"American Conservative" zine/ Warns about America's Looming Dictatorship!

[KoKo]

February 14, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Hunger for Dictatorship /War to export democracy may wreck our own.
by Scott McConnell


To an audience at the Leo Baeck Institute, on the occasion of receiving a prize from Germany’s foreign minister, Stern noted that Hitler had seen himself as “the instrument of providence” and fused his “racial dogma with Germanic Christianity.” This “pseudo–religious transfiguration of politics … largely ensured his success.” The Times’ Chris Hedges asked Stern about the parallels between Germany then and America now. He spoke of national mood—drawing on a lifetime of scholarship that saw fascism coming from below as much as imposed by elites above. “There was a longing in Europe for fascism before the name was ever invented... for a new authoritarianism with some kind of religious orientation and above all a greater communal belongingness. There are some similarities in the mood then and the mood now, although significant differences.”

This is characteristic Stern—measured and precise—but signals to me that the warning from the libertarians ought not be simply dismissed as rhetorical excess. I don’t think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them —hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported—generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons—cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we can’t bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve.

Stern points to the religious (and more explicitly Protestant) component in the rise of Nazism—but I don’t think the proto-fascist mood is strongest among the so-called Christian Right. The critical letters this magazine receives from self-identified evangelical Christians are almost always civil in tone; those from Christian Zionists may quote Scripture about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in ways that are maddeningly nonrational and indisputably pre-Enlightenment—but these are not the letters foaming with a hatred for those with the presumption to oppose George W. Bush’s wars for freedom and democracy. The genuinely devout are perhaps less inclined to see the United States as “God marching on earth.”

Secondly, it is necessary to distinguish between a sudden proliferation of fascist tendencies and an imminent danger. There may be, among some neocons and some more populist right-wingers, unmistakable antidemocratic tendencies. But America hasn’t yet experienced organized street violence against dissenters or a state that is willing—in an unambiguous fashion—to jail its critics. The administration certainly has its far Right ideologues—the Washington Post’s recent profile of Alberto Gonzales, whose memos are literally written for him by Cheney aide David Addington, provides striking evidence. But the Bush administration still seems more embarrassed than proud of its most authoritarian aspects. Gonzales takes some pains to present himself as an opponent of torture; hypocrisy in this realm is perhaps preferable to open contempt for international law and the Bill of Rights.

And yet the very fact that the f-word can be seriously raised in an American context is evidence enough that we have moved into a new period. The invasion of Iraq has put the possibility of the end to American democracy on the table and has empowered groups on the Right that would acquiesce to and in some cases welcome the suppression of core American freedoms. That would be the titanic irony of course, the mother of them all—that a war initiated under the pretense of spreading democracy would lead to its destruction in one of its very birthplaces. But as historians know, history is full of ironies.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html

[pretzel4gore]

1. this is the good news....

the hare brained nazipoos get what they want, then, too late, realize 'mygod, grampa died fighting agin this!' lol
the bad news is the lies get so think, so well entrenched in common beliefs that truth forever a stranger to our society...indeed, truth bocome a toxic substance, to be handled only by trained teams wearing heavy armour....and put into quarantine afterwards....

[EVDebs]

2. Ask them if they know the story of USMC Gen. Smedley Butler 2x CMOH

and tell them he broke up their fascist coup attempt in 1932 that included Bush's relatives. Then stand back.

[Supersedeas]

3. Convenient how conservatives and the MSM come to their senses after the

election

[Eloriel]

7. If I'm not mistaken, American Conservative magazine endorsed

Kerry.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Pat Buchanan did not, but his magazine (editorail staff) did.

[Lorien]

14. They did

I saved the article somewhere. It was more an "ABB" vote, but they did make a pretty good case for Kerry.

[NVMojo]

20. I was waiting for this to happen and wasn't expecting it this soon after

the coronation of Bush ...of course, it is hard not to say "I told you so!" to stupid freepers with light bulbs coming on a day late and a dollar short ....

[scottxyz]

4. We should forward this article to our conservative friends

Maybe they'll believe it, coming from American Conservative Magazine.

It's time to start driving some "wedge issues" into the Republicans. There's plenty of "conservatives" who don't like fascism. This article might wake them up more than anything DU or Michael Moore could say.

I wonder how this article plays on FreeRepublic? Someone should post it there. They can't ban it - it's from a conservative magazine. It's about time we started "peeling off" some supporters from the conservative movement.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. We need anti-fascist botox. It primarily would affect the vocal chords

when lies and misrepresentations are about to be spewed. The first shipment of this medication would no doubt be completely used up by the present maladministration. Your mileage may vary.

[CindyDale]

6. Buchanan is full of nonsense

His take seems to be that George Bush is a sweet innocent little boy being led to a couple of Jewish Neocons (as if American business interests aren't what Bush's agenda is all about).

If there is a dictatorship being planned, Buchanan is probably in on it.

[KoKo]

15. He's a racist, holocaust denyer...but his partners may not totally agree

with him. Buchanan worked for Nixon...Nixon was really bad for America like "Chimp Lite" although he was "Nixon Bad" way back. We just didn't believe ANYONE could be WORSE than Nixon who would come along.

But...truth is ...we never got rid of the "bad guys" and now we have their "evil spawn" to deal with....:-(

One has to hope that Buchanan and his buddies might see something wrong with Bush and the Nixon legacy after the PNAC'ers got hold of America.

I like to think folks change and grow better as they travel through life..but then I used to be an "idealist." I grow less so day by day with these folks in power...
'e

[moggie12]

8. Very interesting article --some stirrings of intelligent life on the right

I loved this paragraph:

"But Rockwell (and Roberts and Raimondo) is correct in drawing attention to a mood among some conservatives that is at least latently fascist. Rockwell describes a populist Right website that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as “hate-filled ... advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now.” One of the biggest right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it’s not just us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood, Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold War. “It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth—not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.”

[Al-CIAda]

9. The Brownshirting of America

The Brownshirting of America

by Paul Craig Roberts
James Bovard, the great libertarian champion of our freedom and civil liberties, recently shared with readers his mail from Bush supporters. For starters, here are some of the salutations: "communist bastard," "a**hole," "a piece of trash, scum of the earth." It goes downhill from there.

Bush's supporters demand lockstep consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. – truths now firmly established by the Bush administration's own reports – as treasonous America-bashing.

Bovard is interpreted as throwing cold water on the feel-good, macho, Muslim butt-kicking that Bush's invasion of Iraq has come to symbolize for his supporters. "People like you and Michael Moore," one irate reader wrote, "is what brings down our country."

I have received similar responses from conservatives, as, no doubt, have a number of other writers who object to a domestic police state at war with the world.

In language reeking with hatred, the Heritage Foundation's TownHall.com readers impolitely informed me that opposing the invasion of Iraq is identical to opposing America, that Bush is the greatest American leader in history and everyone who disagrees with him should be shot before they cause America to lose another war. TownHall's readers were sufficiently frightening to convince the Heritage Foundation to stop posting my columns.

Bush's conservative supporters want no debate. They want no facts, no analysis. They want to denounce and demonize the enemies that the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Savages of talk radio assure them are everywhere at work destroying their great and noble country.

I remember when conservatives favored restraint in foreign policy and wished to limit government power in order to protect civil liberties. Today's young conservatives are Jacobins determined to use government power to impose their will at home and abroad.

Where did such "conservatives" come from?

Claes Ryn in his important book, America the Virtuous, explains the intellectual evolution of the neoconservatives who lead the Bush administration. For all their defects, however, neocons are thoughtful compared to the world of talk radio, whose inhabitants are trained to shout down everyone else. Whence came the brownshirt movement that slavishly adheres to the neocons' agenda?

Three recent books address this question. Thomas Frank, in What's the Matter With Kansas?, locates the movement in legitimate conservative resentments of people who feel that family, religious, and patriotic values are given short shrift by elitist liberals.

These resentments festered and multiplied as offshore production, jobs outsourcing, and immigration took a toll on careers and the American dream.

An audience was waiting for right-wing talk radio, which found its stride during the Clinton years. Clinton's evasions made it easy to fall in with show hosts, who spun conspiracies and fabricated a false consciousness for listeners who became increasingly angry.

Show hosts, who advertise themselves as truth-tellers in a no-spin zone, quickly figured out that success depends upon constantly confronting listeners with bogeymen to be exposed and denounced: war protesters and America-bashers, the French, marrying homosexuals, the liberal media, turncoats, Democrats, and the ACLU.

con't-
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=3798

=====

What Became of Conservatives?
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4056

[Selatius]

10. American Conservative is a "paleocon" outfit

The corporatists hate them.

[jdots]

13. I agree ,there are consrvatives,then neocons.

The range of republicans is just as broad as the democrats.

[necso]

11. I am happy to see

that some of our conservative "friends" are beginning to admit that the problem extends beyond that "handful" of neo-conservatives (as these conservative "friends" define this term).

But the tortured gyrations that are imposed on one's logic by this inability to call a neocon a neocon (and a fascist a fascist), will continue to impede these conservatives' ability to deal with the problem. However, it is not wise to let small matters of language impede fruitful exchange. Perhaps it is necessary to use some different term to describe that large group of people who are howling in chorus in support of neocon objectives, neocon nihilism and neocon fascism. -- Might I suggest "neo-fascists"?

And it is accurate to point out that essential elements of fascism are lacking (although there is no lack of desire for some bastardized form of it -- as evidenced by the widespread, hate-filled, faux-nationalist ranting). But when gangs of thugs start beating down dissenters in the street and the government starts making large scale arbitrary arrests, the time will have passed for talking.

(For some reason, I am reminded of Stalin's (reputed) words: "How many divisions does he have?".)

[Disturbed]

12. Four factions of the Right Wing

Neo-cons
Paleo-cons
Christian RW
Neo-Fascists

Paleo-cons or Moderate Conservatives are now the minority group within the Republican Party.

The dominant groups are the so called Christian Evangelicals and the Neo-Fascists. These two groups are often the same people but not always.

The Neo-cons are mostly former left wingers who have been reborn Neo-Fascists.

The Right Wing Agenda

Abolish

Social Security
Medicare
Employer supplied health insurance
Unemployment Benefits
Welfare
Abortion Rights
Collective Bargaining
EPA
Public Education
Public Housing
IRS

See PNAC on the Web to understand The New American Empire.

New Right Wing

The New Right Wing Agenda

"The most important implication of all this is that large segments of the domestic and world population are no longer seen as worth worrying about. On one level, this is just racism and classism. But there’s more than that going on. In the past, capitalism was optimistic and assumed that it would keep expanding, which provided the basis for a “corporate liberalism” that saw everyone in the world as a potential consumer and/or laborer - and therefore having some potential worth. But the new reactionaries see the future as much more of a zero-sum game. Partly, this is an expression of their incredible greed and corruption - their incessant efforts to rip off wealth for themselves and their narrow sets of cronies. In any case, the result is that most of Africa, large swaths of Latin America and Asia, and significant parts of the domestic US population have been simply written off -individuals who may arise from the trodden mass are welcome as junior partners, but there is no concern at all for the general well being of these sectors beyond token PR and the limited need to keep local elites from causing too much anti-American trouble on the world stage.

"The amazing thing is that the right wing fundamentalists have been able to seize power and win a large amount of support - or at least acquiescence -- among the US electorate. The people I talk with point to a number of contextual reasons. First, this country lacks any significant institutionalized alternative.

The Democratic Party is both complicit and fratricidal. The labor movement is the only really powerful potential organized opposition, but they are ideologically scattered, organizationally weak, and under unremitting attack. In addition, the powerful role of money in shaping our electoral outcomes is another key ingredient in the right wings success, as well as in keeping liberal (much less radical) alternatives from gaining influence in the Democratic Party.

The increasing dominance of US media by an incredibly small number of incredibly right wing corporations has a powerful impact. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the lack of any significant “third way,” and the resulting feeling that there is “no viable alternative” has been a very important context for the right wings’ ability to present themselves as inevitable and unstoppable. Finally, the current climate of insecurity, fear, and even paranoia - which the government and media are successfully doing their utmost to deepen and expand - plays an important role in making it hard for opposition to find political space."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0613-02.htm

[necso]

17. Well,

there are many ways to look at the problem.

Personally, I see the RW faux-Christians, neocons and neofascists as being part and parcel of the same phenomenon with (roughly) the neocons making up the "backbone" and with the others making up the "body" (there are various "turf wars", of course, and various "leaders" within the factions battling to increase their own power). But all these groups (to some degree) embrace the essential "behavioral" characteristics of the neocons -- and this is a big part of my "definition". And I have no problem (personally) using the term "neocons" both as a broad category encompassing all of these groups (I would also make finer distinctions within the overall group), and as a particular element within that group (the meaning being made clear, hopefully, by the context or by the use of modifiers).

However, I strongly disagree with the notion of identifying only a handful of people as being the (sole) neocons. As someone who spent long years battling these "new men" within the Republican Party, this wasn't my experience. But I have ranted on the nature of the phenomenon (as I see it) at rather great length elsewhere here, and repetition holds little interest for me.

Certainly, though, some compatible, if not precisely common, language is an important element of "teamwork". And I am reasonably open-minded in terms of language, as long as this language accurately describes the underlying phenomenon.

I am even willing to concede that some members of the "Christian" RW are earnest in their pursuit of principle, unlike the open embrace of evil that characterizes many of their fellow travelers. However, I would admonish these "Christians" about the company that they are keeping... and I would suggest that they spend more time actually reading the Gospels -- as opposed to using these Gospels (and the rest of the Bible) as rationalizations for whatever behavior they deem appropriate (and no matter how highly they esteem some proponents of these particular "interpretations"). Moreover, I would argue that as Americans, there is a tradition of (American) values that stands above and beyond any sectarian concern -- and that is incumbent upon all Americans to observe.

And I would quibble (at least) with some of the specific points in the linked article -- but I see no particular value in this. However, there is an important question to be answered -- the question as to what constitutes a viable alternative to this right wing "machine". -- But I see the answer as being beyond dispassionate discussion at this point (and as something approaching hopeless in any event, human nature being what it is), so I wait. (Now, I am not suggesting that we ruthlessly exploit human nature like the neocon elite does -- but I would make certain allowances for it.)

[KoKo]

19. The trouble I had with the article was that it presented a problem but

didn't define "who" the problem was and what action could be taken to solve it.

The article backed off on blaming the Christian Fundies and maybe left some blame to the "NeoCons" but stopped short of even laying the blame at their door.

But...at least it recognized there IS A PROBLEM...and that Facism may be on the rise..no matter how timid they were to point a finger at what might be the cause. :shrug: at least that was my read.

[necso]

21. It is,

more or less, expected of one who reads this article to recognize those people that Pat Buchanan has identified as being the neocons.

And certainly, Pat Buchanan (or his set) is not about to identify the RW faux-Christians as being a big part of the problem (they are, in practise, a huge part). But Pat has clearly laid the blame at the feet of the neocons in the past, and again, it is more or less expected that the reader would know this.

However, it is noteworthy that the paleocons have begun to admit that the problem has far outgrown the "neocons" -- or in more common language, those relatively few people who played critical roles in the development of this phenomenon.

And there is a great deal of blame to pass around, but I will resist engaging in any further paleocon bashing at this time (hopefully).

Solutions, however, pose a greater problem and one can only hope that the paleocons (and others) will pursue these with open, perceptive and rational minds.

[KoKo]

22. Yes.....I enjoyed this read more than the one below in answer to my

question. I had some problems with what I thought was "waffling" in this otherwise excellent article. The inability to call a "spade a spade." Just for those readers who aren't up on the current divisions within the "conservative community" and the names they give themselves.

Paleocons/Neocons/Conservative/Libertarian Conservative/Fascists/Nazi Sympathizers/Racists/Apologists...etc...(just going a little OTT, here but I think the Conservatives are splitting up into more factions than our Dems whom they love to trash at every opportunity.

[necso]

26. Well, I wrote the latter

in the context of having written the former...

