fascism, major media

October 28, 2006 12:59 AM

In the latest edition of Aurthur Magazine, author Douglas Rushkoff takes a half hit of the red pill.Over the past year both Stephan Colbert and Keith Olbermann have swallowed a bit of the red pill. What other major media folks have the balls to stand up and acknowledge what needs to be said about America's present circumstances.
posted by thedailygrowl (62 comments total)

Fixed link.
posted by neckro23 at 1:09 AM on October 28, 2006

The current US situation, plus Russia and to a lesser extent the UK/Aus/Ca etc, really does meet all those criteria for fascism. If it didn't have the scary Godwin f-word at the top, and just asked you what form of government the list referred to, you'd say Republicanism.

What's odd to me, though, is that Democratism only disavows three or four of the criteria. I mean, I'm not saying they're the same, they're really not, but if I were Corporate America I'd be letting the Dems have a go to make it look like it's not all show and Potemkin villages.
posted by imperium at 1:55 AM on October 28, 2006

What's the red pill, again? I haven't seen the matrix in awhile.

Douglas Rushkoff seems to be tilting toward what alot of (less credible?) media watchdogs have been shouting since at least 2004, and he acknowledges this briefly, citing the whole idea of a Fasicst regime truly taking hold in America as being similar to the kind of crazy as thinking the WTC happened to have dynamite inside it that morning. As a fellow writer and a reader of his work, I can say that at times Mr. Rushkoff seems to be just as lucid as Noam Chomsky can be, but his methodology and tendency to tangent from his overall topic often veer off a little bit more.

As a concept, his proposed observations seem very likely. What is mentioned about artists and intellectuals being scared or shocked or merely drowned out by the sheer amount of opposing noise is absolutely at the pivot point of change in my mind -- there are so many whom seem to preach problems and solutions that I feel overwhelmed approaching any concept regarding political reform these days, and he may be right: keeping the hall of mirrors nice and shiny and full of confusion is a very effective means of staying the course either purposefully or otherwise.

Simultaneously I seem to be putting my blinders on toward these kinds of ideas (because they're too quizzical or noisy) and also at larger media outlets, simply because my experiences with them have given me a nearly endless stream of jaded cynicism and suspicion regarding whom or what ends the reports/reporters are meant to serve. If Douglas and the greater minds that i've respected in the past want to literally sink the boat and build a new one, or point out and prod so many of it's holes that it sinks faster, then so be it. Unfortunately my activist streak has waned. The white flag is up in phylum-land, but that hardly lasts forever.

Thanks for the piece in any case. I await the head lemming to leap off the cliff.
posted by phylum sinter at 2:06 AM on October 28, 2006

Billmon - The enemies of truth
posted by srboisvert at 2:32 AM on October 28, 2006

A decently thoughtful essay, except for this:

That same July morning, when news of North Korea’s failed nuclear test launches were broadcast, I didn’t feel sure I was being told what was happening, either. Not that news agencies can really know, either. Did they launch? Were they thwarted by a US counterstrike, or by their own ineptitude? Do they even know? Do we?

What in the hell is he talking about? Launch? What launch? What the hell?

*thwaps Douglas in the face a number of times*
posted by loquacious at 3:02 AM on October 28, 2006

Loquacious - i think he's referring to the various Missle/Delivery system tests N.Korea did between July 4th and July 6th of this year. There was a bit of a stink about it because one of the systems tested was a long-range deployment system that flew over [or toward, can't remember the official line] Japan.
posted by phylum sinter at 3:12 AM on October 28, 2006

This launch.
posted by crunchland at 3:12 AM on October 28, 2006

I'm aware of those launches, but "failed nuclear test launches" is either mis-informed, malformed, misleading, plain wrong or otherwise sensationalist.

An ICBM test isn't a nuclear test. It makes as much sense as calling it a "failed chemical test launch" because the DPRK could just as likely use a chemical warhead.
posted by loquacious at 3:31 AM on October 28, 2006

loquacious, I'm a fan of yours, honest, but this is picking a real nit.
posted by imperium at 3:56 AM on October 28, 2006

I'm at least a marginal fan of Rushkoff's fiction, but nits are important when you've got something like this to say - it can rapidly devalue or invalidate the message. It's sloppy editing to let that slip by, as well.

