Observing the political scene, you might sometimes wonder whether America could ever turn into a fascist state. But aside from identifying Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany as its prime examples, not everyone agrees what fascism is.
In The Anatomy of Fascism, political scientist and historian Robert O. Paxton offers his answer. Published in 2004, it’s a book that’s worth reading. Here are some of his conclusions:
“The moment has come to give fascism a usable short handle, even though we know that it encompasses its subject no better than a snapshot encompasses a person.
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence, and without ethical or legal restraints, goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
“The ideas that underlie fascist actions are best deduced from those actions, for some of them remain unstated and implicit in fascist public language. Many of them belong more to the realm of visceral feelings than to the realm of reasoned propositions:
- A sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
- The primacy of the group … and the subordination of the individual to it;
- The belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external;
- The need for authority by natural chiefs … culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny;
- The superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason;
- The beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success
- The right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint … right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.”
“Today a ‘politics of resentment’ rooted in authentic American piety and nativism sometimes leads to violence against some of the very same ‘internal enemies’ once targeted by the Nazis, such as homosexuals and defenders of abortion rights. (But) the United States would have to suffer catastrophic setbacks and polarization for these fringe groups to find powerful allies and enter the mainstream….No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance….An American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy…. Its targets would be the First Amendment, separation of Church and State, … controls on gun ownership, desecrations of the flag, unassimilated minorities, artistic license, dissident and unusual behavior of all sorts that could be labeled antinational or decadent.
We can find … (the most) ominous warning signals in situations of political deadlock in the face of crisis, threatened conservatives looking for tougher allies, ready to give up due process and the rule of law, seeking mass support by nationalist and racialist demagoguery.”
Paxton repeatedly emphasizes that fascism has always arisen in response to the perceived failure of democratic systems to deal with some crisis or other, and that its ascension to power has always required the support of existing right-wing elites, such as leading politicians, senior military officers and wealthy individuals who see fascism as a counterweight to socialism or communism.
Given the historical record, it seems doubtful that America will one day adopt fascism as its political system. For one thing, Americans tend to be individualists, which conflicts with being good fascists. Secondly, despite what some right-wingers claim, there are remarkably few socialist tendencies in our politics for fascists to define themselves against. Furthermore, as Paxton points out, a government can become authoritarian (for example, by spying on everyone and locking people up without trials) without becoming fascist.
On the other hand, given a sufficiently serious crisis and a sufficiently charismatic demagogue, it could happen anywhere.
Reblogged this on Politics In Kicks.
Frankly, it could happen if Americans are stupid enough to continue to allow the Democrats to hold any power or have any meaningful voice in our country. Their entire political machine is predicated upon the systems that define the beginning of fascism.
Like it or not, fascism is a right-wing phenomenon. The notion that Democrats are the ones displaying fascist tendencies is just silly.
Just look at the list of behaviors / indicators presented in the post. They’re all core mechanisms of the Democrats.
Actually, no Right-Wing group has EVER even attempted fascism. It’s always been a result of Leftists’ rising rapidly to power and needing to eliminate the perceived wealthy while at the same time blocking the Communists who might not favor a strong, central government.
Sorry, but you’ve misread the history. I can see where someone might look at that list of underlying tendencies, which are rather vaguely stated, and see anyone they disagree with being described by some of the items in the list (thinking, for example, that Democrats view Obama as their supreme leader, even though that’s hardly the case). But as I wrote in the original post, Paxton emphasizes over and over that fascism has arisen in opposition to left-wing movements, when conservative elites agreed to allow fascists to share power, thinking that the fascists would help oppose the socialists or communists. There are left-wing authoritarians, of course, but fascism is a militaristic, expansionist, racist, right-wing variety of authoritarianism. Hitler and Mussolini were the prime examples, using street violence at first to intimidate people they identified as left-wingers. Franco worked with the fascists to fight the left in the Spanish Civil War.
If you’re really interested, I suggest reading the book.
For another opinion, here’s the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on fascism (which does later state that some commentators prefer seeing fascism as a combination of right and left-wing tendencies):
“Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community, relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles. Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation and asserts that stronger nations have the right to obtain land and resources by displacing weaker nations.”
Very interesting post. I’ve been contemplating sociopathic behaviors (my latest Norwegian readings are related.) I found this ‘mild’ definition of sociopath which, I think, echoes at least the essence of fascism.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Sociopath: Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.
Postulate: every idea from the left is bad. How can we ever be sure until I see an idea from the right. But what comes from the right? Where are alternatives? Where is substance? I’m starting to suspect that no new ideas have ever come from the right! Only rancor and name calling. Exactly what you would expect from a petulant toddler whose brain is immature. Or a sociopath; or a psychopath.