Checking Off The Bush Gang Fascist Check List
Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Every time I write about the Bush gang I am reminded about this particular article on the 14 Characteristics of Fascism. As I review the history of our nation over the last 10 years, I see the growth of fascism fast becoming the norm for our society. The worst part of it is that we are still sleeping on the job and Congress--which was a cooperative and supportive partner in the fascism while the GOP controlled it--has done nothing to address this fascism and stop it in it's tracks. The need to stop the growth of fascism in our nation, and especially as it is being proffered by Bush and his merry men.
The most obvious version of this characteristic was the "Mission Accomplished" banner on board a naval vessel, with President Bush being flown in by a combat jet. But even his ordinary experiences are overly dramatized by banners, slogans and symbols. His speeches are not just filled with cliches but his arguments for remaining in Iraq and continuing with a failed strategy that illustrates the point. "Stay the course," support the troops," and "remember 9-11" are woven into every speech he has ever given in regard to the Bush Doctrine and his "war on terrorism."
The list for this particular characteristic is long, starting with the treatment of captives, detainees and prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. The murder, rape, torture and maltreatment of Iraqis, Afghanis, Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis is on record. Even the use of bombs to resolve issues concerning the the Taliban using remote areas of Pakistan is a violation of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The deliberate disregard of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Accords--even though our government insists on other nations adhering to these principles and treaties--illustrates the point very well.
Then we have the apparent suspension of habeas corpus not only for the poor bastards held at Gitmo, or flying around the world under the notion of extraordinary rendition, but also against anyone arrested under an accusation of being either a terrorist or an aid to those that might be terrorists, even if there is no proof showing that the accused had any knowledge of such.
But Bush and his merry men take this a step further and insist on employing secretive measures against US citizens, preventing certain "types" and "categories" of people from flying based on ethnic origin, religious affiliation or race rather than probable cause. The warrantless surveillance programs (note the plural), the expressed plan to open mail routinely, the collection of data from corporate records, etc.--all without probable cause, due process or the right to challenge these actions--nails the coffin shut on human rights.
Then, of course, we have the extraordinary rendition programs. Flying suspects around to countries that are known for their brutal and torturous methods of interrogation and "intelligence gathering" violates NATO, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration and our own Constitution.
The events of 9-11 solidified our nation on an emotional level, but not a spiritual or truly patriotic level. We had every yahoo possible flying numerous flags on their cars, pickups, RV, gardens and homes--most of whom never gave the flag a second thought prior to 9-11. Most of these yahoos also displayed the flag inappropriately and disrespectfully.
The effect of this emotional method of unification was that we allowed our president and our congress to give away the very democracy that we rely upon to be free and live the way we believe all people should be free to live: under a government FOR the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and answerable to the PEOPLE.
We have a long history of human rights abuses, starting with slavery and indentured servants; our treatment of freedmen and poor Southerners during Reconstruction; the entire process of institutionalizing discrimination against Blacks, Chinese, Catholics, Irish, "Hunkies" from Central Eastern Europe, Jews, Italians, Vietnamese, Camboadians, Chicanos and other Latinos; and ending with the current fearful discrimination of those from the Middle East or practicing the Muslim faith.
Our president, and the Congress that supported him, and those folks that continue to support him in the face of overwhelming evidence of immorality, unconstitutionality, scandals and failure to hear the will of the American people has led us into a pattern of human rights violations and blatant hypocrisy. We point the finger at other nations and groups for violating human rights, all the while we are breaking records for such abuses.
President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. We have seen overwhelming growth of of this complex ever since that warning. But we have seen more growth of this complex while Republican presidents and congresses have held the reins to our government.
Under the direction of Ronald Reagan we saw what the Europeans called "Cowboy Politics" and "Cowboy Diplomacy." We saw a build up and frequent use of military power and might, as well as numerous back door deals with those that sought to improve their military standing in the world, even our own enemies of the time, trading arms for hostages.
George H.W. Bush's turn at bat was not that much different. His record of abuses and manipulation of military might and "black ops" goes back to the days when he was the Director of the CIA. Old George wrapped himself in the flag and used the military might of our nation in many ways.
But George W. Bush has outspent, over spent and allowed more fraud, waste, corruption within the military-industrial complex than any previous Commander-in Chief. He has used the attacks that occurred on 9-11 to justify an indecent and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. His commitment to the buildup and use of military force under this Bush administration has gone to extremes, even defending the continuation of a flawed and failed set of strategies beyond reason.
The amount of homophobia that exists among the GOP, the Religious Right, the Christian Right in specific, and the efforts to place homophobic policies like the Marriage Amendment above more pressing and urgent issues (like the failed policies in Iraq) is extraordinary. The effort to control the interpersonal relationships of individuals willing to commit to each other in emotional, physical, spiritual and economic terms is contrary to the provisions of the First Amendment that provides for free association without any limits except those that are designed to overthrow the government, conspire to spy for a foreign entity, or other forms of treason.
The opposition to homosexual relations is primarily based on the Abrahamic religious tradition (Jews, Christians and Muslims) prohibition against homosexuality. The mere fact that this is the foundation of the outcry against same-sex relationships is evidence that the First Amendment "Establishment Clause" is being violated. But what seals the fate of this opposition is that even the Scriptural evidence offered by many of those opposing these relationships is not completely on solid grounds in terms of how we, as religious and spiritual people, should conduct ourselves in relation to others, regardless of their status before that which is held divine, versus what Scripture calls us to be as individuals. The manner in which both the Religious Right and the Political Right, both of which are led by our current president (despite some dissent), is persecuting those that hold different beliefs, customs, and values is neither moral according to Scripture or legal according to our Bill of Rights.
Further, the failure to balance the economic inequities institutionalized in terms of earnings by gender is yet another sexist issue in our society. Women, despite the decades of effort to balance earning potential, still earn 20% to 40% less than men holding comparable positions. But the Religious Right (especially the Christian Right), and the Political Right that has kowtowed to it, has opposed any and all efforts toward gender equity.
Yet, we have a divorce rate as high as anywhere else in the world (at least when all factors are held in balance). For a nation that the Christian Right claims is based upon Christian "family values," our divorce rate is evidence that such claims are not valid or accurate. In fact, it illustrates the hypocrisy and arbitrary adherence to Scripture by the Christian Right because the Gospel of Jesus clearly prohibits divorce except under certain specific conditions of immorality. That being the case, the fact that our divorce rate is over 50% demonstrates that these pre-supposed "family values" are not universal or dominant in our society.
Indeed, anyone who actually studies the social dynamics of our nation throughout our history will find that child abuse, incest and rape, discrimination, spousal abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, criminality, and other social ills have plagued us, and that family values and support for families has been a phenomenon that has never really existed.
As an example, our nation's landlords have been exploitive throughout history and the government has had to step in with health and building codes in order to provide a decent housing situation for our families. Even then our codes have not been universally enforced, producing an institutionalized form of discrimination against those that do not meet the moral values and judgment of a religious doctrine instilled against, blacks, minorities, single mothers and their children, single men, homosexuals, and others that are "differently valued." This institutionalized discrimination is so predominant and persistent that we have state and federal agencies that have the specific task of assuring such discrimination either does not occur or is prosecuted.
We have even had to pass laws against such discriminatory practices in the workplace to protect women, children (labor laws), those of a different sexual orientation, those of ethnic or racial minorities, those of different religions and those of different ages. Does that history really represent "family" or even "Christian" values? No, indeed. It represents unfairness, inequity and a breach of our Constitutional first principles.
George W. Bush and so many within the GOP, and enough in other parts of the political spectrum, have employed our political and media processes to further these discriminatory practices and "values" for their own purposes, promotion of their will, and exertion of power and control over our society.
In my view Dr. Britt got this one slightly wrong. It is not just rampant sexism that is characteristic of fascism, it is all forms of institutionalized discrimination that those in power seek to spread through the government and the cultures of a nation.
George W. Bush has allied himself, his administration, the GOP and the Religious Right with certain media celebrities and outlets that always offer a Bush-endorsed reporting process.
The way the Bush administration has released information through ordinary and extraordinary channels has always been done in such a way as it is intended to hide certain information from public view, discredit critics and their criticisms, undermine the validity of contrasting views, deflect criticisms or distract our attention from the real issues.
The release of Valerie Plame's identity was one such manipulation of the media. Plame's identity and role in the CIA were released by Bush administration officials through a manipulative process of the media. While Scooter Libby is taking the fall for these actions, it is reasonably clear that he was acting on orders, or on behalf of, those to whom he reported, including Vice President Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and President Bush. While this may not be able to be connected in a manner prescribed by law in our Constitution, we cannot dispute the fact that either Libby's superiors knew what was being done, or should have known that it was being done. In either case it is a manipulation of the media and the way we receive information.
Subsequent to the "Plame fiasco," several newspapers and media outlets have discovered, and eventually reported, Bush administration activities that either violated the law or were in direct conflict with statements made in public via the media. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice and others have then declared that such media leaks are illegal and should be prosecuted. In other words, when they deliberately leak it, it is legal, legitimate and valid, but when others investigate and find a source, it is against the law and against national security. But what reveals the hypocrisy of this position is the litany of excuses that came out when these folks were questioned about this apparent double standard, even statements coming from Vice President Cheney indicating that he can de-classify anything the government does without adhering to established rules, regulation and process.
But even the manner in which public events and speeches are conducted by these folks belies their intent to manipulate the media. Only certain "types" of people have been allowed into places where Cheney and Bush have appeared. Anyone that has sought to peaceably assemble and protest Bush, Cheney, Rice or others have been restricted from being near the places where they would appear or speak. Members of opposing political parties have been excluded from seeing President Bush at public appearances. Those wearing certain articles of clothing advocating certain political views or ideas have been removed from Bush and Bush gang forums.
Even the manner in which "embedded" reporters are allowed to participate in reporting news from Iraq and Afghanistan has been strictly manipulated by Bush and company. American reporters have been all but excluded from freely moving to sites in these regions and have not been able to report first hand on certain events. We have had to rely upon news reports from journalists and whistle blowers from other nations, many of whom are subject to dismissal because of their history of bias and inaccuracies. This has been a key manipulation of the media by the executive branch. Of course, this is in addition to all of the usual public relations and spin efforts put forth in the usual course of any presidential administration.
A fuller exploration of how the Bush administration has exploited the media, and how the media has been manipulated beyond what could be considered acceptable standards of journalism is found within Bill Moyers' Journal that aired on April 25, 2007. Moyers outlines how the mainstream media, with the possible exception of Knight-Ridder in the cases discussed, has been employing methods that no longer involve investigation and reliance on facts, but are more in tune with re-hashing press releases and quotes from media opportunities created by the White House, the Pentagon, or other official executive branch outlets. Since the Bush gang released that they could literally sell their lies with the help of the "corporate media" that was so lax in its checking of facts, details and truth, they released spin that deliberately misled the direction that the media would follow, or outright lies that no one bothered to challenge.
While our society resists control and manipulation of the media, the fact that our media is predominantly controlled by big corporations that benefit from fascism and fascist policies equates to a modicum of behind the scenes control and manipulation. Nixon recognized this when he threatened PBS with decreased funding over the McNeil-Lehrer news productions and the Washington Post (indirectly) over the Watergate reporting.
But Americans do not realize the power over big corporations held by the general public: If we as consumers decide to go elsewhere for our consumer needs and desires, these big corporations will cave-in on supporting fascism and other inappropriate behaviors. If even 40% of those watching the O'Reilly Factor were to shift away from watching Bill O'Reilly, Fox would react and adjust the programming and scheduling of O'Reilly's shows. We saw this in the Imus "nappy-headed ho's" incident. If 25% of those viewing ABC, NBC, or CBS, or even some of the cable channels, were to shift to a different channel, a different program, or even turn off the television during the news hours, these media moguls would respond. If everyone reading a single newspaper were to stop reading the paper for a week, and home subscribers suspended service for that week, these newspaper businesses would definitely react and respond.
The same is true for most politicians. If a significant proportion of any constituency were to react unfavorably to any given politician, 90% of them would fold, back-pedal or retract whatever caused such a response. This would be true of all politicians except those that are either untouchable (i.e. Supreme Court Justices, lame duck presidents) or those that do not give a damn. Unfortunately, George W. Bush falls into both of those categories.
We do not need a whole lot of discussion on this point. A great illustration of this point is the numerous invasions of privacy and run-arounds of our Constitution justified by the fear-mongering over national security. The obsession has gone so deep that we are being tapped by the federal government in terms of our telephone calls, our e-mails, our chat rooms, our Internet usage, our mail, our business records and, most recently, by the effort to circumvent the Constitution with the "Real ID" laws and voter registration identification laws.
But this fear and obsession is also seen in the abusive and ineffective security measures at our airports (all the while ignoring security on other forms of mass transit and travel), where we have gone from passive security measures (i.e. passing through metal detectors) to a partial strip search where we have to remove our sweaters, jackets, shoes, belts, contents of our pockets as well as our toiletries, carry-on luggage and leave our baggage unsecured/unlocked without any recourse if the bag is breached and stuff goes missing.
But in the name of national security we sent troops to invade and occupy a sovereign nation without legal cause, proper evidence to support the causes we claimed, and with our own government lying to us about these causes and justifications. It seems to me that Hitler used the same tactics when he invaded Poland.
The ACLU, EFF, EPIC, CCR and other civil liberties and privacy advocacy groups are all involved in law suits against the Bush administration in regard to civil liberties violations. The entire fiasco at Gitmo is evidence of a deliberate and persistent effort to undermine our liberties and our first principles. Add these issues and events up and you see a definite pattern of fascist invasion of our rights and privacy by our own government, as well as an abandonment of first principles embedded in our Constitution and numerous treaties signed, ratified and incorporated into our Constitution.
All of these things have been done in the name of national security. But this is not the first time that these things have happened in our nation. During World War II we used national security to stigmatize and incarcerate Japanese-Americans. Those who suffered at this time have never been adequately compensated for the economic losses or the unlawful incarceration that they incurred.
After WWII, we saw the uprising of anti-communism with such fervor that we engaged in black listing, persecution and false accusation, and other violations of civil liberties under the banner of national security. Many of those that were targeted were Jewish-Americans, or immigrants/descendants of Central Eastern Europeans. Anyone that was even remotely socialist in their thinking was included in the McCarthy Era attacks.
During the 1960s, and even into the 1970s, any group that was involved in the Civil Rights Movement, the counter-culture movement, the black pride movements, women's rights movements, or the anti-war (Vietnam) was subject to infiltration by local, state and federal law enforcement without warrants, probable cause, or any solid justification under our Constitution. It was during this time that we saw the rise of outrage within the ranks of Congress and the subsequent passing of FISA. Of course, we have seen how the Bush administration has disregarded this law almost in its entirety.
Let us count the ways...
The list can continue, but I think the religious indoctrination expressed by Harriet Meier, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, and others promoted to high office in our government speaks better than a boring list. Even when these folks do not actually believe the stuff this administration spouts, they find political excuses (excuses, not reasons) to support these positions.
While not an exclusive posture and activity of the GOP or the Bush administration, more of it occurs under the GOP, Christian Right, Religious Right and Political Right administrations and/or control than under a balanced power structure, or even under the Dems, liberals or moderates.
Steven Emerson's work, "The American House of Saud" demonstrates how entrenched our government is in the ideology of supporting business over the rights of the ordinary citizen. Numerous scandals in government--including the Abramoff Scandals, ABSCAM, etc.--illustrates how deeply the bias in favor of Corporate America and Big Business (all of which is predominantly run by multi-national corporate powerhouses these days) which fund the campaigns of politicians.
But more of this has occurred under the Bush banner--this Bush and his father--than any other administration of the last nine presidencies. Even our invasion of Iraq and our involvement in the conflicts of the Middle East is ultimately focused on control of oil as the source of our utility and power grids, our transportation and our major manufacturing industries.
During the years of this Bush administration, as well as during the Reagan-Bush administrations, the number of corporate scandals has been significantly higher than most presidential runs. While a lot of scandal occurred under the Clinton years, as well as the Johnson era, if we look at the historical facts and trends, more corporate scandals have occurred under the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush (Sr.) and the current Bush administration that under the Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton administrations.
Under this current administration we have had scandals involving the following Big Business corporations: Tyco, WorldCom, Enron, PG&E, Adelphia, RCN, Arthur Andersen, Dubai Ports World, and others, not to mention that the Bush administration has proudly proclaimed that there is no price gouging by the oil companies at the pump (yeah, right). In fact, Bush actively opposed many of the accounting reforms, including Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), which is now being lobbied in Congress for loosening of its grip, supported by the GOP and President Bush. But at the same time, Bush and the GOP have been busy providing these (and other) big corporations with major tax breaks, as well as not taking tax- and fee-dodgers to task, and opposing the increase in the minimum wage.
Then there are the no-bid contracts awarded during the onset of Afghanistan and the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. These contracts were awarded to corporations directly associated with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft (former legal affiliations) and George W. Bush and the Bush family. There has never been a complete review of these contracts, nor a new call for proposals so that other business entities can compete with Halliburton, KBR (a Halliburton subsidiary) or other "preferred" corporations. If we count the number of times these corporations have failed to deliver on the terms of their contracts, we can count this as yet another scandal.
Of course, we saw how deep into the body politic the Abramoff scandals went, including into a few on the Democrat side of the equation, but in an inordinate and perverse manner on the GOP side of the equation (i.e. Randall "Duke" Cunningham)... all the way to George W. Bush.
Enough said.
The profound opposition to labor by the Religious Right, the Christian Right and the GOP under the umbrella of the false concept of "trickle down economics" has been ongoing since the middle of the 1960s when Barry Goldwater led the conservative movement in America. But folks like Goldwater, George Will, William F. Buckley, and a few others, can actually point out some sound issues that need to be considered. For the most part, however, the conservative side of the equation, and especially the ultra-conservative among them, haven't really bothered to fully investigate or fully comprehend the balance that is necessary between supporting business, business growth and the need to establish standards of fairness, equity and wages comparable to the contribution made by labor.
The failure of our nation to address the minimum wage in a manner that allows low-income earners to keep pace with inflation, wage deflation, and the way corporations and small businesses work around wage and workplace laws (especially discrimination matters) is saddening, sickening and a clear sign of the opposition to labor. The fact that migrant workers, restaurant workers and certain other classifications of lower earners are excluded from minimum wage laws and are systematically subsidized by the "gratuity" provisions or other regulations is patently unfair to labor. These regulations overly compensate the farm businesses (not small farms but big agro-businesses), the restaurant industries, the hospitality industries... all of whom are notorious for contributing to the issues of illegal immigration (we can throw the fabric and garment industries into this mess as well).
The "Westinghouse Decision" has all but tied the hands of EEOC personnel to address labor discrimination matters if there has been even the slightest refusal of an employee to undertake orders from a superior based on perceived (or actual) safety issues. The funding and staffing of both federal and state agencies that deal with labor and employment matters has been systematically cut under every Republican administration since Nixon. The current Bush administration has empowered union and collective bargaining efforts by its pro-Big Business agendas and policies.
The lobbying efforts of Big Business, with the acknowledgment and participation of key Bush players like Karl Rove, has led to an ever-increasing access to our political leadership within the Bush administration and the previously GOP-dominated Congress sessions. It's not that there isn't a lot of lobbying under the current (or past) Democratic-dominated congressional sessions, it's that any comparison shows a significant imbalance and disproportionate kowtowing by GOP members.
Even our health care issues and welfare regulations are tied into the means of discriminating against labor. Think about it. Almost all of our health care is funded through insurance provided by employers, but most of our lowest income earners are not provided with such coverage. The working poor--many of whom work two and three jobs--take any job possible to make ends meet, most of which are deliberately held to part-time status or do not offer health care benefits at all. Even those of us fortunate to have decent health care coverage through our employers are seeing this benefit being eroded to a point that it is costing between five to ten times more out of our salary deductions every three to five years.
But the opposition to a national health care plan is opposed by the insurance and medical center industries (not necessarily all doctors). The insurance industry knows that a national health care plan would significantly cut their ability to manipulate their profit margins and the way medicine, as a business rather than a profession, is run. And George W. Bush and company are deeply entrenched in their opposition to a national health care plan, just as much as they are deeply in bed with the high-mucky-mucks that have their fingers on the insurance industry (i.e. investment bankers, insurance boards, insurance executives, etc.).
Welfare reform is also tied to these issues. We have a system where it still pays more to be on welfare than to take a low-paying job because welfare provides medical coverage and low-paying jobs do not. Yet, almost all of our rehab and welfare-sponsored training programs focus on training folks for the lowest paying jobs, such as nurse's aide, medical assistant, medical office assistant, massage therapists, etc. These are not only low-paying areas of employment, but in most geographical locations in the US the job market for such positions are overly saturated with graduates of the numerous proprietary schools that have been milking and bilking the state and federal systems for over 20 years, if not longer.
The fact that George W. Bush, despite Harriet Meier's claim regarding his brilliance, doesn't read reports, newspapers or intellectually challenge any report that adheres to his preconceived notions, predetermined agendas and/or agendas should be enough evidence on this point. We could even add his mediocre academic performance--despite having access to all of the best preparatory and post-secondary institutions--and his record of failure in many endeavors and at various levels.
But I believe his positions on education, especially his position on NCLB (No Child Left Behind) that speaks volumes on these issues. In the decades between 1950 and 1980 we learned so much about the inherent bias involved in the development of standardized testing approaches. In the 1960s and 1970s we had national and state programs of standardized testing involving "achievement tests" from California, Iowa, ETS and other sources. After decades of testing we discovered that standardized testing was not a very reliable tool when it became the predominant (or only) assessment tool for what was going on in a student's learning process.
We also discovered that using standardized testing inherently held some flaws, not the least of which was the manner in which the instruments were based upon experiences of the dominant caucasian culture. A good example that I remember from my college study of research methods, statistics and educational testing was the use of words like "sofa," "divan," and "settee" in a narrative paragraph describing a social scenario in a reading comprehension test item. A vast majority of minority Americans, especially those with significant language differences in regard to English, African-Americans and/or those coming from a family background with lower socio-economic standing did not recognize these "high brow terms" as meaning the same as a "couch." This lack of contextual recognition came from the simple fact that these kids had never heard these terms used as alternatives for any type of furniture, and in fact most of these terms were words long gone out of common parlance (except for sofa, perhaps) in most family and home settings.
But even the analysis of the testing in longitudinal studies demonstrated that standardized testing was useful for diagnostic purposes, and for generally ranking achievement, but not very useful for comparison of student performance on a district, state, regional or national level. Taking this a step further, if such was the case for so many of the standardized tests in regard to students, how much more inappropriate would using tests for ranking and comparing schools on a regional, state and national level.
Using tests scores as the sole assessment metric for assessing school performance is useless because it negates and ignores so many other factors that can affect school performance. Not the least of these factors is the funding of the school and the manner in which the school board and administrators manage those funds. There are school districts that will fund the sports programming as a higher priority than textbook updates.
Then there is the level of community support for a school or school district. In some places, education is given its due consideration as a means to career advancement and employment, but also as a means to improving the quality of life for the individual, the community, the town/city, the region, the state, and the nation. The very nature and notion of education as a "liberating" and empowering process, as was the common view of our founding fathers, has all but been erased from our schools.
Regardless of whether anyone actually agrees with all that I have written above, no one can disagree that NCLB is yet another un-funded mandate coming from the federal government. The funds necessary to address many of the issues that a "non-performing" or "under-performing" school might have aren't forthcoming from the fed. The most important of these issues, in my view, is class size. I have yet to work at a public high school where the class size is below 25, and where the average class size is closer to 30 or 35. Since there is overwhelming evidence points to smaller class sizes as being a crucial factor in teaching and learning quality, as well as outcomes, the funding for the appropriate number of teachers to assure small class sizes has never been forthcoming.
In this regard I have seen the vast majority of teacher union representatives as being equally culpable, placing pay raises in such a high priority that class size always seems to be used as a negotiation tool or wedge. A classic example of this is in the city of Lynn, Massachusetts. Every union contract for the last 30 years has had language to the effect that class size was a major issue and problem. However, at the crucial moment in negotiating the contract, the pressure to reduce and control class size has always given way to pay negotiations. The result is that already over-worked and inadequately paid professionals receive a small bump in salary, but working conditions continue to suck and school performance is neglected. This reality helps neither the teachers nor the students, but benefits the union reps and the administrators to play their political games. It is also important to note that after almost 30 years of representing the union, the long-time union president in this city became a high-level consultant to the school district upon his retirement as an teacher.
But the disregard for education is also illustrated by the funding of our college level students. Regardless of the recent "discovery" of numerous scandals regarding financial aid and student loans, the fact that other nations offer post-secondary education at a reasonable cost, all the while our colleges and universities (including the state and federally sponsored institutions) are raising tuition, fees, room and board to levels that are unreachable for far too many students with potential. This is even more the case in terms of graduate and doctoral degrees. One of the most striking results is that we are importing intellectual assets from nations other than the US and our legal, medical, nursing, engineering, computer and other highly technical and/or scientific fields are filled with foreign-born and foreign-trained professionals.
Not to be prejudicial, but practical, how much concern is a foreign-born, foreign-trained professional going to have for our nation? Given the manner in which the US is perceived and held in low esteem these days in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America, and the fact that most of these professionals are spending their money by investing it in their home nations--many having retirement plans that involve returning to their nations of origin--it would seem counter-intuitive to allow so many HB-1 visas for such professions instead of funding our own students for these same positions.
Even further is the disdain for intellect that we see coming from Bush, his merry band of "yes men." and the vast majority of GOP members regarding any intellectual challenge to their world view, agendas and spins on the issues. The difference between the statements and press releases and the outrageous statements and spins from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Robertson, Falwell, et al., is negligible. The words used to describe most college campuses and faculties from Bush and his far-right supporters accuse most, if not all, faculty members of being communists rather than learned in their fields of study. While I can agree that there has been an undermining of academic standards from the influence of socialistic and communistic movements, painting the entirety of education as being communist is neither valid or anything less than an attack on intellectualism and academic achievement.
Even the selection of officials for high positions in government demonstrates the disdain for intellectuals and academic credentials. Harriet Meier is an example. So, too, is Alberto Gonzales. While Chief Justice Roberts has a record of intellectual achievement, the choice of Sam Alito (who was a second choice to Hariet Meier) doesn't even begin to consider his academic, intellectual or scholarly achievements or potential. But none of the Bush choices for the SCOTUS reflect a regard for anything more than the adherence to ideology. Such was the case in the Reagan and previous Bush appointments as well. Even those being offered posts in the district and appellate benches are not being selected for their intellectual abilities, legal scholarship or record of achievement, but for their ideology and support of the Bush/GOP agendas.
The way in which this anti-intellectual/anti-education dynamic plays out even erodes and undermines support for education from the Democrats.
The entire approach to the "war on terrorism" has followed a trend that has been used by almost every GOP campaign since the days of JFK and Johnson. Between the law and order approach and the overwhelming focus on welfare reform as the two major causes of all problems in America (and today we add the illegal immigration issue to this litany), we have seen numerous bad policies and laws implemented. Additionally, we have seen operations under the umbrella of law enforcement, especially in regard to drug trafficking, that have held little regard for civil liberties, international law, or effectiveness of the action.
The evidence of cronyism and corruption is all over the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled congress that has supported his administration. The Abramoff scandals alone point to this major characteristic of fascism. But the Enron scandal touches the White House and the Oval Office. The scandal involving the release of the identity and role of a CIA operative is yet another illustration, involving Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and most likely George W. Bush. The firing of eight US Attorneys for political reasons, as well as the hiring of others based upon religious affiliation adds another brick to the Bush House of Scandal. The culture of deceit that has been the forte of the Bush administration.
But even those that have been selected as officers within the Bush administration illustrates the cronyism. Certainly recent history has proven that neither Harriet Meier, Alberto Gonzales, Condaleeza Rice, John Ashcroft or Donald Rumsfeld were among the best possible choices for high political office. But Meier was a crony of George W.'s days in Texas, as was Gonzales. Both are supposed to be well-educated lawyers, but neither of them has an inkling as to what our Constitution is all about. Gonzales held a position on the Texas Supreme Court, but can't figure out that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the delineation of powers in the body of our Constitution are not subject to secret rulings, signing statements or the arbitrary whims of a power-grabbing president.
Meier was actually nominated by Dubya for a position on our US Supreme Court, despite the fact that she had no credentials for being nominated. The fact that she stated publicly that George W. is one of the smartest men she has ever met should have tipped the whole nation off that something was awry in the West Wing.
But Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Cheney are holdovers from previous GOP administrations, some of whom were actually around the Nixon White House and tied to the Watergate scandals in a remote manner. Most of these cronies also had ties to Papa Bush's administration, and many of them had urged Papa to rush into Iraq during the first Gulf War. Fortunately, Papa Bush had better sense and figured out that the name of the game was not to leave a power vacuum and void in the wake of slapping Saddam Hussein down for his ego-maniacal desire to control the Middle East and the oil markets of the world.
Rumsfeld has already been labeled as the "worst Secretary of Defense in history." His utter incompetence, and Bush's staunch support of him no matter how much he screwed up, speaks volumes about how cronies fit into this administration. The fact that Rumsfeld is being considered a war criminal across the Atlantic and some intelligent and law-minded folks are trying to get the International Criminal Court to hear the charges against him illustrates how wrong he was for the job. But in my mind it was Rumsfeld's statement regarding going to war with the "Army you have, not the Army you want" in regard to his failure to see that our troops were properly supplied and protected that seals his fate in hell. When Rumsfeld dies he will find the gates to Heaven blocked by our troops that died and an honor guard from Hell waiting to escort him to the side of Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Pinochet, Tojo and other infamous world figures.
Ashcroft did not possess a clue about American culture, nor the Christianity he professed. He was judgmental and bigoted. He was a prude of extraordinary measure, and he will be remembered for as much folly as will Edwin Meese for his attack on all forms of pornography as the foundation for America's social problems. Like Meese, Ashcroft never let the facts interfere with his ideology, preconceived notions, or his political agenda. He began the programs that Gonzales has continued, including the use of Patriot Act letters, the grabbing of transactional databases, the several programs of unwarranted spying, the desire to search our mails, etc. Ashcroft spent $8,000 to cover up the bronze bust of a statue that had been on the steps of one of our national treasures of architecture because of his modesty, but bared his ass in front of the whole world every time he spoke on issues of importance. When Ashcroft reaches Heaven he will be given an isolated section in which to live out eternity because he believes he is the only one that belongs there.
But the worst of the cronyism is the manner in which contracts and business of our government is being handled. Oil companies--all of which have long-standing ties to the Bush family--are being let off the hook for flagrant violations of law, as well as having to pay royalties to our national coffers because Bush is playing favorites. Granted, the errors in these contracts go back to the Clinton administration, but the last time I checked, any contract that violated the law or was against public policy and/or interest was null and void. A first year law student could make the case against these oil companies and their claim that they do not owe royalties. A second year law student could make the case against the claim these oil companies might have as to the validity of the existing contracts. Imagine our surprise that Bush has ordered the DOJ to take a hands-off approach to these issues.
Then there are the games that the Bush gang has been playing with our environment. The Supreme Court handed Bush and company a major blow when it ruled that the EPA not only had the authority to regulate pollution of our air created by Big Businesses that the Bush folks favored, but the EPA also had a duty to do so. The Bush gang has been trying every possible tactic to allow lumber companies, oil companies and mining companies to claim our natural resources on national lands and wilderness. The coal companies have not been pursued regarding its deadly disregard of mine worker safety. Every possible support has been offered those who want to increase offshore oil drilling despite the fact that protections against major spills and dangers to wildlife have not been resolved.
While there have been obstacles that have kept the Bush gang from flat out surrendering our resources to powerful corporate entities, it has not stopped the overall effort to do so. The no-bid, no-review contracts awarded to Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, and its subsidiaries is a perfect example of the issue. While some of us--not me of course--might buy into the argument that the president had the authority to award a no-bid contract on an emergency basis, no one can argue that such a contract should not have been reviewed for its efficacy, accountability and accuracy. The number of contracts that have been proven to have huge amounts of waste, fraud and/or mismanagement is staggering. The number of already built projects that are crumbling and failing--not due to combat damage but due to poor quality in design and construction--after only 1 or 2 years after completion is also staggering. The number of projects that have administrative costs exceeding 40% of the costs incurred, without even the foundation of these projects being completed, causes even more staggering wonder and awe at the level of corruption. Even when a Halliburton subsidiary delivered undrinkable bottled water to our troops we did not see a proper response from anyone in the Bush administration.
President Eisenhower warned us that this sort of stuff was happening, but there has never been any political will in DC to stop it. Bush and his gang of fascist thugs have only taken full advantage of our neglect over these issues and exploited them in ways not previously considered for fear of impeachment, prosecution and outrage from the American people. Where is that outrage? Where is the prosecution? Where is the impeachment?
Bush's first administration was "won" under what most intelligent human beings would consider fraudulent means. In fact, the average European human being cannot believe that our courts supported his win. The GOP smeared John Kerry with a lot of messages regarding his "flip-flopping" and lack of character. Well, we now know that John Kerry was not the best candidate for the job, but he would have been a hell of a lot more principled and controllable than George W. I doubt Kerry, or Gore from the first run, would have authorized the sweeping secret spying operations, or employed the claim to signing statements, or authorized the use of torture and/or extraordinary rendition. In fact, I doubt that either one of those folks would have established a indefinite detention center at Gitmo, never mind creating the culture of abuse that formed the foundation for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
The use of governmental meetings in violation of the Hatch Amendment to push ideological and political agendas is another example of election fraud. Our government employees are not supposed to be pressured to conform to political agendas or to be subjected to political assaults of this type. The firing of competent US Attorneys with proven records of achievement based upon political, ideological and religious affiliation is yet another example of how Bush has fulfilled this characteristic of fascism.
But the issue that smacks me in the face most is the exclusivity that Bush and others in his administration have used in regard to who can attend public appearances--campaign-related and otherwise--by the president, vice president and other high officials. The fact that folks that do not necessarily support Bush have had to peacefully protest at distances up to five miles away from where Bush was appearing, rather than right outside the show like other presidents have had to endure, illustrates his disdain for the First Amendment and the lengths to which he and his gang will go to control political processes. The right to address our leaders and seek redress of grievances has been violated by Bush and his gang in a fascist manner at almost every turn.
It is important to note that all of Bush's fascism is displayed not only in identifiable incidents that illustrate Dr. Britt's 14 characteristics, but the collective behaviors overlap and work in congruent ways to create a distinct pattern of fascism. The only difference between Bush's fascism and the fascism of other world leaders throughout history is the degree to which he is able to effect it under our system of government. But even that has become a questionable distinction. There may be arguments that Bush is not as bad as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Pinochet. But I would argue that such is not the case. Instead, we have had so many excuses made for Bush and so much propaganda that we haven't bothered to take notice that his methods and ideology are as bad as those employed by Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet or others. We can always make excuses. It is immeasurably harder to take action and stand up against fascism.
Every time I write about the Bush gang I am reminded about this particular article on the 14 Characteristics of Fascism. As I review the history of our nation over the last 10 years, I see the growth of fascism fast becoming the norm for our society. The worst part of it is that we are still sleeping on the job and Congress--which was a cooperative and supportive partner in the fascism while the GOP controlled it--has done nothing to address this fascism and stop it in it's tracks. The need to stop the growth of fascism in our nation, and especially as it is being proffered by Bush and his merry men.
