Skip to content
Categories:

In the fascist spin room

Post date:
Author:

Guest post by Steve M.

A couple of days ago, in a post about Jonah Goldberg’s intellectually bankrupt but disturbingly influential Liberal Fascism, Jesse Taylor made a good point about what’s going on in politics now:

… what Goldberg has done is provide intellectual cover for a growing meme: Obama is the leader of a new fascist revolution….

The Goldbergian view of fascism … is that the marriage of any measurable popularity whatsoever to any state action whatsoever outside the boundaries of Reaganite conservatism is de facto fascist. The point was … to … provide a way to brand any popular Democrat or liberal as the handmaiden of evil….

The term has been neutered, left to describe nothing and everything at once and to turn even the most basic of campaign traditions – rallies, fundraising, sloganeering – into the drumbeat of tyranny….

That’s absolutely right — after two straight presidential elections in which the GOP argument could be boiled down to Look at the freak! Everybody hates him!, Republicans are now facing a candidate who — horrors! — inspires genuine enthusiasm, and their response is a unified cry of “FASCISM!!!” And there’s nothing more to their warning cry than that. No one’s liberties need to be curbed. No new instruments of power need to be created. Fascism is just nonconservatism (i.e., any amount of government intervention Ayn Rand wouldn’t approve of) plus popularity. That’s it. That’s the full right-wing definition of the term in 2008.

The only question I have is which approach the Republicans would have used if Hillary Clinton had been this year’s Democratic nominee. I think if she’d won easily by February or March, they’d be going with Look at the (hippie lezbo) freak (with fat ankles)! On the other hand, if she’d managed to win after that long primary fight, having become a hero to blue-collar whites, Republicans would now be saying that it’s typical fascist behavior for a would-be dictator to whip up frenzied crowds of angry workers.

And all those PUMA women — they wouldn’t be right-wing heroines, courted by John McCain’s female surrogates; Goldberg himself would be telling us that they, like Hillary, are fascists because they’re feminists, “people who want to reduce the independence and sovereignty and influence of the family,” people who are obsessed with “breaking into the bunker of the nuclear family, cracking its shell and getting the state in there.” Republicans would be mining their life stories for evidence of fascist feminism (e.g., living in a commune forty years ago) and brandishing it on Fox News on a daily basis. And Goldberg would probably reissue his book with its original Hillary-baiting subtitle.

(Cross-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

Comments

  • MsJoanne

    says:

    The Republicans have nothing. McCain offers nothing. Every spot or discussion regarding the election is pro or anti Obama. There is no McCain. He’s as vacant in this election as his ideas are.

    There is not one policy statement by Obama or any Republican. Obama offers ideas and concepts and McCain slams Obama.

    This is the oddest thing I can remember. I have read Dole did the same thing but I don’t recall that.

    I’m baffled by this. Especially right now with all the major ills in this country. How could a candidate expect to get votes with NO POLICIES?

    Clue me in here.

  • Michael W

    says:

    MsJoanne:

    There is not one policy statement by McCain or any Republican. Obama offers ideas and concepts and McCain slams Obama.

    There, it’s fixed now.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    Hilarious. Next they’ll suggest Obama could prove he isn’t an Islahomofascist by telling half of his supporters to vote for McCain. Not that McCain needs the votes or anything. He’s popular. Well, not popular, popular. But he’s a man of the people.

    But not too many people.

    Yeah.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    MsJoanne

    I’m baffled by this. Especially right now with all the major ills in this country. How could a candidate expect to get votes with NO POLICIES?

    The Republicans have policies. They are just bad policies, or policies which don’t do as promised.

    Their number one propaganda policy is to keep us safe from terrorism. Of course their policies do the opposite.

    Bush succeeded for a while by supporting the policies of the religious right. In the long run this might have cost the Republicans more than they gained.

    McCain still pursues policies which benefit the main Republican base. His tax plans do even more than Bush to benefit the top one tenth of one percent. You might not like it, and it might be a bad policy, but this is a policy which does get people to vote Republican. While this is a relatively small number of voters, it is magnified by convincing far more than those in the top tenth of one percent that McCain’s tax policies benefit them.

  • Racer X

    says:

    McCain doesn’t show us any policies because he’s afraid to. And because the ones he has now are about 1 year old, and completely at odds with his previous ones. The ones he does talk about are a mile wide and an inch deep, designed to get the drooling hordes riled up. It’s almost comical. If the press would do their job and tell people about McCain’s pandering and lying, he’d be pulling close to Bush’s polling numbers.

    But Noooooooo…..

  • beep52

    says:

    It is interesting that republicans use the terms far-left, liberal, socialist, hippies, communists and fascist to describe democrats as if they were interchangeable. The only commonality is intent; all are meant to demean non-conservatives as anti-American and dangerous.

    I’ve always thought of fascism as a confluence of extreme nationalism, corporate interests, the military, internal police and a single-party, intolerant state. Sounds a lot more like modern American conservatism than anything else. But in truth, the term is basically meaningless anymore.

  • jen

    says:

    Obama has moved to the center to attract votes. McCain has moved into movieland to attract votes. He’s doing the best he can to fuse Rambo, John Wayne and Bruce Willis in Die Hard. I expect him to do public push ups soon.

  • IludiumPhosdex

    says:

    From “beep52:”

    It is interesting that republicans use the terms far-left, liberal, socialist, hippies, communists and fascist to describe democrats as if they were interchangeable. The only commonality is intent; all are meant to demean non-conservatives as anti-American and dangerous.

    Just like back in the salad days of Joe McCarthy’s Red Scare in the 1950’s, when anyone holding viewpoints suspected of being “un-American” was almost always (and arbitrarily) considered as a “Communist”–and, in some states, likely to be a candidate for the state insane asylum under the mental-hygiene laws as then prevailed.

    And with no opportunity being given in the insanity hearings to challenge the claims of “Communistic tendencies,” “Communistic sympathies” or whatever; the deck was all the more likely to be stacked against you, all the more certain to be subjected to cruel, sadistic and degrading “treatments” as included straitjackets, electroshock, insulin shock, “surprise” baths, padded cells, fear and loathing and general psychoemotional abuse in a “fight-fire-with-fire” climate as sometimes crossed the line into outright sexual abuse, even prostitution in some notorious instances.

  • Always hopeful

    says:

    The Republican base doesn’t do policies. It’s not that they don’t have any, because they do and they are vile for the most part. They campaign on FEELING. IMO there are two kinds of people in the U.S. right now: feelers and thinkers. Most liberals care about FACTS, and yes, policies. That’s why we have such a hard time getting anywhere with Republican voters. Their ship is going down in flames, but they are still relishing the vision of Capt. McCain standing on the prow wrapped in a flag held on by a lapel pin.

    Case in point: Ashcroft telling the Senate after a diatribe about the “process working”, I can just stand up, with my hand over my heart and pledge allegience to the flag right now! (I’m paraphrasing). They are emotional people and love to have their tears jerked.

  • Always hopeful

    says:

    The same goes for the religious right. Their entire worship services are about zoning out in song and crying to Jesus.

    When my son was about 4 I took him to church (a traditional congregation) and I took him out of the nursery to go home a moment early. We had to pass through the foyer to get to the door and I told him to be quiet because the service was still going on. He looked at me and said “….and they be singing and crying to Jesus in there??” His baby sitter had taken him to a Southern Baptist church several times, you see…from the mouths of babes!

    They also believe that optimism (which a therapist once told me one had to bend reality to be consistently) is the way to live a long and happy life.

  • masslib

    says:

    “And all those PUMA women — they wouldn’t be right-wing heroines, courted by John McCain’s female surrogates”

    No, they wouldn’t be. Idiot.

  • Gridlock

    says:

    beep said I’ve always thought of fascism as a confluence of extreme nationalism, corporate interests, the military, internal police and a single-party, intolerant state.

    I totally agree beep. And that DOES describe the GOP in its current state. For a party that is against is supposedly against big government and for individualism, how do you explain the Dept. of Homeland Security, wiretapping around FISA, politicizing the Justice Dept. (among others), obsessing over flagpins, etc. etc.

