Fascism, Lack of Opposition, and Mr Obama

[Betty Karlson]

The introduction to my Journal, Immoderately Moderate, states my believe in the necessity of debate. Without exchange of thought, no progress can be made. To underline this belief, I would like to have my first short essay on the need for ideological debate.

As a venture point for the essay, let us consider a recent accusation to Mr Obama. Various uproarious protesters have compared him to Hitler. Comparing an African-American man to that German chancellor, who bolted at just handing a medal to a black Olympic athlete, may seem unreasonable to us. Even so, I was fascinated by this wild accusation. Fascinated that people who lived through eight years of Bush would choose to compare his successor with a fascist dictator.

The accusation of fascism has been inflated since the end of the Second World War. For many communist spokesmen, it became synonymous with “Western”. After communist parties lost their hegemony over the erstwhile Second World, and after the idea of (partly) free markets had filtered its way into mainstream Marxist ideologies, it became synonymous with “oppressive”, world-wide. So it may be that the accusation against Mr Obama was brought about by nothing more than habit, by the familiarity of the accusation itself.

But that doesn’t do justice to fascism. Fascism is not confined to the West. Nor can it be defined by just oppression. For instance, fascism has a clear distinctive feature in the lack of genuine dissent. Oppression, on the other hand, can be brought about without curbing dissent. Just remember emperor Calligula’s words: “Let them hate me as long as they fear me.” Calligula wanted his citizens to comply, no matter what they thought. Fascism wants its citizens to comply, even in thought.

This lack of dissent can be achieved in various ways. Threatening violence to and arbitrary detention of dissenters is a common one. But it suffices to lull the press corps into being generally uncritical of political leaders. And for the appearance of fascism, it even suffices to find there is no real opposition. Amazingly, that can happen. It is happening right now.

A word of warning. In the following paragraphs, I will compare Mr Obama to Mr Bush. This comparison concentrates on the one distinctive feature their presidencies have in common: lack of genuine dissent. I do not equate their policies, nor do I equate their motives, characters, or qualities. That being said, let us compare their appearance in the eyes of their opponents – and find that both were accused of being a fascist.

Given the vast and barely audited authority the President of the United States has these days, we should hardly be surprised. A U.S. president is authorised to invade other countries without informing congress (2002), to detain foreign nationals at undisclosed locations (1997) for as long as he deems necessary (2003), and to have the CIA conduct investigations through questionable methods (2002 and onwards). Prying into personal information of both domestic and foreign nationals is one of his prerogatives (2001, 2007). He can hire hirelings through accounts that stand outside of the regular budget (2004). So much power demands scrutinising oversight. Where such oversight is lacking, the fear of fascism is justified – though not necessarily the accusation thereof.

Both Mr Bush and Mr Obama held or hold these powers. If you do not entirely trust them, for whatever reason, it is understandable you should fear them. It is understandable that political adversaries of Mr Bush longed for some publicly expressed dissent, some genuine political opposition. They were disappointed. In the aftermath of 9/11, America was united in grief – and Mr Rove did not hesitate to abuse the unison, or the grief for that matter, for partisan purposes.

But we shouldn’t credit Mr Rove too much. Elected Democratic officials were eager to ride along on the tide of unison through grief. Or maybe they were afraid of opposing their head of state at a time when the country was united. Or maybe they simply had no idea, how to oppose the Bush administration. They did so at their own detriment. The lack of opposition to Mr Bush led to an anaemic debate about policy details. Why vote for someone who broadly agrees with the president when you can vote for someone who broadly agrees with him AND belongs to the same party? The results of the 2002 and 2004 elections were sound defeats of the Democratic Party.

But the Democratic Party wasn’t the only one suffering. Mr Bush was in need of opposition – and he did not have any. Of course, Mr Bush likes to be liked, and opposition often takes the form of dislike. Bush did not like to be opposed. Rove even did his best to keep dissent away from Bush. Mr McClellan wrote about a “bubble” in which Bush was kept. But that doesn’t change the fact that Mr Bush would have benefited from opposition.

At this point, we must remember that a president in a bubble makes bad decisions. And given the powers the president has, his bad decision will affect an entire nation. Whether you voted for him or not, you want the president to be opposed, just so he won’t be bubbled. That is because you love your country. If you have a fine president, you want him to be honed until he is a good one. That’s good for the country. If you have a mediocre president, you want him to be honed just so he doesn’t become a bad one. That would be bad for the country.

Opposition and dissent didn’t reach Mr Bush until late April 2006, when Stephen Colbert parodied him at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. By that time, dissent had taken the form of satire. Mr Bush never had a real opposition. When he said, in the late summer of 2008, that if Mr Obama had wanted to run against him, he should have done so four years earlier, Bush had a point. Bush would have benefited from Obama running against him. Just like Mr Bush, Mr Obama has a philosophy. Mr Bush’s one was neo-conservatism, Mr Obama’s one is the new New Deal: Change. What was Kerry’s philosophy? Kerry was just an opponent of Bush. Obama would have been an opposition to Bush.

