On 2010-02-19, at 6:35 PM, Chip Berlet wrote:
> I am not saying the TP movement is fascist; and no, it probably will
> never become a full-blown fascist movement, and no, it will probably not
> seize state power.
[...]
> If you (Doug) can't be bothered with this discussion, can I at least garner
> your permission to answer a few more of the posts by people raising
> serious questions and pointing out flaws in my argument?
=================================
Your position, though, is unclear. You've again stated that the TO movement will "probably never become a full blown fascist movement", but you've also urged on us an overheated article to by your colleague, Sara Robinson, which argues the opposite: that "the guessing game is over" and "we are there now."
Lest I be accused of taking her comments out of context:
What many, including myself, view as the Republican leadership's hesitant and uncertain adaptation to pressures from it's angry and restless base, SR sees as a fully consummated marriage in which "America's conservative elites have openly thrown in with the country's legions of discontented far right thugs". "They have", she writes, "explicitly deputized them and empowered them to act as their enforcement arm on America's streets, sanctioning the physical harassment and intimidation of workers, liberals, and public officials who won't do their political or economic bidding."
For her, this marks "the catalyzing moment at which honest-to-Hitler fascism begins", and "it's probably too late to stop it". "From here, it escalates, as minor thuggery turns into beatings, killings, and systematic tagging of certain groups for elimination, all directed by people at the very top of the power structure." She boldly (and erroneously) prophesied such an escalation would begin after Labor Day.
By SR's reckoning, the three conditions said to mark the beginning of a fascist takeover are already present in America:
1. "Neo- or protofascisms wield major influence on the political scene";
2. "The economic and political systems are in an apparently insoluble state of blockage"; and
3. "A rapid political mobilization is threatening to escape the control of traditional elites", and they are looking for "tough helpers in order to stay in charge."
I don't at all agree with her analysis, or that we have arrived at this advanced stage. I'm perhaps readier than others on the list to see teabaggers as seeds of a future fascist movement, but have insisted it would require both that the current simmering crisis turn widely catastrophic, and that it produce a parallel growth and radicalization on the left of the political spectrum, one which would threaten the political control of the two governing bourgeois parties - none of which is in evidence.
So what are we to conclude: that your perspective accords more with mine and others who share it or with your colleague's? You'll agree it's hard to "raise serious questions and point out flaws in (your) argument" without really knowing what it is.