Here is Sara Robinson's latest article. It's a followup to a series from last year, about possible coming fascism in America. I've included the comments, and, if I can find it again, I'll highlight a phrase I particularly liked in the comments.
Find it here: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104222/fascist-america-election-next-turn#comment-13234
--Kim

Fascist America: Is This Election The Next Turn?

By Sara Robinson

October 22, 2010 - 12:34am ET

Facebook889
E-mail

In August 2009, I wrote a piece titled Fascist America: Are We There Yet? that sparked much discussion on both the left and right ends of the blogosphere. In it, I argued that -- according to the best scholarship on how fascist regimes emerge -- America was on a path that was running much too close to the fail-safe point beyond which no previous democracy has ever been able to turn back from a full-on fascist state. I also noted that the then-emerging Tea Party had a lot of proto-fascist hallmarks, and that it had the potential to become a clear and present danger to the future of our democracy if it ever got enough traction to start winning elections in a big way.

On the first anniversary of that article, Jonah Goldberg -- the right's revisionist-in-chief on the subject of fascism -- actually used an entire National Review column to taunt me about what he characterized as a failure of prediction. Where's that fascist state you promised? he hooted.

It's funny he should ask. Because this coming election may, in fact, be a critical turning point on that road.

The Fascist America series of three articles (the other two are here and here) was built out of Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism -- a landmark work of scholarship that lays out that specific conditions and prognosis of fascism as a political form. Paxton defined fascism as:

...a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

Paxton laid out the five basic lifecycle stages of successful fascist movements. In the first stage, a mature industrial state facing some kind of crisis breeds a new, rural movement that's based on nationalist renewal. This movement invariably rejects reason and glorifies raw emotion, promises to restore lost national pride, co-opts the nation's traditional myths for its own purposes, and insists that the country must be purged of the toxic influence of outsiders and intellectuals who are blamed for their current misery.

(Sound familiar yet?)

In the second stage, the movement takes root, turns into a real political party, and seizes a seat at the table. Success at this stage, Paxton writes, "depends on certain relatively precise conditions: the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner."

(Paging the Party of No....)

In the face of this deadlock, the corporate elites forge an alliance with rural nationalists, creating an unholy marriage that, if it continues, will soon breed a fascist state. And, of course, this is precisely what's happening now between the Koch Brothers, the oil companies, Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party.

The majority of history's would-be fascist movements have died right at this stage -- almost always because of the basic authoritarian ineptitude of their leadership, which ensured that they'd never gain anything more than a small and temporary handful of seats at the political table. The successful fascisms, on the other hand, were the ones that held together and to gained enough political leverage that capturing their governments became inevitable. And once that happened, there was no turning back, because they now had the political power and street muscle to silence any opposition. (Fascist parties almost never enjoy majority support at any stage -- but being a minority faction is only a problem in a functioning democracy. It's no problem at all if you're willing to use force to get your way.)

According to Paxton, there are three quick questions that let you know you've crossed that fail-safe line beyond which an emerging fascist regime has too much power to be stopped:

1. Are [neo- or protofascisms] becoming rooted as parties that represent major interests and feelings and wield major influence on the political scene?

2. Is the economic or constitutional system in a state of blockage apparently insoluble by existing authorities?

3. Is a rapid political mobilization threatening to escape the control of traditional elites, to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order to stay in charge?

If the answer to all three is "yes," you're probably on for the rest of the ride, which can run for at least a decade or two before it burns through.

A year ago, I noted that we were already three for three on these questions. Now, the "yes" answers are far more resounding. With over 70 Tea Party candidates running for major state and federal offices on the ballot this November, it's fair to say that the 2010 election is shaping up as a national referendum on the Tea Party's future viability. And if they succeed at winning enough of these races, it may very well be the last vote on the subject we ever get.

The Alternatives
There are only a few ways this plays out. A few scenarios:

1. The Tea Party is rejected outright by the voters on November 2. A handful of their candidates do win their races; and for the next few years, the Democrats have a grand time pointing out their sheer wingnuttitude, bolstering a compelling case against electing any more of them in the future. The party begins to lose momentum, and in a few years is defunct.

2. The Tea Party elects a credible number of these 70-odd candidates -- enough to make a solid showing and establish its political bona fides, but not enough to get anything serious done. If this happens, progressives need to work fast and hard. If this right-wing tide continues to build as we head into the 2012 election, we'll still be cruising straight into a fascist future -- just not quite yet. There's time to stop it, but the momentum is not on our side -- and stopping it only gets harder with every passing week.

