While Democratic governmental structures may vary (e.g. Netherland is a monarchy, France is a Presidential republic, Germany is a federal republic, Italy is a parliamentary republic, United States of America is a federal republic, etc.) the common thread democracies share is the ability for individuals and groups of individuals to freely voice their opinions, and act upon their own views regardless of the government’s own political agenda.
Since authoritarian systems aim at self-perpetuation and exclusive exercise of power, political dissention is an existential threat that authoritarian systems or actors cannot afford and therefore will prohibit.
Often Fascist mechanisms insert themselves in Democratic societies as a populist response to a crisis (A soaring crime rate and civil unrest were harbingers to the rise of fascism in El Salvador), or a disconnect between constituents and their governmental institutions.
The later situation is unfortunately a fertile ground for individuals who will seek power and live by the motto “The end justifies the means” and “It is better to be feared than loved”.
Once in place Fascist structures do not go away graciously. With few exceptions (Spain, Portugal), Fascist regimes end in uprisings, revolutions, and wars.
To avoid the double predicament of loss of individual freedoms and social unrest, it is essential to spot Fascist mechanisms infiltrating democracies, denouncing them, and efficiently bring peaceful solutions to what has caused such deviance in Democratic societies.
The word Fascism is part of our modern lexicon. Often it is used by political actors or commentators who share opinions rather than facts. To avoid this pitfall, I think it is important to have clarity about what the word “Fascism” means.
While many essays, books, thesis try to define the concept of Fascism with precision, a simple reference from the most popular dictionary in the English language will suffice at this point.
Merriam Webster defines Fascism as follows:
1. Often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2. A tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality
To better understand the concept, Merriam Webster Thesaurus provides the following useful information:
Synonyms: rule, control, or leadership by one person with absolute power
Near Synonyms for fascism Big Brother, Big Brotherism, Communism, Nazism, absolutism, autarchy, authoritarianism, autocracy, Caesarism, czarism (also tsarism or tzarism), despotism, dictatorship, totalism, totalitarianism, tyranny, monarchism, monarchy, monocracy, domination, oppression
Antonyms: democracy, self-governance, self-government, self-rule, freedom, self-determination, autonomy, sovereignty (also sovranty)
Based on this definition, it is fair to say that Fascism key components are:
(a) a political philosophy, or a movement, or a regime,
(b) that exalts nation and often race above the individual,
(c) that stands for a centralized autocratic government,
(d) headed by a dictatorial leader,
(e) aim at severe economic and social regimentation,
(f) forcible suppression of opposition,
(g) a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality
To close this foreword, I think it is important to let the reader know why I felt compelled to write this article about Fascism in the United States of America in 2020.
For me, the United States of America means more than a country, a flag, a people, or even an experiment. It means an inspirational ideal.
As long as I can remember, I always cherished the United States of America. First it was cultural: my parents were grateful for the United States having liberated Belgium from the Nazi oppression in 1945 and also for helping Europe rebuilding after what is the most devastating war known to date.
During the ‘60ies and ‘70ies, everything seemed possible: The United States of America was leading mankind towards a better future with its advanced technology, shared education and universal values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and even further in the Declaration of the Right of the Child (1959).
On the other hand, some dark spots were noticeable: The Vietnam war was perceived poorly in Europe, the ‘70ies African chess game between then USSR and the USA was misconstrued, and unfortunately interferences in Latin America (Chile) really put a black stain on the USA image abroad.
These few dark sports did not reduce my enthusiasm for America. The United States’ ideals were what I deeply cherished and my deepest desire was to move in the US.
The American culture was very present in my life: nonetheless did I enjoy the American pop culture, but many American publications became part of my education (Schaum series helped me discovering calculus).
Before moving in the US, I had the opportunity to visit the country, and What I saw and what I experienced reinforced my enthusiasm.
I visited the United Nations, I visited Ellis Island and the Statute of Liberty, I toured museums that were part of the National Mall, I toured Congress, I went to the Lincoln monument. These were very emotional moments that solidified my desire to become American.
