An interesting article by Naomi Wolf:
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all.
Okay, I can already feel some eyes rolling from the right side of the aisle and some amens from the left.
But let's see if anything she argues has any merit. You never know. Below I've quoted her 10 steps that she believes Bush is taking towards marching us all into an authoritarian fascist regime. I've quoted her explanations on each in their entirety so people can see the context prior to my responses.
Full Rebuttal: here.
Glock,
Since most of your long postings like this are also replicated on your personal blog, how about just putting a quick summary here and post a link to the full thing? Not trying to censor you, but this is awfully long to go through...
Arvid... good idea. I agree this one was just way too long and some of the formatting got lost when I transferrred it from blogger (I'm usually better about that). I put a link up instead of the full rubuttal.
I mainly use my personal blog for points of interest and avoid repeating the same arguments over and over again for my IRC chatting. I usually only post them here if I think people here would be interested... sometimes only as a comment as opposed to a separate thread. This one seemed pretty relevant since many of the national issue discussions will often have some people on the edges of the political spectrum (and some in between) claiming we're heading towards an authoritarian state. Some think Bush is the big factor... others think it started with the split of the democratic party during/after vietnam... others think FDR set off the scary chain of events... some old school paleocons blame Lincoln!
My personal opinion is that FDR tried to do whatever it took to help the nation recover and in doing so helped damage many of the safe-guards against overbearing government, but I don't consider the situation as hopeless or irreversible as many libertarians make out. But it worries me that people seem generally unconcerned about unrestrained government power... instead they seem to focus more on the powers a particular politician or party is expanding.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I'm sure that Naomi Wolf feels that she's doing something really dangerous here, unveiling the evil Bushitler plan (or at least she should, if she believes her own argument). If the clampdown comes for her in the middle of the night, and she disappears into the web of secret prisons, then I could say that there's something her argument. Since that isn't going to happen, I will continue assuming that she's yet another blowhard going on about the fascist takeover of the U.S., albeit at more length than most. (And speaking of that, yes Glock, a little shorter postings would be appreciated.)
The dems control the house and senate, yet they haven't made changes, so it must not be all that bad. Did she really say 'the sky is falling'?
The dems control the house and senate, yet they haven't made changes, so it must not be all that bad. Did she really say 'the sky is falling'?
I don't think this is how the process works.
Glock, this might be tangential, but how about the internment of American citizens on the basis of their ethnicity? That would see to be completely and utterly facist by FDR...
xian... I mentioned the idea to consider FDR when looking at her gripes since almost all her gripes would apply far better to him than Bush. Somehow I doubt she considers FDR some major step towards fascism though. Perhaps she should? Perhaps she's just blowing things out of proportion? Either way it should be considered.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock,
Never one to use the abridged version, just a few reactions here:
<< But what she avoids is that the fundamentalists who attacked us used similar claims to support the attack. It wasn't something we just made up. The idea that these terrorists want to bring the world under a global fundamentalist Islamic caliphate, which they consider the ideal way to live, is their argument. Not ours. We just pointed out what their intentions are. >>
Typical appeasement mentality-- underestimate the threat and then rip into anyone who feels that the threats are worth reacting to for being a trigger-happy nutjob with no ethical foundation to stand on.
<< But we prosecute and convict people for mistreatment of prisoners, even prisoners under military jurisdiction. >>
Well... some of those people. We especially like to go after the ones least able to defend their actions. This, of course, would exclude the CIA/OGA end of operations.
<< The treatment of those people in military detention is a serious issue that has serious implications on both our own laws and our treaty obligations, but does not by itself a gulag make. >>
Not by itself, no. But it does things to the zeitgeist as a whole. It sends the message that a sadistic approach to doing "good deeds" is acceptable, and it makes life very, very difficult for the moderates that we are relying on to take control and maintain peace.
<< I wonder if the reason she doesn't go into greater detail about the identical outfits is because they were wearing white shirts and suit pants... just like many professionals. >>
Those people in their suit pants and white shirts are dangerous! So are the people in their dreadlocks and their patchouli. Of the two, I'd rather work with the people in the suit pants. They strike me as a more organized and generally more powerful mob. And I'm less likely to want to hit them because they smell funky. I don't like wanting to hit people, but I find it's just a natural reaction when confronted with large amounts of concentrated stupidity and meaningless idealism.
Does this mean I'm getting old?
<< And an election observer in a suit is hardly the same as the Nazi brownshirts. >>
It's likely that most of them have 23 chromosomes in each gamete and a societal predisposition encouraged from the time that they were babies to do as they are told by whatever figure of authority they choose to follow. So, human and prone to error. Not prone to hunt people down and throw them in the ghetto for disagreeing with the regime. There does seem to be a fundamental set of differences worth looking at there. Good call.
More later... time to get back on the clock.
Kem