• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Finally, since we must have a working definition of fascism, hereis mine: Fascism
�
 is a religion of the state. It assumes the organicunity of the body politic and
�
 longs for a national leader attuned to thewill of the people. It is totalitarian
�
 in that it views everything as political andholds that any action by the state is
�
 justified to achievethecommon good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of
� �
 life, including our healthand well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity
�
 ofthought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure.
�
 Everything,including the economy and religion,mustbe aligned with its
� � �
 objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and thereforedefined as
�
 the enemy. I will arguethat contemporary American liberalsim embodies all of
�
 these aspects of fascism.Fascism, like Progressivism and communism, is
�
 expansionist because it sees no naturalboundary to its ambitions. For violent
�
 variants, like so-called Islamofascism, thisis transparently obvious.
�
 ButProgressivism, too, envisions a New World Order. Worid War I wasa "cmsade" to
� �
 redeem the whole world, according to WoodrowWilson.In Democracy in America,
� �
 Alexis de Tocqueville wamed: "It mustnot be forgotten that it is especially
�
 dangerous to enslave men in theminor details of life. For my own part, I should
�
 be inclined to thinkfreedom less necessary in great things than in little
�
 ones."20 Thiscountry seems to have inverted Tocqueville's hierarchy. We must
�
 alllose our liberties on the little things so that a handful of people canenjoy
� �
 their freedoms to the fullest.n fact, in many respects fascism not only is here
�
 but hasbeen here for nearly a century. For what we call liberalism#the
�
 refurbished edificeof American Progressivism#is in fact a descendant and
�
 manifestation of fascism. Thisdoesn't mean it's the sameling as
� �
 Nazism.Progressivism was a sister movement of fascism, and today's liberalism is
�
 the daughterof Progressivism. One could strain the comparison and say that
�
 today's liberalismis the well-intentionedniece ofEuropean fascism. She is
� � �
 hardly identical to her uglier relations, butshe nonetheless carries an
�
 embarrassing family resemblance that fewwill admit to recognizing.There is no
� �
 word in the English language that gets thrown aroundmore freely by people who
�
 don't know what it means than "fascism."Indeed, the more someone uses the word
�
 "fascist" in everyday conversation, the lesslikely it is that he knows what he's
�
 talking about.3milio Gentile suggests, "A mass movement, thatcombines different
� �
 classes but is prevalently of the middle classes,which sees itself as havihg a
�
 mission of national regeneration, is in astate of war with its adversaries and
�
 seeks a monopoly of power byusing terror, parliamentary tactics and compromise to
�
 create a newregime, destroying democracy."2There are even serious scholars who
� �
 argue that Nazismwasn't fascist, that fascism doesn't exist at all, or that it is
�
 primarilya secular religion (this is my own view). "[P]ut simply," writesGilbert
� �
 Allardyce, "we have agreed to use the word without agreeingon how to define
�
 it."3And yet even though scholars admit that the nature of fascism isvague,
� �
 complicated, and open to wildly divergent interpretations,many modem liberals and
�
 leftists act as if they know exactly whatfascism is. What's more, they see it
�
 everywhere#except when theylook in the mirror. Indeed, the left wields the term
�
 like a cudgel tobeat opponents from the public square like seditious
�
 pamphleteers.After all, no one has to take a fascist seriously. You're under no
�
 obligation tolisten to a fascist's arguments or concem yourself with hisfeelings
� �
 or rights. It's why Al Gore and many other environmentalists are so quickto
�
 compare global-warming skeptics to Holocaustdeniers. Once such an association
�
 takes hold, there's no reason toive such people the time of day.In short,
� �
 "fascist" is a modem word for "heretic," branding an individual worthyof
�
 excommunication from the body politic. The leftuses other words#"racist" "sexist"
�
 "homophobe," "christianist"#for similar purposes, but these words have less
�
 elastic meanings.Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George
�
 Orwellnoted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay "Politicsand the
� �
 English Language": "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so faras it
�
 signifies 'something not desirable.' "4The New York Times leads a long roster of
�
 mainstreampublications eager to promote leading academics wtio raise the
�
 
 
posibility that theGOP is a,fascist party and that Christian conservatives are
�
 the new Nazis.5Fhe Reverend Jesse Jackson ascribes every fonn of opposition to
