Hatred, yes, but not quite mindless : Part I of a Response to Michael the Independent From Fairfax
Several days ago I received an email from someone I will call Michael The Independent From Fairfax (who, as stated in my last post, should not be confused with all the other Michaels, and who will be abbreviated as MIFF). Michael had read parts of The Isikoff Report on Politics, especially my Hanukkah Message, and was writing to complain about my characterization of the Bush administration as 'authoritarian' and as wanting 'permanent and total control over the government.' Michael couldn't understand why someone who obviously recognized the importance of winning Republicans and Independents to my cause would say something that most of those people believed not only to be false but patently false.
I asked Michael's permission to quote his letter in the blog, which he gave, and so I quote:
Do you have any evidence whatsoever suggesting that Bush seeks "permanent and total control over the government?"
[...]
I don't speak for other independents, of course, but I suspect that many of them are equally repulsed by your silly comments about Bush and authoritarianism. You remind me of certain hardcore Republicans in the 1990s who not only disagreed with Clinton's policies, but felt compelled to vilify him and accuse him of every transgression under the sun. They let partisanship blind them to reality, and so it is with you and your ilk. I'll be able to vote Democratic again someday but I think that at the very least it's going to take a lopsided loss next November to show the Democrats that mindless hatred is no substitute for reasoned debate.
This post is the first part of my response to MIFF, who may be repulsed but who I hope has kept on reading anyway.
First of all, MIFF may find it amusing to hear that in the first draft of my Hanukkah message, I said something he'd find even sillier than the stuff I did end up saying. In the first draft, I actually called the Bush government "fascist". I asked my mom to help me edit the message, though:
Mom: You can't call the Bush adminstration fascists.
Me (whiny): They are fascists.
Mom: People will stop reading once they see the word fascist.
Me (even whinier): Paul Krugman called them fascists. [Note: this is not actually, to my knowledge, true. Paul Krugman did call them "a revolutionary power", however.]
Mom: You're not Paul Krugman.
Me(whiniest daughter ever): Are you saying I don't have the credibility to say that the current administration is fascist?
Mom: That's exactly what I am saying.
So out went "fascist" and in went "authoritarian".
Apparently, I don't have the credibility to say that either.
Before everyone gets all up-in-arms about my saying "fascist," please read this fascinating essay by famed blogger Orcinus on fascism and whether or not the Bush adminstration can be called fascist by reasonable people. The short answer is no, and since the essay is some 85 pages long, I quote here the money shot (more prosaically known as the conclusion):
So these essays were written in the hopes of resurrecting a proper understanding of fascism -- what it really is, how it operates, why it is in fact very much alive and with us today. Part of my purpose, of course, was to persuade liberals to drop the inappropriate references to fascism, mostly by coming to grips with its real nature and not its imagined one.
My deeper purpose, though, was to sound a call to arms for Americans of every stripe who believe in democracy, because ultimately those are the institutions that are most endangered by fascism. Until the strands of far-right extremism that have insinuated themselves into the fabric of mainstream conservatism are properly identified and exposed, they will continue to wrap themselves around it and through it until its corruption is complete. And when that befalls us, it will probably be too late to stop it.
As the War on Terror, instead of combating the rise of fascimentalism, transforms itself into a War on Liberals; as conservatives increasingly identify themselves as the only "true" Americans; as Bush continues to depict himself as divinely inspired, and the leader of a great national spiritual renewal; as the political bullying that has sprung up in defense of Bush takes on an increasingly righteous religious and violent cast; and as free speech rights and other democratic institutions that interfere with complete political control by conservatives come increasingly under fire, then the conditions for fascimentalism will almost certainly rise to the surface.
These conditions remain latent for now, but the rising tide of proto-fascist memes and behaviors indicates that the danger is very real, especially as fascimentalist terrorist attacks take their toll on the national sense of well-being and security. It may take fully another generation for it to take root and blossom, but its presence cannot be ignored or dismissed.
European fascism was a terrible thing. An American fascism, though, could very well devastate the world.
Readers should take note, then, that I only called the Bush Administration fascist in a draft, and I have since done the responsible thing and researched the allegation, finding it, so far, groundless, and that my mom is a very smart woman.
Parts II and III, to follow: Bush Administration 'authoritarian'? and Does Bush Administration seek 'permanent and total control over the government,' as alleged?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home