That's all I'll say on the tangential issue.
</pedant>
posted by loquacious at 4:19 AM on October 28, 2006

Imperium, I'm sitting in Seoul, South Korea right now, and let me tell you that the distinction between North Korea testing nuclear and non-nuclear missiles is all the difference in the world to millions of people around here.

The fact that Rushkoff can't get a recent, major news story right does impair one's perception of the article...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:21 AM on October 28, 2006

The only place I’m allowed to write this way is on my blog or here in Arthur – and neither pays the bills.

What? He's complaining, not because he doesn't have the *right* to express dissent, but because he can't make a fine yuppie income while he does it?

My God, the sky is falling in...
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:51 AM on October 28, 2006

I see the hall of mirrors confusion effect is in full swing.

The fundamental message is that WE DON'T KNOW whether or not it was a 'nuclear' test or not. His argument is that there's no surety that the mainstream media reports are even correct, or that we even know the truth. Pedantry about him adding a word that might or might not be accurate show that you're entirely missing the main thrust of the argument.

How do we really know that you're right and he's wrong? Saying he's 'less credible' is just showing that you believe the media reports are accurate. His actual argument is whizzing by unnoticed.

From another angle: NK claims to have done nuclear testing. They also have tested medium-range missiles. Going from there to saying they're testing nuclear missiles is not a gigantic leap of logic. Yes, the payload and the delivery system are two different things, but seriously.... what the hell payload are you EXPECTING?
posted by Malor at 5:11 AM on October 28, 2006

His actual argument is whizzing by unnoticed.

I noticed his argument, but in my case he's preaching to the converted.

But that's exactly my point - that this detail will detract from his argument. Small details like this will stick in the craw of nearly anyone analytical.

His argument is that there's no surety that the mainstream media reports are even correct, or that we even know the truth.

You - yourself - may feel comfortable inferring such an argument, but that's not the thesis he is presenting.

what the hell payload are you EXPECTING?

I'm expecting that they'll continue to muddle on with half-assed engineering until they'll finally annoy the world community enough to do something about it.
posted by loquacious at 5:19 AM on October 28, 2006

a fine yuppie income

do people still say "yuppie"? isn't it as dated as, say, mullets and Duran Duran?
posted by matteo at 5:53 AM on October 28, 2006

do people still say "yuppie"? isn't it as dated as, say, mullets and Duran Duran?

Quite right. The politically correct term is now "bobo". Soon to be superseded by "Enemy Combatant".
posted by felix betachat at 6:22 AM on October 28, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]

My perception of his argument is that he's saying we're sliding into fascism/corporatism. His secondary arguments seem to be that he no longer trusts the media, and that he feels like the important voices are drowned out in a huge echoey chamber of noise about bullshit.

I perceive your getting uptight about that one word in his essay to be more of that noise. He's pointing at an elephant and you're arguing that his finger has a hangnail. Further, you seem to be sticking to your guns that the hangnail is *important*.

I just don't see that it is. It's irrelevant. Substitute 'missile' for 'nuclear' and it doesn't change the meaning, arguments, or validity of the essay in any way. It's cosmetic, not structural; a hangnail, not the elephant.

Why even worry about it?
posted by Malor at 6:26 AM on October 28, 2006

Why even worry about it?

Because I hope he would know better, and it's not people like you and I that I would hope that his argument would reach.

If I may presume: sure, you and I can overlook it. (Objectively and subjectively, I honestly can despite the picking of nits Note that I can only agree with his suppositions.) We can read past the detail. We may even base our trust/respect of the article upon the reputation that precedes him based on prior encounters with his words. Not everyone knows who he is, or why we should listen.

It's an important message, and I worry that others won't be able to.
posted by loquacious at 6:34 AM on October 28, 2006

> The politically correct term is now "bobo". Soon to be superseded by "Enemy Combatant".

The word bobo, Brooks's most famous coinage, stands for "bourgeois bohemian." This is Brooks' term for the 1990s' descendants of the yuppies. Often of the corporate upper-middle to upper class, they rarely oppose mainstream society, claim highly tolerant views of others, buy lots of expensive and exotic items, and believe American society to be meritocratic.

Don't follow you. That hardly sounds like the sort of person to shout Allahu akbar while throwing bottles at the tanks, or even being swarthy enough to trigger the airport profiling.
posted by jfuller at 6:40 AM on October 28, 2006

Mullets are dated?!? Fire my stylist immediately!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:43 AM on October 28, 2006

Don't follow you.

