Reclaiming The Issues: Islamic Or Republican Fascism?

This is a link to a really interesting article by Thom Hartmann.

While the Republicans promote the term “Islamo-fascism,” the rest of the world is pushing back, as the BBC noted in an article by Richard Allen Greene (“Bush’s Language Angers US Muslims” – 12 August 2006):

“Security expert Daniel Benjamin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies agreed that the term [Islamic fascists] was meaningless.

“‘There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term,’ he said. ‘This is an epithet, a way of arousing strong emotion and tarnishing one’s opponent, but it doesn’t tell us anything about the content of their beliefs.'”

Their beliefs are, quite simply, that governments of the world should be subservient to religion, a view shared by a small but significant part of today’s Republican party. But that is not fascism – the fascists in the US want to exploit the fundamentalist theocrats to achieve their own fascistic goals.

Roosevelt’s Vice President Henry Wallace was the first to clearly and accurately point out who the real American fascists are, and what they’re up to. This article explores his comments in depth and draws some interesting parallels between Mussolini and the Republican Party of today.

As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: “A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”

Sound at all familiar?

Islamic Or Republican Fascism?

3 thoughts on “Islamic Or Republican Fascism?

  • Give me a break. Regardless of what the dictionary definition has been for fascism, there is nothing right-wing about it. Fascism, as described, is the state control of of businesses, and other aspects of life. Right wing politics emphasize conservatism, free market, small government, etc.

    As for Islamo-fascism, the goal of terrorists is to set up Islamic states, where the government dictates people’s lives according to their view of Islam. The definition is therefore consistent.


    P.S. Hi Butch. 🙂

  • You know I’ve been putting some thought into this…and I do agree that the definition has some problems…but to turn around and call Republicans fascists is less accurate.

    Islamo-fascism is probably as close as it gets. But it’s really all semantics. Terms like “neo-con” and “right-wing” have completely lost their meaning as well, but it’s all semantics. If you think the current administration is wrong, then feel free to call them fascists if you like, but I think it’s simply not true.

    Merging religion and government certainly describes those that are being described as our enemies (and I believe they are) so maybe “Islamic Theocrats” is a better way to go, (but yeah it just doesn’t have that same ring, does it?).

    But I have two perhaps more relevant questions…(not that words aren’t important, because I do believe we should name our enemies accurately)…

    1) do you really think that our current President (et al) is maliciously trying to grab more power into the executive that he (they?)will only keep for another two years? Or do you think that he truly believes that wiretaps on foreign calls to terrorist suspects is necessary for our national security (right or wrong)? And if the former, at what point does he appoint himself emperor?

    2) There are lots of economic statistics out there, can you show me one that shows the middle class is disappearing in the US? Has anyone read this guy’s book, “Screwed”.

  • i have encountered a different definition of fascism, and i think it is a bit more illuminating :

    fascism is a totalitarian form of government characterized by one central party, highly nationalistic and highly militaristic, exercises centralized control over private enterprise (corporatism), suppresses dissenting opinions of governmental policy, and openly practices propaganda to control the thinking of the masses.

    so the first problem is that the US system is a system of representation whereby two groups, the Dems and Repubs, run the show, not one central party. now i think the repubs and dems are more like one amorphous group on many issues, with differences of opinions on certain issues, but still a small stretch from one central party.

    secondly, the US gov does not control private corporations so much as letting private corporations influence the government heavily, too heavily in my mind.

    corporations used to pay a much bigger share of taxes, and since 1930, when 30% of federal income came from taxes on corporations, now it is 7%. Simultaneous to the decrease of tax burden on corporations, the tax burden on the individual and small-business owner has increased dramatically. 43% of the federal income comes from personal income taxes.

    but the US gov does subsidize agro-business, the pharmaceutical companies, the defense sector quite heavily, practices which never would be tolerated in a free-market system.
    so the US economic system is an amalgam of many different systems.

    but , it is fair to say that many of the essential properties of fascism are readily observed in US governance, especially the militaristic component, and the use of propaganda.

    “propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to the dictator”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *