Hoisting the Fasces High: Obama and Fascism
I remember during the election saying that no matter who won, McCain or Obama, America would at least reap two benefits: an improved stature internationally (due to the occasionally justified and occasionally irrational hatred of Bush abroad), and an improved human rights record. Although it is too early to definitively evaluate either, it would appear we are getting neither.
I'll only briefly comment that America's allies seemed to have become comfortably accustomed to American unilateralism, and are now quite happy to tell the Yanks that they're on their own re: energy, re: Russia, re: bailouts, re: defense, re: Afghanistan, etc. etc. etc. The Germans, in particular, seemed to take particular joy in extracting concessions from the celebrity president.
Mostly I wish to comment on human rights. It find it deeply ironic that Obama has regularly been called a fascist for two of his policies: the bailout and health care. It would appear that Keynesian economics or improving a decrepit national embarrassment, respectively, makes one a fascist. I assume that the underlying logic behind these accusations is either that all redistributive taxation is fascistic, or that any and all policies enacted by the majority against the minority's desires is. Such logic needs only to be stated to be recognized as absurd.
The related claim, that Obama is a socialist, is either trivially true or trivially false. Does Obama favour taxing the wealthy more than the poor, but then using those revenues disproportionately for the poor? Clearly yes, but then again every OECD state does the same, as has every American president in recent memory. It's how modern states work. Even if you dismantled every social program, the mere fact that America uses progressive taxation (tax brackets and such) means that is employs redistribution of wealth--and hence is socialist by that definition. The other, legitimately frightening, definition of socialism is believing that the means of production be collectively controlled (i.e., by the state), but clearly Obama does not favour that by any stretch of the imagination.
Then there's fascism. I ask, simply, if indefinite detention without trial is not fascistic, what is? Note that fascism is not interchangeable with tyranny, or authoritarianism, or totalitarianism--it is a particular political ideology, one based on fear of a threat (for Italy and Germany it was communism) justifying repressive measures. The Obama DOJ, at his urging, penned a contemptible policy whereby detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere would only be tried if they felt assured of a conviction. If the admissible or available evidence could not guarantee that result, they would simply be held without trial or charge, indefinitely. I am not being unfair to the language of the drafted memo. President Obama signed off on it, quite literally.
Note that this is a direct inversion of the fundamental assumptions about the rule of law as it applies to criminal matters. The idea is that the process be invariate with the result differing; everyone gets a fair trial, and some with be convicted while others held. In this perversion, you are guaranteed to spend the rest of your life in jail--and the government will use whatever methods it must to assure that result.
I would have thought, even a few scant months ago, that such a policy would only need to be stated to be regarded as inherently anathema to any civilized democracy. Say whatever you want about the president's policies as a whole, or his presidency; I doubt I will ever be able to associate him with anything else. I am not comfortable with calling the president a fascist, but there is no doubt in my mind that some of his policies are.
I'll only briefly comment that America's allies seemed to have become comfortably accustomed to American unilateralism, and are now quite happy to tell the Yanks that they're on their own re: energy, re: Russia, re: bailouts, re: defense, re: Afghanistan, etc. etc. etc. The Germans, in particular, seemed to take particular joy in extracting concessions from the celebrity president.
Mostly I wish to comment on human rights. It find it deeply ironic that Obama has regularly been called a fascist for two of his policies: the bailout and health care. It would appear that Keynesian economics or improving a decrepit national embarrassment, respectively, makes one a fascist. I assume that the underlying logic behind these accusations is either that all redistributive taxation is fascistic, or that any and all policies enacted by the majority against the minority's desires is. Such logic needs only to be stated to be recognized as absurd.
The related claim, that Obama is a socialist, is either trivially true or trivially false. Does Obama favour taxing the wealthy more than the poor, but then using those revenues disproportionately for the poor? Clearly yes, but then again every OECD state does the same, as has every American president in recent memory. It's how modern states work. Even if you dismantled every social program, the mere fact that America uses progressive taxation (tax brackets and such) means that is employs redistribution of wealth--and hence is socialist by that definition. The other, legitimately frightening, definition of socialism is believing that the means of production be collectively controlled (i.e., by the state), but clearly Obama does not favour that by any stretch of the imagination.
Then there's fascism. I ask, simply, if indefinite detention without trial is not fascistic, what is? Note that fascism is not interchangeable with tyranny, or authoritarianism, or totalitarianism--it is a particular political ideology, one based on fear of a threat (for Italy and Germany it was communism) justifying repressive measures. The Obama DOJ, at his urging, penned a contemptible policy whereby detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere would only be tried if they felt assured of a conviction. If the admissible or available evidence could not guarantee that result, they would simply be held without trial or charge, indefinitely. I am not being unfair to the language of the drafted memo. President Obama signed off on it, quite literally.
Note that this is a direct inversion of the fundamental assumptions about the rule of law as it applies to criminal matters. The idea is that the process be invariate with the result differing; everyone gets a fair trial, and some with be convicted while others held. In this perversion, you are guaranteed to spend the rest of your life in jail--and the government will use whatever methods it must to assure that result.
I would have thought, even a few scant months ago, that such a policy would only need to be stated to be regarded as inherently anathema to any civilized democracy. Say whatever you want about the president's policies as a whole, or his presidency; I doubt I will ever be able to associate him with anything else. I am not comfortable with calling the president a fascist, but there is no doubt in my mind that some of his policies are.