Is there a slide towards totalatarianism?

And I don't know if you've ever tried to scan a NYorker article, Hazlitt, but its typeface and OCR create a language known only in small pockets of the Great Tundra. Thanks for reminding me to go back and read that article!

As for chiliastic, I'd say that may be the main point. Modern totalitarianism seems to depend on the consent of the governed and a point of connection right now between gov and governed is the government's reliance on the invisible and unprovable. God, classified documents: they amount to the same thing. These have made for easy "wins" with the American public. How? Why? That's a discussion in itself and I don't know whether you want to take that up here?

Re: Is there a slide towards totalatarianism?


Let's see

While not official, the role that fundamentlist Christains (and radical Zionists) play in setting the Bush agenda is scary '

Maybe, maybe not. It seems that a lot of Democrats are scared of Howard Dean's strong run.

Well the power of corporatins cannot be denied, and there are several sites devoted to how them mianstream media has become little more than a mouthpiece for Bush and the War Party.

I don't know about this one.

TIA, PATRIOT ACT, etc.

I believe there is more than a slide. I am of the sort that picks up on things without bothering to harbor caches of information to prove what he believes. I cannot expound for long paragraphs or bring in links just now, but I see it in everything the government does. And, I think too many Democrats are consciously allowing it to happen, whether through cowardice or pollyanna syndrome I can't tell you.

I always feel when I say this that I must sound like I'm harping, but I really believe none of this would be possible ("more than a slide" -- agree, EB) if there weren't cooperation on the part of all of us. Yup. Active cooperation teamed with sins of omission. Don't want to harp more; would like to hear others on this sub-topic: "How voting and non-voting citizens have laid the groundwork for totalitarianism." Or "What would I have to change in my life to help stop the slide."

Neo, when I think of party control of the military, I think of how Rumsfeld is on TV all the time as the party spokesman on foreign policy matters. Also all the prominence now accorded to Wolfowitz. Also think of how Rumsfeld has gotten rid of any nay-saying generals in the pentagon.

Also, the doctrine of preemption smacks of militarism.

Edgar and Tartarin, one technique of totalitarians often used to quell dissent is to invent a threat from the outside that is so great that only the dictator, or in our case the President, is capable of dealing with it. Of course, he must have extraordinary powers do do his job, powers like circumventing the UN and the suspension of civil rights.

Yes, Tartatin, I too wonder why more Americans are approving of the Bush power drive. I think we ought to talk about what we might be able to do. I wonder how to energize those parts of the population who ought to be voting for Democrats but who stay home on election day.

Start here

http://www.deanforamerica.com

Ah, Neo! Dean and I have been hot and heavy for months!

Somewhere, sometime, someone wonderful (damn memory) wrote a terrific article about past presidents taking great care never to wear military gear or do anything more than look powerfully civilian when photographed among the military. Bush revels in the gear, and this has been taken as naked admission of a wish for total power.

We (even those who vote) empower the establishment every day -- every hour -- buying what we buy, watching what we watch, reading what we read.

The cavalier attitude towards voting is the equivalent of Bush putting on the uniform -- the other side of the mirror. One side says "I don't need to vote because I'll be taken care of anyway," and the other side is saying, creepily, "C'mover here, little citizen, WE'LL take care of you..."

hello all

Re 'a single political party'... as Joan Didion has argued, there is a powerful tendency within the recent Republican leadership (and membership perhaps) to consider that in America it is only a Republican government which will reflect authentic America. Anyone else usurps.

To such folks, it is quite conceivable that even the electorate itself may become quite un-American, its ideas and values 'infected' by some alien source, at which point, that electorate may be justifiably ignored (eg, as when Americans were insufficiently outraged by Clinton's sexuality).

The converse of such an exclusivist (veering quickly towards totalitarian) viewpoint was pointed up by Sorkin in a typically brilliant bit of dialogue from West Wing, where an important election had just been lost to the Democrats and when one character bemoaned this result, another responded with "Democracy means that sometimes the wrong guys win". Well, yes, one would think this a logical consequence.

But it seems quite apparent that for a very influential element within the modern Republican party, such niceties regarding 'democracy' are quickly trumped by something else.

I've always believe the danger of totalitarianism isn't from the left but from the right. That's because they already have an audience of conformers.

Interesting post, Blatham. Totalitarianism usually involves some sort of glorified vision of the future or of how things ideally ought to be--a paradise on earth if you will. It can be religious or secular. Any action at all can be justified on the grounds that it is needed to bring about this ideal state of affairs or paradise. Just think of what a wonderful place the world will be once we are rid of these few million hard heads who stand in the way of our program.

Maybe there's been a tug of war between "process" and "goal" for a long time. But I've noticed it become a sociopolitical issue since the Reagan administration during which time process was devalued (who the hell cares HOW you do it, just do it) and the goal (smart people get away with whatever it takes to Just Do It). (All those "process" people wanna do is sit around and talk about it...)

Doesn't anyone think it's curious how especially the right-wing administrations concentrated on Communist despots but nearly turned a blind eye towards Facist styled despots?

Have to go through a period of Fascism - which we are definitely spirally down toward first. The neo-cons try to convince America we are turning Socialist, which is the big lie they try so they can continually sneak America more towar Totalitarianism!