Saturday, April 25, 2009

Fascism???

Because some people have lost their fucking minds and think that Obama is a fascist, here is a definition of fascism (from Webster's Universal College Dictionary).

fas-cism - 1. a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism.

This definition does not describe the administration of any US president, current or past, but it comes much closer to describing the most recent past administration (GWB) than it does Obama.

Is our system of government totalitarian? Is the president a dictator? Does it promote nationalism, militarism, or racism?

If you still "believe" Obama to be a fascist then there is no communicating with you and you are just a fucking moron not worthy of any effort.

I can understand if you don't like (some, or even all of) the things the Obama administration is doing, but labeling it fascist (or socialist, which is closer to reality, but still inaccurate) does nothing to further your cause.
Posted by csm at 12:51 PM
Labels: , ,

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yep, we are headed down that trail. The only good news he gets four years. At this rate he could be defeated by a cardboard cut out of Nixon in four years. If there is someone who cannot see where this guy is going then they are blind or a fool.

April 27, 2009 at 9:22 AM
csm said...

I see why you would remain anonymous after p9osting such stupid drivel. Given that we are only three months into Obama's first term, it is foolish to predict where things will be three or four years from now.

In fact, it is only the far right wing fringe that seems to be hating on Obama (and maybe some libertarians, too - Hi Bawdy!).

Most Americans, supported by poll data, are in favor of most everything the Obama administration is doing.

April 27, 2009 at 10:30 AM
G said...

There is a difference between calling Obama a fascist and pointing out how some of his policies are moving in that direction. Did you actually read the article I linked to? Or did you just disregard it because it has the word "fascism" in it?

Fascism (like liberalism, conservatism, socialism, et al.) has many elements. Just as one can be conservative in economic policies and liberal in social ones (or the other way around), a government can be moving down the road to fascist policies without jumping into the racism and extreme nationalism.

There are other definitions of fascism that aren't quite as terse. They include things like:
"...regimenting all industry, commerce, etc." or "stringent socioeconomic controls" (both of those come from dictionary.com).

Right now, GM is on the road to nationalization... after the president ousted the CEO. The govt is refusing to accept repayment of TARP funds, which enables them to retain a degree of control. They are pushing a mortgage program that would allow a judge to actually change the terms of a contractual agreement without the approval of the financial institution. They are planning to use a sneaky little budget tactic to push through health care "reform" without the need for inconveniences like debate, openness, etc. They are talking about giving the POTUS the authority to shut down internet servers in a time of national emergency (a term so vague that it could be used whenever he wants). They are talking about regulation of salaries for ANY company that the govt considers too crucial to fail (again, a definition that can be used in an absolutely arbitrary manner). Etc, etc, etc.

So here's my question to you: You reject any reference to fascism. You've previously mocked the idea that Obama is a socialist (and I assume reject the notion that he is a communist as well). He clearly isn't a free market capitalist or a strict constitutionalist.

So what WOULD you accept as a description of Obama (and by extension, the current congress)? Statist? That would probably be the closest that I can come up with. But the other political systems mentioned (socialism, communism, & fascism) are merely extensions of statism, aren't they?

April 28, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Anonymous said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

Great article.
Let the WSJ shut up the Obrother slobbering robots who support anything the great Obrother puts out. Mindless numbskulls are so annoying. The guy is not even as popular as Bush was at this point in his presidency. Good reason! I hope they have enough teleprompters to last four years.

April 28, 2009 at 7:50 AM
csm said...

A room full of wind-up monkeys would likely make more sense as that last post.

April 30, 2009 at 2:40 PM
csm said...

And, G, many of the same (and/or similar) things were true of many past administrations. Couching the discussion in a divisive term like fascism does nothing but rile up the conservative wingnuts. I s'pose that is what some of the folks using that term (and other divisive terms) are meaning to do. But just because there are possibly aspects of some definitions of the term fascism that might be applicable to some circumstances (yes, a long-winded statement there) does NOT make the term a useful descriptor of what is going on. I suspect you know that. I suspect you don't care.

