Discussion: Is fascism replacing democracy?

[Don Hudson]

A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy

By Sheldon S. Wolin

Sheldon S. Wolin is emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University and the author of "Politics and Vision: The Presence of the Past" and "Alexis de Tocqueville: Between Two Worlds."

July 18, 2003 ©Newsday

Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation's self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as "the world's only superpower."

Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like "superpower democracy" or "imperial democracy," and they seem not only contradictory but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic participation congenial.

No administration before George W. Bush's ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis of evil." Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation's resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved.

Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel.

The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest.

The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints.

It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent.

Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, iInstituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests)short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives.

The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile.

While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.

This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services.

Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one, the Republican, radically change its identity: From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one.

From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars.

From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to the right and enfeebling opposition.

From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances and technological innovation. This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which subordinated "big business" to party leadership.)

The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.

In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.

Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution.

Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged.

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

================================

[Southshore]

This guy worries you too. I think Powell is wondering what sort of "faith based" nightmare he has gotten him self into, along with a whack of other thinking Americans. This is getting scary.

[LongTimer V]

George W Bush..Public enemy #1 Head of the largest terrorist network on earth................The U.S.of A.One of my proudest moments as a Canadian was when Canada did not join the U.S.,in its so called war on Iraq.Its scary to think Bush as being the leader of anything..IMHO

[Southshore]

if he's so much an public enemy but someone who has become detached from the rest of the world somehow. I really don't think he's eveil but, somehow, "Dr Strangelove" pops into mind. "Learn to love the bomb" I think was the catchphrase. Like I said, I think Powell is trying to back away from this pack of lunatics as gracefully as he can but it's like trying to get out of the Hell's Angels - you don't know if you can survive the experience.

[LongTimer V]

The really,really really rich,and then the rest of us.Thats how revolutions start.If i'm not mistaken thats how Hitler rose to power.

[DEFCON]

Interesting and directional. I'd be of the opinion that the "Bilderberg Group" provided the original blueprint for western democracy and today supervises the ongoing construction of the / their new world order.

[Guest WA777]

The government's actions have turned Canada and Canadians into sitting ducks......At least the US of A is trying to stop other 9/11s from happening....sounds like you think they deserved it.......

[Guest WA777]

Longtimer...I couldn't disagree with you more......the government's actions have turned Canada and Canadians into sitting ducks......At least the US of A is trying to stop other 9/11s from happening....sounds like you think they deserved it.......

[Guest AME]

WA777

No offence, but you've been American for quite a while, might I suggest that you step outside the box and view American policy for what it is.... "If you're not with us, you're against us"

There are certain hazards to being former allies of the USA just ask Noriega (sp) Saddam and the Taliban

If you can answer this question, then maybe I'll understand US policy.... Why did the US invade Iraq with no proof of WMD while N. Korea has WMD and threatened to use them?

Could the answer be oil????? It appears that the interests of big business in the US are tatamount. (again sp)

[Don Hudson]

Just returned from viewing the film, "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" which dealt with the same issues but was not modelled after the book of the same (almost) title by Christopher Hitchens.

This is one scary film. If any of you have a chance to go see it, do it.

I agree with you on Chretien's finest moments. He recognized that the US was attacking Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress (no provocation...just mysterious WMD's and a lot of Hollywood) and without UN sanction or support. Hans Blix must be shaking his head in wonderment, although I doubt if he expected anything different from this Administration.

What concerns me greatly on the horizon in Canada is the coronation of GWB II: Paul Martin. Where are the checks and balances? Where is the public dialogue about one-party democracies?

BTW...someone mentioned the notion of the US "deserving" 9/11. The concept of "just reward" is not broad enough to encompass the historical, cultural, ideological and fundamentalist (on all sides) realities behind this tragedy. I think "un-surprised" and "not shocked" by the act, (but certainly shocked by the images and the horrendous results) recognizes that there are no innocent parties here, present, or past.

[LongTimer V]

IMHO 9/11 was retaliation not a first strike.

Gave the American war machine an excuse to test its new toys,sorta like the attack on Pearl Harbour,an excuse for a war.