3. A solid majority of the Tea Party candidates win their races, cementing the movement's lock on the GOP and turning it into a genuine political power in this country. They've already promised us that if they take either house of Congress, the next two years will be a lurid nightmare of hearings, trials, impeachments, and character assassinations against progressives. (Which could, in the end, backfire on the GOP as badly as the Clinton impeachment did. We can hope.) Similar scorched-earth harassment awaits officials at every other level of government, too. And casual violence against immigrants, gays, and progressives may escalate as the Tea Party brownshirts become bolder, confident that at least some authorities will either back them up or look the other way.

In this scenario, the fail-safe point -- the point beyond which no country has ever turned back from the full fascist nightmare -- may well be behind us when we wake up on November 3. From there, the rest will play out in agonizing slow motion; and the character of the rest of this decade will hinge almost entirely on whether the corporatists, the militarists, or the theocrats ultimately get the upper hand in the emerging regime.

Really? Are you serious?
It's fair to wonder if the Tea Party deserves to be taken this seriously. After all, there's always been this faction in US politics -- the 10-12% rightwing authoritarian hard core that fueled McCarthyism and the Bircher movement and the Moral Majority; that voted for Goldwater and then George Wallace and even put KKK leader David Duke into office for a time. The far right has always been with us. It's one of the constants in our political landscape.

But they've always been a fringe movement, and it's mostly kept to itself. What's different now is that all the crazy ideas of the radical right -- climate and evolution denialism, banning contraception, sovereign citizenship, End Times theology, white nationalism, all of it -- have been catalyzed by the magic of the Internet and widespread economic disaster into one coherent mass subculture that, according to a Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday, has attracted a full 35% of the country's likely voters. According to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, the Tea Parties are a broad movement that brings together several preexisting formations on the political right:

-- Economic libertarians who worry about big government collectivist tyranny

-- Christian Right Conservatives who oppose liberal government social policies

-- Right-wing apocalyptic Christians who fear a Satanic New World Order

-- Nebulous conspiracy theorists who fear a secular New World Order

-- Nationalistic ultra-patriots concerned that US sovereignty is eroding

-- Xenophobic anti-immigrant white nationalists who worry about preserving the "real" America.

This unification of right-wing forces around radical far-right ideas has never happened on anything like this scale in modern American history. And it's why we need to recognize the Tea Party as something unique under the political sun -- and seriously evaluate the future that awaits us if it becomes any more powerful.

That future is a painful thing to contemplate. I've been called an alarmist for even daring to use the F-word to describe the situation we're facing. But that's one of the universal hallmarks of fascism: by the time everybody finally wakes up and realizes that they're in it, it's usually too late to do anything about it. Here's how Milton Mayer described his experience of this as the Nazi thrall descended in Germany:

In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, 'It's not so bad' or 'You're seeing things' or 'You're an alarmist.'

And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic.

And yet the day comes when it's all too clear, Mayer writes -- and on that day, it's too late to stand up.

Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

There are only a few days left before the election. Whatever you do between now and then will be a small matter -- a matter of making a few phone calls, of knocking on some doors, of following up with friends. And yet any compromise now could be the one we will remember with breaking hearts five years from now, when the country we knew is gone, and our future has been seized by people who represent the worst of everything we are.

Be the one who sees where this is taking us. Be the one who stands while you still can. The future these people have in mind for us is one that dozens of countries have already lived through; and all of them will carry the scars for centuries. It's not fascism yet; but if the Tea Party manages to get its hands on the levers of power, it will be.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future

Flag as offensive

Discuss (9 Comments)
Hide comments
Rate It!
(0)
Broadcast
Join the discussion below, and/or Post a New Comment.

not mentioned is the authoritarianism on the other side

By Bob Fleischer | October 22, 2010 - 5:29pm GMT

I agree with this article and what troubles me even more is that there are inklings of authoritarian rule on the other side, on the part of the Obama administration. The assassination orders, the use of states secrets privilege, indefinite detention without trial, rendition to other nations, secrecy in immigration and other hearings, increased wiretap powers, and legislative deals worked out with powerful private interests are all the mechanisms of fascism, which will all be in place, in working order, for whatever power steps up to take command.

Continued sliming won't work

By Scott Amos | October 22, 2010 - 10:59pm GMT

Tea Partiers are not fascists. The only one who even sounds thuggish is Carl Paladino - and he has no chance of winning.

» You may be right.

By Greg Sousa | October 24, 2010 - 11:53pm GMT

Mr. Amos, I think we're in agreement. Tea party patriots are not really fascists, at least that's not their intent. Rather, they are merely unwitting accomplices.

The Hideous Beauty of a Big Tent

By Jay Moor | October 23, 2010 - 12:30am GMT

"Tea Partiers are not fascists." Tea Partiers have defended themselves against this charge and against that of racism, also. Sara makes the point that the TP is a big tent, into which both thugs and racists -- as well as maleable morons, corporate shills, xenophobes and other unhappy, fearful or unethical types -- have been invited. While any one scary personality trait cannot be applied to all TPers, one or more traits are exhibited by a number of different TP members. These represent up-to-now politically incorrect or illegal behaviors that have been shunned by our society for several decades. With the TP, they suddenly find a venue for expression -- usually couched in coded but pretty transparent language.

