Thursday, August 31, 2006
This is What Fascism Looks Like
In Iraq the US military is interested in “winning hearts and minds” through public relations efforts, but not efforts directed at the Iraqi people (at least not this time). No, the military is interested in “winning the hearts and minds” of the American people. Why do I occasionally get the feeling from this administration that We the People are being treated like an enemy population?
I guess I like to highlight Ann Coulter’s amazing remarks as proof that television and print media (she’s widely syndicated) have amazingly low standards for right-wingers.
And speaking of low standards for right-wing media…
Iran is getting a lot of attention recently, especially from right-wingers who are bent on a “pre-emptive” strike. This would be based on our sterling intelligence that they are developing weapons of mass destruction, I’m sure. Or maybe it’s just based on the suspicion. Details, details.
This is all part of our War on Terror, a war that has undergone a subtle rebranding into the “War on Islamic Fascism.” I have lost count of the number of World War II analogies ignorantly and facilely thrown about by right-wing commentators. You see, this war is like World War II, apparently, a good war, a war we must win at any cost, even if we have to redefine what fascism is. This is necessary for the American people to believe so we won’t question the premise or motives of those waging the war, namely, the Bush Administration.
No, we must all be united behind our president, regardless of whether he is waging this war effectively, regardless of whether he is even really fighting the war he describes, regardless, in fact, of whether or not he is actually doing irreparable harm to the continued existence of our nation. This is to say nothing of our supposed moral authority in occupying a nation (Iraq) whose people, in poll after poll, have indicated that they want US troops out in months.
It is all linked, my friends. The president has literally made a living out of conflating Iraq with September 11th, and he is doing it still. It is little wonder that half of America still thinks Saddam Hussein planned 9/11 and was actually harboring weapons of mass destruction. Pretty soon half of America will be thinking that Adolf Hitler actually survived WWII and just changed his name to Ahmadinejad and moved to Iran.
Of course, Ahmadinejad, unlike Hitler, is hardly capable of the military endeavors WWII Germany was. And Ahmadinejad, unlike Hitler, hasn’t invaded neighboring countries, or rounded up 6 million Jews and murdered them (along with millions of others). No, Ahmadinejad’s crimes amount to violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and rattling his saber in the direction of Israel while funding small guerrilla groups to harass and terrorize Israel.
I have discussed this before. Pakistan has violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and sheltered terrorists. Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of terrorism, and the princes of Saudi Arabia don’t even hold tightly controlled elections like Iran. Algeria is a dangerous autocratic state and another haven of Islamic fundamentalism. Somalia and Afghanistan are chaotic nations rife with violence and Islamic fundamentalism. There are many nations with stable governments that are also havens for terrorists, like Egypt and, apparently, Britain.
Seeing as the occupation of Iraq has turned out so well I must ask the question: how many more Iraqs are we prepared to have? And what moral authority do we have to ceaselessly invade other nations, bringing ruin to millions and killing tens of thousands, in our determination to fight terrorism with tanks and bombers and armies?
This War on Islamic Fascism is the furthest thing from a set-piece war against Germany or Japan. And when the President comes to you and tells you that (largely because of the hundreds of billions we have spent in our wars) we no longer have the money to pay for Medicare or Social Security you shouldn’t be surprised. Of course, he has already done that.
No, this war also requires that we amend the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would never have even been ratified by a majority of the original states. Now we must do away with the troublesome fourth amendment, if necessary by executive fiat. And if the president is caught doing this based solely on his own good judgment we must tolerate it. If anyone points this out and calls it a crime they can be accused of being a left wing lunatic, like Congressman John Conyers.
Of course, John Conyers has never committed felonies, like our current administration, by explicitly ordering the warrantless surveillance of Americans in direct contravention of the law. John Conyers never ordered the invasion of another country on pretenses that were proved false, nor did he subsequently bungle its occupation to the tune of about $400 billion dollars and growing. John Conyers never lied about everything from paying attention to polls to weapons of mass destruction reports that didn’t exist. John Conyers never appointed an Arabian Horse Show Association director to be the head of FEMA, nor did he then appear shocked as FEMA proved unable to help Louisiana evacuate and rescue the citizens of New Orleans.
I see fascism in many places in the world, but, unfortunately, I also see it in my own country, as others have mentioned. I see the leaders of an entire political movement branding administration critics as “cowards” and terrorist sympathizers, from House Majority Leader Boehner to the writers at the National Review. I hear our president warn us not to engage in “irresponsible debate.” I read the National Review as its writers flirt with fascism by conditionally extolling crude violence as a solution to petty crime: “I witnessed a hue and a cry in a northern market, in which a thief was chased and then beaten. It was crude and vicious, no doubt, but more effective than, for example, the British police in their suppression of petty crime” (Theodore Dalrymple). Ah yes, if only those damned socialist British police would recognize the efficacy of violence in suppression of petty crimes. Or how about Andrew McCarthy in the same issue: “Even more inconvenient for Bush-bashers is the role of coercive interrogation tactics. It now seems clear that the audacious British plan was stopped in the very late stages…because Pakistani authorities arrested top suspect Rashid Rauf and subjected him to questioning that, to put it mildly, did not involved Miranda warnings or other enlightened practices.” See? Torture works. Let’s do it. McCarthy doesn’t say that explicitly, he just suggests that “it doesn’t make sense” for a total ban on questioning techniques that provoke pain or discomfort on the victim.
The writers at the National Review are echoed at The Weekly Standard, whose most prominent writers have endorsed the use of torture, as I’ve written about before. None of the major right-wing political journals seem to have a problem with erasing the fourth amendment, either, or waging war after war in throughout the Middle East, or in slandering critics of this plan.
Beating the war drums against foreign enemies? Check. Silencing dissent and exerting some control over domestic media? Check. Endorsing brutal measures to fight crime? Check. Ending freedoms at home (in the name of national security, of course)? Check.
This is what fascism looks like. Bill Buckley and his ilk have never given up their adoration for fascism. They’re obliged to question the worst, like Hitler, but that never stopped them from celebrating and defending August Pinochet and Roberto D’Aubuisson in the eighties, among many others. Brutality can be so effective, don’t you see? And don’t the noble ends justify the questionable means?
# posted by BitterHarvest @ 5:21 PM 
