Chapter 2 Authoritarianism, Fascism and Neo-Fascism in America

Authoritarianism, Fascism and Neo-Fascism in America

John Dean makes a strong case that the current Bush Administration is an authoritarian regime. I would go further and say it borders on fascism or neo-fascism. Fascism is difficult to define and over the years it has meant different things to different people¹. Neo-fascism generally refers to the post World War II brands of fascism so I will use the terms fascism and neo-fascism interchangeably. If we look at the major tenants of fascism (those which most scholars agree on) we see many similarities to elements of the Bush administration:

• Fascism is foremost an authoritarian regime. In John Dean’s book Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, he makes a compelling case that Bush and his followers, especially Vice President Chaney are authoritarian to the core. Authoritarianism is however but one component of fascism or neo-fascism. I believe had John Dean looked further he would agree that while authoritarian in nature the Bush administration has many of the other components of fascism as well.

• Fascism, especially neo-fascism, is strongly anti-communist and anti-liberalist in nature. They are opposed to any “leftist” policies that threaten property interests or support socialist policies. Of course the opposition to communism is not limited to the Bush administration: it is, and has been, an inherent component of both parties and all politician’s philosophies in the United States and has been a central theme of U.S. policy since the end of World War II and throughout the long “Cold War” period. However, the Bush administration pushes the envelope about as far as you can by asserting that “liberal” democrats are “pink.” This, of course, brings back memories of the McCarthy era in the 1950’s where communists and communist sympathizers were labeled “pinkos”. Most often right-wing Republicans over the past half century have blurred the distinction between communism and liberalism.

Recent history is replete with examples where democratically elected leaders are labeled or pushed into the communist (socialist) camp or overthrown by right-wing dictators supported by U.S. foreign policy through rhetoric and actions of the United States simply because they are liberal (We often label them socialist in an attempt to attach a stigma that is more acceptable to the American public.) in their outlook and have upset stable right-wing despots. Examples of our support of dictators and shunning democrats can be pointed to throughout the last half of the 20^th Century. Salvador Allende of Chile was overthrown by Augusto Pinochet in 1973 with the tacit support of the United States.

Our treatment of Gamal Abdel Nasser, certainly no democrat, in the 1950’s forced him to turn to the communist bloc for help. He came to power through a coup in 1952. As a dictator we supported him, however, largely because of the Suez Canal and our need to keep it open and available to the west. We, along with Great Britain, even pledged $56 million in western money in 1955 to help build the Aswan Dam. But a year later we withdrew that pledge which left Nasser no choice but to turn to the Soviet Union for assistance. To this day one wonders how different the politics of the middle east might be had the west built the Aswan Dam rather than the Soviet Union.

In Cuba the United States had an early opportunity to support Fidel Castro in his attempt to overthrow Dictator Fulgencio Batista. But we were supporting Batista and his corrupt government and chose not to support Castro. Again Castro was no democrat but he was not a communist then either. He simply wanted “liberal” reforms for Cuba which went against the interests of many powerful people (business interests) in the United States.

More recently we have been hell-bent on not supporting democratically elected Hugo Chavez in Venezuela because he is a critic of the United States. Not only is he a critic of our foreign policies, Chavez has been very critical of President Bush.² Yet after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in 2005, the Chavez administration was the first foreign government to offer aid to the region. The Bush administration however, chose to reject that aid. Later in the winter of 2005, several officials in the northeastern states signed agreements with the Chavez regime to provide discounted heating oil for low income families³.

• Historically fascism has a strong corporatist component. Corporatism generally is the opposite of pluralism. Rather than groups competing for control of the state and decision making authority, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. Often this is done in secret, behind closed doors and out of view of the press or citizens. One example from the Bush Administration might be the energy policy discussion held by Vice President Chaney in 2001. The task force, formally known as the National Energy Development Policy Group, was created by President Bush in early 2001 to devise the nation’s energy policy. It was chaired by Cheney and consisted of 10 Cabinet-level officials who met with representatives from oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries⁴.

• Fascism generally includes a strong militaristic component too. Militarists hold the view that security is the highest social priority, and claim that the development and maintenance of the military ensures that security. Safety becomes the end all and the justification for all actions. In the United States this also goes hand-in-hand with Corporatism. I’ll speak more about this later when I discuss the Military-Industrial Complex. With Dick Chaney, a former Secretary of Defense, and Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush being the most powerful advisors in the Administration, the military focus has been primary.

