1 Boring Old Man

I don’t think those of us growing up in the post-World War II era were experientially aware of the political climate that antedated that war. The decline of the ancient monarchies that lead up to World War I left a vacuum that was filled by a three-way struggle – Democracy, Fascism, and Communism. Hitler was so insane that his Nazi regime obscured the forces that favored Fascism. Stalin was similarly the kind of tyrant that allowed us to domonize Communism. So, in the post-War period, we had a traumatic memory of both Fascism and Communism, and were mystified that any sensible group of people might allow such forms of government to survive. These political movements had become personified.

So the question, "Is the inevitable fate of Fascist or Communist governments defined by what happened in Germany and Russia?" or "Was what happened in Germany and Russia a function of the particular rulers who came to power?" remains unclear. Both of these seemingly dichotomous examples resulted in the same thing – a concentration of power in the hands of a power elite that came to no good end.

Our lives, lived in the latter half of the Twentieth  Century, have been dominated by a two way dichotomy [Communism versus Democracy] rather than by a three-way struggle. And there was something of a necessary concentration of power in this country necessitated by the over-riding danger we called "The Cold War."

But the fundamental conflict between Socialism [Communism] and Capitalism [Fascism] has continued in the attenuated version Liberalism versus Conservativism throughout the second half of the Twentieth Century. Both sides of this political spectrum are sure they are right, but have been kept in check by the ebb and flow of our system of checks and balances. But, with the end of the "Cold War," we find ourselves in a fine pickle. Lawrence Britt described the characteristics of Fascist governments [Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Chile, and Indonesia]:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
9. Power of corporations protected
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections

I don’t personally think that what’s happened with Bush is part of the ebb and flow for one simple reason – they aren’t playing by the rules. The Justice Department Affair makes it crystal clear that this Administration is attempting to fundamentally alter the voting process that is the lynchpin of our Democracy. From one point of view, I suppose that the power elite is always at a disadvantage in a Democracy. By definition, they are never likely to be the majority. They’re always in the position of having to find a way to gather supporters from the less well-placed. This time, they did it by engaging the Christian Right.  In the past, it was the fear of Communism. But that’s as it should be. The powerful, after all, have more "power." But with Bush and Cheney, they’ve way overstepped their bounds, by design, by trickery. This is not a crisis between Liberalism and Conservativism, this is a fight against Fascism – and it feels like a fight to the death.

In my opinion, the fate of both Nazi Germany and  Communist Russia was not just a function of the particular leaders. It was the fate of any utopian form of government. Human beings are similar to "herd animals," but only similar. It is our destiny to fight the battle between collective and individual forces until the end of time, but never resolve it.