[Nicko]

White House's buzz word: Fascism

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President George W. Bush has recast his global war on terror in recent days into a "war against Islamic fascism."
Fascism, in fact, seems to be the new buzz word for Republicans in an election season dominated by an unpopular war in Iraq.
Bush used the term this month, in talking about the arrests of suspected terrorists in Britain, and spoke of "Islamic fascists" in a later speech in the middle America state of Wisconsin. Spokesman Tony Snow has used variations on the phrase at White House press briefings.

Republican Senator Rick Santorum, in a tough re-election fight, drew parallels on Monday between World War II and the current war against "Islamic fascism," saying they both require fighting a common foe in multiple countries. It is a phrase Santorum has been using for months.

And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday took it a step further in a speech to an American Legion convention in Utah, accusing critics of the administration's Iraq and anti-terrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism." Many American Legion members were soldiers who fought fascism during World War II.
White House aides and outside Republican strategists said the new description is an attempt to identify more clearly the ideology that motivates many organized terrorist groups and represents a shift in emphasis from the general to the specific.
"I think it's an appropriate definition of the war that we're in," said GOP pollster Ed Goeas. "I think it's effective in that it definitively defines the enemy in a way that we can't because they're not in uniforms."

Muslim groups have cried foul. Bush's use of the phrase "contributes to a rising level of hostility to Islam and the American-Muslim community," complained Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Conservative commentators have long talked about "Islamo-fascism," and Bush's phrase was a slightly toned-down variation on that theme.

Dennis Ross, a Middle East adviser in the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and now the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he would have chosen different words.
Middle ground

"The 'war on terror' has always been a misnomer, because terrorism is an instrument; it's not an ideology. So I would always have preferred it to be called the 'war with radical Islam,' not with Islam but with 'radical Islam,"' Ross said.

Why even mention the religion? "Because that's who they are," Ross said. "Fascism had a certain definition. Whether they meet this or not, one thing is clear: They're radical. They represent a completely radical and intolerant interpretation of Islam."

While "fascism" once referred to the rigid nationalistic one-party dictatorship first instituted in Italy, it has "been used very loosely in all kinds of ways for a long time," said Wayne Fields, a specialist in presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

"Typically, the Bush administration finds its vocabulary someplace in the middle ground of popular culture. It seems to me that they're trying to find something that resonates, without any effort to really define what they mean," Fields said.
Pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said the "fascist" label may evoke comparisons to World War II and remind Americans of the lack of personal freedoms in fundamentalist countries. "But this could only affect public opinion on the margins," he said.

"Having called these people 'evildoers,' fascism is just a new wrinkle," he said.
The tactic recalled the first President Bush's 1990 likening of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler.

Focus group
"I caught hell on this comparison of Saddam to Hitler, with critics accusing me of personalizing the crisis, but I still feel it was an appropriate one," the elder Bush later wrote in a memoir.

It was one of the few times the younger Bush has followed his father's path on Iraq.
Charles Black, a longtime GOP consultant with close ties to both the first Bush administration and the current White House, said branding Islamic extremists as fascists was apt.

"It helps dramatize what we're up against. They are not just some ragtag terrorists. They are people with a plan to take over the world and eliminate everybody except them," Black said.

Stephen J. Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University, suggested White House strategists "probably had a focus group, and they found the word 'fascist.'
"Most people are against fascists of whatever form. By definition, fascists are bad. If you're going to demonize, you might as well use the toughest words you can," Wayne said.

After all, the hard-line Iranian newspaper Jomhuri Eskami did just that in an editorial last week blasting Bush's "Islamic fascism" phrase. It called Bush a "21st century Hitler" and British Prime Minister Tony Blair a "21st century Mussolini."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
------


"It helps dramatize what we're up against. They are not just some ragtag terrorists. They are people with a plan to take over the world and eliminate everybody except them," Black said.


So this is interesting. I can understand why Bush's lackies want to frame themselves as up against a great evil (not unlike Frodo vs. the forces of Morder) considering their horrible ratings, but isn't turning the 'War on Terror' into a 'War on Fascism' a little far?

Fascism is a form of government. The so called fascists (terrorists) they are up against have neither the mass support or capability to form a government. The Taliban in Afghanistan are out of power so they don't count, and the Islamic clerics in Somalia are a special situation so they don't count either (even though the US failed miserably by helping the warlord to defeat them). The way in which Al Queda in Iraq has expanded their war against different factions in Iraq demonstrates that all a relatively few individuals want is chaos, as most of the fighting in Iraq is caused by sectarian factions (ie not related to war on terror).

Its interesting nonetheless to see how this losing war has changed and morphed over the past 5 years:

first the war in Iraq was a war on WMDs -- NOT TERROR!

Then it was a war for Democracy and against dictatorship. ---STILL no TERROR!

Gradually the war in Iraq somehow got joined with the war in Afghanistan to become the "big bad war on Terror!" we have all come to know and love.

Now, with the 'War on Terror' losing in the ratings game of the American public, the administration has turned to the only great evil left in the world, Fascism (I suppose communism has been co-opted?).

Will this latest rebranding of the 'war over there' garner support for a quickly deteriating situation, or will the American public see through this latest mirage?

I am actually hopeful that while it has taken a long time (over 5 years) some americans seem to be losing their lust for war and revenge and might be turning a corner with how they view the new reality of global terrorism. I think the sheer loss of support for how the Bush administration is handing Iraq could be evidence of this. However, the American public is also still deeply afraid, so their fear may yet guide them.

Now, I already know what some posters here will say, but I'm more interested in seeing if anyone has evidence (anecdoteal or otherwise) that Bush & Co's rebranding of the war on terror will change anything.

Is there an actual strategy behind this? Or is it just meant to be another distraction for a fearful public to digest?

[Kevin]

Why not? Facism has been using by the left poorly in the last 6 years.

[Dork.]

Maybe the Bush administration is just projecting?

[Kevin]

Could very well be. Or they could be dead on.

Their accusations are a bit more accurate than the Left's

[Millennium]

It's times like this when I wonder if anyone in politics actually remembers what fascism really was.

[OreoCookie]

… or even cares to be accurate.
Fascism is just an attribute which is added to make `them' sound more evil, because fascists are very evil

[Kerrigan]

Well, on the one hand, "fascist" is something of a meaningless insult these days, thrown around to make your opponents look worse (like Oreo said). However, the stated goals of terror organisations like Al Qaeda fit perfectly with fascism's definition.

[OreoCookie]

Fascism as a notion concerns organization of states not terrorist organizations. Nor are the most of the goals of -- say -- Al Quaeda and a fascist state even compatible. Just because they have one or two things in common doesn't mean Al Quaeda should be called fascist. It's misleading and factually incorrect.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Fascism as a notion concerns organization of states not terrorist organizations. Nor are the most of the goals of -- say -- Al Quaeda and a fascist state even compatible. Just because they have one or two things in common doesn't mean Al Quaeda should be called fascist. It's misleading and factually incorrect.

Whoa, hey now. Don't you bring in dem "facts," it'll only cloud da sichiation.

[voodoo]

Robert O. Paxton defines fascism thusly:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Make of that what you will. He's just one of those 'experts' with 'facts' and other annoying things combined with 'reality'.

V

[Kerrigan]

People are really having to contort themselves into awkward positions in this thread. Normally, liberals would have no problem calling conservatives "fascists". But the ultra-conservative groups like Al Qaeda, Taleban, etc, whose political motivations fit perfectly with Oxford's definition of fascism, won't be labeled "fascists" by liberals because they know that this would mean agreeing with conservatives.

[Spliffdaddy]

bullseye.

[OAW]

Well according to the dictionary ....

fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism) noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Clearly Al Qaeda is authoritarian in the sense that it advocates theocratic government based upon its rigid interpretation of Islam.

Clearly Al Qaeda is right-wing in the sense of being socially conservative and intolerant.

Having said that, the Bush administration's recent fascination with the term is totally disingenuous because we are not at war with "Islamic fascism" because if that were the case we would be at war with the Saudi and Egyptian regimes as well. Both of which are just as "authoritarian" and "right-wing" as Al Qaeda. But we are not. Why? Because the issue isn't whether or not they are "fascist" ... the issue is whether or not they play ball with the US. Saudi Arabia and Egypt do as they are told and keep the oil flowing. They back the US government (or sit idly by) when it invades and occupies other Arab nations. Al Qaeda, OTOH, does not. And therein lies the problem.

OAW

[Face Ache]

fuel

[porieux]

...

[smacintush]

Heh, election year politics. Ain't it wonderful.

Funny thing is that soooo many of you will be sucked into believing the lies and spin from either side that we will be hearing more and more of in the coming months.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

… or even cares to be accurate.
Fascism is just an attribute which is added to make `them' sound more evil, because fascists are very evil

You got it.

It's the same "l33t sp33k" when U.S. southern segregation scum called civil rights people "communist" and "atheist". Not that anyone could explain what a communist or atheist would be, but it sure must have sounded very bad.


Regards
Powerbook

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Powerbook

You got it.

Nobody's come up with a better way to succinctly describe the regimes that are supporting terrorism, so fascism fits. As for it being the word of the week or something, that's nonsense -- policy analysts have been describing the ideology of Iran, the Taliban and Al Queda as being totalitarian/fascistic for years. Let's see, Hitler wanted to control all of Europe and exterminate the Jews, tell people what to think and what to wear, and he was a fascist. The leaders of the Taliban and Iran want to control all of the Middle East (the World) and exterminate the Jews, and they tell people what to believe and what to do with their lives -- maybe those guys are fascists too.

We wouldn't want to hurt their feelings, would we? If we offend them, they'll sponsor worldwide terrorism and send suicide bombers into civilian crowds. Wait... I mean, MORE worldwide terrorism.

But it sounds fun to talk about the White House having focus groups and buzz words.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Muslim groups have cried foul.

Now there's a surprise!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW

Well according to the dictionary ....

fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism) noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

The dictionary is wrong. Authoritarian systems of government are never "right wing", since the very essence of "right wing" is individual freedom. Read Rand's Anthem for details - left is at the front, right is at the back.

Of course, the reason for the mistake is that most dictionaries are written by lefties.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by OAW

Well according to the dictionary ....

fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism) noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Clearly Al Qaeda is authoritarian in the sense that it advocates theocratic government based upon its rigid interpretation of Islam.

Clearly Al Qaeda is right-wing in the sense of being socially conservative and intolerant.

pff...fascism is no right wing, i know right wing and it's the AMERICAN republican party...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

However, the stated goals of terror organisations like Al Qaeda fit perfectly with fascism's definition.

As it does with any group that wishes to impose it's will or perspective over others

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ironknee

pff...fascism is no right wing, i know right wing and it's the AMERICAN republican party...

Right wing is actually the American libertarian party.

[ironknee]

pff, fall in line american libertarians...behind fascists...lol...and behind islamic fascism...ha!

the right is as right as right can rightly be called right handed when writing about the right "right"

right on man.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by finboy

Nobody's come up with a better way to succinctly describe the regimes that are supporting terrorism, so fascism fits. As for it being the word of the week or something, that's nonsense -- policy analysts have been describing the ideology of Iran, the Taliban and Al Queda as being totalitarian/fascistic for years. Let's see, Hitler wanted to control all of Europe and exterminate the Jews, tell people what to think and what to wear, and he was a fascist. The leaders of the Taliban and Iran want to control all of the Middle East (the World) and exterminate the Jews, and they tell people what to believe and what to do with their lives -- maybe those guys are fascists too.

We wouldn't want to hurt their feelings, would we? If we offend them, they'll sponsor worldwide terrorism and send suicide bombers into civilian crowds. Wait... I mean, MORE worldwide terrorism.

But it sounds fun to talk about the White House having focus groups and buzz words.

First: To mix a country, a former religious regime and a terror group together is already smart. Smart like in American Fox-"News" smart.
Second: To compare that to Nazi Germany, because uhm yes, both must have something to do with jews is even smarter.

Third: When the U.S. sponsors radical militia like in Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, Indonesia, overthrows the democratically elected Mossadegh in Iran or Goulart in Brazil or help this guy Osama build a terror group against the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan, it must be called fascism right??? Because Hitler hated Commies, too!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Francis Fukuyama:

World conflict was the West against the Fascists. We defeated this ideology.

Then world conflict was the West against the communists. We also defeated this ideology.

Now, world conflict is...economic. The West, against those who would oppose Western economic gain. There is no ideology which can stand against Western free-market democracy; thus, world conflict is now purely economic.

Kinda interesting, anyways. Whether you like his final assessment or point to Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations as a better model, I think the correct point is that there is no ideology which can hope to be successful against the West. "Islamic fascism" is probably the most laughable "enemy of the West" in quite some time - purely in definition, if not also in actual threat.

greg

[vmarks]

What is odd at the moment is that the right is using the term "Fascism." Or, more specifically, "Islamo-fascism." This is just as notable as it would be if the left started going after "Communism."

Why has this odd thing happened?

Sure, for the shock value but more substantially because the people being referred to are very public about their plans to kill Jews and eliminate Israel. In addition to being rabidly Anti-Semitic, they are also clearly "authoritarian personalities" -- a hallmark of the "fascist mind" if you recall the influential 1948 book titled "The Authoritarian Personality" (yes, written by Frankfurt School communists).

This phenomenon is -- arguably -- a new kind of Fascism, just as Rumsfield said. At the very least it deserves to be dealt with thoughtfully. Not with another meaningless (TV-ratings inspired) kneejerk.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Powerbook

First: To mix a country, a former religious regime and a terror group together is already smart. Smart like in American Fox-"News" smart.

If I'd wanted to lump them all together, and be "smart", I could have just written "Islamo-fascists." That's how we got into this discussion in the first place.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Sure, for the shock value but more substantially because the people being referred to are very public about their plans to kill Jews and eliminate Israel. In addition to being rabidly Anti-Semitic, they are also clearly "authoritarian personalities" -- a hallmark of the "fascist mind" if you recall the influential 1948 book titled "The Authoritarian Personality" (yes, written by Frankfurt School communists).

So you say that any group that shares these two traits can (and should) be called fascist? What's wrong if you just call them anti-semitic?

Originally Posted by vmarks

This phenomenon is -- arguably -- a new kind of Fascism, just as Rumsfield said. At the very least it deserves to be dealt with thoughtfully. Not with another meaningless (TV-ratings inspired) kneejerk.

I don't think you deal with it `thoughtfully' by adding an inappropriate attribute. Fascism is just used by politicians to make a homogeneous mass out of something rather heterogeneous. There is no distinction between Sunni and Shii anymore, secular groups are mixed with fundamentalist groups, globally operating terror groups (such as Al Quaida) are put in the same category as groups that fight for specific local causes (Hezbollah).

Thus the word fascism is added purely to keep those neat two categories, especially when the War Against Terror doesn't have such a clear face as all previous wars America has fought (WW2, war in the Pacific, Vietnam War). Furthermore it obscures that different groups in that huge category require different tactics (e. g. Hezbollah and Al Quaida).

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Sure, for the shock value but more substantially because the people being referred to are very public about their plans to kill Jews and eliminate Israel. In addition to being rabidly Anti-Semitic, they are also clearly "authoritarian personalities" -- a hallmark of the "fascist mind" if you recall the influential 1948 book titled "The Authoritarian Personality" (yes, written by Frankfurt School communists).

Reaching a bit, aren't we? First of all, fascism is not about Israel and Jews. Secondly, Rumsfeld and cohorts are just as, if not considerably more, authoritarian personalities than any Al Qaeda leader. Thirdly, the threat to "kill Jews and eliminate Israel" has been overstated/manufactured by the
Western media to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment.


Some links for those who may wish to inform themselves about the reality of the situation:

American Prospect Online: Burnt Offering

AntiWar.com: Today's 'Islamic Fascists' Were Yesterday's Friends

MEDIA-US: "Fascism" Frame Set Up by Right-Wing Press

LewRockwell.com: The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism'

AsiaTimesOnline: Behind the plan to bomb Iran

Wikipedia: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel

Guardian: Lost In Translation

Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth

Information Clearing House: Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?

Reuters: Iran denies wanting to "wipe Israel off the map"

[typoon]

It's interesting to see the white house starting to use this "buzz word." It's been used for a while by Michael Savage. He's been calling them Islamofacists for a while. It's only now that the White house and many others have started to use it. I'm just waiting for them to start using the term "hitlers in a headscarf." When refering to these Islamofacists.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Reaching a bit, aren't we? First of all, fascism is not about Israel and Jews. Secondly, Rumsfeld and cohorts are just as, if not considerably more, authoritarian personalities than any Al Qaeda leader. Thirdly, the threat to "kill Jews and eliminate Israel" has been overstated/manufactured by the
Western media to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment.


Some links for those who may wish to inform themselves about the reality of the situation:

American Prospect Online: Burnt Offering

AntiWar.com: Today's 'Islamic Fascists' Were Yesterday's Friends

MEDIA-US: "Fascism" Frame Set Up by Right-Wing Press

LewRockwell.com: The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism'

AsiaTimesOnline: Behind the plan to bomb Iran

Wikipedia: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel

Guardian: Lost In Translation

Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth

Information Clearing House: Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?

Reuters: Iran denies wanting to "wipe Israel off the map"

That is the most hilarious group of propaganda links ever assembled into one post.

I read a few of them - and noticed a similarity. All of their "facts" offer footnotes and references in the form of 'op-ed' articles or blogs.