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
The most obvious version of this characteristic was the "Mission Accomplished" banner on board a naval vessel, with President Bush being flown in by a combat jet. But even his ordinary experiences are overly dramatized by banners, slogans and symbols. His speeches are not just filled with cliches but his arguments for remaining in Iraq and continuing with a failed strategy that illustrates the point. "Stay the course," support the troops," and "remember 9-11" are woven into every speech he has ever given in regard to the Bush Doctrine and his "war on terrorism."
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
The list for this particular characteristic is long, starting with the treatment of captives, detainees and prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. The murder, rape, torture and maltreatment of Iraqis, Afghanis, Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis is on record. Even the use of bombs to resolve issues concerning the the Taliban using remote areas of Pakistan is a violation of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The deliberate disregard of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Accords--even though our government insists on other nations adhering to these principles and treaties--illustrates the point very well.
Then we have the apparent suspension of habeas corpus not only for the poor bastards held at Gitmo, or flying around the world under the notion of extraordinary rendition, but also against anyone arrested under an accusation of being either a terrorist or an aid to those that might be terrorists, even if there is no proof showing that the accused had any knowledge of such.
But Bush and his merry men take this a step further and insist on employing secretive measures against US citizens, preventing certain "types" and "categories" of people from flying based on ethnic origin, religious affiliation or race rather than probable cause. The warrantless surveillance programs (note the plural), the expressed plan to open mail routinely, the collection of data from corporate records, etc.--all without probable cause, due process or the right to challenge these actions--nails the coffin shut on human rights.
Then, of course, we have the extraordinary rendition programs. Flying suspects around to countries that are known for their brutal and torturous methods of interrogation and "intelligence gathering" violates NATO, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration and our own Constitution.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
The events of 9-11 solidified our nation on an emotional level, but not a spiritual or truly patriotic level. We had every yahoo possible flying numerous flags on their cars, pickups, RV, gardens and homes--most of whom never gave the flag a second thought prior to 9-11. Most of these yahoos also displayed the flag inappropriately and disrespectfully.
The effect of this emotional method of unification was that we allowed our president and our congress to give away the very democracy that we rely upon to be free and live the way we believe all people should be free to live: under a government FOR the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and answerable to the PEOPLE.
We have a long history of human rights abuses, starting with slavery and indentured servants; our treatment of freedmen and poor Southerners during Reconstruction; the entire process of institutionalizing discrimination against Blacks, Chinese, Catholics, Irish, "Hunkies" from Central Eastern Europe, Jews, Italians, Vietnamese, Camboadians, Chicanos and other Latinos; and ending with the current fearful discrimination of those from the Middle East or practicing the Muslim faith.
Our president, and the Congress that supported him, and those folks that continue to support him in the face of overwhelming evidence of immorality, unconstitutionality, scandals and failure to hear the will of the American people has led us into a pattern of human rights violations and blatant hypocrisy. We point the finger at other nations and groups for violating human rights, all the while we are breaking records for such abuses.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. We have seen overwhelming growth of of this complex ever since that warning. But we have seen more growth of this complex while Republican presidents and congresses have held the reins to our government.
Under the direction of Ronald Reagan we saw what the Europeans called "Cowboy Politics" and "Cowboy Diplomacy." We saw a build up and frequent use of military power and might, as well as numerous back door deals with those that sought to improve their military standing in the world, even our own enemies of the time, trading arms for hostages.
George H.W. Bush's turn at bat was not that much different. His record of abuses and manipulation of military might and "black ops" goes back to the days when he was the Director of the CIA. Old George wrapped himself in the flag and used the military might of our nation in many ways.
But George W. Bush has outspent, over spent and allowed more fraud, waste, corruption within the military-industrial complex than any previous Commander-in Chief. He has used the attacks that occurred on 9-11 to justify an indecent and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. His commitment to the buildup and use of military force under this Bush administration has gone to extremes, even defending the continuation of a flawed and failed set of strategies beyond reason.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
The amount of homophobia that exists among the GOP, the Religious Right, the Christian Right in specific, and the efforts to place homophobic policies like the Marriage Amendment above more pressing and urgent issues (like the failed policies in Iraq) is extraordinary. The effort to control the interpersonal relationships of individuals willing to commit to each other in emotional, physical, spiritual and economic terms is contrary to the provisions of the First Amendment that provides for free association without any limits except those that are designed to overthrow the government, conspire to spy for a foreign entity, or other forms of treason.
The opposition to homosexual relations is primarily based on the Abrahamic religious tradition (Jews, Christians and Muslims) prohibition against homosexuality. The mere fact that this is the foundation of the outcry against same-sex relationships is evidence that the First Amendment "Establishment Clause" is being violated. But what seals the fate of this opposition is that even the Scriptural evidence offered by many of those opposing these relationships is not completely on solid grounds in terms of how we, as religious and spiritual people, should conduct ourselves in relation to others, regardless of their status before that which is held divine, versus what Scripture calls us to be as individuals. The manner in which both the Religious Right and the Political Right, both of which are led by our current president (despite some dissent), is persecuting those that hold different beliefs, customs, and values is neither moral according to Scripture or legal according to our Bill of Rights.
Further, the failure to balance the economic inequities institutionalized in terms of earnings by gender is yet another sexist issue in our society. Women, despite the decades of effort to balance earning potential, still earn 20% to 40% less than men holding comparable positions. But the Religious Right (especially the Christian Right), and the Political Right that has kowtowed to it, has opposed any and all efforts toward gender equity.
Yet, we have a divorce rate as high as anywhere else in the world (at least when all factors are held in balance). For a nation that the Christian Right claims is based upon Christian "family values," our divorce rate is evidence that such claims are not valid or accurate. In fact, it illustrates the hypocrisy and arbitrary adherence to Scripture by the Christian Right because the Gospel of Jesus clearly prohibits divorce except under certain specific conditions of immorality. That being the case, the fact that our divorce rate is over 50% demonstrates that these pre-supposed "family values" are not universal or dominant in our society.
Indeed, anyone who actually studies the social dynamics of our nation throughout our history will find that child abuse, incest and rape, discrimination, spousal abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, criminality, and other social ills have plagued us, and that family values and support for families has been a phenomenon that has never really existed.
As an example, our nation's landlords have been exploitive throughout history and the government has had to step in with health and building codes in order to provide a decent housing situation for our families. Even then our codes have not been universally enforced, producing an institutionalized form of discrimination against those that do not meet the moral values and judgment of a religious doctrine instilled against, blacks, minorities, single mothers and their children, single men, homosexuals, and others that are "differently valued." This institutionalized discrimination is so predominant and persistent that we have state and federal agencies that have the specific task of assuring such discrimination either does not occur or is prosecuted.
We have even had to pass laws against such discriminatory practices in the workplace to protect women, children (labor laws), those of a different sexual orientation, those of ethnic or racial minorities, those of different religions and those of different ages. Does that history really represent "family" or even "Christian" values? No, indeed. It represents unfairness, inequity and a breach of our Constitutional first principles.
George W. Bush and so many within the GOP, and enough in other parts of the political spectrum, have employed our political and media processes to further these discriminatory practices and "values" for their own purposes, promotion of their will, and exertion of power and control over our society.
In my view Dr. Britt got this one slightly wrong. It is not just rampant sexism that is characteristic of fascism, it is all forms of institutionalized discrimination that those in power seek to spread through the government and the cultures of a nation.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
George W. Bush has allied himself, his administration, the GOP and the Religious Right with certain media celebrities and outlets that always offer a Bush-endorsed reporting process.
The way the Bush administration has released information through ordinary and extraordinary channels has always been done in such a way as it is intended to hide certain information from public view, discredit critics and their criticisms, undermine the validity of contrasting views, deflect criticisms or distract our attention from the real issues.
The release of Valerie Plame's identity was one such manipulation of the media. Plame's identity and role in the CIA were released by Bush administration officials through a manipulative process of the media. While Scooter Libby is taking the fall for these actions, it is reasonably clear that he was acting on orders, or on behalf of, those to whom he reported, including Vice President Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and President Bush. While this may not be able to be connected in a manner prescribed by law in our Constitution, we cannot dispute the fact that either Libby's superiors knew what was being done, or should have known that it was being done. In either case it is a manipulation of the media and the way we receive information.
Subsequent to the "Plame fiasco," several newspapers and media outlets have discovered, and eventually reported, Bush administration activities that either violated the law or were in direct conflict with statements made in public via the media. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice and others have then declared that such media leaks are illegal and should be prosecuted. In other words, when they deliberately leak it, it is legal, legitimate and valid, but when others investigate and find a source, it is against the law and against national security. But what reveals the hypocrisy of this position is the litany of excuses that came out when these folks were questioned about this apparent double standard, even statements coming from Vice President Cheney indicating that he can de-classify anything the government does without adhering to established rules, regulation and process.
But even the manner in which public events and speeches are conducted by these folks belies their intent to manipulate the media. Only certain "types" of people have been allowed into places where Cheney and Bush have appeared. Anyone that has sought to peaceably assemble and protest Bush, Cheney, Rice or others have been restricted from being near the places where they would appear or speak. Members of opposing political parties have been excluded from seeing President Bush at public appearances. Those wearing certain articles of clothing advocating certain political views or ideas have been removed from Bush and Bush gang forums.
Even the manner in which "embedded" reporters are allowed to participate in reporting news from Iraq and Afghanistan has been strictly manipulated by Bush and company. American reporters have been all but excluded from freely moving to sites in these regions and have not been able to report first hand on certain events. We have had to rely upon news reports from journalists and whistle blowers from other nations, many of whom are subject to dismissal because of their history of bias and inaccuracies. This has been a key manipulation of the media by the executive branch. Of course, this is in addition to all of the usual public relations and spin efforts put forth in the usual course of any presidential administration.
A fuller exploration of how the Bush administration has exploited the media, and how the media has been manipulated beyond what could be considered acceptable standards of journalism is found within Bill Moyers' Journal that aired on April 25, 2007. Moyers outlines how the mainstream media, with the possible exception of Knight-Ridder in the cases discussed, has been employing methods that no longer involve investigation and reliance on facts, but are more in tune with re-hashing press releases and quotes from media opportunities created by the White House, the Pentagon, or other official executive branch outlets. Since the Bush gang released that they could literally sell their lies with the help of the "corporate media" that was so lax in its checking of facts, details and truth, they released spin that deliberately misled the direction that the media would follow, or outright lies that no one bothered to challenge.
While our society resists control and manipulation of the media, the fact that our media is predominantly controlled by big corporations that benefit from fascism and fascist policies equates to a modicum of behind the scenes control and manipulation. Nixon recognized this when he threatened PBS with decreased funding over the McNeil-Lehrer news productions and the Washington Post (indirectly) over the Watergate reporting.
But Americans do not realize the power over big corporations held by the general public: If we as consumers decide to go elsewhere for our consumer needs and desires, these big corporations will cave-in on supporting fascism and other inappropriate behaviors. If even 40% of those watching the O'Reilly Factor were to shift away from watching Bill O'Reilly, Fox would react and adjust the programming and scheduling of O'Reilly's shows. We saw this in the Imus "nappy-headed ho's" incident. If 25% of those viewing ABC, NBC, or CBS, or even some of the cable channels, were to shift to a different channel, a different program, or even turn off the television during the news hours, these media moguls would respond. If everyone reading a single newspaper were to stop reading the paper for a week, and home subscribers suspended service for that week, these newspaper businesses would definitely react and respond.
The same is true for most politicians. If a significant proportion of any constituency were to react unfavorably to any given politician, 90% of them would fold, back-pedal or retract whatever caused such a response. This would be true of all politicians except those that are either untouchable (i.e. Supreme Court Justices, lame duck presidents) or those that do not give a damn. Unfortunately, George W. Bush falls into both of those categories.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
We do not need a whole lot of discussion on this point. A great illustration of this point is the numerous invasions of privacy and run-arounds of our Constitution justified by the fear-mongering over national security. The obsession has gone so deep that we are being tapped by the federal government in terms of our telephone calls, our e-mails, our chat rooms, our Internet usage, our mail, our business records and, most recently, by the effort to circumvent the Constitution with the "Real ID" laws and voter registration identification laws.
But this fear and obsession is also seen in the abusive and ineffective security measures at our airports (all the while ignoring security on other forms of mass transit and travel), where we have gone from passive security measures (i.e. passing through metal detectors) to a partial strip search where we have to remove our sweaters, jackets, shoes, belts, contents of our pockets as well as our toiletries, carry-on luggage and leave our baggage unsecured/unlocked without any recourse if the bag is breached and stuff goes missing.
But in the name of national security we sent troops to invade and occupy a sovereign nation without legal cause, proper evidence to support the causes we claimed, and with our own government lying to us about these causes and justifications. It seems to me that Hitler used the same tactics when he invaded Poland.
The ACLU, EFF, EPIC, CCR and other civil liberties and privacy advocacy groups are all involved in law suits against the Bush administration in regard to civil liberties violations. The entire fiasco at Gitmo is evidence of a deliberate and persistent effort to undermine our liberties and our first principles. Add these issues and events up and you see a definite pattern of fascist invasion of our rights and privacy by our own government, as well as an abandonment of first principles embedded in our Constitution and numerous treaties signed, ratified and incorporated into our Constitution.
All of these things have been done in the name of national security. But this is not the first time that these things have happened in our nation. During World War II we used national security to stigmatize and incarcerate Japanese-Americans. Those who suffered at this time have never been adequately compensated for the economic losses or the unlawful incarceration that they incurred.
After WWII, we saw the uprising of anti-communism with such fervor that we engaged in black listing, persecution and false accusation, and other violations of civil liberties under the banner of national security. Many of those that were targeted were Jewish-Americans, or immigrants/descendants of Central Eastern Europeans. Anyone that was even remotely socialist in their thinking was included in the McCarthy Era attacks.
During the 1960s, and even into the 1970s, any group that was involved in the Civil Rights Movement, the counter-culture movement, the black pride movements, women's rights movements, or the anti-war (Vietnam) was subject to infiltration by local, state and federal law enforcement without warrants, probable cause, or any solid justification under our Constitution. It was during this time that we saw the rise of outrage within the ranks of Congress and the subsequent passing of FISA. Of course, we have seen how the Bush administration has disregarded this law almost in its entirety.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
Let us count the ways...
- Oval Office prayer meetings first things in the morning;
- President Bush making comments on the display of Wiccan religious symbols on gravestones, stating that he did not think Wicca was a religion (and carrying these attitudes and views into his presidency);
- Speeches and reports littered with references to "family values" as defined by the Religious Right, translated into policies that are actually anti-family, anti-children, anti-worker and anti-middle class. (I urge everyone to read David Sirota's "Hostile Takeover" [coming out in paperback this May] to get a full perspective on this, as well as Michael Lerner's "The Left Hand of God" to see the difference between "spiritual values" embodied in the Constitution and "religious doctrines" embodied in everything Bush is doing.)
- The religious doctrinal test that is apparent in the recent "Attorney Gate" scandals where US Attorneys are fired, retained, and/or promoted based on which religiously sponsored law school you graduated from and how you support the religiously-motivated Bush policies and agendas.
- The reliance upon the Christian Right as a political base, even to the point of kowtowing to this constituency before becoming a lame duck, then basically abandoning them in all but those issues that might alienate their support of other Political Right/Christian Right GOP candidates.
The list can continue, but I think the religious indoctrination expressed by Harriet Meier, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, and others promoted to high office in our government speaks better than a boring list. Even when these folks do not actually believe the stuff this administration spouts, they find political excuses (excuses, not reasons) to support these positions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
While not an exclusive posture and activity of the GOP or the Bush administration, more of it occurs under the GOP, Christian Right, Religious Right and Political Right administrations and/or control than under a balanced power structure, or even under the Dems, liberals or moderates.
Steven Emerson's work, "The American House of Saud" demonstrates how entrenched our government is in the ideology of supporting business over the rights of the ordinary citizen. Numerous scandals in government--including the Abramoff Scandals, ABSCAM, etc.--illustrates how deeply the bias in favor of Corporate America and Big Business (all of which is predominantly run by multi-national corporate powerhouses these days) which fund the campaigns of politicians.
But more of this has occurred under the Bush banner--this Bush and his father--than any other administration of the last nine presidencies. Even our invasion of Iraq and our involvement in the conflicts of the Middle East is ultimately focused on control of oil as the source of our utility and power grids, our transportation and our major manufacturing industries.
During the years of this Bush administration, as well as during the Reagan-Bush administrations, the number of corporate scandals has been significantly higher than most presidential runs. While a lot of scandal occurred under the Clinton years, as well as the Johnson era, if we look at the historical facts and trends, more corporate scandals have occurred under the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush (Sr.) and the current Bush administration that under the Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton administrations.
Under this current administration we have had scandals involving the following Big Business corporations: Tyco, WorldCom, Enron, PG&E, Adelphia, RCN, Arthur Andersen, Dubai Ports World, and others, not to mention that the Bush administration has proudly proclaimed that there is no price gouging by the oil companies at the pump (yeah, right). In fact, Bush actively opposed many of the accounting reforms, including Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), which is now being lobbied in Congress for loosening of its grip, supported by the GOP and President Bush. But at the same time, Bush and the GOP have been busy providing these (and other) big corporations with major tax breaks, as well as not taking tax- and fee-dodgers to task, and opposing the increase in the minimum wage.
Then there are the no-bid contracts awarded during the onset of Afghanistan and the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. These contracts were awarded to corporations directly associated with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft (former legal affiliations) and George W. Bush and the Bush family. There has never been a complete review of these contracts, nor a new call for proposals so that other business entities can compete with Halliburton, KBR (a Halliburton subsidiary) or other "preferred" corporations. If we count the number of times these corporations have failed to deliver on the terms of their contracts, we can count this as yet another scandal.
Of course, we saw how deep into the body politic the Abramoff scandals went, including into a few on the Democrat side of the equation, but in an inordinate and perverse manner on the GOP side of the equation (i.e. Randall "Duke" Cunningham)... all the way to George W. Bush.
Enough said.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
The profound opposition to labor by the Religious Right, the Christian Right and the GOP under the umbrella of the false concept of "trickle down economics" has been ongoing since the middle of the 1960s when Barry Goldwater led the conservative movement in America. But folks like Goldwater, George Will, William F. Buckley, and a few others, can actually point out some sound issues that need to be considered. For the most part, however, the conservative side of the equation, and especially the ultra-conservative among them, haven't really bothered to fully investigate or fully comprehend the balance that is necessary between supporting business, business growth and the need to establish standards of fairness, equity and wages comparable to the contribution made by labor.
The failure of our nation to address the minimum wage in a manner that allows low-income earners to keep pace with inflation, wage deflation, and the way corporations and small businesses work around wage and workplace laws (especially discrimination matters) is saddening, sickening and a clear sign of the opposition to labor. The fact that migrant workers, restaurant workers and certain other classifications of lower earners are excluded from minimum wage laws and are systematically subsidized by the "gratuity" provisions or other regulations is patently unfair to labor. These regulations overly compensate the farm businesses (not small farms but big agro-businesses), the restaurant industries, the hospitality industries... all of whom are notorious for contributing to the issues of illegal immigration (we can throw the fabric and garment industries into this mess as well).
The "Westinghouse Decision" has all but tied the hands of EEOC personnel to address labor discrimination matters if there has been even the slightest refusal of an employee to undertake orders from a superior based on perceived (or actual) safety issues. The funding and staffing of both federal and state agencies that deal with labor and employment matters has been systematically cut under every Republican administration since Nixon. The current Bush administration has empowered union and collective bargaining efforts by its pro-Big Business agendas and policies.
The lobbying efforts of Big Business, with the acknowledgment and participation of key Bush players like Karl Rove, has led to an ever-increasing access to our political leadership within the Bush administration and the previously GOP-dominated Congress sessions. It's not that there isn't a lot of lobbying under the current (or past) Democratic-dominated congressional sessions, it's that any comparison shows a significant imbalance and disproportionate kowtowing by GOP members.
Even our health care issues and welfare regulations are tied into the means of discriminating against labor. Think about it. Almost all of our health care is funded through insurance provided by employers, but most of our lowest income earners are not provided with such coverage. The working poor--many of whom work two and three jobs--take any job possible to make ends meet, most of which are deliberately held to part-time status or do not offer health care benefits at all. Even those of us fortunate to have decent health care coverage through our employers are seeing this benefit being eroded to a point that it is costing between five to ten times more out of our salary deductions every three to five years.
But the opposition to a national health care plan is opposed by the insurance and medical center industries (not necessarily all doctors). The insurance industry knows that a national health care plan would significantly cut their ability to manipulate their profit margins and the way medicine, as a business rather than a profession, is run. And George W. Bush and company are deeply entrenched in their opposition to a national health care plan, just as much as they are deeply in bed with the high-mucky-mucks that have their fingers on the insurance industry (i.e. investment bankers, insurance boards, insurance executives, etc.).
Welfare reform is also tied to these issues. We have a system where it still pays more to be on welfare than to take a low-paying job because welfare provides medical coverage and low-paying jobs do not. Yet, almost all of our rehab and welfare-sponsored training programs focus on training folks for the lowest paying jobs, such as nurse's aide, medical assistant, medical office assistant, massage therapists, etc. These are not only low-paying areas of employment, but in most geographical locations in the US the job market for such positions are overly saturated with graduates of the numerous proprietary schools that have been milking and bilking the state and federal systems for over 20 years, if not longer.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
The fact that George W. Bush, despite Harriet Meier's claim regarding his brilliance, doesn't read reports, newspapers or intellectually challenge any report that adheres to his preconceived notions, predetermined agendas and/or agendas should be enough evidence on this point. We could even add his mediocre academic performance--despite having access to all of the best preparatory and post-secondary institutions--and his record of failure in many endeavors and at various levels.
But I believe his positions on education, especially his position on NCLB (No Child Left Behind) that speaks volumes on these issues. In the decades between 1950 and 1980 we learned so much about the inherent bias involved in the development of standardized testing approaches. In the 1960s and 1970s we had national and state programs of standardized testing involving "achievement tests" from California, Iowa, ETS and other sources. After decades of testing we discovered that standardized testing was not a very reliable tool when it became the predominant (or only) assessment tool for what was going on in a student's learning process.
We also discovered that using standardized testing inherently held some flaws, not the least of which was the manner in which the instruments were based upon experiences of the dominant caucasian culture. A good example that I remember from my college study of research methods, statistics and educational testing was the use of words like "sofa," "divan," and "settee" in a narrative paragraph describing a social scenario in a reading comprehension test item. A vast majority of minority Americans, especially those with significant language differences in regard to English, African-Americans and/or those coming from a family background with lower socio-economic standing did not recognize these "high brow terms" as meaning the same as a "couch." This lack of contextual recognition came from the simple fact that these kids had never heard these terms used as alternatives for any type of furniture, and in fact most of these terms were words long gone out of common parlance (except for sofa, perhaps) in most family and home settings.
But even the analysis of the testing in longitudinal studies demonstrated that standardized testing was useful for diagnostic purposes, and for generally ranking achievement, but not very useful for comparison of student performance on a district, state, regional or national level. Taking this a step further, if such was the case for so many of the standardized tests in regard to students, how much more inappropriate would using tests for ranking and comparing schools on a regional, state and national level.
Using tests scores as the sole assessment metric for assessing school performance is useless because it negates and ignores so many other factors that can affect school performance. Not the least of these factors is the funding of the school and the manner in which the school board and administrators manage those funds. There are school districts that will fund the sports programming as a higher priority than textbook updates.
Then there is the level of community support for a school or school district. In some places, education is given its due consideration as a means to career advancement and employment, but also as a means to improving the quality of life for the individual, the community, the town/city, the region, the state, and the nation. The very nature and notion of education as a "liberating" and empowering process, as was the common view of our founding fathers, has all but been erased from our schools.
Regardless of whether anyone actually agrees with all that I have written above, no one can disagree that NCLB is yet another un-funded mandate coming from the federal government. The funds necessary to address many of the issues that a "non-performing" or "under-performing" school might have aren't forthcoming from the fed. The most important of these issues, in my view, is class size. I have yet to work at a public high school where the class size is below 25, and where the average class size is closer to 30 or 35. Since there is overwhelming evidence points to smaller class sizes as being a crucial factor in teaching and learning quality, as well as outcomes, the funding for the appropriate number of teachers to assure small class sizes has never been forthcoming.
In this regard I have seen the vast majority of teacher union representatives as being equally culpable, placing pay raises in such a high priority that class size always seems to be used as a negotiation tool or wedge. A classic example of this is in the city of Lynn, Massachusetts. Every union contract for the last 30 years has had language to the effect that class size was a major issue and problem. However, at the crucial moment in negotiating the contract, the pressure to reduce and control class size has always given way to pay negotiations. The result is that already over-worked and inadequately paid professionals receive a small bump in salary, but working conditions continue to suck and school performance is neglected. This reality helps neither the teachers nor the students, but benefits the union reps and the administrators to play their political games. It is also important to note that after almost 30 years of representing the union, the long-time union president in this city became a high-level consultant to the school district upon his retirement as an teacher.
But the disregard for education is also illustrated by the funding of our college level students. Regardless of the recent "discovery" of numerous scandals regarding financial aid and student loans, the fact that other nations offer post-secondary education at a reasonable cost, all the while our colleges and universities (including the state and federally sponsored institutions) are raising tuition, fees, room and board to levels that are unreachable for far too many students with potential. This is even more the case in terms of graduate and doctoral degrees. One of the most striking results is that we are importing intellectual assets from nations other than the US and our legal, medical, nursing, engineering, computer and other highly technical and/or scientific fields are filled with foreign-born and foreign-trained professionals.
Not to be prejudicial, but practical, how much concern is a foreign-born, foreign-trained professional going to have for our nation? Given the manner in which the US is perceived and held in low esteem these days in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America, and the fact that most of these professionals are spending their money by investing it in their home nations--many having retirement plans that involve returning to their nations of origin--it would seem counter-intuitive to allow so many HB-1 visas for such professions instead of funding our own students for these same positions.
Even further is the disdain for intellect that we see coming from Bush, his merry band of "yes men." and the vast majority of GOP members regarding any intellectual challenge to their world view, agendas and spins on the issues. The difference between the statements and press releases and the outrageous statements and spins from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Robertson, Falwell, et al., is negligible. The words used to describe most college campuses and faculties from Bush and his far-right supporters accuse most, if not all, faculty members of being communists rather than learned in their fields of study. While I can agree that there has been an undermining of academic standards from the influence of socialistic and communistic movements, painting the entirety of education as being communist is neither valid or anything less than an attack on intellectualism and academic achievement.
Even the selection of officials for high positions in government demonstrates the disdain for intellectuals and academic credentials. Harriet Meier is an example. So, too, is Alberto Gonzales. While Chief Justice Roberts has a record of intellectual achievement, the choice of Sam Alito (who was a second choice to Hariet Meier) doesn't even begin to consider his academic, intellectual or scholarly achievements or potential. But none of the Bush choices for the SCOTUS reflect a regard for anything more than the adherence to ideology. Such was the case in the Reagan and previous Bush appointments as well. Even those being offered posts in the district and appellate benches are not being selected for their intellectual abilities, legal scholarship or record of achievement, but for their ideology and support of the Bush/GOP agendas.
The way in which this anti-intellectual/anti-education dynamic plays out even erodes and undermines support for education from the Democrats.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
The entire approach to the "war on terrorism" has followed a trend that has been used by almost every GOP campaign since the days of JFK and Johnson. Between the law and order approach and the overwhelming focus on welfare reform as the two major causes of all problems in America (and today we add the illegal immigration issue to this litany), we have seen numerous bad policies and laws implemented. Additionally, we have seen operations under the umbrella of law enforcement, especially in regard to drug trafficking, that have held little regard for civil liberties, international law, or effectiveness of the action.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
The evidence of cronyism and corruption is all over the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled congress that has supported his administration. The Abramoff scandals alone point to this major characteristic of fascism. But the Enron scandal touches the White House and the Oval Office. The scandal involving the release of the identity and role of a CIA operative is yet another illustration, involving Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and most likely George W. Bush. The firing of eight US Attorneys for political reasons, as well as the hiring of others based upon religious affiliation adds another brick to the Bush House of Scandal. The culture of deceit that has been the forte of the Bush administration.
But even those that have been selected as officers within the Bush administration illustrates the cronyism. Certainly recent history has proven that neither Harriet Meier, Alberto Gonzales, Condaleeza Rice, John Ashcroft or Donald Rumsfeld were among the best possible choices for high political office. But Meier was a crony of George W.'s days in Texas, as was Gonzales. Both are supposed to be well-educated lawyers, but neither of them has an inkling as to what our Constitution is all about. Gonzales held a position on the Texas Supreme Court, but can't figure out that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the delineation of powers in the body of our Constitution are not subject to secret rulings, signing statements or the arbitrary whims of a power-grabbing president.
Meier was actually nominated by Dubya for a position on our US Supreme Court, despite the fact that she had no credentials for being nominated. The fact that she stated publicly that George W. is one of the smartest men she has ever met should have tipped the whole nation off that something was awry in the West Wing.
But Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Cheney are holdovers from previous GOP administrations, some of whom were actually around the Nixon White House and tied to the Watergate scandals in a remote manner. Most of these cronies also had ties to Papa Bush's administration, and many of them had urged Papa to rush into Iraq during the first Gulf War. Fortunately, Papa Bush had better sense and figured out that the name of the game was not to leave a power vacuum and void in the wake of slapping Saddam Hussein down for his ego-maniacal desire to control the Middle East and the oil markets of the world.
Rumsfeld has already been labeled as the "worst Secretary of Defense in history." His utter incompetence, and Bush's staunch support of him no matter how much he screwed up, speaks volumes about how cronies fit into this administration. The fact that Rumsfeld is being considered a war criminal across the Atlantic and some intelligent and law-minded folks are trying to get the International Criminal Court to hear the charges against him illustrates how wrong he was for the job. But in my mind it was Rumsfeld's statement regarding going to war with the "Army you have, not the Army you want" in regard to his failure to see that our troops were properly supplied and protected that seals his fate in hell. When Rumsfeld dies he will find the gates to Heaven blocked by our troops that died and an honor guard from Hell waiting to escort him to the side of Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Pinochet, Tojo and other infamous world figures.
Ashcroft did not possess a clue about American culture, nor the Christianity he professed. He was judgmental and bigoted. He was a prude of extraordinary measure, and he will be remembered for as much folly as will Edwin Meese for his attack on all forms of pornography as the foundation for America's social problems. Like Meese, Ashcroft never let the facts interfere with his ideology, preconceived notions, or his political agenda. He began the programs that Gonzales has continued, including the use of Patriot Act letters, the grabbing of transactional databases, the several programs of unwarranted spying, the desire to search our mails, etc. Ashcroft spent $8,000 to cover up the bronze bust of a statue that had been on the steps of one of our national treasures of architecture because of his modesty, but bared his ass in front of the whole world every time he spoke on issues of importance. When Ashcroft reaches Heaven he will be given an isolated section in which to live out eternity because he believes he is the only one that belongs there.
But the worst of the cronyism is the manner in which contracts and business of our government is being handled. Oil companies--all of which have long-standing ties to the Bush family--are being let off the hook for flagrant violations of law, as well as having to pay royalties to our national coffers because Bush is playing favorites. Granted, the errors in these contracts go back to the Clinton administration, but the last time I checked, any contract that violated the law or was against public policy and/or interest was null and void. A first year law student could make the case against these oil companies and their claim that they do not owe royalties. A second year law student could make the case against the claim these oil companies might have as to the validity of the existing contracts. Imagine our surprise that Bush has ordered the DOJ to take a hands-off approach to these issues.
Then there are the games that the Bush gang has been playing with our environment. The Supreme Court handed Bush and company a major blow when it ruled that the EPA not only had the authority to regulate pollution of our air created by Big Businesses that the Bush folks favored, but the EPA also had a duty to do so. The Bush gang has been trying every possible tactic to allow lumber companies, oil companies and mining companies to claim our natural resources on national lands and wilderness. The coal companies have not been pursued regarding its deadly disregard of mine worker safety. Every possible support has been offered those who want to increase offshore oil drilling despite the fact that protections against major spills and dangers to wildlife have not been resolved.
While there have been obstacles that have kept the Bush gang from flat out surrendering our resources to powerful corporate entities, it has not stopped the overall effort to do so. The no-bid, no-review contracts awarded to Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, and its subsidiaries is a perfect example of the issue. While some of us--not me of course--might buy into the argument that the president had the authority to award a no-bid contract on an emergency basis, no one can argue that such a contract should not have been reviewed for its efficacy, accountability and accuracy. The number of contracts that have been proven to have huge amounts of waste, fraud and/or mismanagement is staggering. The number of already built projects that are crumbling and failing--not due to combat damage but due to poor quality in design and construction--after only 1 or 2 years after completion is also staggering. The number of projects that have administrative costs exceeding 40% of the costs incurred, without even the foundation of these projects being completed, causes even more staggering wonder and awe at the level of corruption. Even when a Halliburton subsidiary delivered undrinkable bottled water to our troops we did not see a proper response from anyone in the Bush administration.
President Eisenhower warned us that this sort of stuff was happening, but there has never been any political will in DC to stop it. Bush and his gang of fascist thugs have only taken full advantage of our neglect over these issues and exploited them in ways not previously considered for fear of impeachment, prosecution and outrage from the American people. Where is that outrage? Where is the prosecution? Where is the impeachment?
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Bush's first administration was "won" under what most intelligent human beings would consider fraudulent means. In fact, the average European human being cannot believe that our courts supported his win. The GOP smeared John Kerry with a lot of messages regarding his "flip-flopping" and lack of character. Well, we now know that John Kerry was not the best candidate for the job, but he would have been a hell of a lot more principled and controllable than George W. I doubt Kerry, or Gore from the first run, would have authorized the sweeping secret spying operations, or employed the claim to signing statements, or authorized the use of torture and/or extraordinary rendition. In fact, I doubt that either one of those folks would have established a indefinite detention center at Gitmo, never mind creating the culture of abuse that formed the foundation for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
The use of governmental meetings in violation of the Hatch Amendment to push ideological and political agendas is another example of election fraud. Our government employees are not supposed to be pressured to conform to political agendas or to be subjected to political assaults of this type. The firing of competent US Attorneys with proven records of achievement based upon political, ideological and religious affiliation is yet another example of how Bush has fulfilled this characteristic of fascism.
But the issue that smacks me in the face most is the exclusivity that Bush and others in his administration have used in regard to who can attend public appearances--campaign-related and otherwise--by the president, vice president and other high officials. The fact that folks that do not necessarily support Bush have had to peacefully protest at distances up to five miles away from where Bush was appearing, rather than right outside the show like other presidents have had to endure, illustrates his disdain for the First Amendment and the lengths to which he and his gang will go to control political processes. The right to address our leaders and seek redress of grievances has been violated by Bush and his gang in a fascist manner at almost every turn.
It is important to note that all of Bush's fascism is displayed not only in identifiable incidents that illustrate Dr. Britt's 14 characteristics, but the collective behaviors overlap and work in congruent ways to create a distinct pattern of fascism. The only difference between Bush's fascism and the fascism of other world leaders throughout history is the degree to which he is able to effect it under our system of government. But even that has become a questionable distinction. There may be arguments that Bush is not as bad as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Pinochet. But I would argue that such is not the case. Instead, we have had so many excuses made for Bush and so much propaganda that we haven't bothered to take notice that his methods and ideology are as bad as those employed by Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet or others. We can always make excuses. It is immeasurably harder to take action and stand up against fascism.
Labels: Bush lies, fascism, media lies, media manipulation
posted by Jim Downey at 6:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home