Being American did not mean carrying a US passport: it meant becoming part of one group of individuals – the only group on Earth I think – where freedom coupled with opportunities were the common bond between individuals of all creeds, races and genres regardless of how one looks, thinks, speaks or express himself. This openness of mind contrasted so much with the narrow-minded social fabric Belgium was made of.
What was making America greater than any other nation in the world then was its ability to be the most powerful country in history, while being generous and tolerant to better the World: the American vision devised in the constitution, the bill or rights and supplemented by the Supreme Court’s modern vision of society was a roadmap for the rest of the world.
Americans were patriots, but not nationalists, and that was unique for the most powerful nation in history.
Living in California had become my goal after visiting the US few times and also after attending in the late ‘70ies a conference then called Exploration du Monde where the speaker (Christian Zuber) presented a documentary called “O Californie” where he shared what California spirit was about. I then knew where I would like to spend the rest of my life.
Mid ‘80ies, I had the opportunity to stay for months in California.
When I moved to Los Angeles, I did not know anybody. I was nobody, and to my surprise, everybody welcomed me and helped me settling in what has become home since.
Some of the people with whom I interacted then are still very present in my life and I am very grateful for having the opportunity to know them. They helped me getting my footing in my country of adoption and to this day, they help me in maintaining my balance as I go thru life.
One of the most attractive components of the American social model was, and still is (in a lesser manner though) that dreams are not out reach. America showed dynamism and an openness of mind that greatly contrasted with the stagnant social environment that then prevailed in Europe.
In 1991, I got my green card. The process was comprehensive but not unreasonable.
I still remember when I came back from Belgium where I had had my interview and medical exam with my envelope containing my immigration file, the heartfelt “welcome home” from the then INS officer in New York further sealed my desire to become a citizen.
In as much as I was not interested in participating in the political process in my country of origin, becoming part of the US citizenry meant a lot to me.
From 1991 to 1997, I educated myself about the US Government. I frequently visited the US Government Printing Office store located in Los Angeles downtown where I could get many official publications covering US Government, US history and citizenry.
In 1997, I became a US citizen. The ceremony was held at the convention center downtown Los Angeles. I then received my certificate of naturalization, my passport and a small American flag that I treasured for years in remembrance of this life-defining moment. The ceremony was also an inspirational moment: people from all walks of life and more than 80 countries were united in their common desire to become part of the American experiment, and I was one of them.
When I came to the US, I was attracted by GOP platform that I believed to be close from what the country stood for.
Over the years, I noticed that GOP actions were veering away from the country’ s fundamental principles towards a grab for power without any compromise.
During President Clinton’s tenure, the country thrived and it seemed that steady progresses under Al Gore would follow.
It did not happen.
The way Georges W. Bush was elected and what immediately followed were of great concern, and I am not referring to 9/11!
Emboldened by controlling two branches of the government and by having a majority of “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court, many GOP actors went off the rails and exerted power without any consideration for non-Republicans.
I vividly remember the times when Democrats had to meet in the Congress basement because no proper venue was available.
I also remember the extreme partisanship of the Dennis Hastert rule. (Under House rules, the Speaker schedules floor votes on pending legislation. The Hastert Rule says that the Speaker will not schedule a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support within his or her party, even if the majority of the members of the House would vote to pass it.)
This was one of the many incremental digs to the spirit of the US constitution. Indeed, representatives are held to account by their constituents, not the speaker of the house who decides what comes up for vote regardless of any majority of representatives.
Another tell tale of the corrosive partisanship was the Jack Abramoff scandal. In a nutshell Jack Abramoff and others (including Grover Norquist and Ralph reed) were funneling money thru various schemes for Republican officials on a scale never seen before.
Governments (mostly the executive branch of governments) have a tendency to seek extraordinary powers when a crisis occurs.
The usual pretense is that the government needs the requested extra powers to resolve or manage the crisis at hand.
