Jim Devine > Does telling people that Bush is a fascist convince them that
it's bad? or does it convince them that we're wackos?
Charles Brown:> What you tell them is that the U.S. war on Iraq violates the
international law against war that was established in the Nuremburg
Trials of fascists.
Jim Devine > Why can't you mention the law-breaking, without bringing up fascism?
I don't think the question is why can't you bring up the law breaking without mentioning fascism but rather what harm or good is done by using the term. No one said you have to label Bush a fascist just that doing so does not immediately label you a wacko. [JT]
Charles Brown > Also, there have been several statements in recent months by
ministers ( I think including Bill Moyers) using the term "fascist"
and nobody but some rightwing propagandist ( or their leftwing
cohorts who are allergic to the word "fascist") has called those
ministers wackos.
Jim Devine > The ministers & Moyers have some status in this society, so they might
be heard and even listened to. I don't. If I start calling Bush a
"fascist" -- as you seem to be advocating -- I can't see it having any
major effect except to undermine my credibility.
Maybe you have the same kind of status as the ministers?
This is what it all boils down to. You believe the use of the term fascist undermines your credibility and many other people disagree with that assessment. I don't hold a strong opinion either way. Inflammatory rhetoric works for the right in many instances, the inaccuracy of their claims don't seem to do them any harm. Why shouldn't this also be true for the left? [JT]
Charles Brown > The fear of being thought of as wacko for using the term "fascist" is
paranoid and very exaggerated.
Jim Devine > It depends on the venue. With a friend, in the midst of a serious
conversation, I might bring up the term -- but I couldn't ignore those
pesky real-world differences between Bushism and fascism (see below).
If I spoke on Pacifica radio, it might be okay. Unfortunately, people
expect wild talk on Pacifica.
I do public speaking now and then. What I say depends on the audience.
I think I'd rather bring out people's own feelings about Bush -- and
argue against the idea that the Democrats are better -- than waste my
time and energy arguing that Mussolini and Bush somehow fit in the
same category.
Reasonable people may disagree about when it is appropriately to use the term fascism.
Why is this seemingly so hard to understand? If you (Jim) don't feel the label applies to the Bush regime then don't use the term but unless you can offer some concrete evidence that using the term harms any movement to undermine the right then the criticisms of its use are just a matter of personal preference. [JT]
Charles Brown > One thing left activists do is try to persuade a
lot of people to think differently about the political situation, to
change their way of thinking , not change our way of thinking to the
way a lot of people are thinking wrong.
Jim Devine > Right. But I don't see Bush as fascist. He's definitely bad.
Charles Brown >The U.S. war and blockade on Iraq (now 15 years long) is
fascist. The U.S. war on Viet Nam was fascist.
Jim Devine > what new information is added by labelling an imperialist blockade or
war "fascist"?
it makes it sound like some of that North Korean rhetoric.
Or you could say it sounds like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Zell Miller, Sen Frank Lauterberg, Rep Charles Norwood and the list goes on and on. Why compare it to North Korea when there are thousands of homegrown examples of inflammatory rhetoric that could just as easily if not more easily be label an inaccurate use of a term such as "tresaon", "communist", "fascist" or whatever? You chose North Korea as your example rather than one of the names above because you can plainly see that the use of such terms has done these individuals and their right-wing agenda no harm and may actually help them. [JT]
Charles Brown > Bush's fascist tendency is his willingness to ignore and overturn
U.S. liberal democratic principles, such as the Geneva Accords or the
U.S. Constitutional limits on search and seizure, his willingness to
steal the presidential election, and the like; and of course the
fascist wars he is waging.
You don't wait for fascism to arrive to start using the term
"fascist". You _warn_ that things are moving in a fascist direction
before fascism actually gets here. It is obviously foolish to wait
until there is actually fascism to start using the term "fascist" when
it is too late.<
Jim Devine > (I think the specifics of that badness are quite useful in
propaganda. People can connect the dots for themselves. Then we can
have an abstract discussion with such terms as "fascism.")
Is this how you get the masses motivated to action? With abstract discussions concerning the appropriate use of the term fascism? [JT]
Charles Brown > The specifics of Bush's badness have already been put before a
lot of Americans. They need a push and a jolt further saying ,
"hello, this Bush badness is getting to be comparable to those really
bad guys we were fighting in WWII." Americans need this type of
historical tutoring. They don't get it from television. You have to
connect the dots for them.
Jim Devine > maybe. But because Bush and his Boyz aren't like Mussolini, it will
likely confuse the issue.
I doubt that many people would be confused by the use of the term fascism to describe Bush policies. Many may agree or disagree but I don't see a lot of confusion ensuing. [JT]
Charles Brown > It's a suburban legend on the left that any use of the term
"fascist" makes somebody think you are crazy. Actually, the problem
is more that most Americans are so ahistorical that they don't even
know the grave significance of the word "fascist".<
Jim Devine > the ahistorical bit also infected the 1960s Left, with "fascist" being
interpreted psychologically, so that every cop was a "fascist."
This is the root of your issue with the use of the term fascist. You seem to have a near pathological resistance to using the word. Labeling Bush and his policies as fascist is not the same as labeling everything on the right as fascist. It is a word that many people feel they have a good definition of and so it has decent propaganda value. I may not think the the Bush policies are fascist in the strictest sense of the word but I think they are close. I also think no harm is done by labeling them as such. I don't claim to have the last word on when it is appropriate to us this word. If anyone can demonstrate that using the word is actually counterproductive I may modify my position. As has been repeatedly noted the misuse of terms such as treason doesn't seem to have hurt the right any.
John Thornton