Totalitarian Republicanism

[rogerashton]

The word "totalitarian" was coined by Benito Mussolini, a capable linguist. At the time that the distinction between the Fascist party was abolished, he said "Italy is now totalitarian fascist." That is the essence of totalitarianism: no distinction is made between the party and the state, nor between the state and the nation, and those who oppose the party are treated as if they opposed the state and the nation -- as national enemies.

This tendency is so strong now in the Republican party that it is very nearly if not completely in control. There are now about sixty years of totalitarian Republican history, dating, perhaps, from Nixon's campaign against Helen Gehagan Douglas, in which he accused her of disloyalty because (essentially) she opposed him. McCarthyism was totalitarianism, but inept enough to have discredited it somewhat in the Eisenhower Republican party of that time. Nixon's bugging of the Democratic Party was a totalitarian's action. The party-line conformism of present Republicans is typical of the foot-soldiers of a totalitarian movement.

The Republican Party of 2005 is, by far, the largest and most serious totalitarian threat we have ever faced.

[Melodybe]

1. Damn straight it is, I wish people would start taking it more seriously

not DUers mind you, but folks that yell at us when we call them on being nazis.

[Ksec]

2. The unity it shows in the face of treasonous behavior by its leader

only cements the point you make about the totalitarian fascism.

I heard Carl Bernstein make a point of this on TV last night.

He said hes never seen such unity despite the obvious nosedive theyre taking.

I love it, keep it up GOP. Its the end to your party, youre creating.

[Emit]

3. It's been Rove's plan for some time, too

http://bnfp.org/neighborhood/Lemann_Rove_NYM.htm
From:
The Controller: Karl Rove is working to get George Bush reelected, but he has bigger plans.
by Nicholas Lemann
"Profiles," The New Yorker Magazine
May 12, 2003

<<snip>>
In our last interview, I tried out on Rove a scenario I called "the death of the Democratic Party." The Party has three key funding sources: trial lawyers, Jews, and labor unions. One could systematically disable all three, by passing tort-reform legislation that would cut off the trial lawyers' incomes, by tilting pro-Israel in Middle East policy and thus changing the loyalties of big Jewish contributors, and by trying to shrink the part of the labor force which belongs to the newer, and more Democratic, public-employee unions. And then there are three fundamental services that the Democratic Party is offering to voters: Social Security, Medicare, and public education. Each of these could be peeled away, too: Social Security and Medicare by giving people benefits in the form of individual accounts that they invested in the stock market, and public education by trumping the Democrats on the issue of standards. The Bush Administration has pursued every item on that list. Rove didn't offer any specific objection but, rather, a general caveat that the project might be too ambitious. "Well, I think it's a plausible explanation," he said. "I don't think you ever kill any political party. Political parties kill themselves, or are killed, not by the other political party but by their failure to adapt to new circumstances. But do you weaken a political party, either by turning what they see as assets into liabilities, and/or by taking issues they consider to be theirs, and raiding them?" The thought brought to his round, unlined, guileless face a boyish look of pure delight. "Absolutely!"

<<snip>>

[C_U_L8R]

4. Nuclear Armed Threat that is n/t

[pengu1n]

5. yup...

The implications are huge. The whole political structure looks rotten to the core. The problem is not just the Republican Party - this could not have gone on for so long without collusion - in some form.
We should treat them as deadly serious.

[wli]

6. "History is a reminder of what's possible."

Bush said that at Auschwitz. Be afraid, be very afraid.