To make it easier on the legislative branch, requested extraordinary powers are usually for a limited duration.
Often, -- too often -- they get either extended, either used without authority until many voices raise their concerns.
In the wake of 9/11, the country’s rights to privacy and proceedings guaranteeing due process got seriously trampled on.
Congress delegated its powers to declare war to the Executive branch.
Because these laws -- ironically called Patriot Act -- and the subsequent invasion of Iraq were cast as patriotic, very few elected and appointed officials voiced their concerns. More specifically, fearful of looking unpatriotic Democrat members of congress helped in the process.
Under false pretenses, our country embarked in a war in Iraq that to date remains an open challenge.
At the highest levels of any society, character matters.
President Georges W. Bush is a decent man. He is also savvy enough to know where his limits are, and therefore to execute his agenda, he had to extensively rely on his cabinet.
Among his team were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Two seasoned politicians with ambitious plans. (Remember the 21 st Century?, The American Century? Promoted by Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney).
Their eagerness to implement their plans coupled with their personal ambitions led to the disastrous Iraq invasion and occupation.
To save face, they did not mind misrepresenting, lying, black mailing, in one word abusing of the power they were entrusted by the American people.
The Iraq war became a political tool during the 2004 general elections.
The overall political climate had become so corroded that the two national parties seldom cooperated and the executive branch no longer catered to the American people, but its supporters only.
Leaders with strong character would never have let things get out of control that far. Unfortunately, by 2004, winning elections no longer meant managing the country for all its citizens, but managing the country for supporters while crushing the opposition to stay in power.
This short chapter shows how character matters.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (Swift Boat saga) was nothing else than a proxy designed to destroy or damage then candidate John Kerry’s image of war hero.
This was particularly needed because President Bush’s own military record was far from being stellar.
President Georges W. Bush did not correct the record and let the slander stand.
This incident may have diverted some voters from John Kerry. To date nobody knows, and President Georges W. Bush was re-elected.
By not correcting the record, the entire GOP apparatus was on notice that the end result justifies the means.
By 2008 candidate John McCain during a rally corrected a supporter’s assertion that then candidate Barack Obama was a Muslim who was not born in the US.
Some of Mc Cain’s supporters claimed that this incident may have cost him the election. To date, we know that it did not make any difference in the outcome of the 2008 general elections (Obama amassed 365 votes in the Electoral College by carrying 28 states, against McCain’s 173 votes, gathered from 22 states).
After his election, President Barack Obama rebuilt the then devastated economy and rebuilt the country’s image of leadership abroad.
Since John McCain has been an active member of the Senate where he championed elections financing reforms, immigration reforms to be disavowed by his own party.
In spite of being smeared by then candidate Donald J Trump, John McCain is and will be remembered as an acclaimed politician and war hero who fought for the country he loved until his unfortunate passing in 2018.
Out of these two contrasting stories, one might unfortunately infer that character does not matter to become an elected official nowadays.
The US Supreme Court’s decision called United Citizens vs/ Federal Elections Commission has open money floodgates that is tantamount to bribe by stating that money is speech. This decision combined with what is commonly known as Political Action Committees guarantees total discretion to anyone who plans on influencing policies for personal gain.
This financial construct breaks citizens’ equal footing when it comes to participate in the political process and advantages who can “buy” the votes needed to achieve his political and \ or financial goals.
Political contributions have grown dramatically since, and certain government actions cannot be explained otherwise than being the result of a quid pro quo. (The 2017 tax laws provided substantial benefits to a minority of tax payers to the detriment of the public debt and many programs).
It is noteworthy to know that the return on political contributions can be extremely high (e.g. a general elections funding can cost between $ 3 Billion & $ 4 Billion with a return the 1.1 Trillion for the 2017 tax law, this represents a return of 275 folds!).
At the same time, a movement called Tea Party came on the forefront of the political scene. This movement had five of the major fascist attributes: first, it was an organized movement, second its purpose was to take control of the government, third, its positions were uncompromising, fourth, in many occasions, it used intimidation, and five, it had a substantial white nationalist component.
That same movement that claimed being a grass roots movement was in fact financed by few political action committees that were in turn financed by a handful of heavy donors who were interested in reducing their taxes first.
They brilliantly succeeded in 2017 at the expenses of the US Treasury.
The Obama Administration was the opposite to Fascism: it was an attempt to rebuild the American ideals for Americans and abroad. Unfortunately, the Democratic party did not read well the American people and its anxieties that had morphed into anger. The Republican party and Donald J. Trump on the other hand have successfully used the American people’s discontent and divisions and won the general elections of 2016.
During the Obama presidency, tell tales of discontent linked to extreme political groups grew in number and in intensity.
These groups were sponsored by mega donors, some known (like the Koch and De Vos families), and some less known, all of them being helped by the Supreme Court decision now known as United Citizens vs/ FEC.
Three components of Fascism grew right after the vote of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare).
The first component is brutality including force and intimidation: because of the extensive protections granted to citizens under the 2 nd Amendment and the direct link between the NRA and Republican elected officials, openly carried weapons (including assault rifles) became more and more present during political rallies and even Presidential events as well.
The second component is opposition suppression: It was an insidious and successfully job implemented by Republican officials at States level who redistricted states to distort States representation by concentrating opponents in few districts and expanding districts with friendly demographics. The state of North Carolina is an example of this process also known as gerrymandering.
The third component includes racism and exacerbated nationalism. For example, many Tea Party movements at great lengths used racist symbolism (e.g. Confederate flag).
These dangers were identified and exposed by the FBI. Indeed since 2016 FBI has consistently warned legislators and the executive branch that the greatest terrorist threat to the country was no longer Islamic jihad but white supremacist movements.
All ingredients for a Fascist recipe were present, the only missing component was a dictatorial leader.
By 2016, with the support of the Republican party, the dictatorial leader was found and elected. His name is Donald J. Trump.
- Weakened institutions:
(a) Political parties:
The Republican party has used more and more borderline tools to access to power and keeping it (e.g. gerrymandering, senate obstructionism, house obstructionism, promotion and extensive use of questionable elections financing mechanisms, allegiance to lobbies). These practices led to a transactional class of politicians for whom the basic tenets of the Republican ideology did not matter anymore. The Republican party had become so weak that in 2015, then chairman (Reince Priebus) of the National Republican Party sold his party to Donald J Trump out of fear that unless the party came up with some magic act, the party would lose the 2016 general elections to Hillary Clinton. From thereon, the Republican party’s identity has been lost and the party of Donald J. Trump took over.
The Democratic party has been consumed by its internal disputes and its inability to think in 21 st Century terms. While the Democratic party stands for the people, it is mostly run by an aristocratic class of politicians, making it easy for its opponents to portray it as elitist. With political aristocracy come clans and deep internal dissentions. During the 21 st Century, only two major Democratic politicians who were not part of the political aristocracy gained national stature: the first one became President of the US in 2008 after bloody internal battles with his then opponent Hillary Clinton, and the second one is Bernie Sanders, whose positions and unclear status led to his demise in 2016 and 2019. In 2020, the Democratic party remains religiously tied to New Deal era economic and social concepts. Not that these concepts have no value, but they need to be updated to meet our current challenges. The only real future for the Democratic party and the country no longer lies with political aristocrats but rather with a multi-racial and socially developed class of politicians who can think and act for a common good better than anyone because they suffered from under representation for so long.
Legislative Branch:
The Legislative branch is the first branch of the Government. It is where the people’s voice is supposed to be heard and represented. Because of this primary governmental function, the Legislative branch held key functions: budget, oversight, power to declare war, power to make treaties, power to elect members of the judiciary. Because of weakened parties and legalized corruption since 2010, the entire body no longer represents the people. When one branch of the government is internally weakened, other branches will take advantage of the situation. This is unfortunately what we have been witnessing since the 2000 general elections. Representatives and Senators have lost their voice: they are just proxies for their parties that in turn are under lobbyists influence. In the House of Representatives, the Hastert Rule took away from representatives their right to represent their respective district and think for themselves. In the Senate, the majority leader runs the Senate as he wishes by allowing or not pieces of legislation to come to the floor depending on his own agenda, by stacking the courts with politically friendly judges rather than qualified judges and by giving up its power to impeach elected officials when warranted.
