In 1990, Mike Godwin, an attorney, stated online that
the longer a popular argument continued, the more likely it was that someone
would compare something or someone to Hitler or Nazism. Almost immediately, this became known as
Godwin’s Law.
And almost as fast, people began using the law inappropriately,
saying that any mention of Nazi Germany meant that the speaker automatically
lost the argument and that the discussion was therefore over. At Enema U, there is an abundance of those
who use this adage as a club designed to censor those they oppose, but pepper
their own personal posts in social media with references to “brown shirts”
and fascists. (Of course, most of these comments are
directed toward the administration, so they are not completely
inappropriate.)
Mike Godwin recently stated that in no way should his
law be used to stifle thoughtful and informed comparisons to Nazi Germany. And then, violating his own law, he added,
"Or anything said about Donald Trump."
All of this is rather similar to what I call the
"Fox News Law"—the more people talk at the same time, the more likely
someone will be called a fascist. The
law can also be used with MSNBC, but since someone is called a fascist in damn
near every show (and quite a few commercials) reference to it is less
impressive since it's such a "target-rich environment.
In light of all of this, it might be useful to
actually define fascism. In an election
where hyperbole has already bitten us in the ass, we need to be knowledgeable
about our insults.
Defining fascism is a little more difficult than you
might think. Benito Mussolini gave a
less than helpful official explanation:
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is
all encompassing, and all within it must conform to the ruling
body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.
This is a little restrictive, so there is a more
general definition where fascism is defined as a form of government that
generally uses several of a group of traits. No single trait is absolutely necessary, and
while fascist states vary, most have a majority of the following traits:
A Strong Charismatic Leader. A dictator who
has a strong following, not so much because of his intelligence or
accomplishments, but because he promises everything to everybody. Nearly all Fascist leaders promise to return
a country to greatness. This is a leader
who understands the anger or disappointment of the masses, and offers
improbable solutions. And this is a
little scary, since every politician seeking elected office strives to be
exactly this.
Suppression of Democracy. Fascist leaders
go out of their way to outlaw political parties, cancel elections, and declare
martial law to remain in power. The
irony in this is that many Fascist dictators—Hitler, Mussolini, Peron, Porfirio
Diaz—came to power through free and fair elections—And then promptly found ways
to stop having them (usually for what they claimed was the good of the
people.
Anti-Labor. Since labor unions are centers of power outside of the
state, most fascist leaders find ways to suppress the unions, sometimes by
co-opting their power and making labor unions part of the government.
Government Control of the
Economy. Fascist states usually believe in strongly
regulating business, harnessing it supposedly for the good of the people, but
actually for using it as a means of controlling the masses while enriching
themselves. Competition is not allowed,
wages are set by the government, and productivity inevitably drops
precipitously.
Super Nationalism. There is certainly nothing wrong with patriotism, at
least not until it blinds you to systemic wrongs and keeps you from making
improvements—And when patriotism becomes mandatory, it is always wrong.
Samuel Johnson's most famous line is "patriotism
is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
I have always understood this to mean that it is only the demagogue, the
despot, who seeks to further his cause by appealing to your love of your
country.
Xenophobia. When someone
tells you that all of our problems are caused by outsiders, by people who are
different, it is time to put your hand firmly over your wallet and run. I don't care how reasonable it sounds, this
country simply does not need to build a wall along the Canadian border to keep
the Frostbacks out.
This is why the 21 Muslim countries of the Middle East—most
of which easily qualify as Fascist states—tell their 350 million people that
all of their problems are the result of the 6 million Jews in Israel.
Collectivity Over
Individualism. This almost sounds good, as it is widely
believed that the greatest good for the greatest number is the supreme goal of
government. But, it isn't, otherwise
government is simply two wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu. It is the responsibility of the many to
protect the rights of the few and we need to be wary of the politician who
talks about individuals surrendering rights for the good of society.
That last point was always the most difficult for my
students to understand, to understand that protecting individuality is just as
important to society as promoting the common good. To help reinforce this, I used to get
freshmen to join me in taking Steve Martin's Non-Conformist
Oath. I get them to
stand and raise their right hands and repeat after me:
I promise to be different. (There is
unanimous compliance.)
I promise to be unique. (By now, one
or two students are starting to narrow their eyes and look a little
skeptical. Unfortunately, it is only one
or two.)
I promise NOT to repeat things other people say. (Few make it to
the end of this sentence.)
Don't kid yourselves people: It can happen here, and if it does, it will
start in the ballot box.
A great essay, Mark. IMHO, the Trumpsters and Sandernistas should read "It Can't Happen Here".
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of Prof Roger Griffin's theory of Palingenetic (national re-birth) ultranationalism ? Griffin argues that the unique synthesis of palingenesis and ultranationalism differentiates fascism from para-fascism and other authoritarian nationalist ideologies. The idea that Franco was an authoritarian nationalist rather than a fascist, but used the genuine fascists the Falange (Falange EspaƱola de las JONS).
ReplyDeleteGriffin correctly believes that fascism can be different in each country, and I agree with him that it underscores a desire for a new form of governance within a nation, but I do not agree with him that it is an attempt at a nation's rebirth. His model does not fit well with either Middle Eastern fascism or Latin America.
ReplyDeleteAnd, frankly, I don't think these academic exercises have much use in a general discussion blog.
Yeah, Mark I agree that academic exercises are a bit much for a general discussion blog, but how the heck else are you going to get the opportunity to write a sentence like, "Griffin argues that the unique synthesis of palingenesis and ultranationalism differentiates fascism from para-fascism and other authoritarian nationalist ideologies," where more than 3 people will actually read it, unless you make it a grade-dependent college assignment.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, he didn't write it. That whole sentence is copied from Wikipedia.
ReplyDelete