Norman Mailer in a recent article stated that he felt the United States was becoming pre-facist. I was just wondering if we could have a good debate on where people think we are headed, why, and what changes do you think will happen over the next few years?

Here is the definition of facisism btw:

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,” but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.

And here is some background info on Norman Mailer if you do not know who he is:

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/nmailer.htm

ed to add in content.

i'm not sure what i'd call what we're becoming, but i wouldn't say we're nearing facism or anything like that.

to keep it simple, i think that part of ensuring freedom and liberties sometimes involves temporarily losing some of those freedoms and liberties when they can be viewed as exploitable vulnerabilities.

that of course assumes major freedoms aren't just taken away or restricted to the point of being non-existant, but to this point i haven't experienced any major shifts in how things like freedom of the press and freedom of speech are handled. as long as you don't outright threaten the government you can get away with pretty much anything, and i think that's pretty reasonable given the circumstances. also, as i understand it, it has always been standard procedure that in times of war/crisis restrictions against threatening the government are the status quo, and not something new.

this isn't to say everything the government is doing is correct, but generally speaking, i think the path we're taking is pretty reasonable.

just a few bits concerning my take on the general situation.

andy

Thank you for the response. I have heard good arguments on many sides of the issue and haven't really decided. On the one hand, I see the current attacks against freedoms and liberties a national disgrace. I do not think they are aimed at the appropriate problem and I think one could argue our foreign policy in the Reagan years has done more to incite terrorism against our country than anything our citizens have done personally. I think it is moving our country in the wrong direction, but I feel we could easily change that in the next election. So I think maybe Mailer's view is temporary more than long lasting. I have never had a problem with conservative ideas but no conservative thought seems to be in this current administration.

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being or at least until election time comes. If addressing the problems of our nation is not a concern to them, then I guess hopefully, someone will step up to the plate. I have never faulted those in government, because I know the policies are the real problems not always the people. Diffusion of responsibilty happens too often in goverment and corporate structures. And misguided/poorly written legistlation can cause problems depending on those interpreting it and applying it. I am still open to hear any new/different ideas on our current nation status.

What is now readily apparent to many is what the United States has always been. In other words, nothing has changed.

i totally agree, but my problem with taking that stance alone, which many do, is that it doesn't address the immediate problem in my eyes.

even if we truly changed our foriegn policy today in whatever ways it would need to be changed to head off future problems, that won't all of a sudden make those parts of the world that hate us, like us...which means there will still be a threat to the US, and we'll still have to deal with it in some way. in other words, fixing our foriegn policy doesn't make the consqeuences to our past actions go away. changing our foriegn policy is only part of the solution...other parts including some of the steps being taken that seem 'facist' to some.

i'm personally tired of people saying 'fix our foriegn policy and you'll fix the problem'. in the long run that might be partially true, but it doesn't solve any of our immediate problems, no matter if we're to blame for them or not.

andy

I have to disagree with you Andy... from my vantage point, I see the machinery of politics turning more to fascism. Is it that large of a leap of logic to assume that if this recession continues, the eventual answer of the Bush Administration will be to assume control of certain factors of production? Already, our government and military/industrial complex are linked. We have former energy executives making policy, and cronies of M/I heads running wars.

It's de facto fascism. This is what happens when you appoint businesspeople to Cabinet offices, and elect them to office. Already, liberties are being seen as "expendable" because of a war we're not in. The only war we're in is the "war on terror," which is akin to saying we must suspend rights because we're also at war with crime or at war with drugs.

We have to have liberty -- that is essential. Security comes from balanced foreign policy, intelligent domestic policy and removing the causes of problems -- not trying to constrain and control the behaviour of individuals.

Okay but again long term solutions won't resolve our short term problems.

I think the problem is, we are taking an old philosophy that doesn't work, and multiplying that times 10.

I'm not saying we shouldn't change the policies, because we should, but just because we do it won't remove our current enemies.

Actually, if our foreign policy was based on removing our "actual" enemies, we would be making some progress. Not to mention our gov created them under Reagan. Now we are just repeating the same failed policies.

That's what I'm saying, we SHOULD change the policies. But, we have to simultaneously deal out the enemies we have already made.

Agreed. The problem is they aren't doing that. They are trying to create another arms race and cold war. How far can you turn back the clock? Not to mention, Iraq's neigbors have enough man power/weapons to blow Iraq several times over. I think it would be cool if both Israel and the arab nations could fight side by side in this war. Maybe they could learn to work together for a common cause. Saddam won't be missed by anyone. And we will still have to solve the Palestian conflict to restabilize that region. Then there is North Korea. We are not headed in the right direction, we are regressing. imo.

