Reply
Fri 27 May, 2005 01:46 pm
Two page article from the Washington Post discusses the changes that have occurred in how our government works and claims these changes are profound and lasting.
Quote:GOP Tilting Balance Of Power to the Right
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 26, 2005; Page A01
As Democrats tell it, this week's compromise on judges was about much more than the federal courts. If President Bush and congressional allies had prevailed, they say, the balance of power would have been forever altered.
Yet, amid the partisan rhetoric, a little-noticed fact about modern politics has been lost: Republicans have already changed how the business of government gets done, in ways both profound and lasting.
The campaign to prevent the Senate filibuster of the president's judicial nominations was simply the latest and most public example of similar transformations in Congress and the executive branch stretching back a decade. The common theme is to consolidate influence in a small circle of Republicans and to marginalize dissenting voices that would try to impede a conservative agenda.
House Republicans, for instance, discarded the seniority system and limited the independence and prerogatives of committee chairmen. The result is a chamber effectively run by a handful of GOP leaders. At the White House, Bush has tightened the reins on Cabinet members, centralizing the most important decisions among a tight group of West Wing loyalists. With the strong encouragement of Vice President Cheney, he has also moved to expand the amount of executive branch information that can be legally shielded from Congress, the courts and the public.
Now, the White House and Congress are setting their sights on how to make the judiciary more deferential to the conservative cause -- as illustrated by the filibuster debate and recent threats by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others to more vigorously oversee the courts.
"I think we have used the legislative and executive branch as well as anybody to achieve our policy aims," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). "It is a remarkable governing instrument."
The transformation started in the House in the 1990s and intensified with Bush's 2000 election. The result has been a stronger president working with a compliant and streamlined Congress to push the country, and the courts, in a more conservative direction, according to historians, government scholars, and current and former federal officials.
READ THE REST HERE
This is occurring in more than just government. I have a sister who is involved in the internal politics and organization of the Methodist Church and, according to her, there is a well financed and organized attempt on the part of several outside conservative organization with political rather than religious agendas to gain control of (hijack?) that organization. If it is occurring here, if it is occurring in the Federal government, it can be assumed that there is a major effort to reorganize the way this country works to exclude all but a minority of "right thinking " people from the decision making process. IMHO there is a slow motion Coup d' etat going on in the US.
On step closer to tyranny.
Don't get me started on this. I may not return to this thread as the topic makes me become unglued. We had fair warning about this, and failed to take note. Books have even been published by the organizers and philosophers of those who wish to change our government and culture, AS OUR FRAMERS WROTE IT TO BE.
Changing the very fabric, tone, tenor, texture, values, and assumptions of this society.
As I said, don't get me started.
Does the term creeping fascism describe the current direction of our government?
au1929 wrote:Does the term creeping fascism describe the current direction of our government?
Not really. I feel fine. We're working on re-education camps to help you understand these issues more clearly.
I'm not certain it is quite at that level, but it does have some of the elements, a combination of big business, cultural conservatism, and authoritarianism.
Laurence Britt identifies 14 characteristics common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 "identifying characteristics of fascism."
1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4.) Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5.) Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
.
6.) Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7.) Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses
.
8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9.) Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10.) Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Who the flock is Laurence Britt, and how is he qualified to give anything more than personal opinions on any of this? Joe Britt, one of the workmen tearing down the old diner on my street says Bush is doing a great job. How do any of the given criteria apply to the present situation?
Brandon9000 wrote:Who the flock is Laurence Britt, and how is he qualified to give anything more than personal opinions on any of this? Joe Britt, one of the workmen tearing down the old diner on my street says Bush is doing a great job. How do any of the given criteria apply to the present situation?
Well, No. 8 on that list sounds kinda familiar...
I've never found that list to be very useful. It is much too general and more of a collection of things that liberals (like myself) do not like. Fascism definitely involves extreme nationalism combined with authoritarianism, but sexism? who's sexism do you have in mind? This concept did not exist until the 60's and carries with it the political and cultural baggage of the late 20th century. Fascism is culturally conservative and that carries with it the assumption of traditional gender roles, but those differ from culture to culture and society to society.
Brandon
Where in that post did you see anything about your lord and master George Bush. I leave it for you to Judge whether there is any similarity to that list and the present regime in power.
au1929 wrote:Brandon
Where in that post did you see anything about your lord and master George Bush. I leave it for you to Judge whether there is any similarity to that list and the present regime in power.
I had simply assumed you were asserting that the list applies to present day America. Of course you leave it to me to support or refute your position. You clearly fear to try to support it yourself.
"...slow motion Coup d' etat"
"creeping fascism"
Sorry, sumac. The water is getting warmer, but still many don't notice. If many can't see it now, they certainly wouldn't have understood it from reading policy papers that were clearly pointed out to them several years ago.
Some even take great pleasure in taunting and making fun, ignoring that they are just as much a peon as the next guy when it comes to those in charge. I guess they think their loyalty will get them some reward.
I suppose the question is how long until we jump from the pot? Or, will we?
Brandon
I wouldn't leave tying shoelaces to you. I neither ask you to support or refute the list. However, if you see anything familiar just <whimper out>.
au1929 wrote:Brandon
I wouldn't leave tying shoelaces to you. I neither ask you to support or refute the list. However, if you see anything familiar just <whimper out>.
The conventional interpretation of this politics board is that stating opinions is partially for the purpose of debate. When someone posts a political opinion, and then says something generally like, "I could support my opinion, but I won't because of X (e.g. you're unworthy)," the usual interpretation is that the person merely cannot support his opinions. I leave you to your fragile, unsupportable opinions and fear of debating me.
Brandon9000 wrote:au1929 wrote:Brandon
Where in that post did you see anything about your lord and master George Bush. I leave it for you to Judge whether there is any similarity to that list and the present regime in power.
I had simply assumed you were asserting that the list applies to present day America. Of course you leave it to me to support or refute your position. You clearly fear to try to support it yourself.
I love this one...
"I assumed you meant something.
Then you refused to defend what I assumed you meant.
Therefore I get to attack you for refusing to defend my assumption of your meaning."
parados wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:au1929 wrote:Brandon
Where in that post did you see anything about your lord and master George Bush. I leave it for you to Judge whether there is any similarity to that list and the present regime in power.
I had simply assumed you were asserting that the list applies to present day America. Of course you leave it to me to support or refute your position. You clearly fear to try to support it yourself.
I love this one...
"I assumed you meant something.
Then you refused to defend what I assumed you meant.
Therefore I get to attack you for refusing to defend my assumption of your meaning."
Oh, quite right! If he was not asserting that it applies to present day America, then I absolutely withdraw my argument.
parados
Brandon is just being Brandon.