>There are regimes that follow the rule of law, there are regimes that are
guided by a single personality. To me, that is the main distinction. I don't
>think it matters much whether a country is formally Fascist or Communist or
>Socialist or Capitalist, what matters is how much law there is, and how
much
>does personality (associated with the rule of strength and bullying)
matter?
>After Timothy McViegh was executed, I read in one of the papers that many
of
>the victims families were disappointed. One woman said that he simply went
>to sleep, seemingly without pain, which, she felt, was wrong. She wanted
him
>to suffer as much as he had made others suffer. She would have preferred,
as
>I recall reading, that he have explosives strapped to him and have them set
>off. She wanted him to die with great pain. To me, the article was a
>reminder. Democracy in America is never automatic. The fascist impulse will
>always be with us.
1st paragraph: That's not much of a distinction. Plenty of political regimes have/had "single personality" rule and plenty of laws (the Roman Empire comes to mind, Fascist Germany didn't stint on law-making). Considering that laws are written by people with personalities, it's hard to separate law-making from personality/ideology. Or are you concerned with the distribution/concentration of power into political or bureaucratic bodies or individuals (e.g. the presidency or, in my case, the office of the prime minister)?
2nd paragraph: Simplistic "tit for tat" justice is not necessarily part of a "fascist impulse" (although fascists might appeal to people's sense of fairness to gain adherents). Although that woman's desire to have McVeigh's crime expressed symbolically does sort of fit with fascist "rhetorical rallies" e.g. in fascist Italy, as part of a public ritual, women would give up their gold wedding bands for the good of the state, and accept iron ones, symbolically marrying the state and Leader, while donating money/material.
Todd