April 30, 2009 at 2:44 PM
G said...

Please enlighten me. What actions of previous administrations are you comparing to the things I mentioned from the current one?

If you don't like the use of divisive terms like fascism or socialism (even if they might be accurate), feel free to suggest another term. I don't remember a lot of complaints from your side when GWB was being called things like war criminal, totalitarian, dictator, etc.

May 2, 2009 at 1:59 PM
BAWDYSCOT said...

Agreed, the facist or socialist tendencies of our federal government did not raise their ugly head with this administration alone, but does that mean we shouldn't try to slay the beast?

May 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM
csm said...

I don't think you'll find me calling the former president a fascist. He was a fucking idiot and a dangerous president, but I never called him a fascist. Even if he did say he wanted to be a dictator, more than once 1 2.

May 4, 2009 at 11:31 PM
G said...

I'm glad you're so adept at avoiding divisive language, so clearly shown in this last post of yours.

None of us called Obama a fascist either. We mentioned policies and proposals that fit into that category.

So again I ask, if it is wrong to identify policies as being fascist, socialist, etc. (even if the term might be accurate), then how would you suggest we define them?

May 5, 2009 at 5:28 AM
BAWDYSCOT said...

I have posted before about the expanding powers of the Presidency. Lincoln was the first, but the ball really got rolling with T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson and then with FDR. This is how far back this situation can be traced. I am on record as saying GWB was the most reprehensible President we have ever had, but I have never equated Obama with GWB. What I am saying, and with an unquavering voice, is the power going to Washington will come home to roost with the citizenry at some point, and I do not see anything in what Obama has done so far to rectify this situation, and in fact has done much to exacerbate the problem. Is it Obama's fault that our government isn't as our Founders envisioned, no. Is it in his power to get us back to where I believe we need to be, I'm not sure. Could he give it the ol' college try, you betcha.

May 5, 2009 at 12:57 PM
csm said...

Yes, he could, Bawdy. But he did not run on that platform and he is, indeed, working to enact the things he said he would do. Good on him, for that, IMHO.

May 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM
BAWDYSCOT said...

And that is the reason I didn't vote for him.

verification word: pangs

May 6, 2009 at 9:22 AM
csm said...

Exactly, Bawdy!

Back to the whole fascism thing for a moment. I have an example of why this term is not the proper way to frame a debate. Here is an equivalent type of argument:

Conservatives are in lockstep agreement with Iran's dictator on the subject of the United Nations. Now it may be true (or a stretched truth), but it doesn't help the discussion or lead to a solution.

May 6, 2009 at 11:41 AM
BAWDYSCOT said...

So back to g's point, instead of facsim, what term would you like us to use, statism?

There cannot be much argument that the way things are going individuals and groups of individuals(stockholders, for instance)have become second fiddle to the federal government. We can argue why this is happening, but it is set in stone that it is happening.

May 6, 2009 at 12:11 PM
csm said...

Actually, there can be argument.

May 8, 2009 at 1:08 AM
BAWDYSCOT said...

Don't just stop there, give it to me.

May 8, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Cowcharge said...

"If you still "believe" Obama to be a fascist then there is no communicating with you and you are just a fucking moron not worthy of any effort."

Glad to see you avoiding divisiveness and blanket generalized attacks on specific groups of people (hate speech, no doubt meant to terrorize) in your posts.

And whoever it was that said it is right, nationalization of the auto industry is indeed a fascist policy.

August 24, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Lou said...

When you surround yourself with a table of Czars who are fascists, communist and socialist, you evidently have a fancy for the ideology. Not hard to figure out.

But when you have a man-crush, you tend to overlook those things or justify them.

August 25, 2009 at 7:54 AM
csm said...

So then, the auto industry has been nationalized? Not true. Throwing up a straw man like that is just ridiculous. Oooops, I guess I just committed another "hate crime" in your estimation? Ridiculous.

And then there's Lou with his typically asinine assertions. What color is the sky in your world? It is blue here in reality-ville.

August 25, 2009 at 11:17 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)