1
   

Fascist America in 10 easy steps

 
 
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 10:02 am
I'm sure some people here will be able to come up with reasons why all the things below are good things for the country, but a few people still cling to the original idea of the country.


Fascist America, in 10 easy steps | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

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

Tuesday April 24, 2007
The Guardian

Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody.

They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have.

It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable - as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise.

Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to understand the potential seriousness of the events we see unfolding in the US.

1 Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."

Creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive, evil - is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation of a communist threat to the nation's security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the "global conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.

It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain - which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks - than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.

2 Create a gulag3 Develop a thug caste

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode - but the administration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.

Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for "public order" on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station "to restore public order".

4 Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China - in every closed society - secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state programme to wiretap citizens' phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about "national security"; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

5 Harass citizens' groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 "suspicious incidents". The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track "potential terrorist threats" as it watches ordinary US citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as "terrorism". So the definition of "terrorist" slowly expands to include the opposition.

6 Engage in arbitrary detention and release7 Target key individuals

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.

Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking a fascist shift punish academics and students with professional loss if they do not "coordinate", in Goebbels' term, ideologically. Since civil servants are the sector of society most vulnerable to being fired by a given regime, they are also a group that fascists typically "coordinate" early on: the Reich Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil Service was passed on April 7 1933.

Bush supporters in state legislatures in several states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalise or fire academics who have been critical of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush administration has derailed the career of one military lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees, while an administration official publicly intimidated the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by threatening to call for their major corporate clients to boycott them.

Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a closed blog that "waterboarding is torture" was stripped of the security clearance she needed in order to do her job.

Most recently, the administration purged eight US attorneys for what looks like insufficient political loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service in April 1933, attorneys were "coordinated" too, a step that eased the way of the increasingly brutal laws to follow.

8 Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened "critical infrastructure" when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy - a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though, compared with how the US is treating journalists seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented multiple accounts of the US military in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and camera operators from organisations ranging from al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as the BBC's Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have been wounded or killed, including ITN's Terry Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.

You won't have a shutdown of news in modern America - it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.

9 Dissent equals treason10 Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers to declare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.

Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears's meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna Nicole's baby, the New York Times editorialised about this shift: "A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night ... Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any 'other condition'."

Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act - which was meant to restrain the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president to declare federal martial law. It also violates the very reason the founders set up our system of government as they did: having seen citizens bullied by a monarch's soldiers, the founders were terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of militias' power over American people in the hands of an oppressive executive or faction.

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini's march on Rome or Hitler's roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that.

Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere - while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: "dogs go on with their doggy life ... How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster."

As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are "at war" in a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president - without US citizens realising it yet - the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.

That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still- free-looking institutions - and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the "what ifs".

What if, in a year and a half, there is another attack - say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The executive can declare a state of emergency. History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani - because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise.

What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year? What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would the newspapers look like the next day? Judging from history, they would not cease publishing; but they would suddenly be very polite.

Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us - staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody's help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world.

We need to look at history and face the "what ifs". For if we keep going down this road, the "end of America" could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before - and this is the way it is now.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... is the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,141 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 10:06 am
@DarkHand,
:bs2: :this_topic_sucks: :orly: :blah: Come on, really?
DarkHand
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 11:21 am
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;13470 wrote:
:bs2: :this_topic_sucks: :orly: :blah: Come on, really?


There is a large and growing percentage of people who put freedom ahead of security in their list of values (I would call these people patriots, but that word has been twisted as of late and has gained a different connotation. That's a topic for another thread though). The article above shows how the nation is swaying in the opposite direction, placing security first, and freedom second. What about the article makes you feel that a response such as that was warranted? Do you believe the facts stated are untrue? Do you agree with the facts themselves but doubt the author's stated severity of them? 'Come on, really?' leaves alot on the table.
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 12:02 pm
@DarkHand,
It relies too heavily on biased sources and opinions and is full of bad metaphors. America is far from becoming 'fascist.' I'd rather live with a few restrictions that are mostly on others than be completely 'free' for a few years then be killed.
0 Replies
 
0Megabyte
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 05:17 pm
@DarkHand,
Perhaps, Reagaknight, you're presenting a false dichotomy?

The idea that the choice is either living with a few restirctions or be completely free and then dead in a few years, do you believe those to be the only two choices?

I mean, you're probably just simplifying your position for the sake of a quick talking point, and I AM new here and unsure of your views, so please explain in detail, for my sake, as your simplification happened to fall into the trap of seeming to be a logical fallacy.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 05:42 pm
@DarkHand,
Use the feature in my profile to track all of my posts (find all posts) if you want to know about my wide range of views.

