[Salon] A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy, Newsday, July 18, 2003 | United States |Axisoflogic.com

[Todd Pierce <tepierce@outlook.com>]

“Learned minds” here get angry whenever I question “American Exceptionalism,” or its Trumpite variety, by pointing out its identical properties with what Mussolini called “Fascism.” But Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin was on to that transformation of the US way back in 2003, having the advantage that he actually knew what he was talking about, unlike the assorted Trumpians, war-loving Bidenites following the path of Scoop Jackson Democrats (the wannabee Republicans of the 1970s, a distinction without a difference on so-called “National Security), and other war-loving Americans. And to be clear what he was saying, Wolin wrote in a new foreword to his book in 2009 how disappointed he was that Obama didn’t reverse course on our war aggression.

As did this person know what he was talking about, Chalmers Johnson, who agreed with Sheldon Wolin, with a bit on Johnson here: https://www.motherjones.com/media/2011/04/remembering-chalmers-johnson-2/

"Early in our marriage Chal and I had discussed whether it was possible to construct what we called a “Fascistograph.” The idea was to come up with a checklist of things going wrong in a country that might herald the imminent arrival of fascism—so that one could get out in time. (This was, in part, triggered by conversations with some of our own professors, including Hannah Arendt, about how and when they made the decision to leave Hitler’s Germany and go into exile prior to World War II.” 

That ship has sailed, thanks to the efforts to make Perpetual War, our Perpetual War Culture, with the same values culturally transmitted through our culture (and I don’t mean ideas of equality, or that police shouldn’t get by with killing Black people, in what TAC denounces as “Wokeness”) as were throughout Germany as evolved from 1870 – 1945.  But the idea I’m referring to is the “Friend–Enemy distinction” idea, of Carl Schmitt/Leo Strauss, and Michael Anton of Hillsdale College, Claremont Institute, and The American Conservative fame, which one sees on display at any event in which these groups are involved. The idea which is the very essence of “fascism.”

With more here: 

https://apjjf.org/-Chalmers-Johnson/2834/article.html

"Since 1961, there has been too little serious study of, or discussion of, the origins of the military-industrial complex, how it has changed over time, how governmental secrecy has hidden it from oversight by members of Congress or attentive citizens, and how it degrades our Constitutional structure of checks and balances.”

"Too little serious study” because we don’t want to know, preferring the myths we create to conceal whaat we’ve become, and how we got here, essential to know if we want to have any hope of getting out of this American variety of a “benevolent” fascism, “benevolent” only in our own stultified minds, but not to the many millions of people we’ve killed over the last decades:

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_917.shtml

A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy, Newsday, July 18, 2003 | United States |Axisoflogic.com

Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation's self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as "the world's only superpower."

Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like "superpower democracy" or "imperial democracy," and they seem not only contradictory but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic participation congenial.

No administration before George W. Bush's ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis of evil." Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation's resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved.

Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel.

The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest.

The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints.

It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent.

Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests) short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile.

While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.

This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services.

Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one, the Republican, radically change its identity:

From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one.

From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars.

From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to the right and and enfeebling opposition.

From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances and technological innovation. (This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which subordinated "big business" to party leadership.)

The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.

In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.

Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpwol183376588jul18,0,3380237.story