“Neo” neo-Nazis
Fas÷cism in any movement, tendency, or ideology that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism (Encarta World Dictionary, 1999).
According to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the world is currently facing “a new type of fascism.” While “Islamo-fascists” is a better vocabulary word than “evildoers,” it is wrong for the Secretary and the Bush Administration to align the 62 percent of Americans who believe that the Administration has poorly handled the war in Iraq with Nazi sympathizers, and with those who did not think Hitler was that big of a threat in World War II (and actually, the United States didn’t try to stop Hitler until the ninth inning).
This trend of the Bush Administration creating a false dichotomy where you either agree with the Administration or you agree with the terrorists is technically fulfilling two of the characteristics of fascism-repression of all opposition and extreme nationalism. To say that their opponents are aiding and abetting the terrorists because they disagree, and to now say their critics are like to those who allowed Hitler to take over large portions of Europe and commit genocide are also fulfilling characteristics of facism.
Certainly I cannot see the current administration favoring a dictatorship or centralizing private enterprise, but by definition the Bush administration does have demi-fascist tendencies.
Even though the administration may have discovered a good buzz-word with “Islamo-fascism,” I’m curious as to which group this term actually applies. While some nations in the Middle East and Southeast Asia may be Islamic theocracies with dictatorial tendencies, they’re not really fascist. Iran, along with many other nations like Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan, has a parliament (which happens to include more female representatives that the U.S. Congress). These countries, while many of their laws may be based upon Islamic religious law, have elections, and they don’t have socialized economies. It could almost apply to the Taliban, but didn’t we get rid of them years ago?
Oh, right. The Taliban came back because we moved on to Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan where we actually had a real (read: not fictional) reason to invade.
Just because 62 percent of Americans don’t believe the propaganda spewed from the Bush Administration day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year does not mean they are morally and intellectually confused, as Secretary Rumsfeld suggests. Rumsfeld, who criticized the media in the same speech for giving more coverage to the torture that happened at Abu Ghraib than the awarding of a sergeant the Medal of Honor, seems to be morally confused himself if he cannot see that an award ceremony is less important news than the extreme moral, ethical and human failings of the American soldiers who committed torture. If there are no critics, then how will we determine that what our nation is doing is moral and that the United States is doing the right thing?
The Bush administration is not infallible, and critics and dissenters are an example of a type of check on the government. If the mistakes of the government are not reported or discussed along with the “heck-of-a-jobs,” then the United States is truly on its way to joining the ranks of fascist nations.
About the writer:
Katy Rowe is a senior English and Anthropology major and political science minor. She can be reached at [email protected].