Judiciary Branch:
The Supreme Court has always been politically tilted. The day the Court lost its integrity is the day the court intervened in the 2000 elections and stopped recounts that were a state matter. Even though the Court then stated that it was a one-time situation, as I am writing these lines, I think it is reasonable to state that unless there is huge gain for Joe Biden, Donald J. Trump will challenge the results if he loses with a Court where 2 members have been appointed by him at the cost of pushing the country even further in an economic abyss.
The shift to the right has been steady and deep: changes to the Voting Act, changes to elections financing rules, ACA steady amputations, separation of Church and State weakening are examples of a Court that has a political agenda instead of a judicial philosophy that mirrors society.
The 2016 refusal by Mitch McConnell to allow Merrick Garland to come up for a vote is another blunt act of destruction of the constitutional fabric.
Since 2017, appointed judges are no longer elected based on qualifications but on political affinities.
Elections proceedings:
After the 2000 elections, legislators rushed changes in elections proceedings to “increase reliability and speedy results”. The reality differs in many instances: inconsistencies between exit polls and results have become greater and more frequent (did voters suddenly start lying about their voting preferences?). In many cases, electronic voting machines do not provide proper audit trail, and in Republican controlled state legislatures, many laws restricting votes have been enacted and implemented. This state of affairs led to more challenged results and more related litigations.
- Economic and social injustice growth:
While productivity dramatically increased since 1980, the middle class benefitted by 1/6 th of such growth. Automation and time management have dramatically increased productivity in the US. However, benefits of this growth have not been shared fairly: only 1/6 th of productivity growth can be traced back to workers. In general terms, aside of capital remuneration and investment, productivity growth can be used for work redistribution, workers’ revenues increase, investments in alternative programs (new energies, infrastructure thru partnerships between governmental agencies and private sector). From all these options, employees revenues increase will have an immediate impact on the overall economy by increasing demand for goods and services (the 21 st Century American society is primarily a consumer-based society). Instead of pursuing this avenue, enacted policies consistently favored what is known as trickled down economy -- that of course cannot be objectively measured but remains highly valuable marketing concept when it comes down to economic policies – with the negative social results we all witness nowadays.
Since 1980, the US population grew from 229 million to 331 million, further draining natural resources. An increase by almost 50% in population naturally creates greater drains on natural resources, increases pollutions that cannot be compensated by the benefits of an economic expansion sourced in the population growth. In response to these new challenges, it is only during the second decade of the 21 st Century that the concept of carbon footprint has become an economic metric that is taken into account by the business community. In parallel to what, EPA and global warming have been under constant attack from Republicans in spite of science and the fact that many “red states” (e.g. Louisiana, Texas, Florida) are the major casualties of global warming (e.g. the current answer to zones subject to floods expansion, is an inadequate insurance system to cover the losses instead of making real infrastructure investments that provide long term solutions).
Since 1980, governmental policies have constantly favored capital rather than citizens (e.g. tax treatment for capital gains versus tax treatment for revenues generated by work)
The deviance between basic needs cost (food, shelter, education, health, and burial) and average salaries has steadily increased since 1980, pushing families further in debt to cover their income shortfall
Since 1980, with the exception of the military, infrastructure modernization was neglected
- Treasury mismanagement:
Even if it is at the expenses of the entire country, both parties are extensively using the US Treasury to achieve their respective political goals. For instances, when they are in power, Republicans spend money like drunken sailors (e.g. unnecessary wars and bloated defense budgets) and cut income (mostly taxes), ballooning deficits. Once in the opposition they become budget hawks to preclude Democrats to finance their own political goals. Because of their core political approach of society, Democrats will have a tendency to constantly spend more, and therefore levying more taxes to cover their pet programs and repair financial imbalances left by their Republican predecessors up to untenable levels.