I believe one could make a strong case that the Republican Administrations starting with Richard Nixon, with perhaps the exception of Gerald Ford, have increasingly been more fascist than democratic! And even those Republican Presidential contenders who were unsuccessful dating back to perhaps Richard Nixon in 1960 and certainly Barry Goldwater in 1964 were also demonstrating most, if not all, of the major components of fascism. Of those contenders only Gerald Ford and Bob Dole might have been the exceptions⁵.

Fascist or not and regardless whether Republican or Democrat, for the most part, we have lacked enlightened leadership over the past half century. For sure there have been instances of sound and sometimes even great leadership, but for the most part our leaders have taken the expedient course of action rather that action that has been in the best “long-term” interest of the United States. In this era of mass media and instantaneous news coverage, perhaps this is due to the increasingly high degree of scrutiny of the candidates by the media. No person in their right mind these days would subject themselves to such a review. More and more it would seem that only those who are power seekers in the worst sense of the phrase run for office at the national level. And those that are sincere and want to make a difference are often corrupted by the same power they are attempting to harness and control. Likewise, campaigns are primarily negative in nature, focused more on attacking the character of the opponent⁶ than being a true discussion of, and debate over, the issues. Even on the rare occasion when issues are discussed, it tends to be only a superficial debate which boils down to a few 20 second sound bites for media consumption. And in these modern times where continuous and instant polling occurs, once a candidate falls behind in the polls, they unfortunately start to throw “mud” at their opponent in an attempt to regain lost ground ……. and it goes downhill from there.

To a large extent the media themselves are to blame. They are in competition to get the greatest viewership or readership. To do so sometimes they promote the silliest of stories or headlines that then become issues of the day. One of the most ridiculous in recent times revolves about Barack Obama. When he announced his candidacy for the White House in February, 2007, the media didn’t start to ask about his stance on issues or even his experience. Instead, they raised the bogus issue: “Is he black enough to garner the support of the black community?⁷” I ask you, it that really important? Shouldn’t they be looking at his position on issues and perhaps his other qualifications to become president? To the cynical person it might be seen as a smoke screen by bigoted whites to divide the black community! No one has asked if Hillary or Condoleezza are women (or men) enough to become President? Will those be the next questions during this silly season? Those who asked the question about Obama seem to think that just because Hillary Clinton got more support within the black community than Barack Obama did, he isn’t strong enough with that group of voters! I would suggest that time will tell but it stands to reason that just a few weeks into the campaign Ms. Clinton is much better known than Mr. Obama and should receive a higher rating that him. After all, Hillary Clinton’s husband is often referred to as the first “black” President by many in the black community, so naturally his wife will receive a favorable rating.

1 There is a large body of work dealing with fascism and all the variants of the fascist movement over the years. One might start with: Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 1-4000-4094-9.

2 Chavez has openly referred to George Bush a pendejo (“dumbass”) and often refers to him as “Mister Danger.”

3 Andrew Miga, Associated Press, “Venezuela to expand cut-rate home heating oil to U.S.”, April 25, 2006.

4 The Bush administration formed the National Energy Policy Development Group to develop the nation's energy policy in 2001. However, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or the open meetings law, as it is better known, the task force refused to turn over information pertaining to who was involved and what was discussed. (This is same law conservatives accused Hillary Clinton of violating when she attempted to launch her secret government takeover of the nation's healthcare system in the early 1990s.)

Judicial Watch immediately filed Freedom of Information Act requests and other legal actions to bring the inner workings of the Energy Task Force out in to the open for public scrutiny. When the Bush Administration refused to comply, JW had no choice but to file lawsuits. Since that time, nearly 40,000 pages of documents from agencies such as the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency have been released into the public domain. Unfortunately, on May 9, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Vice President's Energy Task Force did not have to comply with the Federal Advisory Act. See Judicial Watch Press Release, July 22, 2005.

5 It is perhaps noteworthy that of the Republican candidates for President since 1960 those that have been successful have, with the exception of George Herbert Walker Bush, have all come from the Governor’s ranks. At the same time the unsuccessful candidates have all come from the legislative branch of government. Of course Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush did serve as Vice President and both had short stints in Congress. Gerald Ford never won election as President but was elevated to that post as a result of the resignation of Richard Nixon. He served for years in Congress before being appointed to the position of Vice President to replace Spiro Agnew who resigned under a cloud of tax evasion.

6 Maybe it is time to establish a review committee to approve all ads prior to their being aired.

7 Surprisingly this was the main topic on Nation Public Radio’s “Talk of the Nation” on February 15, 2007!