I posted this yesterday in response to Booman’s question as to whether or not we were dealing with a rational force in the modern-day Republican Party:
“One of the signs that much of our current Republican Party is in fact fascist is the primacy of the political: the first question they ask is whether or not something will benefit them politically. Whether a proposal benefits or harms the nation is not a consideration. This is what turned Republican Romneycare into Communist Obamacare. They have abandoned evidence and reason for rhetorical opportunism – hence the constant hypocrisy – and their illiterate wish-projection onto the Bible, the Constitution and history. They value ignorance in the population, as evidenced by Palin-worship and climate denial.
They call themselves conservatives, but movement conservatives are in fact right-wing radicals – fascists. They do not care what shape the country is in that they take over, as long as they take over. Neither the news media nor the poobahs of the Democratic Party have caught on to their utter amorality. The news media think of this as being clever and do not see the disaster this strategy is leading us directly into. Democratic leaders are still trying to pretend it is the old “Will the Honorable Gentleman yield?” days. They can see better, but they don’t know what to do about it.”
Applying the word “fascist” to our right-wing opponents is considered unhelpful at best and irrational at worst. By and large, its use is about as welcome as conspiracy theories are in today’s domesticated left. But it applies here, so let me expand.
Fascism confuses a lot of people, including academics. Most political ideologies, from democracy to communism, have tried to state their goals fairly honestly, whether it be Mill’s `greatest good for the greatest number,’ or Marx’s `from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’
Fascism does not do this, for a very simple reason: in an age of at least formal democracy, plainly stating the objectives of fascism doesn’t work too well with the common voter. As Peter Viereck (Metapolitics: The Roots of the Nazi Mind) says, the aim of any truly conservative radical movement is to install an aristocracy. Since they cannot openly state that they intend to erect a class of inherited political privilege (and do some looting too), fascism needs a front organization to do its work for it. Think of the actual fascist party as being the aboveground advertising agency and customer service representatives – and enforcement arm – for belowground interests as they seek to install themselves in power.
This approach dictates a number of things:
- that the fascist party temporarily conceal the truth about what it is trying to do – end democracy – until the time is right; in place of sincere political proposals, a fascist party in opposition spins out a daily load of opportunistic rhetoric to constantly `win the day’ and erode respect for the current system and its adherents;
- that the fascist party be “in” electoral democratic politics, but not “of” them; i.e. that it be “metapolitical,” “above” all of the “petty partisan squabbling” which is, after all, the day-to-day face of a functioning democracy; thus, while participating in democratic forms, the fascist party considers democracy to be illegitimate except to give it power;
- that the nascent aristocracy will permit the fascist party to rule and take its share of spoils, while retaining as much of its desired prerogatives as it is able to do;
- this means that fascism is by its nature a constantly-negotiated, unstable coalition of some of the very rational “better” people on the one hand, and an organized bunch of thugs, lunatics and misfits on the other;
- all of this means that the aboveground fascists – the Party per se – should be effective and still be deferential to forms of ambition and prestige beyond just raw political power.
Let’s take these up one by one:
- One of the things that has most confused academics about fascism is its stated ideology: it doesn’t really have one. Most agree that it venerates war and surrounds itself with clouds of superheated nationalist rhetoric, but after that, it is difficult to come up with much of anything beyond a laundry list of rhetorical tendencies. Maybe it calls itself `socialist.’ Maybe `conservative.’ Maybe `Christian.’ That is determined by what is currently selling rhetorically, not by any ideological commitment. Some scholars have tried so hard to define fascist ideology and found so little, that they have come to the conclusion that fascism hardly has existed at all. (e.g. Stanley Payne, A History of Fascism). It did and does exist, but it cannot say why with any honesty. This is because:
- the fascist party’s sole raison d’être is to take power. It may generate lots of rhetoric about “embodying the will of the people” better than democracy and blah, blah, blah, but in fact, it is a virus which exists to exist and reproduce. And loot and install a new class of better people.
- A fascist party cannot come to power without a lot of money and other encouragement from some of the most powerful people in a society, and in finding them, it discovers that it has acquired a silent senior partner in the aristocratie manquée.