As far as Martin goes,gee i thought we had to vote first,but everyone has him elected without casting a vote.Whats goin on here?People forget who was the finance minister all those years and who is/was responsible for the mess we are in now.

[LongTimer V]

Deserved? No.They asked for it?The Americans cannot be allowed to throw their war machine at anything they feel like,or they're will be more 9/11's

[Guest WA777]

Don....I find it rather intersting how we have such a different take on events....

You said:

"I agree with you on Chretien's finest moments."

I considered Chretien's performance one of Canada's darkest moments ...NOT for objecting to the war, but for the tasteless and cowardly way it was handled.........

[Guest WA777]

Don....I find it rather interesting how we have such a different take on events....

You said:

"I agree with you on Chretien's finest moments."

I considered Chretien's performance one of Canada's darkest moments ...NOT for objecting to the war, but for the tasteless and cowardly way it was handled.........

[Mitch Cronin]

It's guys like him that are challenging that give reason for hope.

One of the very big differences that he failed to acknowledge is that at least he's free to write, and publish, such a challenge. I suspect the moment that freedom is even hinted at being tinkered with, the American people would react very strongly.

Oddly, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a couple of American instructors who were here from NorthWest learning about DC-10-30's (ones without Pratts)... They were explaining the "right to bear arms" to me, and if I understood them correctly, the root of it had to do with the ability to challenge a government gone wrong, should that become necessary??

G'day Don.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Guest GDR]

I was born in and have lived my whole life in Canada even though I have had the opportunity to move to the states. I also believe that I am just as capable as you of thinking outside the box, and I agree with WA777 completely.

Greg Robinson

[Steam Driven]

If you can answer this question, then maybe I'll understand US policy.... Why did the US invade Iraq with no proof of WMD while N. Korea has WMD and threatened to use them?

I'm not a White House Staffer or part of George W.'s Cabinet so I don't know. Nobody on this forum knows for sure and speculation and vitriol run rampant in this thread.

But to throw some balance in here and to provoke some thought how about this:

- Iraq, has had sanctions against it since the invaision of Kuwait and still engaged in contrary activities. Ignoring what the worlds leaders, the UN, Democracies of the West put in place.

- A ruthless Dictator who not only had weapons, but used them in strikes against Israel (Scuds) his own people (Gas), groups of differing faiths than his own (hearding them up shooting them and dumping them in a hole).

- A Dictator who funneled Billions of dollars of "Oil for food/medicine" under the auspices of the UN, into his own bank accounts.

- A region rife with a hatred of the West and it's democracies. Yes, most notably the U.S.

- Yes, oil. A finite resource crucial to the livelyhood of Western Democracy. The engine of the economy's of the western world. A Resource if destroyed, as had happened in the Gulf war, caused untold destruction with polution, high oil prices, and economic havoc.

North Korea on the other hand is in a stable area, politically and economically.

- North Korea has had the benefit of U.S. aid for years in it's food and oil for industry programmes.

- North Korea has not sent it's citizens on suicide missions to destroy South Korea.

- There is still an avenue for dialogue with North Korea.

- North Korea is economically isolated and does not have the wherewithall to finance, purchase, or construct weapons of mass destruction on a huge scale.

- North Korea wants a one on one dialogue with the United States. They do not want an international body to oversee and administer aid. They would like one party to deal with, ie. threaten, so that they are seen to be in the driver's seat.

If the United States were the Imperialistic dominating force that is portrayed in this thread then there would be missiles flying all over the world. Monrovia, Korea, the Solomon Islands, the Congo.

Far from being the "boys with toys" as has been portrayed here, the U.S. sent it's Son's and Daughter's to DIE on foreign soil. Do you honestly think that any leader could do that so carelessly?

It was felt that force should be used to remove a dictatorial leadership. Political niceties have their place, dialogue, economic pressure, work to an extent, but what do you do when 10 years goes by and they have no effect?

What would you have done as the leader of the United States? How would the world look today?

I find the implication in this thread that Sept. 11 was "IMHO 9/11 was retaliation not a first strike"

to be reprehensable.