See this for more info.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:51 AM on October 28, 2006

I'll have go ahead and start clawing at the nit loquacious is huddled over. Even though I agree with what Rushkoff is saying (and found the Billmon article excellent), this misstatement is unfortunately critical when he positions himself as an expert who has lost the ability believe in what is being told.

And I am not certain that this is a secondary argument: for a facsist/corporatist govenment to take hold, there must be some complicity in the media, whether forced or just wandered into because of value-addled editorial policies, fear or ownership, or focus on profit. Given that the media critique is essential, Rushkoff has a reponsibility, while writing, to show himself as a careful, shrewd reader of, at the very least, what he cites as examples.

The other way he could have pitched it, I think, is as having already reached the point of disbelief so much that he didn't care: what was it? a nuclear launch? a time machine? an ocean-going ferris wheel?

But he didn't. He reports media failure as a symptom and fails to read properly. In reporting the symptom, he manifests the symptom. On second thought, bravo Rushkoff.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 6:52 AM on October 28, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

jfuller: just trying to be ironic and winding up too subtle for my own good.

Look, if the liberal intelligentsia is starting to wake up and question the fundamental integrity of the news media and their government, can their marginalization be far behind? Leftist dissent is already called "treason" by nut-jobs like Anne Coulter. If critiquing policy within the rules of the game can be called treasonous, what will happen when these normally apolitical sorts start suggesting the game is fixed?

Like they say, if you have to spell it out, it ain't funny.
posted by felix betachat at 6:59 AM on October 28, 2006

I just got around to the second link, which is interesting, scary, and even more disappointing in its presentation. The notes link it to contemporary America, which I can do just fine on my own, and do not do the work of proving the 14 points. Not that I would dig and read it all the murky Saturday, but to persuade someone on such a major point, that we are slipping into or have slipped into fascism, you must walk very carefully.

Loquacious worries that people might not listen, and I think that concern is justified. The form of the message, the messenger, and the details are just as important as the message itself.

But maybe it never will get through. It seems that the major forms of logic now are straw men and ad hominem attacks. Any argument can be tied to a more absurd version of that argument with a more absurd messenger, erasing sanity with a glib portrait of idiocy. Drives me batty.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 7:06 AM on October 28, 2006

> See this for more info.

Ah, now I'm in the picture. We're expecting the Revolution any moment, after which it will be the heroic red guard out there instead of Karl Rove and the Schutzstaffel and they'll be looking for telltale concentrations of enemy-combatant BMWs and shipping Starbucks customers off to Gitmo. Fuller replaces pumpkin spice latte in cupholder, jams Prince Igor CD into changer, sets A/C to Texas Freezing, revs up 6 liter V12, scrams for life. Quick, back to the fenced subdivision! The rabble is coming!
posted by jfuller at 7:17 AM on October 28, 2006

I'm with you kingfisher. I cringe every time that list gets trotted out. If it were a reasoned comparative analysis of fascist states; if there were some thoughtful discussion of, say, Germany in the mid 1920's or Chile in the 1970's and the present cultural climate in the US, I'd find it very helpful. But a set of 14 bullet points with faux-footnotes appended? Not so much.

It's so clearly a case of someone fitting the cookie cutter to match the dough that it fails to do more than confirm prejudices. Anyone who reads that list and walks away thinking "OMFG AmeriKKKa" probably thought that before they encountered it too. And if it can't change minds, then it's not a terribly useful addition to the political conversation.
posted by felix betachat at 7:18 AM on October 28, 2006

I was going to link this under a quotation of the zinger, but that would spoil it. Here's a short clip between O'Reilly and Letterman from the other night, where the last exchange (youtube) beautifully encapsulates how I've been feeling the past few years.
Ouch, Bill, suck on that.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 7:31 AM on October 28, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

loquacious: Not everyone knows who he is, or why we should listen.

True. I didn't know who Douglas Rushkoff is. I had to look him up, which not everyone would do. However, I also didn't know enough to notice the 'nuclear test launches' error, so it didn't affect my reading. Even had I noticed, I still would have been more distracted by the speculation that the tests were 'thwarted by a US counterstrike'.

