One caveat when using the 'fascism' label, however, is how one defines it. Strictly speaking, most people in the US, including the leaders, probably don't consciously follow
Mussolini's original philosophy. However, the term 'fascist' has also been used to describe regimes that bear similar characteristics, such as intense nationalism and obsession for national security at the expense of civil rights, the use of the word 'fascism', in that sense, would likely apply to the US under the current Bush regime.
Of course, such a comparison is prone to criticism, both because it is associated with superficial and specific characteristics of past regimes, and because the word has been overused in debates for the powerful images that it evokes as a means to defame a political adversary. However, if one looks beyond mainstream assumptions and put all matters in context, one can find out that parallels between the Bush administration and fascist regimes are not so far-fetched.
Fascist states are commonly assumed to be dictatorships controlled by a single, ruthless leader whose rule is enforced by a pervading cult of personality. In reality, similar regimes have also been instilled in the past by elites (whether part of the government or not) who glorify puppet leaders though
various means of propaganda while they work behind the scenes to further their agendas. Many of the elites in question are owners of select few corporations that work in tandem with the regime, whether directly or by affiliation.
It is worth noting that democratic institutions, separation of power, bills of rights and constitutional provisions have not prevented fascist regimes from taking over the country by legal or pseudo-legal means (Nazi Germany is a prominent example). Fascist regimes that have been instituted by an (often fraudulent) election are more difficult to recognise, and are often only identified several years later when it is too late, after having progressively expanded their powers by abolishing civil rights, often as a response to a staged attack or a perceived threat, and after having brought down the separations of power by various means.
Contrary to past European fascist regimes like Nazi Germany, there is no need for the US to expand its borders, as it is already a large nation; all it has to do is allow its corporations to exploit the natural and human ressources of third world countries. However, the PNAC's aim to turn the US into a global defacto hegemony is only slightly different, with the exception that the neocons claim that they dream of world peace through unity, as opposed to classic fascists who made their dreams of self-aggrandisement explicit.
In short, neoconservatism is simply a subversive and more subtle variant of fascism that relies slightly more on perceived threats than on patriotic fervour, and whose control is less direct, but more spread out and much more powerful.
BTW, here is Lawrence Britt's original article:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htmOK, time to stop now. The effects of my medication are dissipating.
[ September 11, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]