It's easy to say that it has to be more complicated, but the wiretapping and other programs like it are necessary to the protection of this country. If they were not in effect, it would be likely that there would be more terrorist attacks.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 05:42 pm
@DarkHand,
Americans are the single most democratic people in the world. They would never succumb to fascism. If anything, democratic socialism might take effect, given the rapidly expanding, dispossessed population from the Third World living in the U.S.
0 Replies
 
0Megabyte
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 06:15 pm
@DarkHand,
Reagaknight, my concern was more the sort of "if we don't allow stuff like torture, we'll all be killed" kind of false dichotomy I see often in certain groups of people. (Yes, I'm exaggerating slightly. Only so very, very slightly.) As one who doesn't like such things, and saw the potential for that kind of belief in your post, I wanted to be sure I was misunderstanding, and my habit of misinterpreting wasn't going haywire on me.


As for Pinochet, you underestimate humanity's stupidity, unfortunately. I wish I could agree with you, but freedom is a difficult thing to hold onto. It requires work, and while I don't believe we're going to fall into a totalitarian regime anytime soon, it's never wise to think it couldn't happen.

As for socialism, I have no desire to talk about that at this time. Go figure.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 06:27 pm
@DarkHand,
I don't think anyone advocates torture. If waterboading is what you call torture, I really can't get anywhere from there.

How about you? I know if the mods were around they'd say to post an intro with your views.
0 Replies
 
0Megabyte
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 06:33 pm
@DarkHand,
Actually, I know people who DO advocate torture. I don't believe YOU do, certainly.

As for introductions, sorry, I'm not yet familiar with this board, so I didn't know I had to do that. Where should I place it?
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 06:40 pm
@DarkHand,
It's not a requirement, but the mods usually suggest it. you can do it in the Introduce Yourself section. Start a new thread for it.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 07:55 pm
@DarkHand,
".....but freedom is a difficult thing to hold onto."

Agreed. But I still think Americans are so radically individualistic, anarchy is more of a threat than fascism.
0 Replies
 
0Megabyte
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Apr, 2007 09:44 pm
@DarkHand,
Anarchy? Only if a Romero style zombie invasion or simultaneous nuclear attacks on the top fifty cities in the country occur.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 04:22 pm
@DarkHand,
Anarchy is certainly possible, there are advocates. Anarchy is not by definition just chaos, it is lack of government (chaos a side effect). I'd bet it would only take a nuke on D.C. to plung us into anarchy.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 04:54 pm
@DarkHand,
Americans increasingly hate each other over fundamental, ontological questions. Balkanization isn't out of the question. Our culture-war is almost capable of giving birth to civil war. I can see people killing each other most gleefully over a series of culture-war issues.
0 Replies
 
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 07:29 pm
@DarkHand,
The problem with the article quoted is that the author is adept at picking and choosing themes to correlate with opinions in a manner that might convince a reader of the truth of his conclusions. It is a masterful piece of extrapolation of loosely connected factoids in my opinion , but not worth much as truth.
0 Replies
 
0Megabyte
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 10:38 pm
@DarkHand,
"Anarchy is certainly possible, there are advocates. Anarchy is not by definition just chaos, it is lack of government (chaos a side effect). I'd bet it would only take a nuke on D.C. to plung us into anarchy."

Temporarily, at least. Depending on who was in D.C. at that moment, some of the government would survive, and in the worst case, after some temporary panic, chaos, and perhaps nuclear retaliation on our parts, we'd just vote new people into office to replace the dead ones ASAP. That's only if EVERYONE in the federal government is killed, which is unlikely.

Our nation's government system depends on the system surviving, not the individuals, luckily. We can create a new capital elsewhere. But, of course, the new people would have quite the job ahead of them.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 05:27 am
@DarkHand,
And how would all this be organized in the ensuing anarchy? The stock market would crash, everyone wold be cowering in their basements, political leaders would be somewhere safe.
0 Replies
 
Darkseid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2007 01:11 pm
@DarkHand,
DarkHand;13496 wrote:
There is a large and growing percentage of people who put freedom ahead of security in their list of values (I would call these people patriots, but that word has been twisted as of late and has gained a different connotation. That's a topic for another thread though). The article above shows how the nation is swaying in the opposite direction, placing security first, and freedom second. What about the article makes you feel that a response such as that was warranted? Do you believe the facts stated are untrue? Do you agree with the facts themselves but doubt the author's stated severity of them? 'Come on, really?' leaves alot on the table.


I think the degree of values implied by the people in each area should be conducted before the majority it self.

What I am saying, is that since our country isn't a unitary state that perhaps we should imply all matters outside of unitarianism. It is about time that our country begins to show its Federal Colors.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fascist America in 10 easy steps
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/03/2025 at 03:37:06