I doubt that the Tea Party, a brotherhood that welcomes near- or clear-sociopaths of various types can purge itself of any of these elements. That inability to self-cleanse is built into its design and is therefore its strength. The right wing strategy for attaining autocratic control of the USA and its governmental, financial, human and environmental resources is built around an Atwaterian and Rovian system of lies and demagoguery, of blindsiding a society that expects a certain level of fair play in its political processes. Progressives have yet to recognize that we are in an asymmetrical political war that we are losing badly because the opposition strategy is alien to our thinking.

When the stakes are so high, it is logical to expect that a minority of bad people would find a way to circumvent the agreed upon rules in order to exploit the good faith of the majority. If we understood as much about human nature as the TP controllers, we would have predicted that eventually the new robber barons and greedy elite would figure out how to change the rules in their favor -- even without our knowing it. So much for our own intelligence and our ability to learn from experience or even logic.

We can only hope that enough righteous citizens eventually recall our fundamental values and principles and work to reeducate our dumbed-down and frightened populace. We are now running on ethical fumes. It has been pointed out that today's Freshmen entering university were born in 1991. All they really know about what America means they learned from the Bush administration and the continuation of his authoritarian policies under Obama.

The commodification of our educational system was another piece on the right wing's invisible game board that we have failed to defend against. Public education is critical to creating a base of good citizens with shared values. Instead of fighting hard for it, we caved in on taxes and privatization, pushing civic-mindedness out to the woodshed. It's our own fault that we are well down the road to fascism and increased violence against scapegoats and minorities.

Fascist Threat

By seabury lyon | October 23, 2010 - 11:45am GMT

I have no special credentials other than having lived for more than 70 yrs and being a news/politics junkie since I built my first radio on our family farm in 6th grade. I can only respond to Robinson's article and Moor's comment with a full-throated RIGHT ON!!!

I haven't been this worried about the survival of our democracy since the "duck and cover" drills at school in WW II -and then in the 60's as the cold war heated up with the convincing threat of nuclear annihilation.

I live in a very rural community of about 300 full-time residents and was recently yanked back to those terrors I felt as a kid. I got into a chat last spring with a local fellow whom I like and consider as "a good guy". We got to concerns about the terrible state of our political climate and he responded without missing a beat that he "wouldn't be surprised at all to see armed conflict in America soon because of it".

My blood ran cold but I managed to ask where he gets information that would lead him to that conclusion. He replied "oh y'know the usual guys... Limbaugh, Beck, Savage... they know what's really happening to this country... we've got a little group around here if you want to stop by for early coffee... really good guys".

Sorry for the length of this note, but I'm worried sick and I need help to focus on the real, ROOT CAUSE for this impending calamity to head it off. I think about this way more than I want to, but I NEED to. I think the real Root Cause is found in the body of an unholy alliance Robinson points to: corporatists, militarists and theocrats.

Combining the deep pockets and amply demonstrated greed of nonhuman, non-humane corporations with the power and reach of our military and now paramilitary forces is bad enough. Add the emotional gunpowder of theocratic opportunists and we're looking into the muzzle a beast familiar to those of us who remember, or read enough. But it's now an updated and uniquely powerful beast. Even our ability to communicate about it through our national media is being attacked by it behind a smoke screen of corporate and ideological propaganda.

There is a powerful antidote provided in our Constitution, Declaration and Bill of Rights -but are there enough of us who will make the time to read them, know them and focus action based on them in an effective defense? That's what keeps me up at night, and writing long, anguished comments like this.

sslyon

Thank you for being an alarmist

By Mark Erickson | October 24, 2010 - 12:37am GMT

I immensely enjoyed and was educated by your previous series on fascism. Using Paxton's criteria is essential to avoid ignorant name-calling. At that time, I thought, yes, it is possible. But with a year of events behind us, getting to know Tea Party candidates for office, and further probing of who and what the Tea Party is have calmed my worries about the possibility of a new American fascism. I'd argue that the three quick questions have "no" answers at this time.

For question #1. First, the most important point that we've now found out is that the Tea Party is the base of the Republican Party. They are the conservative foot-soldiers that the GOP uses for every election, tosses them a bone when they win power, and then ignores them until the next election. The "non-partisan" myth of the TP is just that they are against the elites of both parties. Their ideologies are in perfect alignment with conservative Republicans.