Opponents debate policies. Opposition debates ideas. An opponent asks: “What are your plans for Subject X?” Opposition asks: “Why have you chosen that plan?” An opponent will never agree with you. The moment he agrees with you, he stops being your opponent. An opposition doesn’t know that limitation. It is entirely possible for two people with different ideologies to agree with each other on a point of policy – even if they do so for different reasons. Take for example the late Senator Kennedy. There was a man who could reach compromises with senators who were his ideological adversaries by far. But Kennedy could distinguish between policy and philosophy. He will be sorely missed, as this has become a rare quality.

The rarity of distinguishing between philosophy and policy can de discerned by looking at the motivations of Mr Obama’s political adversaries. Motivations which are mostly absent. When Mr Limbaugh said: “I want him to fail”, he failed to justify why he wanted Mr Obama to be a bad president, even when he knew that that would be bad for the country. Mr Glenn Beck, instead of explaining his antagonistic attitude to Mr Obama’s Health Care Reform, just had a mental meltdown. Senator Inhofe boldly stated: “Whatever is in that bill, I will vote against it.” As dissent to president Obama, it boils down to: we are the other party, as such we must be against whatever he proposes. The late Senator Kennedy was living proof to the contrary.

Are Mr Obama’s political adversaries just opponents, with no philosophy to back them up? I fear they are. Democratic Underground and other communities tried to challenge Bush’s philosophy as well as his policy. He chose to ignore it, but at least he was offered the opportunity of an ideological challenge. Mr Obama does not even have that. Protests include weapons (which aren’t arguments), tea bags (which merely help the profits of Mr Pickwick and Mr Lipton), birth certificates (which aim to discredit the man for reasons unrelated to either philosophy OR policy), but no challenge to the president’s system of thought.

This is dangerous. Mr Obama faces many issues. He is a fine president, and maybe even a good one, but without someone with whom to discuss his propositions on their merits, he will never be an excellent president. He needs an opposition to serve his country to his best abilities, and he doesn’t have one. Anywhere. Not even on Democratic Underground. This community largely agrees with his philosophy; insofar as we disagree with him, it is over the consistency of his philosophy and his policies. Which makes us opponents at best: the moment we agree with him on policy, we stop opposing him. A real opposition wouldn’t do that.

The demise of neo-conservatism has left Obama’s Change as the only ideology in town. The United States cannot afford to wait another six years before opposition reaches its president. Obama must be honed to perfection by ideological challenges, and the shouting matches at the Town Hall Meetings are not helpful. If Mr Obama should lose the 2012 elections, America needs a principled government that the likes of Ted Kennedy can reach compromises with – even if their philosophies are radically opposed. Without opposition, Obama’s Change risks to become as stale as Bush’s neo-conservatism, and just as quickly.

This lays responsibility with the Republican Party. For the good of America – as well as their own good – the Republicans need to find themselves an ideology. The “Party of No Ideas” may sound like a Democrat’s dream until you realise that unopposed presidents are vulnerable to bubbles. Who wants Mr Obama in a bubble? Limbaugh, Beck, and Inhofe have a lot to answer for. All they do is whine and bully – which are essentially populist tactics, another common feature of fascism. What they should do is formulate for themselves and for us: why they are against Obama. Given Obama’s vast authority, they owe it to America. If Mr Obama appears to be a fascist in the eyes of his political adversaries, it is because republicans fail to do what Democrats failed to do to Bush: be more than an opponent, be an opposition.

This is why I stress the importance of debate. As a simple experiment, I invite you all to disagree with me. I have no doubt some of you will correct me on matters of style or grammar. Being Dutch, I am bound to make the occasional error. Others will correct me on details or facts. It is my sincere desire that there will be still others, who disagree with me on philosophy. For me, as a European, it is easy to criticise Americans from far away, and pontificate my dissatisfaction. But I would benefit if my thoughts did not remain unopposed. It would sharpen my mind, and broaden my insight.

So, please tell me if you think I am wrong. – In fact, especially if you think so.

Your Immoderate Moderate,

B.K.

[Mr Generic Other]

1. betty, it is difficult to find much fault with your argument.

public discourse and honest open debate are essential elements of a successful democratic system and that is precisely why they are discouraged or subverted.
this was not always the case in the united states where public house brawls were once part of election day tradition.
victorian society elites attempted to hide public discontent of policy decisions by making it unacceptable to speak of religion or politics in polite company. the mid-management types who might gain entrance into the inner sanctums of the rich had to hold their pinky-fingers out when drinking tea as a sign they were docile.
anti-intellectualism is sold to under-educated americans like full-sized pick-ups to guys with small genitals.
we have immatured over the years. instead of discourse or debate we shout each other down. instead of diplomacy in foreign affairs we are school-yard bullies.
might is right. end of discussion. like it or lump it. you're either with us or against us.
these slogans have replaced ethics or philosophy and are applied randomly to thwart change.
people have opinions but they are based on vaguely held beliefs not on research.