�
 his race-based agendaas fascist.But very few of these things areunique to
� � �
 fascism, and almost none of them are distinctly right-wingor conservative#at
�
 least in the American sense.b begin with, one must be able to distinguish between
�
 the symptoms and the disease.Consider militarism, which will come up againid
� �
 again in the course of this book. Militarism was indisputablycentral to fascism
�
 (and communism) in countless countries. But ithas a more nuanced relationship
�
 with fascism than one might supFor some thinkersin Germany and the United States
�
 (such asTeddy Roosevelt and Oliver Wendell Holmes), war was truly thesource ot
� �
 important moral values. This was militarism as a social)hilosophy pure and
�
 simple. But for far more people, militarism wasa pragmatic expedient: the
�
 highest, best means for organizing society in productiveways. Inspired by ideas
�
 like those in WilliamJames's famous essay "The Moral Equivalent of War,"
�
 militarismseemed to provide a workable and sensible model for achieving desirable
�
 ends. Mussolini,who openly admired and invoked James,used this logic for his
� �
 famous "Battle ot the Grains" and othersweeping social initiatives. Such ideas
�
 had an immense following inthe United States, with many leading progressives
�
 championing theuse of "industrial armies" to create the ideal workers'
�
 democracy.Later, Franklin Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps#as militaristic
�
 a socialprogram as one can imagine#borrowed fromthesetanstic a sociai prugi<un
� � �
 aa uue can imagine#bThis trope has hardly been purged from contemporary
�
 liberalism.Every day we hear about the "war on cancer." the "war on drugs,"
�
 the"War on Poverty," and exhortations to make this or that social challenge the
�
 "moralequivalent of war." From health care to gun controlto global wanning,
� �
 liberals insist that we need to "get beyond politics" and "putideological
�
 differences behind us" in order to "dothepeople's business" The experts and
� �
 scientists know what to do, weare told; therefore the time for debate is over.
�
 This, albeit in a nicerand more benign form, is the logic of fascism#and it was
�
 on ampledisplay in the administrations of Woodrow Wilson, FranklinRoosevelt, and
� �
 yes, even John F. Kennedy.Then, of course, there's racism. Racism was
�
 indisputably centralto Nazi ideology. Today we are perfectly comfortable
�
 equatingracism and Nazism. And in important respects that's absolutely
�
 appropriate. But whynot equate Nazism and, say, Afrocentrism? Manyearly
� �
 Afrocentrists, like Marcus Garvey, were pro-fascist or openlyidentified
�
 themselves as fascists. The Nation of Islam has surprisingties to Nazism, and its
�
 theology is Himmleresque. The BlackPanthers#a militaristic cadre of young men
�
 dedicated to violence,separatism, and racial superiority#are as quintessentially
�
 fascist asHitler's Brownshirts or Mussolini's action squads. The
�
 Afrocentristwriter Leonard Jeffries (blacks are "sun people," and whites are
�
 "icepeople") could easily be mistaken for a Nazi theorist.Certain quarters of
� �
 the left assert that "Zionism equals racism"and that Israelis are equivalent to
�
 Nazis. As invidious and problematic as thosecomparisons are, why aren't we
�
 hearing similardenunciations of groups ranging from the National Council of
�
 LaRaza#that is, "The Race"#to the radical Hispanic group MEChA,whose
� �
 motto#"PorLa Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" # means"Everything for the race,
�
 nothing outside the race"? Why is it thatwhen a white man spouts such sentiments
�
 it's "objectively" fascist,but when a person of color says the same thing it's
�
 merely an expression of fashionablemulticulturalism7The most important priority
� �
 for the left is not to offer any answerat all to such questions. They would much
�
 prefer to maintainOrwell's definition of fascism as anything not desirable, thus
�
 excluding their ownfascistic proclivities from inquiring eyes. When theyare
� �
 forced to answer, however, the response is usually more instinctive, visceral,or
�
 dismissively mocking than rational or principled.Their logic seems to be that
�
 multiculturalism, the Peace Corps, andsuch are good things#things that liberals
�
 approve of#and goodthings can't be fascist by simple virtue of the fact that
�
 liberals approve of them.Indeed, this seems to be the irreducible argument
�
 ofcountless writers who glibly use the word "fascist" to describe the"bad guys"
� �
 
 
based on no other criteria than that liberals think they arebad. Fidel Castro,
�
 one could argue, is a textbook fascist. But becausethe left approves of his
�
 resistance to U.S. "imperialism"#and because he uses theabracadabra words of
�
 Marxism#it's not justwrong but objectively stupid to call him a fascist.
