of a high senior in all-black mad at the establishment.

I took a chance on "view post" and got burned. She linked a Naomi Wolf article/book that has about the same level of intellect and the same sophomoric attitude.

For example, this is an unsubstantiated claim Wolf's book isn't valid. Not one single attempt here to address any of the historical events which Wolf specifically correlates to current events.

Those events would be facts. If you refute the facts, provide your evidence. If you disagree with the conclusions, that's to be expected. People are going to fall on a continuum regarding their conclusions about where we are on the slippery slope from 'not at all' to 'beyond the point of no return'. Those conclusions are open to debate but I don't think any of us are going to be very convinced about someone else's conclusions just because they posted they don't like someone else's opinion.

And frankly I am getting sick of it. So here's your notice boys, any further attacks on my character will be reported. The mods can decide if it belongs in the dungeon.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And why should we listen to Naomi Wolf?

From her Wiki biography she doesn't seem to have much credentials... in anything relevant.

ETA: does she even have any authority and knowledge in politics or history to be making such a list?

Care to address anything more specific?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She's an unreconstructed leftie with a long history of anti-american rhetoric. And I am not american nor do I view all things american as bright and beautiful.

Care to address anything more specific?

 

[Pardalis]

Care to address anything more specific?

Care to provide any reason why anybody should take this list seriously?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which opinions on politics are skeptical?

Are you saying that politics can be determined skeptically? That we can examine the evidence and be able to vote for the politician with the best skeptically founded political agenda?

Many of the things I have posted on involving politics involve specific incidents and facts. Not everything is an opinion. For example, I posted evidence in the Gonzales attorney firings which was very specific. While a few people replied to the evidence and addressed the evidence, a fair number of folks merely replied with irrelevant ad homs. It's too bad because it does nothing to further our knowledge.

 

[Pardalis]

Still waiting for the evidence. What you say is evidence (Wolf's list) is just the opinion of an uneducated person (uneducated in the relevant field, that is).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, my responses:

A) I believe there are very legitimate criticisms of U.S. policy under G.W. Bush, in fact I believe he is the worst president the U.S. has ever had, I consider him a political and religious bigot who believes that the combination of overwhelming power and his religious beliefs give him the right to do whatever he wants.

B) That said, there is one whoppingly huge difference between Bush (and the U.S.) and Hitler's Germany (or any other fascist system), and that is the fact that Bush will be out of power in a short time, and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. More and more Americans are themselves expressing their distrust/dislike of Bush, and of his party.

That is a crucial difference; it is entirely impossible within a democratic system to guarantee that you do not sometimes get terrible leaders. But you can remove them relatively easily.

C) I also find Wolf's writing to be terribly immature and partisan. Take the example of her section on "Develop a Thug Caste"; she really, really has to stretch to make even a weak argument in this category. This isn't a rational, logical discussion that looks at both sides of the question in an effort to find reasonable answers; it is a politically motivated and partisan effort wherein conclusions have been made before it was begun, and facts are twisted and abused to make them fit that "truth".

D) Following on point 'C', Bush's administration has proven incredibly skilled at utilizing the very same tactic over and over and over. They decide what result they want, or what 'truth' they think is best, and then simply twist the facts in whatever way they can to get people to follow them.

Which brings me to E) how can someone who claims to oppose Bush turn around and use the very same dishonest and unethical tools that Bush and Co. have used? The very first standard that I will use in judging anyone who claims to be 'better' than Bush is whether or not they hold themselves to a higher moral/ethical standard.

Sure, in the words and principles she uses, Ms. Wolf claims a higher moral ground; but in her actions -- in her willingness to abuse or distort truth, or to present only those truths that fit her argument and ignore all others, in order to manipulate people to accept her arguments -- I see little or no difference whatsoever.

This is an example of a reply to the evidence. Thank you WM for actually replying to the OP.

I also think Bush leaving power in 08 will mean the pendulum is indeed swinging back into line and things will be fine. What worries me is the rhetoric increasing about evil Iran and Bush having a year left.

And the followers of that rhetoric also concern me. The number of people in that mob is key. I don't think it is that big right now. I do wonder how big it would get under a number of different scenarios such as another 9/11 or Bush invading Iran despite what the Congress wants.

John Hagee was on Glen Beck yesterday going on about his absolute certainty we are in the "End Times". Beck was gleefully (and I mean that literally) saying how pleased he was Hagee was saying, "all the things [Beck had] been saying." It was frightening not knowing how many people in addition to Hagee's claimed 18,000 member church were also "absolutely certain" we are in the "End Times". There could be enough in such a group to create a critical mass should they become convinced the US attacking Iran is part of God's plan.

 

[Pardalis]

This is an example of a reply to the evidence.

Again, what is your definition of "evidence"?

 

[Pardalis]

John Hagee was on Glen Beck yesterday going on about his absolute certainty we are in the "End Times". Beck was gleefully (and I mean that literally) saying how pleased he was Hagee was saying, "all the things [Beck had] been saying." It was frightening not knowing how many people in addition to Hagee's claimed 18,000 member church were also "absolutely certain" we are in the "End Times". There could be enough in such a group to create a critical mass should they become convinced the US attacking Iran is part of God's plan.

And Naomi Wolf thinks Jesus is following her around in the shape of a cat. So what's your point?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Miss Wolf in 2006:

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/02/naomi-wolf-encounters-jesus.html

Can I say woo?

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13368/naomi-wolf-i-had-a-vision-of-jesus

Yes, I see Wolf is flakier than I had known when I heard her on the radio. But I wasn't going by her opinions. And, I said in the OP I wasn't sure where I thought we were on the slope.

I was going by Wolf's description of historical events which preceded other fascist states forming and the correlating events which have occurred in this country under Bush. I am not the only one disturbed about arrests without charges, torture, and the level of spying on citizens which we hadn't seen since the Nixon era. Those are very ominous events, they aren't simply politically unacceptable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wasn't saying anything remotely like that. I was saying that this poster acts like a git when the subject is politics.

For instance, skeptigirl once opened a thread about a Bill Moyers documentary that made some fantastic claims about the news media in relation to the Iraq war. Instead of posting it as a matter of skeptical inquiry, it was posted as an accusation and/or fact. Out of boredom, I picked a few of the claims/evidence at random from the transcript of the documentary and found they were either incorrect or grossly out-of-context to the point of being outright deception with simple google searches verifying the facts or going back to original sources.

This revelation wasn't met with the attitude of a skeptic. It was met with the attitude of a believer. This person reacted with hostility to this sort of challenge on what they had accepted as fact.

Politicians and those who write about them can make claims that can be put under scrutiny. Otherwise this subforum would be sort of pointless.

Link to your supposed post and we can see whether we agree with your conclusions. Moyers is hardly a person known to produce documentaries based on unsubstantiated evidence.