[DEFCON]

One of the failings of cdn democracy. The party controls the seat and elects the boss, not the people!

[Don Hudson]

G'day Mitch;

Re the US Constitutional right to bear arms, "...the root of it had to do with the ability to challenge a government gone wrong, should that become necessary??"

That's correct.

The freedom to write (etc) means nothing if that freedom becomes irrelevant to the democratic process. Twenty years ago, writers like Noam Chomsky could not be found on any bookshelves. I found copies of Manufacturing Consent (CBC Ideas, 1988)in "alternative" bookstores. The US government actively sought to keep such work away from the reading public. Dissent is "safe" today and in some quarters, even encouraged because of the profound disconnect between ordinary citizens and their representatives makes democratic response and action irrelevant. Certainly there are Congressmen/women and Senators aware and concerned but the juggernaut of GBW is clearly carrying on its own agenda.

I would ask anyone here...do they really think that the build-up of military might, including the Bush missle program (rejuvenation of Reagan's Star Wars program) is a response to "terrorist threats"? How can such a program respond to individual ad-hoc terrorist cells with no structure, no "place", no overall organization, etc etc? "Who" are they going to use missles, F22's, or even B52's against? Bin Laden? I think not.

The Bush Administration is the most secretive and isolated in recent administrations, the Johnson one being relatively open in comparison.

The United States is a wonderful nation who's people are among the most compassionate and caring and who exercise and appreciate the freedoms granted them by their Constitution. I know of Gordon Sinclair's fine tribute and listened to the original delivery of it decades ago.

But if the disconnect between the citizens of Canada and our own government is disturbing, the disconnect between the US citizenry and their government is profound. Inspection of what is going on in Washington is so difficult as to be democratically meaningless.

I find that situation unacceptable and choose not to shrug shoulders and say, That's the way it is and we can't do much about it. At least talking about it in public gets the dialogue going and people thinking.

[DEFCON]

HK & PM are two of the leading members of the Bilderberg group.

[Don Hudson]

WA777;

Re "...but for the tasteless and cowardly way it was handled......... "

Well, relatively speaking I think that's a detail I can live with. I agree with you that the dilly-dallying was offensive, but in the end Chretien said to the US that attacking Iraq without UN support (read other nations) is illegal and wrong. It was, and Bush is having a lot of trouble right now sustaining or manufacturing the reasons he sent troups in. It wasn't a war at all really, it was simply an invasion where resistance was known to be minimal.

As for Chretien's long-term performance?...History will judge it but I think he's an apostrophe, not a sentence, at least in terms of statesmanship. The hesitancy which marked his final decision on Iraq has characterized the Liberal approach to questions of national importance.

[Guest Peanuts]

Innocent people never deserve to parish ! Bottom line !!! No, matter what part of the world you live in. 9/11 was horrific as many other disasters have been. The difference this one was close to home, to close.

I am not Canadian nor American, but I'll tell you once I am given the chance to reside in the US permanently, I am moving. I find the Canadian government a complete and total joke with "Bozo" the clown at the top.

The Americans (IMHO) are expected by countries around the world to aid in war. If they were not to help out or if they do not attempt to help out smaller countries who are being attacked by bigger countries then the rest of the world would be all over them. The USA is seen by many as a strong powerful country who can fix issues. When they have tried to help out, the bad guys come back for them with attacks like 9/11. Now I am not saying that they are always right with the way the try to help out but think about it for a moment,.... if they did nothing at all, then what would happen ? Certainly our pathetic goverment doesn't have the strenght to do anything. Canada only likes to send money away out of the country when all that money is needed right here in Canada.

I like George W. Bush and would like others to place themselves in his shoes for just one day (not today though, because he is on vacation for the month ) One more thing, Do you honestly think that Bush really has full control in all decisions made ? Look what happened to JFK when he went against the rest of the government and did not want the Vietnam war. I am sure that at times Bush doesn't agree with what he was told to tell the American public but sometimes even he is just a pawn.

Allrighty then, I have gone on long enough.

I simply feel saddened by the fact that people believe that 9/11 or any kind of fatal attack on the US is ok because it is felt that they deserved it.

I hope I am wrong about those folks.

Peanuts

[Don Hudson]

Greg;

This isn't "US Bashing 101". I don't believe such writing is particularly productive or meaningful.

But some actions of the US, the singularly most powerful nation on earth today, need to be publicly challenged with as strong a clinical openness as possible. Asking the questions, pointing out the documented actions against other independant nations (such as Chile, the Philippines, Turkey, Grenada, Panama etc etc) is not bashing the US, nor is it questioning its citizenry's kindness of heart, nor its past magnanimity (when it has suited its own interests). Neither is this approach a cynical one, a pessimistic one or a partisan one. It is simply examining the public record to see if it is in accord with what the US administration says and claims. Clearly in many cases it is not and I think that needs to be publicly challenged.

[Don Hudson]

Peanuts;

Re "I simply feel saddened by the fact that people believe that 9/11 or any kind of fatal attack on the US is ok because it is felt that they deserved it."

I am saddened too, because its an immature (as in undeveloped) view of a complex issue. 9/11 was an enormous and unforgivable atrocity. But it didn't just happen in a vacuum and that's the part that gets confusing when its not thought through. Such horrific events have antecedents whether we like to acknowledge them or not. Its in the telling of that story that a rather simplistic, (in my opinion, child-like) view of "retribution" arises.

There are hundreds of authors and books which deal with this issue and hundreds more have shown up on the bookshelves since that date, especially on the inner workings of Al Q'aida. Some are populist and accessible while others are academic and complex. There are some very fine and experienced writers who have been examining these issues for decades and who have brought their long backgrounds to bear on the present topic.

"Unholy Wars" by John Cooley is an excellent history. There are many others. bin Laden by Bodansky was written before 9/11 and is as relevent today as it was before that date.

The best way to moderate what can easily turn into another tiresome US-bashing thread is to read, and read lots and widely, always keeping the mind open to new views, suspending judgement in favour of curiosity. This isn't a simple world, is it?

Don

[Steam Driven]

I am saddened too, because its an immature (as in undeveloped) view of a complex issue. 9/11 was an enormous and unforgivable atrocity. But it didn't just happen in a vacuum and that's the part that gets confusing when its not thought through. Such horrific events have antecedents whether we like to acknowledge them or not. Its in the telling of that story that a rather simplistic, (in my opinion, childlike) view of "retribution" arises.

You can couch your terms in polite conversation Don, but what you are doing is condemning the U.S. and it’s foreign policy and in fact saying that they brought the atrocities of 9/11, the USS Cole, Beirut and others upon themselves.

We live in polite society and we as citizens of that society converse, debate and at times argue our view points. As we are doing here. From those debates, consensus arises and common ground is found.

What do we do with those that choose to live on the outskirts of our society? Who choose not to live by the rules and laws that we as citizens of our society choose to enact?

We have a court system and penalties are applied.

There is no “World’s” police force. That role has fallen, by acclimation, to the United States of America, who in looking out for it’s own interests looks out for the interests of, for the most part, all of Western society.

One of the Roosevelt’s is quoted as saying that he talk’s softly but carries a big stick. I put it to you that there are times when the big stick needs to be used, that time and place was Iraq.

In your reading I am sure that you have come across the issues of cultural differences between our Western Democracies and the Tribal Nature of the Middle East. It has been written that the cultures of the Arabian Peninsula listen when dealing from strength. That conciliation is seen as being weak. The West, through the UN has tried to bring about change, but with no change seen or coming it is clear that action was needed IMHO.

Call me simplistic and childlike in my views, but bully’s need to be dealt with, to continue your childlike inference.

In your reading of these events, what alternative action is put forward? More sanctions? More oil for medicine? Allow Saddam to continue to siphon money into his own accounts and and reward the families of “Martyr’s” who would destroy Israel?

Debate is good, discusion is better, consensus best but unfortunately we in the west have that right and without country’s like the U.S. endevouring to spread democracy, other’s will not.

I guess the next point is yours, my Hawk to your Dove...