Ciao!

How ironic. :-)

I wonder, if anyone reading your blog would agree to the above list.

Seriously, terms like fascist or racist are thrown around too easily nowadays.

Personally, I think this is one of those partisan arguments created against a very straw man individual who either doesn't exist, or is such an extremist that there's not a lot of him around.

I'm a liberal, and I don't think Bush is a fascist. Neither do any of my fellow political friends who feel the same way that I do. We've never even considered the thought. Yet, we've heard all sorts of recriminations about what we do believe from people who have never actually asked us what we believe.

Most of us believe Bush is playing "fly by the seat of your pants" politics and giving into the desires of individuals who have been vying for power since the Reagan days with little concern for the rest of the country other than personal bank accounts. That's the main complaint I've had, and yes, it's easily countered with lots and lots of rhetoric until both sides actually sit down and really start arguing with each other. But they don't as we only read one soundbyte after another that makes no sense from either side but makes lots of easily countered future soundbytes in response.

Is Bush a fascist? No. Never even thought that. Do I have many other problems with him? You bet. But everytime I mention them, I immediately get lumped into stereotypical arguments I would never make, so what's the point of even arguing anymore? People don't listen, they don't communicate, and they talk at you. So, even though I'm a political scientist, I find myself dropping out of politics because it's just not worth it anymore.

@Duane,

I completely agree with you. But I too get the feeling that an honest discussion is impossible with some people. And seriously: I don't think anybody in his right mind believes Bush is a fascist. A moron? perhaps, but a fascist? no.

Wait, where in this post did I imply that YOU thought he was a fascist? But don't tell me you haven't seen the "Bush = Hitler" signs at anti-war rallies. And do you read Indymedia.org? It's full of people who openly call Bush a fascist and spell America w/ three KKK's.

It's a reason I avoid reading Indymedia.org. The people there don't represent me, yet quite a few times political pundits will lump me into outrageous statements the extremists make because it's so much easier to do so than to deal with me on an issue by issue basis.

I post on a series of message boards about political current events, and I'm constantly being attacked by very right-wing individuals that don't even read what I post, but they quote Rush and Coulter and then throw that in my face, and then when I counter with a logical response, they throw arguments made by morons like Al Frankin as if that came from me. It's gotten to the point where you can't even argue with people anymore because you're constantly having to defend people who say things you don't believe in.

Oh, yeah, the left and the right have their own crazies. My advice, don't mess w/ those message boards. Try the links on my blogroll. For the most part, they're made up of rational, educated, honest folks. Neither left or right, but all rational (and not even necessarily all of them Objectivists).

Sounds like a plan. Will visit more of the links later.

Gee Miguel you didn't know that business and the republicans are not only fascist but the root of all evil (this is sarcasm)? Didn't you see in the comic book history special that Lex Luther was originally an evil scientist (in conjunction with the 1950s), but later became a dirty businessman (to coincide with the 1980s)?

Now I agree with the above comments that being a liberal or left-wing does not automatically make you a radical hippie no more than being conservative makes you racist and cruel. It's just the most outspoken people on both sides (Coulter, Rush, Franken, and Moore) are heard the most and the media likes to focus on the crazies more than the rational people.

I think for all the people who liken Bush to a fascist should seriously leave the country and live in a fascist one like they said they were going to if he ever became president. I'd like to see how fast some of their whiney asses beg to be sent back to the U. S.

"I'd like to see how fast some of their whiney asses beg to be sent back to the U. S."

Would whiny Britons suffice?

first what is a fascist? according to dictionary.com:
fascist-
adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda" [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views

now what is fascism? Let's look at what Benito Mussolini, the FOUNDER of Fascism said: Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini (from Encyclopedia Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor)

and according to my dictionary:
fas-cism (fash'iz'em) n.
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

bush supports corporations and is merging the power of government with corporations (how many in his administration were CEOs? a lot!) therefore bush supports the system of fascism (or more rightly, corporatism) so is therefore a fascist!

don't forget that it was his grandfather that was instrumental in helping hitler rebuild germany before WW2. I'm sure some of prescotts beliefs rubbed off on GHW bush, which likely rubbed off on GW.

Your argument is significantly flawed. First, fascism is more than just the "merging" of state power and corporations. Otherwise, FDR would also be a fascist, as would Allende, the Mexican PRI, and contemporary European welfare democracy. Fascism is also different from state management over economic/corporate affairs, otherwise Lenin, Castro, and other communists would be fascists.

Second, Bush's pro-corporate economic policies don't equate to "merging the power of government w/ corporations". Clinton also supported many pro-corporate economic policies, as did every president before (including Carter). Clinton and othe presidents have also had CEOs in their cabinets and administration, not just Bush.

Third, Mussolini said more about fascism than merely that it was what he called corporatism (corporatism and fascism are distinct political methods of state). I don't recall Bush enlisting millions into para-military death commandos, rounding up dissident politicians, outlawing political parties, assasinating opposition leaders, or arguing that war is the natural and preferred way of life.

You really don't understand what fascism is at all, do you?

The reason people call Bush a Fascist is because Republicans call democats Socialist. I do not agree with either view but Republicans have been saying that for years.

It is wonderful that we live in a country where anyone can say anything that they want, to disrespect our leader by comparing him to the monsters who did so much harm makes me sick. I have read much nonsense on the web, all of which defames our leadership. If any of the allegations were remotely true, then they would automatically be removed from this great info. hwy. If we do not like our leaders , we should vote them out, if they are re elected, and we do not like what the majority of the people wanted, then we should leave, maybe after that we will return and appreciate what we once had.

I think that the problem here is that people often truncate the quote by Mussolini. The quote really reads:

"The first stage of fascism, should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and Corporate power."

While, no, Bush is not a fascist, he is leading our country down a path of fascism and nationalism.

That's one of the worst slippery slope arguments I've ever heard! And Mussolini said much more than that single little quote (I teach a 300-level university course in comparative ideologies, I know what I'm talking about here).

Also, "corporatism" does NOT mean what you think it means! It does not mean "power for corporations." Rather, it means that political society is divided into various parts of the national "body politic" (the word "corporatism" comes from the Italian word "corpo", which means "body"). These branches include all areas of society: unions, military, capitalists, women, peasants, etc. The idea's that political participation is limited to w/in the official "branch." This is in line w/ fascism, of course, which organizes society along militaristic lines.

When Mussolini spoke of fascism as "Corporate" power, he didn't mean "corporations" (capitalist or otherwise). He meant it was an excercise in power by a body politic organized into corporate filas that eliminated political parties by managing all political participation into state-managed organs.

what in good fuck are you people talking about? up here in the "Great White North" (thats canada for you hayseads out there) we think fascism is great. We think Mussolini is just peachy and we only wish we could have leaders like him, and Hitler to lead us into a great and prosperous future...