Now, in terms of those divisions on the right, while they are becoming somewhat more open, I wouldn't expect too much from them. Republicans (and some of their supporters who register otherwise) typically operate as a block... Besides, these days, if one (openly at least) does not go along with the neocon program, one can expect a full measure of retribution. And, in any event, we share little enough in common with most of those on the (far, far, far) right, since much of the common basis for American society has declined (or, more properly, been destroyed or debased). Opposition to more foreign adventurism, the unbounded growth of federal power and out-of-control deficit spending, along with other concerns of this most fundamental nature, might, however, furnish some common ground.

One should understand that the inability of this article to call a spade a spade is the result of many factors: deference to Mr Buchanan; an inability to get beyond a certain perspective or framework; and an unwillingness to admit the full extent of the problem. (The "religious" right "block" is an attractive constituency to many, and it is difficult to admit how far things have actually gone -- or to recognize one's own role in this -- especially one's own recent role). This is understandable.

And I see elements in this article both of a power struggle and of some degree of awakening (or, at least, of admitting the obvious). But the reality is that the "old lights" have been overtaken by the "new men" (the uber-munchken) -- and the "conservative revolution" has been betrayed, or at least has gone far afield. (Not that I ever cared one fig for this particular "revolution". -- As far as I am concerned it has been an ugly business from the start.)

It is extremely difficult for me not to use this opportunity to beat the paleocons (the libertarians, etc) soundly about the head with my shovel -- but perhaps this is not the best time. And if you find my restraint excessive, believe me, I have made up for it in the past.

[msongs]

16. This Hitler "quote" explains it all:

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press -- in short, we want to burn out the poison of
immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past years."
-- Adolf Hitler; from The Speeches of Adolph Hitler,
1922-1939, Vol. 1, Michael Hakeem, Ph.D. (London,
Oxford UniversityPress, 1942), pp. 871-872.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Guaranteed]

18. Just read it- BRILLIANT article. And no one can say it isn't fair

to the neo-cons. It makes plenty of apologies and caveats, while admitting that the threat remains latent. This paragraph is especially disturbing:

"This is characteristic Stern—measured and precise—but signals to me that the warning from the libertarians ought not be simply dismissed as rhetorical excess. I don’t think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them —hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported—generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons—cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we can’t bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve."

[leesa]

25. It's a good article, realizing things we progressives had seen long ago.

However, he does not recognise that the current leaders are fascists and I am certain he would give them all the stamp of approval. He cannot see that it has already happened.

[opihimoimoi]

23. Too Little Too Late..... Delusion has taken ROOT

[calimary]

24. This reminds of of the older gent who spoke at this "DNC Listening Event"

here in downtown L.A. a few weekends ago. He was among MANY MANY speakers. He said he was old enough to have lived through World War Two, and thus he knows how to recognize fascism when he sees it. He said he sees it happening again. Here. Now.

It made us all pause. He was certainly in a position to know. And he's not wrong. And believe me, if he sees it, and then we've got this article here, you KNOW it's starting to bother other people, too.

We can only hope and pray that enough Americans start recognizing this, and responding accordingly, before it's too late.

[Selatius]

27. I hate to sound pessimistic, but it may actually be too late

The article is right. What we're seeing is a culmination of years of abuse and corruption building up. The train has built up too much momentum to stop quickly at this point, and the train is out of control. We had our chance to head off the corporatism in the 1960s and 1970s that Eisenhower was warning about back in the 1950s. That window has long since closed.

[KoKo]

28. I worry about that, too. It's been building for so long that it may

just collapse under it's own weight of excessive Military/Industrial Complex/Globilazation/Imperialist zeal or it may explode taking us with it when the lies about what "they've" been up to become too hard for even the most "head in the sand American" to ignore.

I like to hope that shining the light on them is what's getting them so upset. And, that their over-reaching has finally allowed some light on what they've been up to...but I'm sometimes more optimistic about people's ability to see their mistakes than I should be. Still, this article is interesting for what it both says and leaves out. If the paleocons can start to examine policies they've contributed to that are unravelling...maybe that's hope. :shrug: