Wednesday, August 4, 2010

When Fascism Came To America

Let's first define fascism as it rose out of Italy in the early 1900s and spread across Europe and even into the US. Before Mussolini was a hated tyrant he was quite popular even here. Fascism was an ideology that was sweeping the world; it was all the rage. Before I define it I will be clear in my denunciation of fascism as extreme evil. Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists believe that a nation requires authoritarian leadership and a collective identity. Cultural ideals are what give individuals identity and thus they reject individualism. They justify totalitarianism as a means of representing the collective will of the nation. They believe that the ability and will to commit violence and wage war is what keeps a nation strong. War regenerates the national spirit and vitality. Fascist movements have often held social Darwinist views, believing that nations must be purged of socially and biologically weak individuals in order for the nation to advance. Eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion are all used by fascist states to mold society. Fascist nations have pursued policies of social indoctrination through propaganda machines. Education is designed to glorify the state and purge ideas that are not consistent with the fascist movement and to teach students to obey the state. Therefore, fascism is anti-intellectual. Facists implemented price controls, wage controls, and other economic interventionist policies. FDR, himself, implemented price and wage controls before the Supreme Court thankfully saw that for what it truly was. Fascism has been implemented all across the world and the specifics have varied from place to place but those are some of the common traits.

So did fascism ever get a footing here? Oh, you know it did! Our fascist dictator's name was Woodrow Wilson. You've probably heard alot of good about Wilson. He is often ranked as one of our 10 best presidents. Hardly. Never has a man sat in the Oval Office who had such disdain for the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. History has been conveniently omitted.

Let's read some of Wilson's own words. These date from the 1890s through his presidency:

"I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive."

"No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle."

"The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit."

"The competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much–everything–for the external uses to which they may be put…. He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates…. It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader."

Do you hear the fascism in those words? Oh there's more. Wilson created the nation's first propaganda machine, the Committee on Public Information. But Troy, you say, public information is good. Sure it is. However, the mission of the CPI was the "engineering of consent" and "conscious manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.” Do you hear the fascism there?

Remember Liberty Bonds? Propaganda. A popular liberty bond poster declared "If you have money to buy and do not buy I will make this No Man's Land for you!" Hear the fascism?

Wilson pushed for the passing of a Sedition Act that forbade Americans from criticizing their government or military. Citizens could not "utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language.” The Postmaster General was given the power to revoke mailing privileges for those who disobeyed. Seventy-five periodicals were shut down by the government. The Department of Justice arrested an estimated 175,000 individuals for speaking against Wilson or WWI (even within their own homes). A letter to federal attorney declared that citizens have nothing to fear if they "Obey the law; keep your mouth shut." Do you see the fascism there?

The 1913 Federal Reserve Act created our good friend "The Fed." The federal reserve is an unconstitutional authority of monetary policy in the US. The federal reserve has unrestricted power to print and release money as it wills. Thus, the federal reserve floods the world with US dollars, creating a false sense of the dollar's value as well as a misallocation of resources. The constitution grants to the US House of Representatives the authority to coin money and regulate the value of currency. It does now authorize them to turn that authority over to an independent agency. This manipulation of our economy has eroded our standard of living, placed monetary poicy in the hands of a private organization, devalued the dollar, and enriched well-connected elites who have been able to take advantage of the artificial monetary cycles created by the Federal Reserve Bank. The recent financial reform bill has actually expanded the scope of the Fed's power, which only expands the power of a handful of large banks which own most of the federal reserve notes.

President Kennedy, our last truly good democratic president, with one stroke of his pen attempted to end the Federal Reserve by ordering the government to return to its constitutional mandate to control monetary policy. Three weeks later he was dead. Fascists will not so easily relinquish their control.

Wilson was a leader of the progressive era. Progressive was the American term for fascist. So when Hillary Clinton, during her presidential campaign, defines herself as a progressive in the early 20th century meaning of the term either she is ignorant as to what that really means or she thinks that we don't know what that really means. Well, I know what it means. And now you do too. You're welcome.

14 comments:

  1. I'm not sure where to begin on this one. Trying to define fascism is one thing, moving to make it synonymous with progressives is another. That is just too big of a logical jump. Back packs have straps. Car seats have straps. Back packs are bags. Car seats are bags? Nope.

    I am often struck by how much the far right can seem fascist. They are the ones claiming to know what "American" values and ideas are and wanting through laws to enforce them, trying to create a homogeneous whole out of disparate cultural groups that make-up America. It was a Republican president who used nationalism, and "American" values to lead this country to war with Iraq, initially for wmd's that never surfaced, and then to get rid of a bad guy and ostensibly to force or values on another people so that they could spread it in another corner of the world. The "patriot act" stripped citizens of privacy protections. The far right has focused a lot of energy on this country's right to wage war and to use preemptive wars. It was the far right that told me to just trust the president because he knew best when invading Iraq. Shut up and tow the line. It is the far right that has sought at times to silence all voices that disagree with them as unpatriotic or unamerican. I do not think the far right is fascist, you are right, they are too individualistic, but neither are progressives fascist. They in general have an aversion to war and the social Darwinism of fascists for one.

    The fed, well that is a huge topic.

    Did you just bring up a conspiracy theory on JFK's assassination? Certainly don't have the inclination to delve into that.

    (I am disinclined to debate about a president long dead. Quotes with no context are red flags for any serious debate or discussion of ideas. I would have to do far more research than I have time for before I felt like I could really make a stand one way or the other on President Wilson. Besides, I am more interested in policy now.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad you brought up some fascist tendencies of the right. I was going to get to that next. Bush's quest to spread democracy across the globe bears a striking resemblance to some of Woodrow Wilson's ideas. So, no, I'm not just picking on the left here. Fascism is fascism regardless of whether there's an R or a D after your name.

    As for the JFK thing - I'm not espousing a particular theory as to why he was killed. I just found it interesting.

    As for Wilson - I'm confident in my description of him and the facts of what his administration did. I stand by that and think it is incredibly relevant to modern times and modern policy as is all of history. The reason to be afraid of the Bush war rhetoric is because we've seen it all before and we know where it leads. So we need to be very aware of our history because it tends to repeat itself and tends to bear on policy now and in the future. An important question to ask is - why are Americans unfamiliar with the totalitarian policies of the Wilson years? Why has that been swept under the rug?

    Fascism changes from place to place and time to time as I said. The fact that today's so-called progressives have an aversion to war (as if anybody really likes war) doesn't mean that there aren't fascist tendencies in some of their policies. By fascist I don't mean violent, genocide fascist. Rather, a belief in the notion that government should expand to regulate and shape nearly every aspect of our life. That's the link that I'm trying to make between today's progessive leaders and yesterday's fascist ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, and as far as the quotes from Wilson that I used - I think the actions of his administration supply the perfect context for the quotes I used. His actions speak far louder than his words.

    And I want to say again that I think it's perfectly relevant to discuss our history (or the history of any other republic for that matter) in relation to today's policies (and no, I'm not arguing that Obama = Wilson) because we still live with alot of the institutions and ideas that originated in that progressive era. Some of them are good but many are not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As a German, and therefore the ultimate authority on fascism, I just wanted to provide this link.

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

    Check out who signed the statement of principal thingy. And then take some time and read what their ideas were for the military. I read all this years ago, just a little after Bush got elected. When he suddenly HAD to invade Iraq a few years after 9/11 this site answered it all for me. With Rumsfield, Cheney and Wolfowitz in the White House, the Iraq war was already a given in my opinion, probably before Bush even was elected. They just needed an nice opportunity to go in. Thanks Al-Quaeda for playing into their hands.

    Ok, I'm kidding on being an authority on fascism. I'm kind of with Kyle. I don't know much about Wilson, and I'd have to research it, to know how I feel. What you wrote, as is, certainly sounds troubling. But, you've written other things that sounded troubling that I didn't find troubling at all once I looked into them. So. I don't know. I do think fascism in whatever form is bad though. We can probably all agree on that.

    Fran

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am all on board for the importance of history, I am working on my Phd. in Art History after all.
    However, to give the subject of Wilson justice, I would need to read several good biographies, multiple sources on his administration from varied perspectives and methodologies, and then some overall sources on the political context of his administration. I honestly don't have the time for that.

    I can look into particular policies somewhat more easily, especially if there is a direct and compelling correlation between early progressive policy and current debates and or programs.

    Again, fascist tendencies (as you have defined them) don't make one fascist. You gave a definition of fascism's main points, if you wanted to say the essentials of fascism is government regulation of nearly all areas of life, then you need to make that case. However, that is too broad a definition. I guess the main issue I have with the link you are trying to make between contemporary progressive agendas and fascism is that you are purposefully trying to attach a pejorative to those policies. Debate them on their merits rather than go the angle of a pithy talking point by slapping negative angle on them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You don't need to read an entire library's worth of books to learn what the CPI and Sedition Act of 1918 were about. Whether you want to consider Wilson a fascist or not is up to you but those are fascist aspects of his adminstration and the congress that passed these laws. The overall political context of his administration will not change the fact that the Sedition Act was an evil act because it destroyed peoples' ability to speak their minds. I suppose you could argue that Wilson was trying to keep the domestic peace but even if that's your argument you have to acknowledge that his efforts were misguided. The ends do not justify the means. But enough about Wilson.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I really have to respectfully disagree with you. Good historical analysis requires consulting many diverse sources (maybe not a whole library, but you will need to use a library). Bad history is just as dangerous, if not more so, than ignorance of history. Then again, my discipline tends to make me particular about such things.

    I can say in general that I am a proponent of free speech and that I find most restrictions on speech to be troublesome at best. Given that, I would likely find the Sedition Act to be overreaching.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have a thought on this, too. The Sedition Act, as described by you, certainly sounds troublesome. But, I'd agree with Kyle that it's important to view historical events in the right context (which would require some reading). If we simply go by rulings/bills/ etc. and try to conclude on a few separate actions/events whether someone was a good/bad leader or whatever, we could end up concluding that Adolf Hitler was a great leader. He was all about moral/clean living, no drugs, no alcohol, physical fitness, hard work and he created a lot of things that really strengthened and boosted Germany's economy when it was dead-beat. He build the flippin' autobahn. A great leader though? No way. All the things that could appear to look good, don't look good anymore viewed in the right context. The autobahn (which created lots of jobs, and boosted our economy) was merely a war tool, designed to allow him to move troops quickly, and easily. His sense of healthy living also had little to do with the good of the people, but more with notions of superiority and ability to fight well.

    I think context is crucial. I don't know anything really about Pres. Wilson, so I can't say much on this. But, it would be very interesting to me to find out in what context/environment the Sedition Act was passed. Apparently, during war-time, and that alone could really change the perspective on this.

    But, I agree...silencing people is very very rarely if ever, a 'good' thing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay. Fine. Withold judgment on the Sedition Act. I'm not losing any sleep over it although war time or not, silencing people is never right. War time didn't make Bush's wiretaps okay did it? War time didn't make locking people up in Guantanamo without charges and never to see even a military tribunal right did it? And war time doesn't make these things okay under the Obama administration now do they? War time doesn't make it right for FDR to lock up the Japanese did it? Context might help explain WHY something was done but it doesn't change the answer (at least not in the cases I have mentioned above) to the question of whether or not it was right. I doubt that a consideration of their arrest in the proper context of WWI would make any one of the 175,000 people arrested under the Sedition Act of 1918 feel okay about being in jail.

    But I'm enjoying the discussion. Originally, this is what I wanted my blog to be - a discussion on various aspects of American history and how they apply to today. Hence the title 'Rediscovering America.' I think we've seen enough over the last 6 years, and continue to see today, that it isn't much of a stretch to imagine things from the Wilson era from happening again. At the very least, we learn from that era that, in times of "crisis" and under the guise of protection, the American people are not immune to the fault of handing excessive power into the hands of government. There's a discussion about exactly this thing in The Federalist Papers. Mere speculation I suppose, but speculation based on historical fact.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just a random little tid-bit, that I just found out, that has nothing to do with this post, but rather the previous abortion debate etc.

    Did anyone know that Mitt Romney had an official pro-choice stance until 2004? He just barely flipped a few years ago. Considering the huuuuggge support Mitt gets from Mormons, I find this rather ironic. Everyone is outraged over Obama being pro-choice, but oh look. Mr. Romney, who I assume has been a member for longer than 6 years, was 'all for it' until just recently. And I'm sure lots of Mormons would have voted for him without thinking twice. I'm pretty sure his change had little to do with how he actually feels about abortion and more with political agendas.

    Phhhhh....

    ReplyDelete
  11. John McCain and Mike Huckabee made a big deal out of this in 2007. I won't claim to be "pretty sure" why Mitt actually changed his views on abortion but he actually gave a very specific answer on exactly when he changed his views and what made him reconsider his views on Roe v. Wade. He claims to have seen the light so to speak while studying the issue of embryonic stem cell research. He stated in 2007 that while investigating that issue he realized how much Roe v. Wade has contributed to the cheapening of the concept of life in America. That's apparently what led him to reconsider his stance on Roe v. Wade. He claims that is when he decided that the federal government should have a say in abortion laws. Prior to that he took more of a libertarian stance - he was personally opposed but felt that the federal government should invovle itself in the issue. Now you can argue that he just concocted an answer to satisfy those who would ask him to justify his past position. I wouldn't begrudge someone for not believing he's 100% sincere, he is a politician after all. Bill Clinton and Al Gore leaned more towards a pro-life stance before they aimed for higher political office. Not surprising given that they both came out of conservative states. However, I haven't heard anybody else who shifted their views on any position offer such a well thought-out reason as Mitt Romney did. And he has readily admitted to supporting Roe v. Wade in the past. So I'm not ready, in this instance, to claim that I know what's going on in Mitt's mind. I take bigger issue with the fact that, as governor, Mitt Romney created a mandate that all residents of Massachusetts need to purchase health care. That's going to really hurt him in a Republican primary in 2012 if he chooses to run.

    Also, since we like to think of things in the context of the political atmosphere at the time we should mention that, Mitt Romney's opponent in the governor's race, wanted to further liberalize the abortion laws in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney's stance was more along the lines of maintaining the status quo. He vowed to keep abortion "legal and safe" but he was opposed to making laws that created easier access to abortion, which his opponent supported. So even while he was not in support of appealing Roe v. Wade, his stance on abortion issues was relatively conservative as far as Mass. goes. He's also never had (nor sought out) an endorsement from pro-choice groups such as NOW or NARAL so he couldn't have been very active in legislative support of abortion measures. In fact, he had a pretty pro-life record as governor.

    I'm not attempting to defend Mitt Romney's views. Nor am I condemning them. I'm pretty neutral on him actually. I'm just trying to add some context.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let me state clearly (since I don't think I just did) that I am also skeptical of politicians claiming to have changed their views on core issues such as abortion. Again, I understand those who struggle with Mitt's explanation and I don't necessarily buy into it myself. It's a shame that politics has brought us to this point because it is legitimate to have a change of view every now and then (that's what maturing, becoming educated, and learning about the world is all about) but it's too bad that we all become skeptical and are so quick to assume that others must be making a calculated political move. I understand the feeling, I'm skeptical of politicians too but I'm saying that it's a sign that our society is very polarized.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You can actually watch Mitt address his flip-flop on Abortion online. He announced it on the Sunday morning political show Meet the Press.

    Before he explained why he changed I was not a fan. And it wasn't because of his stance on Abortion. He wasn't pro choice. He was just sitting on the fence. What impressed me was his honesty about the whole issue and his direct explanation for his stance.

    From that time on I was a fan. Boy, he really could have been helping us with this CRAPPY economy right now with his talents.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I find his explanation to be well thought out. It's possible that somebody on his staff, who should be writing screenplays, concocted this very specific answer where Mitt can practically describe the color of the paint on the walls at the instant when somethink clicked in his mind. However, of all the explanations for flip-flops that politicians have proffered, Mitt's is the most believable.

    And I so agree that Mitt would have been much, much better for the economy. That's actually the biggest reason I liked him.

    ReplyDelete