I love how you organized the actions taken by a century plus of presidents as they normalized the destruction of constitutional restraints for the sake of their agendas. And how you have pointed the finger at both sides of the aisle in a readable summary, something I have tried to do with friends and family, mostly without success. Thank you. Now I have something to share when political discussions bog down with the other person's defense regarding Their Man and His Party while vilifying the Other. Very appreciative.
Update: My mistake: This piece focuses only on the regimes of Democrats. Maybe needs to be labeled as such. Perhaps another piece that focuses on the transgressions of Republican presidents would be appropriate.
I think a mistake I can make is chasing after an agreed-upon shorthand definition - fascist, communist, socialist, liberal - instead of focusing on clear descriptions of physical evidence. I have learned to add "by which I mean" when I use most such labels, including a concrete example. It seems to help keep discussions on track. By arguing which label is appropriate and why, I think those debates distract us from the facts.
Have thought for 3-4 decades that Fascism (Corporatism without the racism) FAR More a threat to our future liberties...than Socialism. The latter just makes everyone increasingly Poor, sans a tiny Elite. But Corporate--Fascism allows for Wealth-Creation...and a larger Wealthy Superior Elite... increasingly Authoritarian/Controlling...for our own good. The High-Achieving $$Elite Rich are welcome...so long as they "Play-Ball" as good and faithful "Team-Members" see Bill Gates then Elon Musk. Suspect the top Western Banking Elites (CIA/Mossad inforced)...Admire the Chinese Commie-Party every bit as much as FDR did Il Duce!!!
I suspect you've read James Burnham's _The Managerial Revolution_. If not, I highly recommend it.
He published it shortly after abandoning Trotskyism, of which he was effectively the US movement's leader, and before going on found National Review with his OSS/CIA protege, William F. Buckley, Jr.
His thesis was that, as of the 1930s, the world was coming into the grip of "the managerial state," of which Soviet-style communism and Italian/German-style fascism were variations on a theme.
So far as I can tell, FDR's New Deal was just another variation on the same theme.
World War 2 was really fascists all around. Some of the fascists lost, and some of them won, but they were all one form or another of Mussolini's "everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
It appears to have been published in 1941, which makes it a devastating indictment of events that were then recent or current.
But your tidy summary is exactly how I view things. It's very difficult for me to overcome my bias toward our interventions in WWI and II -- Japan attacked Pearl Harbor first, and then Germany declared war on the US -- but I can at least see how those wars shaped us for the worse over time. (Honestly, I have mixed feelings.)
I don't have a time machine, so I can't experiment with how things would have turned out if the US hadn't intervened in both.
I SUSPECT that if the US had stayed out of WW1, Hitler wouldn't have had a foothold due to the cruelties of the Versailles Treaty; and I SUSPECT that if the US had stayed out of WW2 in Europe, the Soviets would have still beat Hitler, but wouldn't have been strong enough to take over eastern Europe and rule it for nearly 45 years. But who knows? I don't have any problem, as such, with the ends that Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo met.
Retrospectively, of course, Americans feel like we always hated Hitler and Mussolini. But in fact, they were very popular. The American Legion was something of an equivalent to the post-WWI German "Freikorps," engaging in union-busting, etc., and later consciously modeled itself on Mussolini's "black shirts," even inviting him to speak at their national convention (he didn't make the trip to do so). Today it's just considered an average veterans' civic group (I've been a member myself). Hitler was Time magazine's "man of the year" one year.
America had the same street battles between communists and rightists that Europe had. But when we settled on the managerial state, we draped it in the old flag and pretended it was just a continuation of the 1776 tradition.
In terms of government surveillance and control capabilities, the Gestapo, KGB, Stasi, et al, never dared DREAM of going as far as the US regime has come. And I don't think the incentives and outcomes are particularly different.
Good article, and I agree that it’s been since at least 1913, a year that should live in infamy for America’s constitutional republic. That was the beginning of the end to create a large central government - and forcing us to pay up or else.
This was very enlightening. I agree - progressivism is a form of fascism. My main quarrel with modern progressives is that they're trying to smuggle policies which protect their wealth and privilege in using ill-fitting universalist liberal claims (which completely come apart when you see their actual behaviors and personal priorities).
By now, 'progressivism' just means a fealty to a kind of utopian-lite series of policies that benefit the managerial class and the administrative state. Public interest and uplifting the marginalized have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Update: My mistake: This piece focuses only on the regimes of Democrats. Maybe needs to be labeled as such. Perhaps another piece that focuses on the transgressions of Republican presidents would be appropriate. Plenty to choose from.
I love how you organized the actions taken by a century plus of presidents as they normalized the destruction of constitutional restraints for the sake of their agendas. And how you have pointed the finger at both sides of the aisle in a readable summary, something I have tried to do with friends and family, mostly without success. Thank you. Now I have something to share when political discussions bog down with the other person's defense regarding Their Man and His Party while vilifying the Other. Very appreciative.
