In an op-ed in the New York Times Madeleine Albright warns us that fascism is on the rise:
Today, we are in a new era, testing whether the democratic banner can remain aloft amid terrorism, sectarian conflicts, vulnerable borders, rogue social media and the cynical schemes of ambitious men. The answer is not self-evident. We may be encouraged that most people in most countries still want to live freely and in peace, but there is no ignoring the storm clouds that have gathered. In fact, fascism — and the tendencies that lead toward fascism — pose a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II.
Warning signs include the relentless grab for more authority by governing parties in Hungary, the Philippines, Poland and Turkey — all United States allies. The raw anger that feeds fascism is evident across the Atlantic in the growth of nativist movements opposed to the idea of a united Europe, including in Germany, where the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland has emerged as the principal opposition party. The danger of despotism is on display in the Russia of Vladimir Putin — invader of Ukraine, meddler in foreign democracies, accused political assassin, brazen liar and proud son of the K.G.B. Putin has just been re-elected to a new six-year term, while in Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, a ruthless ideologue, is poised to triumph in sham balloting next month. In China, Xi Jinping has persuaded a docile National People’s Congress to lift the constitutional limit on his tenure in power.
including in the United States:
At one time or another, Trump has attacked the judiciary, ridiculed the media, defended torture, condoned police brutality, urged supporters to rough up hecklers and — jokingly or not — equated mere policy disagreements with treason. He tried to undermine faith in America’s electoral process through a bogus advisory commission on voter integrity. He routinely vilifies federal law enforcement institutions. He libels immigrants and the countries from which they come. His words are so often at odds with the truth that they can appear ignorant, yet are in fact calculated to exacerbate religious, social and racial divisions. Overseas, rather than stand up to bullies, Mr. Trump appears to like bullies, and they are delighted to have him represent the American brand. If one were to draft a script chronicling fascism’s resurrection, the abdication of America’s moral leadership would make a credible first scene.
I’ve tried but I can’t figure out what she’s warning us about. IMO fascism including in the U. S. peaked in the 1960s but has been with us constantly since the end of World War II. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Assad, père et fils, exemplies it in Syria. They are both examples of Arab fascism. Mao in particular is an example from China; Putin rather obviously pursues Russian fascism. In other words it has never gone away.
Here’s the dictionary definition:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Every president of my lifetime has pursued increased presidential power; that alone is not a mark of fascism. Barack Obama attacked the judiciary, chafed at even the slightest criticism of him in the media, and quietly defended torturers. More of his diktats were struck down by unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court than any other president. I list these not to suggest that Barack Obama was a fascist but to point out that the pursuit of power and dislike of criticism are not sufficient evidence to support a case of rising fascism.
What’s missing from Trump’s approach to being president which would warrant concerns about U. S. fascism are severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition. I see few if any signs of either.
What I do see signs of is too great a willingness to label your political opponents fascists. Let’s leave the label for actual cases lest it come to mean merely “people we don’t like”.
“severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition” are, of course, the hallmarks of all sorts of socialism, and Mussolini’s Fascism and Hilter’s Naziism were totalitarian socialist movements.
But Albright’s comments once again reveal how utterly wrong headed, delusional and evil she is. She was one of the main drivers for America’s wantonly violent interventions all over the world, and that includes specifically the Ukraine where the US spent $5B to overthrow a democratically elected president. She and her allies are also responsible for the horrors of the Middle East where R2P interventions have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, razed dozens of cities, destroyed tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure and forced millions into refuge status.
Albright is a war criminal in exactly the same sense that Hitler and Tojo were war criminals. In a just world she would be rotting in a cell. Putin’s alleged crimes (most of which are plainly bogus) pale into insignificance compared to Albright’s mass murders.
“Barack Obama attacked the judiciary”
I told my wife this morning she burned the toast. That is a criticism. Big difference between that and attacking. But, feel free to show where he attacked the judiciary, and not just criticized some decisions.
Steve
Dressing them down in the SOTU was an attack.
For reference, look at Ruth Marcus’s column, “Obama’s unsettling attack on the Supreme Court”. Ms. Marcus is no right-winger.
Obviously, I’m using the word “attack” in its second Merriam-Webster definition: sharp criticism. The same sense in which Sec. Albright did.
That was an attack? The problem here is that you are using the same word, attack, to describe what Trump does and what Obama did. Trump claimed that a judge was unable to decide fairly because he was Mexican. He claimed the judicial system was broken because they keep losing cases in one of the Circuit courts, calling into question a huge section of our system. Obama’s words follow.
“”With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama told a packed House of Representatives chamber Wednesday night.
“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”
Again, this is criticism of a specific decision, not of a specific judge or of the judiciary in general. Maybe this passed for a sharp criticism 8 years ago, but now? That is the gentlest of rebukes by current standards.
Steve
It’s only fascist when the other person does it.
Seriously though, to me, this is yet another example of poisoning the well by using poor descriptive language.
“That was an attack?”
What would the media’s reaction be if Trump does that at the next SOTU?
The fact that President Obama is a much more polished speaker, who chose his words carefully before giving that speech, doesn’t make it any less of an attack.
When it comes to Trump, I think too many confuse delivery with the message. Trump’s delivery is shock-and-awe compared to Obama, but it’s the actual content and meaning of the message that really matters.
“What would the media’s reaction be if Trump does that at the next SOTU?”
I think they would be shocked by such a reasonable statement that did not question the whole court and advocate removing the ones who voted against the position he preferred. They would also be shocked that he would be aware of precedents going back 100 years.
Steve