Because of the budget annual structure, long term neutral budget planning is seldom.
Since the “Reagan” tax revolution, State and Federal tax codes (that regulate how the budget is financed) have been a political football designed to please one lobbying group or another.
Because of budget mismanagement, the country’s finances are not on a sound economical footing. By way of example, an increase in interest rate (that is market driven) of 1% increases interests by $ 270 Billion over one year or 1.28% GDP
If not addressed soon rather than later the ballooning debt and its related servicing will drive the entire economy in a financial abyss that will dramatically hurt the country.
- Social unease:
The long recession that started in 2007 showed how our financial model was fragile. Few bandages were put on the wound during FY 2009 and 2010. They unfortunately did not go far enough. Since 2017 the dismantlement of these few financial safeguards has been one of the top priorities of the current Administration making the weak weaker, and the strong, stronger (e.g. payday loans).
In average households this financial unease translates in increasing indebtedness turning into a generalized increased stress.
- The Fourth Estate:
The press landscape went thru fundamental changes. In a nutshell the major changes that came about since 1980 are:
The Fairness Doctrine repeal by Ronald Reagan in 1987. The Fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was —in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced.
The creation of Fox News in 1996. Fox News is an American conservative cable television news channel that used to claim providing fair and balanced information while clearly aiming at promoting a specific political agenda rather than publishing objective information.
Mid-nineties, internet technology has substantially improved and has become an information platform exchange that quickly gained traction to the point that in 1996, Congress enacted The Communications Decency Act.
Few years later with social channels like Facebook (2004) changed forever how information is gathered, vetted and distributed.
Information used to be handled by journalists who were trained and subject to ethical standards. With cable networks, these standards no longer existed, and with internet platforms as sources of information, all standards of conduct and ethics have become concepts of the past, leaving the door wide open to dis-information and political manipulations.
President Donald J. Trump and his Administration have actively participated in the American fabric destruction.
The inaugural address sub-title could not be more correct: since January 20 th , 2017, it has been an American carnage.
Below are few examples of the corrosive impact of Donald J. Trump’ s and his Administration actions on the country.
Divisions are at the highest point since the South attempted to secede from the country.
The Administration – that is supposed to represent ALL Americans – talks, plans and acts in terms of “them” versus “us”. The concept of fellow Americans no longer has any bearing with this Administration.
Social and racial disparities are their highest points since WW2.
America is no longer the land of hope inspiring the World: it has become a selfish, recluse and antagonistic powerhouse destroying long time friendships and alliances.
The America First policy – as it has been implemented – is a losing proposition. Indeed this Administration’ s view of foreign relationships (whether military alliances or economic agreements) is based on a one-on- one transactional approach. Such approach reduces the deterrent impact any military alliance has against any ambitious super power (it is easier to win a one-on-one war than a one versus many). Likewise economic agreements (like the now defunct TPP) cover greater territories with one set of commonly agreed upon rules instead of many different rules with many territories that in fact allow by-pass strategies.
The American economy is now close from falling into the abyss because of widespread incompetence and cronyism (e.g. many cabinet members with financial opposite interests to their department: Commerce, Education, Treasury).
White supremacy and racism are promoted by the President of the United States (a country built on diversity).
Relentlessly, the President and his Administration have attacked the freedom of press.
On one hand, the number of lies promoted by this Administration is in thousands to the point that there is no certainty anymore, and on the other hand, The President and his supporters promote unfounded conspiracy theories to distract from their own misdeeds. The combination of these truth manipulations led to chaos.
Bullying, retaliation on one hand and pardons and promotions on the other hand have become are used by the President like a mob boss would do.
In conclusion, I will say with deep sadness that, unless the country wakes up quickly and with stamina, the country is Fascism ready.
Return To Main page