I think he got his point across.
posted by zennie at 7:35 AM on October 28, 2006

That Bill O'Reilly/David Letterman exchange is fantastic.
posted by loquacious at 7:54 AM on October 28, 2006

If you're trying to root out facism in the world, [obsessionthemovie.com] is a more persuasive sell.
posted by RoseyD at 8:43 AM on October 28, 2006

Jeez, Stewart doesn't even get a mention these days? Has Colbert totally eclipsed him?
posted by delmoi at 9:10 AM on October 28, 2006

Calling the Bush administration fascist is a no-brainer.

Still, I think it's a bit paranoid to assume the whole media system is complicit, they're just stupid, and lazy, and don't want to 'upset the beast' by claiming that the government is lying about things. It's a shame, but whatever.

One nice thing about partisan news sources, is that they'll actually bother to fact-check what their opponents say, whereas mainstream media just passes along lies with no verification. It's pretty lame
posted by delmoi at 9:19 AM on October 28, 2006

My God but Letterman's deep, resigned sigh spoke volumes, didn't it? I was nodding in agreement before he even proceeded with the smackdown punchline.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:49 AM on October 28, 2006

Imperium, I'm sitting in Seoul, South Korea right now, and let me tell you that the distinction between North Korea testing nuclear and non-nuclear missiles is all the difference in the world to millions of people around here.

And I'm sitting here in Tokyo, Japan right now, and let me tell you that the distinction between North Korea launching an empty missile at Japan and launching a nuclear missile in Japan is just about the furthest thing from "nitpicking" I can imagine.
posted by Bugbread at 9:52 AM on October 28, 2006

OK, I read the list and thought first about whether it applied to other states more commonly called fascist, including what some call the fascism of the left, and found it held true. Then I went through and considered whether it applied to America, and sure, yes indeed. My cookies were at "America's going off track, votes are being rigged, it's very serious". The cutter moved me to "this does indeed look like fascism".
posted by imperium at 9:57 AM on October 28, 2006

keeping the hall of mirrors nice and shiny and full of confusion is a very effective means of staying the course

Conspiracies of silence are impossible; there can only be conspiracies of noise. Remember this.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:05 AM on October 28, 2006 [4 favorites has favorites]

By distracting the masses with highly emotionally charged issues like flag-burning or gay marriage, those in power consolidate their base of support while developing a new mythology of state as religion.

B-b-but Republicans are the party of smaller government ... right?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:18 AM on October 28, 2006

imperium: granted. but what sets off my warning bells is the utter simplicity of the thing. "Fascism" is presented as a sort of abstract national condition without concern for situational or circumstantial factors. All you have to do is run down a checklist and, behold, discover that America is indeed a fascist state.

The severity of the charge demands a fairly heavy burden of proof. That is, unless you're interested in preaching to the converted.

Most people would probably say that "fascism" depends as well on an ideology of racial superiority or ethno-nationalism. That's certainly the case in the German and Italian incarnations. I can't speak for Chile or Spain or Indonesia, but I do know that the alarm over neo-fascist ideology in India and in Serbia has a lot to do with a developing ethos of racial superiority. So why doesn't our Dr. Lawrence Britt make this connection an integral part of his schema? Why do we instead get the fairly anodyne #3 in which fascism is linked to: "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."?

Isn't it because, in the current political climate in the United States, an ethos of racial superiority has no place in the public discourse? Sure, right wing extremists can mutter under their breath or make insinuations. But those in power are obliged by the common sentiment to declare that they mean no offense to Muslim or Arab peoples (even as they expand their war on Islam). You can cite counter-examples, I'm sure. But my point still stands. The Global War on Terrorism is not an ethno-national one. Ideological, perhaps. Religious in its more odious incarnations, no doubt. But we have nothing like a GW Bush Mein Kampf to suggest that the illness at the root of our society is the pernicious influence of Arabs or Islamists. Such a discourse is developing in Europe, but Americans of all political stripes are wont to see this as a powerful confirmation of the integrity of the American multi-ethnic state in contradistinction to the European nation state.

The point is that to introduce such subtle distinctions would detract from the force of these 14 simple bullet points. Leftist alarmists would be obliged to begin thinking critically about the basis and direction of the foul political rhetoric which is currently in the air. And such ambiguity is at odds with the genre of this list: political propaganda.

Give me something like Philip Roth's The Plot against America over this crap any day. Roth, whose fears are exactly the same, takes the time to trace out what is different about the American political scene. You finish his novel both cautioned and reassured. But mostly watchful. He casts a spotlight on chauvenistic tendencies in our national discourse which could, under the right conditions, explode into fascism. In so doing, he arms his readers to think critically and to set out to fashion an America in which they might be proud. But this Dr. Lawrence Britt? He wants your ass at the barricade tout de suite.

Sorry, but I don't think it's quite time for the pitchforks. And I think that those who do, and who manipulate facts and rhetoric to get us there are making the problem worse.

You know, one might also reckon that another criterion of fascist ideology is the tendency to simplify complex problems along ideological lines. Oh, but to say that would make Dr. Lawrence Britt part of the problem, wouldn't it?
posted by felix betachat at 10:39 AM on October 28, 2006

felix, I'm not sure RACIAL superiority has to be involved. Superiority, sure, but not necessarily racial. God knows we've got loads of that just in general, but the right-wingers have it in profound abundance, particularly about their religion.

The modern 'pernicious influence', rather than Jews, is 'liberals' and 'gays'. Coulter has called more than once for the death of liberals. I think that would fit that bullet point pretty darn well.

I haven't read the checklist, btw, so I may be inadvertently echoing arguments that have already been covered.
posted by Malor at 10:54 AM on October 28, 2006

The original article. NB: the author's name is properly spelled Laurence W. Britt.

You'll note that Dr. Britt adopts the conventions of scholarly discourse when he says: "For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia." But what follows are the simple 14 points. The author cites no data and provides no examples. This original article, referred to in the circulating synopsis is not a work of scholarship, if scholarship is to be defined as a presentation and testing of hypotheses against a data set. We have only Dr. Britt's word to go on here.

Here is the concluding paragraph, let anyone be lingering in the illusion that what underlies the 14 point list is an original work of scholarship:

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

This is advocacy, plain and simple. And nauseatingly coy, at that.
posted by felix betachat at 11:08 AM on October 28, 2006

Malor, i'm not saying that racism must be involved in a definition of fascism. But if you're going to define fascism on more general grounds, then you are obliged to confront, with abundant data and careful argumentation, that the classic cases of fascist ideology were, at their core, based on an ideology of racial superiority.

To any dispassionate observer, the onus of proof is on Dr. Britt. If he chooses not to take it upon himself, then we are obliged to treat his conclusions with skepticism.
posted by felix betachat at 11:13 AM on October 28, 2006

In order to do investigative journalism (including editing and fact-checking where the nits are properly picked), journalists do need to get paid for writing and editors for editing. There are a zillion little pubs like Arthur that established writers like Rushkoff can afford to occasionally write for for free or for very little pay.

But no one is going to do investigative journalism (opinion pieces like this one are easy: you don't need to do any reporting) for them unless they are rich and can afford to work for free and can afford to spend the time and money it takes to do things like Freedom of Information Act Requests. Or unless they are young and trying to break in-- and even then, unless they are rich, they won't be able to keep it up for very long.

Sure, you can say this is just yuppie whining-- but if America is going to have a press that checks the enormous power of its government, journalists and editors will need to make a living and with the ongoing cuts at newspapers and the enormous explosion of free content like blogs (where you get great exposure, but rarely any pay), some way is going to need to be discovered to fund necessary investigative journalism.

I posted a bit about this here, in response to an absurd column on Slate which claimed that cutting newsroom budgets wouldn't hurt investigative journalism.
posted by Maias at 11:13 AM on October 28, 2006

This interview makes no suggestion that Britt has a Ph.D. He's a novelist, not a scholar.

That's not to say that novelists can't make good, critical points. But isn't it a little strange that in its "samizdat" incarnation, the author's name is changed and he's given false credentials?

Curiouser and curiouser.
posted by felix betachat at 11:19 AM on October 28, 2006

Does "Dr. Lawrence Britt" exist (other than in all the copies of this article online?)
posted by Surfurrus at 11:21 AM on October 28, 2006

Laurence W. Britt's novel: "June, 2004"
posted by felix betachat at 11:27 AM on October 28, 2006

Talk about fascism is a difficult thing, and people in this country raise its specter without thinking through the actual conditions in which it arose. felix betachat is just simply wrong about fascism's historical roots, though he may be right about some of the roots of its popular support. If you look at what was happening in Italy before the Fascists came to power, well, there were mass workers' uprisings, particularly in Turin, and the Fascists' first role was really in the brutal suppression of the unions. In Germany, there were mass Communist and Socialist parties, and the possibility of a third revolution seemed to be around the corner; the Nazis smashed the KPD and SPD before they got to the Jews, Gypsies and other so-called "untermenschen" -- hence the famous "First they came for..." poem. Franco, in Spain, was fighting against a no-holds-barred workers' revolution that involved widespread expropriation. Pinochet, in Chile, overturned an openly socialist government at a time when the populace was even more radical, and again threatening an all-out overturn of capitalism. Fascism is an ideology of capitalism in crisis, and the cry of "impending fascism" in the US is inaccurate, because right now there is no mass force about to make a workers' revolution.

Is the US government overstepping its bounds? Sure. Is it out of control? Yes. Is it even authoritarian? To some extent -- though we should remember that plenty of authoritarian stuff has been pulled off under the Democrats. COINTELPRO wasn't started during the Nixon administration. And there's no real substance to the Democrats as a party of civil rights or even real resistance to the right-wing; in fact, right now they are running so far to the right themselves that it's starting to get blurry. Fundamentally, anything you can make out as "fascist" in the Republican program is only going to progress a bit more slowly and under slightly different rhetoric under the Democrats. They are not a solution.
posted by graymouser at 11:52 AM on October 28, 2006

Laurence Britt on the piece in question.
posted by felix betachat at 11:57 AM on October 28, 2006

Author Stan Goff, a retired 26-year veteran of the U.S. Army Special Forces, sounds a warning call that many of the historical precursors of fascism—white supremacy, militarization of culture, vigilantism, masculine fear of female power, xenophobia and economic destabilization—are ascendant in America today.
posted by homunculus at 12:45 PM on October 28, 2006

I keep mixing up Britt's list of fascist tendencies with Umberto Eco's.
posted by gamera at 2:16 PM on October 28, 2006

Don't use Nazi Germany as your template for judging facism. For starters, by the time they were evil Nazis, they'd been under fascist rule for some time; and leading up to that fule for even years earlier.

Rather, compare to Mussolini's rise to power. Mussolini's techniques were the model upon which Hitler built, and upon which Bush is building.

The similarities are unnerving. The encroachment of federal rule over civilian freedoms, the use of media to manipulate public opinion, and the rigging of systems to ensure continued domination, as all used by Mussollini, eerily parallel the actions of the current Administration.

IMO there is great reason to be concerned for America's future.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:33 PM on October 28, 2006

(Indeed, I think this next election is going to be key in making or breaking it.)
posted by five fresh fish at 3:33 PM on October 28, 2006

You really think the Dems are going to significantly reverse *any* of the current administration's advances towards a fascist state? That they'll significantly dismantle *any* of the apparatus of surveillance and police power we've seen growing over the last five years?

You really believe they'll do anything - even if they win the presidency in '08 - *other* than set a holding pattern until the next fearmonger comes along to move things along further towards increased central power unaccountable to voters?

If so, I think you're being very, very naive, fff.
posted by mediareport at 5:17 PM on October 28, 2006

felix, Malor's point is absolutely correct: We don't have a "Mein Kampf" where the ills of the world are blamed upon Jews, but we have volume after volume from Coulter, Hannity, Savage, et al, where liberals in fact take the place of the jew; where the ills of society are indeed lain at the feet of one particular subgroup, the scapegoat.

Beyond that, though, I think it's erroneous to see the Bush presidency as the leader of the nascent fascist movement, if that's what it is. They are the byproduct of it, because this country has been heading in this direction for some time. And that is a byproduct of our global hegemony, and the stated goal of those in power that we are to retain it, and we shall permit none to challenge it - militarily, here on terra firma, or in space.

If you're going to try to secure permanent hegemony, then you require a certain mindset among the citizens, first and foremost a jingoistic certainty that this hegemony is in fact moral; and to have this, those who would suggest otherwise - and here we come back to the liberals - must be vilified, ostracized - and perhaps ultimately criminalized.