- Fascism in opposition is a relatively stable coalition – everybody needs everybody else to take power, but as soon as it gains and consolidates power, it becomes volatile. Once in power, all of the thugs, lunatics and misfits of the insurgent party try to loot what they want, which sometimes means cutting other people out, or messing up a good business climate. From the senior partners’ point of view, some of the thugs, lunatics and misfits of the insurgent party need to be culled and replaced with reliable bureaucrats who will set the looting on a more businesslike footing.
- This is the Masters’ Great Calculus, of course: finding the right front men. The same is true to some extent in a democracy, (C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite), but with fascism, this is especially tricky, since they have to be pliable people who nevertheless are able to take over and be seen to run a formerly-functioning democracy by getting enough common citizens to act against their own rights and freedom: a tall order that requires some really good rhetoric and occasional violence. It really helps the senior partners once in power if the front office is deferential by nature or training to norms of prestige. If a title of nobility or a really nice castle is all someone wants in trade for destroying unions, keeping the population quiet, and letting corporations make lots of money, it’s little enough.
The last point aims directly at the form of fascism known as “clerical fascism,” where fascism is in alliance with organized religion. This is the more common and more stable form of fascism, at least in its 20th century European form. The Roman Catholic Church has never really warmed up to democracy much, and it made common cause across Europe with insurgent (or in many cases merely resurgent) aristocrats and fascist parties alike from Hungary to Portugal.
But it’s the Republican Party of the United States that I am claiming has a strong fascist element to it. And here we have our own mostly-“Protestant” politicized fundamentalists, demonstrating the truth of what Sinclair Lewis predicted – that fascism would come to the US carrying a flag and a cross. Religion – and alcohol and drugs – are the opiates of the masses. People are just more malleable when under the influence, and the Republicans are hardly the first to notice this. The Republican Party incorporated this element of clerical fascism in 1988, when George H.W. Bush invited the politicized fundamentalists to replace college-educated Republican women as the foot soldiers of the Party. By 1996, Ralph Reed was saying that Bob Dole was the “last moderate we will accept” as the nominee. This process drove the Eisenhower Republicans out of the Republican Party, and eventually into the Democratic Party, which they now run. (Another story for another day) Bush, Jr. is a politicized fundamentalist, and recall that the former maverick John McCain went and kissed the ring of both Falwell and Robertson before he got the nomination.
The people who run the Republican Party are not stupid or irrational. Far from it. They can read the demographic handwriting on the wall. And yet they continue to do all they can to alienate minorities and outsiders who will soon vastly outnumber whites. Some people look at this with confidence and see a coming permanent Democratic majority. I look at it and listen to the increasingly violent Republican rhetoric and realize that something is going to have to give. Either the Republicans are going to have to walk a lot of this rhetoric way back, or their adherence to democracy is pretty well over. Which do you think is more likely, given the makeup of the party?’
To reinforce this point, consider the fact that a lot of Republicans do not grant legitimacy to any but a Republican government. The Tea Partiers kept screaming about health care reform thwarting the will of the people, as if Democrats had not won huge consecutive victories. And in the 111th Congress, the Republicans opposed everything the Democrats did merely for the political sake of opposing, not because Romneycare and Obamacare weren’t the same damned things. Like Nazis in the Reichstag, they were in democracy, but not of democracy, and showed a real party militant solidarity in being so. Everyone hates Congress already and it’s going to get worse. That’s only bad for your party if you think Congress should continue to exist.
The problem of the front office people, the political front men and women, has been approached in a very interesting way. Rather than settle on one charismatic leader (I think the German Masters came to regret their decision to do this), they have raised up a chorus of thugs, lunatics and misfits to sing democracy’s swansong for them. For the most part, their demands are not excessive or even very interesting: they just want to be Governor of Alaska for a while, watch their daughters do well on Dancing with the Stars, and maybe be president for a while too; make a lot of money, tell racist “jokes” in public, and get access to little girls and pharmaceuticals; have a nice job on Fox; or maybe just handcuff a reporter or step on some hippie girl’s head. Not very threatening. To the aristocracy.
Many fascist movements have foundered before they had a real chance to install an aristocracy. This one looks as if it has a better idea. The big question is what the military will do. Right now, the Masters don’t appear to have thought this one out yet, as they have managed to alienate the military more from their chosen vehicle than it has been in many decades. But they have lots of resources, and I’m sure they’re working on it.