Update: My mistake: This piece focuses only on the regimes of Democrats. Maybe needs to be labeled as such. Perhaps another piece that focuses on the transgressions of Republican presidents would be appropriate.
I think a mistake I can make is chasing after an agreed-upon shorthand definition - fascist, communist, socialist, liberal - instead of focusing on clear descriptions of physical evidence. I have learned to add "by which I mean" when I use most such labels, including a concrete example. It seems to help keep discussions on track. By arguing which label is appropriate and why, I think those debates distract us from the facts.
Again, thanks very much,
Have thought for 3-4 decades that Fascism (Corporatism without the racism) FAR More a threat to our future liberties...than Socialism. The latter just makes everyone increasingly Poor, sans a tiny Elite. But Corporate--Fascism allows for Wealth-Creation...and a larger Wealthy Superior Elite... increasingly Authoritarian/Controlling...for our own good. The High-Achieving $$Elite Rich are welcome...so long as they "Play-Ball" as good and faithful "Team-Members" see Bill Gates then Elon Musk. Suspect the top Western Banking Elites (CIA/Mossad inforced)...Admire the Chinese Commie-Party every bit as much as FDR did Il Duce!!!
I suspect you've read James Burnham's _The Managerial Revolution_. If not, I highly recommend it.
He published it shortly after abandoning Trotskyism, of which he was effectively the US movement's leader, and before going on found National Review with his OSS/CIA protege, William F. Buckley, Jr.
His thesis was that, as of the 1930s, the world was coming into the grip of "the managerial state," of which Soviet-style communism and Italian/German-style fascism were variations on a theme.
So far as I can tell, FDR's New Deal was just another variation on the same theme.
World War 2 was really fascists all around. Some of the fascists lost, and some of them won, but they were all one form or another of Mussolini's "everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
Ooooh, I have not read this! But I will definitely check it out.
https://www.amazon.com/Managerial-Revolution-What-Happening-World/dp/1839013184/ref=sr_1_1
It appears to have been published in 1941, which makes it a devastating indictment of events that were then recent or current.
But your tidy summary is exactly how I view things. It's very difficult for me to overcome my bias toward our interventions in WWI and II -- Japan attacked Pearl Harbor first, and then Germany declared war on the US -- but I can at least see how those wars shaped us for the worse over time. (Honestly, I have mixed feelings.)
What do you think about the World Wars?
I don't have a time machine, so I can't experiment with how things would have turned out if the US hadn't intervened in both.
I SUSPECT that if the US had stayed out of WW1, Hitler wouldn't have had a foothold due to the cruelties of the Versailles Treaty; and I SUSPECT that if the US had stayed out of WW2 in Europe, the Soviets would have still beat Hitler, but wouldn't have been strong enough to take over eastern Europe and rule it for nearly 45 years. But who knows? I don't have any problem, as such, with the ends that Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo met.
Retrospectively, of course, Americans feel like we always hated Hitler and Mussolini. But in fact, they were very popular. The American Legion was something of an equivalent to the post-WWI German "Freikorps," engaging in union-busting, etc., and later consciously modeled itself on Mussolini's "black shirts," even inviting him to speak at their national convention (he didn't make the trip to do so). Today it's just considered an average veterans' civic group (I've been a member myself). Hitler was Time magazine's "man of the year" one year.
America had the same street battles between communists and rightists that Europe had. But when we settled on the managerial state, we draped it in the old flag and pretended it was just a continuation of the 1776 tradition.
In terms of government surveillance and control capabilities, the Gestapo, KGB, Stasi, et al, never dared DREAM of going as far as the US regime has come. And I don't think the incentives and outcomes are particularly different.
Brilliantly said.
Good article, and I agree that it’s been since at least 1913, a year that should live in infamy for America’s constitutional republic. That was the beginning of the end to create a large central government - and forcing us to pay up or else.
With the state of the American electorate voting for socialists, not sure how this will go down for us all, but, I see Trump as perhaps America’s Caesar Augustus: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/is-president-trump-americas-caesar?r=76q58
This was very enlightening. I agree - progressivism is a form of fascism. My main quarrel with modern progressives is that they're trying to smuggle policies which protect their wealth and privilege in using ill-fitting universalist liberal claims (which completely come apart when you see their actual behaviors and personal priorities).
By now, 'progressivism' just means a fealty to a kind of utopian-lite series of policies that benefit the managerial class and the administrative state. Public interest and uplifting the marginalized have absolutely nothing to do with it.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/leviathan
Update: My mistake: This piece focuses only on the regimes of Democrats. Maybe needs to be labeled as such. Perhaps another piece that focuses on the transgressions of Republican presidents would be appropriate. Plenty to choose from.