Fascism and Violence

So, as I quoted in a previous post, Orcinus argues that Our Dear Leader is not actually a fascist, but a crony capitalist who encourages proto-fascism in the populace for political gain, believing that the dark forces thus awakened can nevertheless be contained. This isn't quite as dangerous, he thinks, as an actually fascist leadership.

Orcinus is right to point out that the problem is not simply or even primarily this administration, but their base. And that problem will not go away, even if we wrest some power from the Republicans in 2006 or 2008. But I wouldn't let the administration off the hook so easily as that. If Orcinus is right that the administration is not itself fascist, it's still true that neither their means (inflaming fascist passions) nor their ends (the destruction of the state's restraints on untrammeled capitalist exploitation) are noble, in which case, I may not call them fascist, but I can certainly call them evil.

I'm also not convinced (and clearly I'm talking out of my ass here, because Orcinus knows way more about fascism than I do, he having written essays about it, and me only having read them, but perhaps the other half of biscuit can add his thoughts, as he knows way more about actual historical fascism than I do) that it's wrong to call the administration fascist. Orcinus seems mostly to make the distinction that the administration does not openly endorse violence against its critics, and the open use of violence he believes is a necessary component of fascism. Max says that it's true that the historical fascisms he knows about did openly endorse violence against their enemies.

But why should we expect all fascism to conform in all respects to historical examples? If fascism can silence its critics without resort to the open endorsement of violence, then why wouldn't it? Not to harp constantly, as we all do these days, on Orwell, but was Winston held in line primarily by fear of violence to his person, or by something else?

And does not the widespread use of torture against the Enemy constitute an endorsement of violence? Orcinus approvingly quotes an essay by a conservative writer, Scott McConnell, on the torture. McConnell writes:

But the Bush administration still seems more embarrassed than proud of its most authoritarian aspects. Gonzales takes some pains to present himself as an opponent of torture; hypocrisy in this realm is perhaps preferable to open contempt for international law and the Bill of Rights.

And Orcinus says, again, that this is precisely the difference between real fascists and the administration: that the administration hypocritically decries its own actions. It "knows" that torture is wrong.

I don't think it does. It knows that the word 'torture' denotes something which people consider to be wrong; and so to get around having to endorse something people believe to be wrong, it simply drains the word of all its meaning. Gonzales can honestly claim to be against torture, and also to honestly claim to have no opinion whatsoever on what torture actually is. And also to claim that, even though he is against torture, the president does have the right to order it, although he wouldn't, and never has. But since he won't presume to say what torture is, then how can he say whether or not the president has ordered it?

This is not hypocrisy, but doublethink, which is far more dangerous.

My point is that the skillful use of doublethink can obviate the need for the explicit endorsement of violence as a political tool. Should we let Our Dear Leader off the hook because he has found a more subtle means of stifling dissent?

Or perhaps I can explain it another way: the explicit endorsement of violence against one's enemies is a masculine approach to control. Ask any woman if there are other ways of terrifying your enemies into submission, and watch her shudder as she remembers what has been done to her by, or what she has done to, other women. Wouldn't it be amusing if the 21st century brand of fascism, while celebrating rampant masculinity, actually consolidated its power through the use of traditionally feminine means of control? We will be a nation of cowboys, headed by a cowboy, and in fact controlled by a snide cadre of nasty pumpkin-headed people who use rumors, innuendo, and the silent treatment to keep us all in line. Ah, to live perpetually in seventh grade, terrorized by Heathers.