When conservatism becomes fascism.
American liberals worry about Bush War on Terra overreach, particularly by circumventing FISA to wiretap phone calls and issuing his interpretative "signing statement" of a Congressional anti-torture measure he doesn't like but was forced out of political weakness (and John McCain's political strength) to sign.
Is Bush's four post-911 years of law-breaking, hubris and fearmongering a sign of a creeping fascism? I really don't think so. A rather noxious mix of messianism and political expediency maybe, forced down with a heavy dose of pre-existing incompetence and smallmindedness, yes. But that's a far cry from fascism as understood with all its historical and ideological connotations.
But this isn't. From Abigail R. Esman's frightening new TNR piece on Holland's recent right-veering political and social history:
The rightward shift can also be seen in a raft of other recent laws: Carrying a nationally recognized form of ID has been mandatory since January of last year. Ministries have slashed art subsidies and welfare. And, in July, the parliament approved a security package allowing video surveillance on the streets and government access to records of Internet surfing, information about book and video purchases (and rentals), vacation plans, medical records, and health club memberships, as well as continuing access to private phone conversations and bank transactions. All such records in private hands must be kept for a minimum of three years and delivered to authorities on demand.
All private records are available for the authorities on demand? Legal theory makes my eyes roll back in my head, but there's got to be a catch, some sort of check, some sort of process by which the government needs to prove probable cause. Sure, Europeans are less libertarian than Americans, but your private records available to government authorities on demand? It seems impossible for a free people to accept.
Not to be melodramatic, but this, this is the reason (besides abortion and the intolerable gloating it will produce on certain American blogs) I fear a Harper victory in Canada. Harper is probably even less inately "fascist" than Bush, which is to say, well, if it's hyperbolic overreach to call Bush a fascist (and I think it is), it's ludicrous and historically ignorant to call Harper one.
Be that as it may, the industrialized world does not need to see another right-wing government elected at this moment in history. Especially in Canada.
Is Bush's four post-911 years of law-breaking, hubris and fearmongering a sign of a creeping fascism? I really don't think so. A rather noxious mix of messianism and political expediency maybe, forced down with a heavy dose of pre-existing incompetence and smallmindedness, yes. But that's a far cry from fascism as understood with all its historical and ideological connotations.
But this isn't. From Abigail R. Esman's frightening new TNR piece on Holland's recent right-veering political and social history:
The rightward shift can also be seen in a raft of other recent laws: Carrying a nationally recognized form of ID has been mandatory since January of last year. Ministries have slashed art subsidies and welfare. And, in July, the parliament approved a security package allowing video surveillance on the streets and government access to records of Internet surfing, information about book and video purchases (and rentals), vacation plans, medical records, and health club memberships, as well as continuing access to private phone conversations and bank transactions. All such records in private hands must be kept for a minimum of three years and delivered to authorities on demand.
All private records are available for the authorities on demand? Legal theory makes my eyes roll back in my head, but there's got to be a catch, some sort of check, some sort of process by which the government needs to prove probable cause. Sure, Europeans are less libertarian than Americans, but your private records available to government authorities on demand? It seems impossible for a free people to accept.
Not to be melodramatic, but this, this is the reason (besides abortion and the intolerable gloating it will produce on certain American blogs) I fear a Harper victory in Canada. Harper is probably even less inately "fascist" than Bush, which is to say, well, if it's hyperbolic overreach to call Bush a fascist (and I think it is), it's ludicrous and historically ignorant to call Harper one.
Be that as it may, the industrialized world does not need to see another right-wing government elected at this moment in history. Especially in Canada.
1 Comments:
I'm a biologist, not a historian or legal expert, so fools rushing in and all that, but I have to disagree with you. Shrub and his handlers are clearly dictators at heart, whether they fit the definition of fascism, specifically, or not.
Detention without trial and torture are the two hallmarks of dictators, and BushCo don't even try to hide doing both. (I have a longer rant on this on my blog: Conservatives: What's wrong with them?) Illegal wiretapping, although minor by comparison, is part of the same pattern of a government where might makes right. I get the impression that crew wouldn't know a government of laws if it bit them. And we have to hope it does. Soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home