If you keep yourself updated to any of the arab meetings they broadcast it's funny because Iraq is always pushing ideas that their neighbor states are always very uncomfortable with, especially considering the secular vs. fundamental outlooks Iraq draws against its neighbors. I believe Iraq's statement to Kuwait at the last meeting was "Your alliance to the US (which saved them from Iraq) an alliance to the devil." I believe they got a response out of the United Arab Emirates that was something along the lines of "Your every action marks you as much infidels as those who do not serve Alah." The delegates walked out in a fume.

Seeing Israel allied with the Arabs? Hah. It wasn't too long ago that the Arab nations refused to allow Coke in their countries if a Coke bottling plant was established in Israel.

Haha. Well, I have relatives that are missionaries in the United Emirate States, maybe they could educate me on that region. There are Arab states which are trying to become more democratic. I think democracy will come to this region regardless of our actions eventually.

Not to mention, if we allowed those in the region to participate in the war, it would give at least some legitmate cause for our actions. It would not look like some great nation sweeping down and dealing on a country, but a coaltion of interests in that region, fighting for a common cause. What you will have in Iraq after the war, will be similar to what happened when the USSR broke up. All those little ethnic groups/factions will want to start right back where they left off.

Im from Scotland and have no idea whether America is turning fascist or whatever. But this is the only situation in which i have completely disagreed with what the president is doing and the arse-licking that Blair is up to. has anyone ever seen Blair and Thatcher in the same room??

I aint no anti-war protestor, but just now the reasons for war seem haphazard and not fully explained. Im thinking there must be something more to it... I mean they want a country (albeit ruled by a crazy, genocidal fuckhead) to disarm its weapons which go, what, an extra 30 miles? It seems to be a bit of a fuss over a war, like they are wanting it to happen...this is where I agree with France, Germany, Russia, China..hang on...its basically the other half of the world in saying "do we have to?" I dont like the idea of the worlds fate being in the hands of Bush and Blair no matter what the UN say!! The UN, an organisation formed to keep peace after WWII and now they are going to ignore them...
Im not liking this at all...


[img]www.rob-clarkson.com/duff-brewery/lionelhutz/01.jpg[/img]

Wow, nice to have some world opinion on this board for a change. Basically, we are taking a failed policy and mulitplying it even greater. It didn't work in the 80's, it won't work now. Reagan always painted this Us vs. Them scenario and scared the American public with nuclear threats and terrorism. You now have a group of Neo-conservatives, who have adopted this pre-emptive philosophy and forced it on the American public. I think most people who are pro-war are good people and have good intentions for their ideas. I am not sure if I can say the same thing about a bunch of political hacks that are running our government. I think there has been a lot of arm twisting with regards to Colin Powell's view.

This is a step backwards for our country imo, and it will just create an arms race for those who wish to not be messed with. We stopped the Soviet Union and I do not see why we could not stop our current opposition. I think we should focus on who actually attacked our country and I think its disgraceful to use those who died in the terrorist attack here as some kind of blank check for political gain. Thats my cynical view which usually happens around this hour after viewing the world news.

Btw..If its not scottish its crap! Sorry I couldn't help myself.

I would also like to add that it is ironic that Conservatives have adopted us as the Policemen of the world, being they took an isolationist approach for the first two years of this current President's term. They also use to be the party of less gov, now they have expanded gov to its largest capacity. They use to be the party of fiscal responsibilty, now they will not even kindly tell us how much they are willing to spend. They will not even do our servicemen favors without passing pork for special interests. (I can not wait for that new tackle box). I guess it is ok to break with tradition when you have all the power?

Well Democrats used to hate blacks, things just go that way. Oh, and there's a big difference between [Iran, Iraq, N. Korea,] and the Soviet Union.

Wow, can you make a weaker argument? You are right, there is a big difference between a superpower with multiple nukes and a country full of tribal groups who fight on camels.

Sigh.



All I was saying was that the USSR had a lot more responsible leadership than does N. Korea, Iran or Iraq.

A nation with a third of its army, surrounded by foreign powers, and other nations that have the man power/technology to blow it several times over if they did do something? Am I missing something? I know they have some old soviet technology but most of the nation is not military. Under this policy, we will have to fight the world.

Gah. I'll talk about this tomorrow. Sleep now.

Its 3, sounds like a plan. nite.

Your right, Its very much like when Ronald Reagan was in charge. in the speeches Reagan made about Russia i bet you could replace the word RUssia with Iraq and it would sound like Bush!!


"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier — so long as I'm the dictator." —George W. Bush, Dec. 19, 2000 -

Thats nice to know isnt it!!!

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

[quote]Btw..If its not scottish its crap! Sorry I couldn't help myself.[/quote]

Your right, if it aint Scottish...it is CRAP!! LOL!!