  • leo

    says:

    So I get it: Fascist means a successful D/democrat! It’s really quite simple.

    (On the plus side, at least they’re not calling us communists anymore.)

  • Rich

    says:

    My guess is that most Americans have no idea what liberal, fascist, socialist, communist, libertarian means. All, except ‘conservative’, are conflated to be something negative and SCARY, and therefore unacceptable in any case. A triumph of propaganda.

    The hordes aren’t going to rise up. 80% of the potential voters already know how they’re going to vote and nothing will change their minds. The remaining 20% will decide the “election”. I would love to think Obama would win this in a landslide, despite my disappointment in him over FISA, but that’s highly unlikely. The closer it is, the more likely it is we will have another stolen election.

  • Final Notice

    says:

    totally agree beep. And that DOES describe the GOP in its current state. For a party that is against is supposedly against big government and for individualism, how do you explain the Dept. of Homeland Security, wiretapping around FISA, politicizing the Justice Dept. (among others), obsessing over flagpins, etc. etc.

    You explain it because it is true Repig strategy to the core. They simply and adamantly accuse the opposition of doing or being what it is that THEY are doing/being. Rank hypocrisy at its finest. Pure classical psychological projection that they hope fools the fools. Fascism? Who’s got fascism? Could it be………bu$$h and DICK?

    Lets examine the evidence:
    1.Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

    2. Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarceration of prisoners, etc.

    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into 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.

    4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military are glamorized.

    5. Rampant sexism – Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

    6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

    7. Obsession with National security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

    8. Religion and Government are intertwined – Government in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

    9. Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation are often the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

    10. Labor Power is suppressed
    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
    14. Fraudulent Elections

    Benito Mussolini – who knew something about fascism – had a more straightforward definition: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

    Let the PEOPLE decide. Who does this remind us of?

    Though I’m sure Goldberg knows a LOT about being a fascist, his attempts to paint others with the brush of guilt upon which he and his ilk have used to refine and define their socio-political power structure, is a comical farce.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    The Republicans know as much about fascism as they do about conservatism, as they do about what goes on behind the zipper on their fly – zippo.

  • libra

    says:

    Goldberg himself would be telling us that they, like Hillary, are fascists because they’re feminists, — Steve M

    No, no, no! They wouldn’t be *fascists*; they’d be feminazis. A world of difference (well… half of Europe, anyway).

    Sigh… Repubs could profit *so much* from studying languages (etymology, in particular)… But, I guess, that would be an un-American thing to do…

  • beep52

    says:

    Etymology? Etymology? Must be some kind of commie-fascmodic-socio-fem-elitism word cause nobody says that ’round here!

  • Lance

    says:

    RonChusid said: “The Republicans have policies. They are just bad policies, or policies which don’t do as promised.”

    Actually, they are bad policies that you wouldn’t want to have do what the Republican’ts want. Like Social Security Privitization.

    That’s their problem. Lincoln Chaffee found that out in 2001, when Darth Cheney told him that the election was over and their promised policies were NOT to be implemented.

  • Aaron

    says:

    No one’s liberties curtailed? How about my liberty to set my thermostat at 74 in the winter and 65 in the summer if I want? What about my liberty to use cheaper incandescent lightbulbs if that is what I choose to purchase? What about my liberty to drive a 9 MPG SUV if I decide I can afford it? These liberties would all be taken away by using the new instrument of power that would be a cap-and-trade system on the perfectly natural (and necessary) gas called carbon dioxide? (Curtailed by Kyoto or some similar policy) What about my liberty to pursue happiness and wealth that would be curtailed by wealth redistribution policies clothed as income taxes? What about the liberty of radio station operators to put on the air hosts that attract ratings, and therefore business? (Curtailed by the “Fairness Doctrine” aka the “We Know You Don’t LIKE to Listen to Keith Olbermann, but we’ll make you” doctrine) What about my liberty to choose my own doctor, if my efforts have resulted in a level of affluence that allow it? (Curtailed by universal single-payer health care).