�
 Meanwhile, calling Ronald Reagan,George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani. and
�
 otherconservatives fascists is simply what right-thinking, sophisticatedpeople
� �
 do.The major flaw in all of this is that fascism, properly understood,is not a
� �
 phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always hasbeen, a phenomenon
�
 of the left. This fact#an inconvenient truth ifthere ever was one#is obscured in
�
 our time by the equally mistakenbelief that fascism and communism are opposites.
�
 Inreality, they areclosely related, historical competitors for the same
�
 constituents,ieeking to dominate and control the same social space. The fact
�
 thatthey appear as polar opposites is a trick of intellectual history and(more
� �
 to the point) the result of a concerted propaganda effort on thepart of the
�
 "Reds" to make the "Browns" appear objectively evil and"other" (ironically,
�
 demonization of the "other" is counted as a definitional traitof fascism). But in
�
 terms of their theory and practice,the differences are minimal.Americans like to
� �
 think ofthemselves as being immune to fascismwhile constantly feeling threatened
�
 by it. "It can't happen here" isthe common refrain. But fascism definitely has a
�
 history in this counfiry, and thatis what this book is about. The American
�
 fascisttradition is deeply bound up with the effort to "Europeanize" Americaand
� �
 give it a "modem" state that can be hamessed to utopian ends.is American fascism
�
 seems#and is#very different from itsEuropean variants because it was moderated by
�
 many special factors#geographical size,ethnic diversity, Jeffersonian
�
 individualism,a strong liberal tradition, and so on. As a result, American
�
 fascism ismilder, more triendly, more "matemal" than its foreign counterparts;it
� �
 is what George Carlin calls "smiley-face fascism." Nice fascism.The best term to
�
 describe it is "liberal fascism." And this liberal fascism was,and remains,
�
 fundamentally left-wing.This book will present an altemative history of American
�
 liberalism that not onlyreveals its roots in, and commonalities with,classical
� �
 fascism out also shows how the fascist label was projected ontohe right by a
�
 complex sleight of hand. In fact, conservatives are thenore authentic classical
�
 liberals, while many so-called liberals are"iendly" fascists.Vhat I am mainly
� �
 trying to do is to dismantle the granitelike assumption in our politicalculture
�
 thatAmerican conservatism is an offshoot or cousin of fascism. Rather,as I will
� �
 try to show, many of the ideas and impulses that informwhat we call liberalism
�
 come to us through an intellectual traditionthat led directly to fascism. These
�
 ideas were embraced by fascism,Uliil 1CU UlFCdiy IU lcia^um. A ^*uw ***wuo HWAV
� �
 ^HJLL/I.#and remain in important respects fascistic.We cannot easily recognize
� �
 these similarities and continuities toiay, however, letalone speak about them,
�
 because this whole realm[ historical analysis was foreclosed by the Holocaust.
�
 Before thewar, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movementwith
� �
 many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the UnitedStates; the horror
�
 of the Holocaust completely changed our view offascism as something uniquely evil
�
 and ineluctably bound up withextreme nationalism, paranoia, and genocidal racism.
�
 After the war,the American progressives who had praised Mussolini and evenlooked
� �
 sympathedcally at Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had to distance themselvesfrom
�
 the horrors ofNazism. Accordingly, leftist intellectuals redefined fascismas"right-wing" and projected their ownsins onto conservatives, even as they
� �
 continued to borrow heavilyfrom fascist and pre-fascist thought.Much of this
� �
 altemative history is quite easy to find, if you haveeyes to see it. The problem
�
 is that the liberal-progressive narrative onwhich most of us were raised tends to
�
 shunt these incongmous andinconvenient facts aside, and to explain away as
�
 marginal what is actually central.the founding fathers of modem liberalism, the
�
 menmd women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Dealand the welfare
� �
 state, thought that fascism sounded like a pretty goodidea. Or to be fair: many
�
 simply thought (in the spirit of DeweyanPragmatism) that it sounded like a
�
 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...