the F word
I'm aware that I'm inviting trouble with this post, but I can't resist.
A lively dinnertime conversation a few days ago reminded me that there is a tendency... within various extreme corners and difficult-to-classify regions of the political universe... to overuse the word "fascism". Let me first say that I did indeed perceive some frighteningly fascist tendencies in the previous American presidency: a clear movement toward unlimited executive authority, lack of transparency, disregard for individual rights, frequent reliance on the words "patriotism" and "security" and demonization of others in order to justify just about anything... these things are all scarily reminiscent of that most difficult period in mid-twentieth century European history, and I get the impression that the majority of Americans actually noticed that eventually (albeit, belatedly). That said, I prefer to avoid using the "F word" in most conversations, because the historical baggage it carries is often more distracting than informative. A few months ago, a post on Megan McArdle's blog made this point much better and more amusingly than I could have managed, so I'd like to quote the post here in full. It begins by quoting a post from someone else, which in the present context will be a post within a post within a post... you'll forgive me the recursion. I've added emphasis in a couple of places.
Just say no to F-Bombs (31 Mar 2009 07:31 am)
As in, using the word "fascist" to apply to the current, or indeed previous, administration. David Henderson writes:
President Obama has done something far more serious. He has already, in less than 100 days, moved the U.S. economy further towards fascism. Sean Hannity and other critics keep criticizing Obama for his socialist leanings. But the more accurate term for many of his measures, especially in the financial markets and the auto market, is fascism.
Here's what Sheldon Richman writes about "Fascism" in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society's economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the "national interest"--that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
How is this helpful? Has clarifying the distinction between fascism and socialism really added to most peoples' understanding of what the Obama administration is doing? All this does is drag the specter of Hitler into the conversation. And the problem with Hitler was not his industrial policy--I mean, okay, fine, Hitler's industrial policy bad, right, but I could forgive him for that, you know? The thing that really bothers me about Hitler was the GENOCIDE. And I'm about as sure as I can be that Obama has no plans to round up millions of people, put them in camps, and find various creative ways to torture them to death.
If he does, look, I take it all back. Use the F-word freely. Hell, I'll hide you in our spare bedroom when the state police squads come looking for you. But until then, can we stick to less inflammatory terms? Surely creative and intelligent adults can find ways to critique Obama without pointing out that Hitler was also a very effective speaker.
It's a sledgehammer, you see. People don't use this word because they think its dictionary definition best matches what they're talking about --- they use it because it has an impact. It makes the argument more foreceful, but it doesn't make it better.
A lively dinnertime conversation a few days ago reminded me that there is a tendency... within various extreme corners and difficult-to-classify regions of the political universe... to overuse the word "fascism". Let me first say that I did indeed perceive some frighteningly fascist tendencies in the previous American presidency: a clear movement toward unlimited executive authority, lack of transparency, disregard for individual rights, frequent reliance on the words "patriotism" and "security" and demonization of others in order to justify just about anything... these things are all scarily reminiscent of that most difficult period in mid-twentieth century European history, and I get the impression that the majority of Americans actually noticed that eventually (albeit, belatedly). That said, I prefer to avoid using the "F word" in most conversations, because the historical baggage it carries is often more distracting than informative. A few months ago, a post on Megan McArdle's blog made this point much better and more amusingly than I could have managed, so I'd like to quote the post here in full. It begins by quoting a post from someone else, which in the present context will be a post within a post within a post... you'll forgive me the recursion. I've added emphasis in a couple of places.
Just say no to F-Bombs (31 Mar 2009 07:31 am)
As in, using the word "fascist" to apply to the current, or indeed previous, administration. David Henderson writes:
President Obama has done something far more serious. He has already, in less than 100 days, moved the U.S. economy further towards fascism. Sean Hannity and other critics keep criticizing Obama for his socialist leanings. But the more accurate term for many of his measures, especially in the financial markets and the auto market, is fascism.
Here's what Sheldon Richman writes about "Fascism" in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society's economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the "national interest"--that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
How is this helpful? Has clarifying the distinction between fascism and socialism really added to most peoples' understanding of what the Obama administration is doing? All this does is drag the specter of Hitler into the conversation. And the problem with Hitler was not his industrial policy--I mean, okay, fine, Hitler's industrial policy bad, right, but I could forgive him for that, you know? The thing that really bothers me about Hitler was the GENOCIDE. And I'm about as sure as I can be that Obama has no plans to round up millions of people, put them in camps, and find various creative ways to torture them to death.
If he does, look, I take it all back. Use the F-word freely. Hell, I'll hide you in our spare bedroom when the state police squads come looking for you. But until then, can we stick to less inflammatory terms? Surely creative and intelligent adults can find ways to critique Obama without pointing out that Hitler was also a very effective speaker.
It's a sledgehammer, you see. People don't use this word because they think its dictionary definition best matches what they're talking about --- they use it because it has an impact. It makes the argument more foreceful, but it doesn't make it better.