BZZZZT. Wrong answer Carrol. In Jims many responses in this thread the below:
(1) the idea that Bush is "fascist" is a false analogy. Unlike classical fascism (e.g., Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet), Bush is not stomping on an politically-active and class-conscious working class. Getting beyond classical fascism (as 1960s lefties often did), the word fascism gets very nebulous. [Jim Devine]
is the first concrete example I am aware of of why he doesn't want to label Bush policies as fascist. If this is his only concrete reason to oppose the use of the term I listed examples to show why he is mistaken. He is then free to label Bush policies as fascist if he wants. If he posts other concerns that are not of a personal nature they can be dealt with as well. At no time did I imply that ONE example of similarities between Bush policies and fascism was all that was needed to equate the two. You are the only one to make that leap or to assume anyone else was attempting to do so. I have also already made it known that while I have concerns about the accuracy of the charge fascism when applied to Bush and his policies they are minor so stressing them is of little importance to me. Others who claim that the differences are overwhelming or the use of the term undermines the fight against the right however are of importance to me and I wish to have them demonstrated. As of yet this has not been done in any meaningful way.
> 5) Let me repeat. Every time you call Bush a fascist you are weakening
> us in the fight against totalitarianism in this nation, because the real
> threats will come in a different form.
>
> Carrol
Please demonstrate in real terms how the use of this term undermines the work of those who oppose Bush policies. As I have said repeatedly, I am certainly open to this idea but so far, other than a handful of people who just intuitively know it does, nothing has been posted. "I know it in my gut" doesn't count for much.
John Thornton