Second, the Tea Party isn't a political party. At the grass roots, it is several national or semi-national organizations that are funded by Republican operatives, trying to capture and direct a free-for-all hoge-poge of local activists. And these national orgs are basically competing against each other for market share. At the candidate level, Tea Party is just a another code word to signal voters that they are conservative Republicans who hate government. These candidates have all entered the Republican primaries. I'm only knowledgeable about the US Senate TPers, but I would be shocked if any US House TPers are running on a third party ticket or as a write-in. Maybe at the State level, but I doubt it.

Third, again discussing the US Senate candidates, even if all of the Tea Party candidates are elected, they still wouldn't have a major influence on the political scene. Yes, our system gives ridiculous power to every individual Senator, but try to name one policy that those TPers would unite on and get through just the Senate that isn't already a GOP priority. And it's not just the lack of cohesion between these candidates, but the lack of a coherent policy vision from any of them.

It is almost trivial that some of them are whack-jobs. Even if none of them were, the TP wouldn't be a major influence on politics outside of primary races against establishment GOP candidates. As an aside, the only TP US Senate candidate that scares me is Joe Miller. Even before the hand-cuffing incident, he fits the bill as a proto-fascist.

#2. The economic and constitutional systems aren't blocked. An example of economic blockage would be mass extended strikes or lock-outs, trade wars, big businesses allowed to fail, severe labor shortages that require large scale immigration, etc. Sure, it's hard to pass controversial laws, but that's not a blocked system. None of the three branches are undermining the others and federalism isn't under attack - you can ignore the Tenthers. And if the election of 2000 didn't cause our constitutional system to implode, nothing sort of civil war will. Powerful people just have too much to lose from even the threat of revolution.

#3 Mid-term elections haven't had more than 40% turnout since 1970. A stunning turnout would be 50%. That's not massive political mobilization. And the TP certainly is not threatening to escape the control of elites. Hell, elites are financing them. And who would the "tough helpers" be? The militia movement is dangerous from a lone terrorist, but suppressing dissent? No way.

Again, thanks for your vital work. I just don't see it right now. I'll check back in after the election and I would be very interested in more info on House TP candidates.

You contradict yourself.

By Jason Gonella | October 24, 2010 - 11:04pm GMT

The fact that you included libertarians in your description of the component factions of the tea party should actually undermine your argument that the tea party represents a fascistic development in American politics. There are many indicators that would support your argument, but including libertarians in any indicator that does is self-contradictory.

Of course there are elements other than libertarians in the Tea Party movement. If it was purely libertarian then Sarah Palin and Glen Beck would not be involved in it.

You should be looking to libertarians as fellow travelers, we've been warning about an upcoming fascism for a long time now ... but we said it no matter which indistinguishable party was currently dominant which means half the time we were useless to you.

examples of fascism?

By Alex von T | October 26, 2010 - 12:35pm GMT

The problem I have with assertions of "fascism" is that it is associated with the horrific evils of Nazi Germany. I think there are social and legal safeguards against this. The term inflames the debate and detracts from the credibility of the party making the argument. Unless one gets more specific and gives other examples of fascist regimes and talks about how that history could be repeated here, i.e. by what processes and with what results, it's not a meaningful argument.

I think there is a real danger of fascism. That means attacks on minority rights and political dissent (including imprisonment and disappearing), expensive and pointless wars to distract opposition with claims about national security, and ultimately a collapse of the nation's status in the world when society rises up to resist and the resources used to bully other countries and its own citizens are expended. But it's kind of a distraction to raise fears of concentration camps and genocide. Overstating the case causes reasonable people to reject the argument, which is not helpful.

Obviously the right-wingers will use propaganda buzzwords like "totalitarianism" to label their opponents, and obviously this is ridiculous. Totalitarianism involves the suppression of debate by eliminating dissent and channels of dissent. Nothing like this happens in America (or any democracy, even in Italy where the prime minister owns a media network). False claims of moral equivalence are a standard tactic used to deflect criticism.

a few short comments and a question

By Kim Cooper | October 30, 2010 - 1:39pm GMT

Sara said, "The future these people have in mind for us is one that dozens of countries have already lived through;..."
What countries are we talking about here? Just curious.
Alex said, "Totalitarianism involves the suppression of debate by eliminating dissent and channels of dissent. Nothing like this happens in America." I disagree with this: the dissenting opinions have been largely silenced by the mere fact of all the major media outlets being owned by right wing corporations with right wing agendas. In modern MoneyAmerica, there is no need to suppress when you can just buy them out.

I see the current problem is that the people on the left seem to be anti-strategy. We just don't like thinking ahead, planning, or being organized. We don't like to think and act strategically. So the right strategizes circles around us. It's not that we are incapable, it's that we are unwilling. We would rather be "gentlemen" and lose.

Rate It! (0)
edit
reply

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Access News Service

Saturday, October 30, 2010