Why can't the Democrats use the 'F' word to label the Republican agenda?

[oc2002]

I mean the F for Fascists?

There is no doubt that this administration is following the fascists game plan in social, economic and legislative agenda.

Merge government to serve corporations, cut taxes for the wealthiest, abolish civil liberties, float the economy with massive federal deficits, and perpetual wars for the military industrial complex.

This should be the rallying cry for 2006, just say NO to FASCISM!

[Feathered Fish]

1. Don't you think that would alienate more than a few voters?

Not to mention offend people that have lived under truly violent and oppressive fascist regimes?

[LTRS]

7. Look up the definition of the word....

"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

... it fits. We need to wake people up. Should Reid and Pelosi start using the word? No. But you should be using it when discussing this administration with friends, family, and co-workers. Keep the definition handy and educate the people you talk to.

[Feathered Fish]

13. Fair enough

But left-wingers already use the term fascist when describing the administration. My impression of the OP was that it should be adopted by the members of the Dem leadership. I don't think that it would do the Dems any favours.
I could be way off, maybe the op didn't mean that at all.

[oc2002]

26. both.

I think it should be done by the leadership or spokes persons of the Democratic Party, this would be a major shift in tactics. Its already used in hushed tones here in the underground. I would like to see Dean, or a spokes person, start the ball rolling.

This would break the ice, the wall that is built up in the media against calling the Republican agenda a form of Fascism.

Yes, its would be a bold move. Some will be turned off; some will see that this is not your grand fathers Republican Party, but a wholly different animal.

But we have to start NOW! Not wait till October of 2006!

[Dr.Phool]

11. I say offend them

Something has to shock people back to their sensibilities. Half the population of this country has already been brown-shirted. Why call it something it's not.

Watch c-span in the morning. People calling in to support their own destruction. Lower income people supporting the destruction of the social safety net to give the rich more tax breaks.

I say call it what it is. FASCISM!

[Feathered Fish]

17. These voters that are bush fans

are not the people that have lived under Fascist regimes.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. We're Not Going To Win THOSE People Over, Anyway

Mainstream people who were clearly, last November, motivated by fear, need to be scared into opening their eyes.

Strong words will get strong reactions and we need these people to be far more afraid over incompetence and intransigence of gov't than they are of al Qaeda.
The Professor

[Clark2008]

35. I've been calling them fascists for two year and I don't give a flying

flip who I offend because I'm speaking the truth.

[LTRS]

2. We definitely should

I was on a panel discussing progressive politics about 2.5 yrs ago and the panelist before me said something to the effect that she "was not ready to call the Bushies fascists yet."

When it came my turn I said "well I have to disagree. I AM ready to call them fascists because they use fascists techniques on a daily basis" I then went on to tick off about 10 fascists techniques they use.

Funny thing is she is known as much more lefty than me. :)

So yeah, time to bring out the F word and use it often.

[leftyandproud]

3. actually, under fascism...government CONTROLS corporations.

Bush is doing the opposite...dismantling the controls.

[ComerPerro]

5. Its more like the other way around

Socialism is where the government controls and regulates corporations.

Fascism is where corporate interests control and regulate the government.

And that is what we are moving towards.

[lonestarnot]

8. Moving toward? 100 top corps. now in control! n/t

[ComerPerro]

10. Not quite.

What you would see is the end of regulations until there are really only a few corporations.

And guess who their loyality will be towards?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Their loyalty would be towards themselves.

They would rule our government unilaterally.

[ComerPerro]

20. Sorta like whats going on now

I mean, I can't imagine what this nation would be like if we were to one day be ruled by a group of assholes who control corporate interests and use their position of power to make themselves richer while supressing all opposition.

Can you?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. I can definitely imagine it.

I can certainly imagine a society where Wal Mart had their own military and police.

[leftyandproud]

9. nah

Under all forms of fascism, corporations were put to use for the state...They were still allowed to exist and make money, but they were directed for national ends. Under socialism, corporations would not exist as legal entities. The profit motive disappears (supposedly) and the workers would own everything. At least that's what I've been told.

[ComerPerro]

12. so, bad phrasing

Maybe I was over-simplistic.

The biggest point I want to make is that regulating corporations to protect consumers is not moving toward fascism.

But you hear a lot of rethugs say that not letting monopolies exist is fascist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Fascism = Corporatism.

As the leadership moves easily between corporate management and politics, there will be an ebb and flow of who is controlling who, but the end result is the same. Corporations support the government which supports the corporations. Those corporations which do not support the government will be regulated out of existance, plagued with scandal and charges of fraud and tax violations, e.g. Microsoft. Those corporations that support the government can get away with anything, e.g. Enron.

All that Enron did, was act too soon, before the fascist power structure was unassailable.

What stories are going to be covered? Look to the corporate media.

There will always be some tension between those in it for the power (political fascists) and those in it for the profit (corporate fascists). But both do better when they merge -- which gives us Halliburton and Bechtel.

Remember, you don't have to murder Jews to be a fascist. Mussolini co-operated with the Nazis only under threat. A great many Jews fleeing Europe escaped through Fascist Spain.

It's all about the corporatism.

[datasuspect]

14. that's where we ARE

it is very common for corporate lobbyists and interests to have significant inlfuence over legislation. if they aren't vetting proposed legislation or actually providing bills that corporate attorneys WRITE THEMSELVES and give to various congressmen (and this happens at the state level).

i would imagine there is some difficulty in getting a bill introduced that was disfavorable toward a heavily influential corporate interest.

[Dr.Phool]

15. Wrong!!!

It was the corporations, and industrialists who financed Hitler and Mussolini.

[LTRS]

24. Actually, that's not correct

Mussolini's brand of fascism was the MERGER of govt and corporations. But even that's not fascism by definition.

[LTRS]

29. Actually, that's not correct

Mussolini's brand of fascism was the MERGER of govt and corporations. But even that's not fascism by definition.

[ComerPerro]

4. They don't hold back when they call us socialists

And, frankly, I'd rather be a socialist than live in a fascist nation.

[goddess40]

6. "just say NO to FASCISM" - sounds like a great bumper sticker

I think it's time to call the Republicans what they are. I think the DNC is afraid to use the label because they might have to admit that they've moved into the conservative spot left vacant by the republicans when they made the huge jump to fascism.

[Kansas Wyatt]

18. Maybe that bumper sticker should have two lines to get the point across.

"Just Say NO To FASCISM"
"Just Say NO To REPUBLICANISM"

[oc2002]

28. ..nice I like that...Lets order 100 millions bumper stickers!

[havocmom]

19. I use the word often and explain why.

Lot of wingers around my area are beginning to see my point.

[mattclearing]

22. Will Pitt mentioned Godwin's law recently, and I think it applies here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Basically, anyone who mentions the Nazis first loses.

Fascism, being heavily associated with the Nazis, probably falls into this category objectively, and my personal opinion is that it definitely does.

edited for typo

[Lucid Code]

23. Not that it isn't accurate

for some factions of the republican party (see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/22/52445/5911) and not that it shouldn't be said, but for a prominent Democrat to bring it up would draw a lot of heat and could easily be spun away as vitrolic name-calling.

Apt or not, it leads to ugly connotations that are not deserved, and it will probably lead discussion in an unproductive direction.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi Lucid Code!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lucid Code]

37. Thank you

I've been lurking for a while. :hi:

[Tactical Progressive]

30. If they call progressivism 'socialism'

then I call conservatism 'fascism'.

If they call progressivism 'Communism'
then I call conservatism 'Nazism'.


It has been working for the goose for decades.
What goes around, comes around.

[Toucano]

33. I have to say, I agree.

"liberal" is the new "commie".

While I don't think our leaders should sully themselves with the word, I think the left in general needs to be more agressive about the word wars.

Bill Frist doesn't always use the same words as Sean Hannity.
Harry Reid shouldn't use the same words that Al Franken can.

[Tactical Progressive]

36. I agree that leaders should use different terminology

Senators shouldn't be strident or causic. Congressmen should try not to be as well. But prominent Democrats should have just as much leeway as their opponents in labeling things.

If for example a Dem is on a talk show, and a Repub refers to say, Social Security as 'socialism', then I think the Democrat has just as much right to refer to letting people who for whatever reason can't make it in our society starve or go homeless, then she has just as much right to say 'that's fascism'.

[datasuspect]

31. i call them fuckers all the time

among other things

[RBHam]

34. Because they're too scared.

See Wellstone.

[Lone_Wolf]

38. Here's a great article on Fascism...

http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html