  • R.T.Thaddeus

    says:

    Final Notice: Your expository on the oxymoron “liberal fascism” trope is brilliant. Orwell pointed out in “1984” this trick of accusing your opponents of what you yourself are doing. Via the concept of “Doublespeak”: “War is Peace. Love is Hate” etc., he illustrated this authoritarian mind bending that reduced people to terrified ciphers. Hence the concept of “liberal fascism” accuses liberals of doing what the Bush Administration and the right have been doing for years.

    Liberalism and Fascism by definition are opposites or “oxymorons.” That Goldberg’s book is “influential” my question is, “To whom?” If it’s to conservatives that is understandable. Modern Conservatism is bereft of any semblance of lucidity, morality or common sense. Conservatives are classic “reactionaries” so labeled originally by Marxists but never-the-less a perfectly accurate description of the ideology. Reaction, resistance, projection and paranoia. That is the essence of the modern Right and Goldberg is an example of the pitiable state of their intellectualism and their philosophy.

  • beep52

    says:

    Aaron @ 23: You do realize that on a planet of finite resources, if everyone were to pursue the excesses you describe as “liberties,” your “freedom” to pursue your excesses would be restricted, right? Hello.

  • Aaron

    says:

    so the things that I want to do are “excesses” because you believe that some of these resources are finite? So is gold, whoever gets it first or is willing to pay for it gets it. It’s called “incentive to achieve”, and the total collapse of every Marxist government ever proves that it is necessary because people will always collectively and ultimately act in their best interest, regardless of how altruistic they may seem to be or intend to be

  • beep52

    says:

    Nice try, but no cigar. Your excesses are such because it is not necessary to set your thermostat to 65 in the summer, or drive a 9 mpg SUV just because you can. It has nothing to do with incentive to achieve and everything to do with short-sighted, selfish arrogance.

  • Aaron

    says:

    thank you Karl for identifying my Bourgeois (sp?) “excesses”. Doesn’t your broadband internet and cable TV with its MarxSNBC fall into the same category? The fact is that we need wealth and the wealthy so that there something to aspire to. BTW, I have my thermostat at 72 year-round and drive a Toyota Corolla, but that is because I would rather spend $1000 of my hard earned money on a set of golf clubs, which I am happy to have the ability to do, and feel no guilt or shame about that or the 36 holes of golf I will play on Sunday.

  • bubba the troll you all love to hate

    says:

    WOW.. I was going to comment on this thread but there are too many big words here.. Im at a lost… Do you guys stay up all night with Rogers Thesauris just to try and impress one another.. Im surely impressed, hell I got lost about number four through final notices rant.. you guys are the best. I bet your pol/sci profs, gave you all A’s. Well i will move on to another thread that I can understand, please try and use plain english so I can join in the fun..
    Bubba Said that…..

  • libra

    says:

    WOW.. I was going to comment on this thread but there are too many big words here.. Im at a lost… — Bubba the troll, @ 29

    I can see you are… Though I always thought that “big words” meant ones of more that one syllable and 4 letters (loss/lost).

    Do you guys stay up all night with Rogers Thesauris just to try and impress one another.. — Bubba

    Nah. One of the attractions of this site is the fact that the commenters (in general, if not in every particular) match the blogger in the brains department. I never have to worry about using a fancy word or phrase because I know that everyone — except for an occasional troll from the other side of the political and educational divide — will either know it already, know where to check if they don’t, or ask if checking doesn’t produce results

    […] please try and use plain english so I can join in the fun.. — Bubba

    You think that all of us should forgo our fun and dumb down the conversation to the “My Pet Goat” level just for your sake? That would be undemocratic. How about you try to improve yourself instead? You might be able to catch up with us, by-and-by…

  • joey

    says:

    Sorry Aaron…but in a democracy you have a responsibility to the common good. With man eating bears outside you shouldn’t expect people to understand your sense of privilege to open all the doors and windows because you’d like more air. Your “rights” stop when your rights infringe on others rights. To even make such a statement indicates you only care about yourself and what you want to do while ignoring that you use the same roads, police, courts, etc as part of the commons but some how think you are entitiled to abuse it at will or you don’t have freedom. To do what you want U need to go live on an island where everything is made by you or get used to the that you have a responsibility to conserve like the rest of us with safe food, drugs, water, roads, right to medical and police services etc.