The Consolidation of Power

Last night I had the unusual opportunity to play the conservative.  I was discussing fascism with a wealthy, liberal African - American man who was articulating the problems with the Patriot Act and other sins of the state.  I expressed that there were too many competing organizations for the state to contain too much power.   He thought I was being idealistic.  My argument was that there are too many local organizations would resist - flatly, the country is simply too large.

Coincidentally, Fr. Jake has an interesting post about fascism growing in this country.  He and I share political views on most things, although we have different vocabularies.  I remember an article that Paul Roberts, a prominent conservative, wrote about the new brownshirts.  Recently he asks "Is Bush a Sith Lord?"

Fascism was a political movement that empahsized a cult of personality, historical grievances, mass mobilization and national unity.  It worships the military, creating and affirming myths to justify its power.  Occasionally, for example, someone says to me that the military protects our rights.  If George Bush turned fascist, however, the military wouldn't stop him:  it might even participate.  American citizens, not the military, protect our rights.

Fascists occasionally side with the owners of capital, who seek to cleanse the country [say, of liberals] and spread outward [into other countries], to become more powerful.  When liberal capitalism fails, the myth of "culture" overwhelms the ideals of individuality, human rights democracy.  One crucial aspect is its hostility towards democratic socialism, which is what Mussolini's project became.   I would also argue that fascism has a profoundly masculine and vigorous character, whereas traditional conservatives might value the decadent and the luxurious, ritualistic aspects of a society held together by social codes.

So there's the definition I'm working with.

Fr. Jake then constructs a fairly nice array of evidence with his own definition.

A few individuals on his blog call him irresponsible, without commenting on the evidence, which is, in my view, evidence supporting Jake's thesis.  My favorite Political Theorist makes similar comments.   In one article, he writes that "Representative institutions no longer represent voters."  Given the public support for medical marijuana or expanding medicaid and local clinics, and the lack of enthusiasm for these ideas by elected officials, he seems entirely correct.

What is certainly true, is that we have a government based on fear.

Comments

[Jake]

You may be right; the country's just too big for the governemnt to ever grab complete control. One can only hope.

I thought this comment from Wolin's article summed up the current situation pretty well;

In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.

It's going to take some time to clean up this mess.

[Samuel]

That is the strongest argument for regional parties in the Indian context. The existence of these parties and the inevitability of coalition governments this creates is actually beneficial to India, no matter what the right wing thinks.

The state does hold too much power in India already though :)

[John wilkins]

Robert Dahl is the political theorist of pluralism or polyarchy.