And if you're going to have this lasting hegemony, the system itself must be made immune from the whims of the voters, who ultimately may decide that they don't want to pay the price for this hegemony - as Rushkoff said, they must be made to accept, even clamor for, what is best for them.
posted by kgasmart at 5:41 PM on October 28, 2006

The problem I have with this idea is that the US government is too disorganised and inept to pull off proper facism (or dynamite the WTC or do anything re: North Korea). The more likely scenario is the federal government continuing its cycle of corruption and general indifference to the task of actually running the country properly until it becomes totally irrelevent and the economy grinds to a halt.
posted by cillit bang at 8:28 PM on October 28, 2006

@homunculus
"many of the historical precursors of fascism ... are ascendant in America today —white supremacy, militarization of culture, vigilantism, masculine fear of female power, xenophobia and economic destabilization..."

First, I wonder whether what we're seeing is "ascendent"? or are we now seeing more clearly something that was ALWAYS present in America?

Maybe we're underestimating the role the 'net has had in exposing many more of us to discussions that were denied us before. Maybe we're not seeing something new; maybe the resurgence is in our consciousness?

Re Goff: while I'm not highly literate about American history, I'm not seeing, for a couple of examples, an increase of "fear of female power" or of "xenophobia" (except in the special case of jobs going to immigrants). And certainly "militarization of culture" was rampant during and after WW2. To me Goff is off the mark of what I'm seeing people discussing and concerning themselves with.

One of the failures of opposition during the Vietnam war era was the lack of an alternative vision comprehensible to average Americans. Goff's list — along with deciding whether "fascism" is the right label for what's happening, — seems to just muddy the core issues further.

Today, I feel, real leadership would mean addressing: What are the core values most Americans can agree on, and how can we build from there?
posted by Twang at 9:47 PM on October 28, 2006

The biggest difference from all the other examples that Twang gives above from the situation twang outlines in the rest of the comment is the fact taht today we have the interweb. We're talking to each other and those who live around the world everyday in forums like this. We exchanging opinions, sharing newsbits, debating arguments, and of course, langhat's etymological offerings every day.

We, each of us, are not in the same room, but we come back and hang out at mefi everyday, its our mental playground in the virtual world.

Was this there, twang, in vietnam or after ww2, then perhaps information would have flowed between the peoples everywhere regardless of what was being said in the public domain.

so.
posted by infini at 12:16 AM on October 29, 2006

Regarding the North Korea launches that Rushkoff mentions,
I read it as a story that received heavy mass media attention
thereby helping to reduce or divert the Ken Lay death story to lesser news. I think if you did a consistent day by day analysis of the news over the last six years you would witness a pretty consistent use of media diversion when big stories
are happening. One example of my favorite examples of news diversion: On the day that FBI special agent, Colleen Rowley testified before a Senate subcommittee investigation the details of the 9-11 attacks, the Justice dept. preempted the hearings by making the “surprise” announcement of the capture of “dirty bomber”, Jose Padilla at Chicago’s O’ Hare Airport. I would love to see a comprehensive
data-base of these-any takers?
posted by thedailygrowl at 12:22 AM on October 29, 2006

I've seen a few those portals out there. have you googled lately?
posted by infini at 12:40 AM on October 29, 2006

You guys do realize that before 1994 the Republican party hadn't controlled both houses since 1952, the Democrats were in control for almost the whole period between 52-94. You guys have only had to deal with 12 years (and 6 of those had a Democrat at President).

These things are cyclical, you'll be back in control soon enough, then the Democrats will be corrupted by their power and eventually a new set of not-yet-corrupted Republicans will come into power pledging to clean up Congress, ad infinitum.
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 9:12 AM on October 29, 2006

I perceive your getting uptight about that one word in his essay to be more of that noise.

A wickedly clever way to demonstrate what we are up against. I mean, if one mis-stated word risks losing our entire point, yet bald-faced lies from the right go unchallenged, what does that say about media focus and the state of critical dialogue?
posted by dreamsign at 10:21 PM on October 29, 2006

"I mean, if one mis-stated word risks losing our entire point, yet bald-faced lies from the right go unchallenged"

I'm sorry, are you reading the same MetaFilter as I am? The people taking issue with this mis-stated word are MeFites. Challenging bald-faced lies from the right is what we do here. Where do you see us ignoring bald-faced lies from the right? Or, if that was in reference to the media and non-MeFites, where do you see the media/non-MeFites losing the point of this article due to the nuclear missile/nuclear test issue?
posted by Bugbread at 6:25 PM on October 30, 2006

America's Slide to Totalitarianism
posted by homunculus at 6:06 PM on November 6, 2006