Fascism: A
Bipartisan Affliction
By Ron Paul
June 14,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- If neoconservatives and progressives truly
understood fascism, they would stop using the word
as a smear term. That is because both groups, along
with most political figures and commentators,
embrace fascist ideas and policies.
Fascism’s distinguishing characteristic is a “mixed
economy.” Unlike socialists and communists who seek
to abolish private business, fascists are content to
let business remain in private hands. Instead,
fascists use regulations, mandates, and taxes to
control business and run (and ruin) the economy. A
fascist system, then, is one where private
businesses serve politicians and bureaucrats instead
of consumers. Does the modern American economy not
fit the definition of fascism?
Fascism benefits big businesses that can afford the
cost of complying with government regulations,
unlike their smaller competitors. Big businesses,
which have more political influence then
entrepreneurs or small businesses, also
significantly benefit from government subsidies. In
order to maintain their power, big businesses
finance the “deep state” — the network of lobbyists,
journalists, think tanks, bureaucrats, and
congressional staffers who work behind the scenes to
shape government policy.
Obamacare is an example of fascism that is often
mislabeled as socialism. Obamacare did not create a
government-run “single payer" system as would exist
under socialism. Instead, Obamacare extended
government control over health care via mandates,
regulations, and subsidies. The most infamous part
of Obamacare — the individual mandate — forces
individuals to purchase a product from a private
industry.
Modern America’s militaristic foreign policy aimed
at policing and perfecting the world is another
example of fascism that enjoys strong bipartisan
support. Both right-wing neocons and left-wing
humanitarian interventionists claim our supposedly
noble goals justify any and all actions taken by the
US government. Thus, these supposed human rights
champions defend preemptive war, torture, and
presidential kill lists.
Many politicians supporting a militaristic foreign
policy are more concerned with spreading largesse to
the military-industrial complex than with spreading
democracy. This is why some supposed free-market
conservatives sound like Paul Krugman on steroids
when discussing the economic benefits of military
spending. Similarly, some anti-war progressives will
support large military budgets if some of the money
is spent in their states or congressional districts.
Mass surveillance and limits on personal freedom are
additional hallmarks of fascist regimes. While there
is a movement to “reform” the police state, few want
to abolish mass surveillance, civil asset
forfeiture, police militarization, and other
police-state policies adopted in the name of the
wars on terror and drugs. The federal government has
even used force to stop people from selling raw
milk! Attempts by progressives to silence political
opponents are more examples of how many supposedly
anti-fascist Americans are embracing fascist
policies.
The growth of the welfare-warfare state has been
accompanied by an increase in presidential power.
This centralization of power, and the support it
receives from the political class, is one more
indication of the fascistic nature of our current
regime. Of course, many in Congress will fight to
rein in the executive branch, as long as the
occupant of the White House is of the opposing
party. Even the fiercest opponents of excessive
presidential power instantaneously become lap dogs
when their party wins the White House.
For all their alleged anti-fascism, today’s
neoconned conservatives and progressives both
support the use of force to reshape society and the
world. This is the defining characteristic not just
of fascists, but also of authoritarians. The true
anti-fascists are those who reject the initiation of
force. The true path to real free markets, peace,
and individual liberty starts with rejecting the
bipartisan authoritarianism in favor of the
non-aggression principle. |