It Can't Happen Here?

It probably already is . . .

Too many people think fascism is some strange, inhuman thing that could never happen in the United States of America.  This is a very naive, very frightening, and very dangerous belief.  There are also those who see tyranny in every zoning regulation, every protection against wage abuse, every attempt to prevent consumer fraud and unsafe commodities (including food and medicine), and in and every measure to limit environmental spoilage. They see symbols of slavery in every post office and social security card.  This type of world view is also worrisome and potentially just as dangerous.

Whatever is at fault, our ideas about democracy are only vague and troubled.  We do know some have more power and more wealth than most of us.  We don’t always know if those powerful elites also have more wisdom and more character than we do. It doesn’t always seem that way.

When things go wrong, and don’t get better, it’s temping to think words like "freedom" and "democracy" are being used in tricky ways.  When things stay wrong long enough for children to grow into adults and start having children of their own, it’s easy to wonder if words like democracy and freedom may always have been lies and shams.  People who are "elites" are very good with words and at twisting their meanings - or they can hire lawyers and politicians to do that for them (to us).

We know democracy is something we have and that it's supposed to be good.  But if things are not good, then maybe bad people have hijacked the word, or the system.  Or maybe democracy was never such a good thing after all.

What is democracy anyway?   Isn’t it the people voting and majority rule?   But are our votes even counted, and would they matter if they did?  What is democracy anyway?

We know fascism is something bad.  It’s Hitler and gas chambers and war.  Nobody wants that.  There’s no way we would let it happen here.  Our Constitution protects us, but if bad people can’t read, we have guns.  If they don’t want to do the right thing, we have guns.

Our grandparents were taught that people who complain about the rich and promise to redistribute wealth are Communists; shifty people who are just like Fascists in that they will take our freedom and democracy away.  Our grandparents had that well drummed into them.

Our grandparents remember that once Hitler and Fascism were defeated, Communism became our scariest and most diabolical enemy.  They spied on us and got the A bomb.  Now they could threaten everything if we didn’t surrender our freedom, our rights, and our democracy.

Now terrorism is our most frightful enemy.  Before that it was Communism.  Before that was Fascism.  And before that was . . . Communism.

What?

But it’s there in our own history.  Before World War II when the Russian "Communists" helped us defeat Hitler, many Americans had tolerant, or even kindly, ideas about Fascism.  FDR expressed some admiration for Mussolini ("that admirable Italian gentlemen") whose followers coined the word “Fascism”.  Other members of the US elite felt the same way, or at least shrugged.  Leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco might be distastefully extreme, but they sure knew how to deal with Communists.

*****

The word “Fascist” comes from “fasces”, an ax wrapped in a bundle of rods.  These bundles were carried by “enforcers” who accompanied Ancient Roman magistrates when they were conducting state business. The fasces were a symbol of power.  A magistrate could order someone to be beaten with the rods - or dismembered by the axe.

Benito Mussolini was an Italian authoritarian populist leader.  He used the fasces and other symbols of Ancient Roman power and glory to stir nationalism and a sense of unity in his Italian followers.   Italians know how kindly and lovable they are, but people should not forget how dangerous it is to double-cross an Italian.  Hadn’t the Italian people given the world the Roman Empire with its laws, its roads and its aqueducts.  Didn't the Roman Empire given the world it’s global “peace” which allowed the birth and spread of Christianity?  Since then hadn’t the Italians given the world the best music, the best paintings, and the best food?

Mussolini’s followers were people of all stripes who felt threatened by change and by suspicious sounding calls for justice.  Some of Mussolini’s followers were very wealthy and powerful.  Some of them were large landowners. Some were institutional leaders who served those with wealth and power.  These institutions included major corporations, some of which still prosper today.  These institutions also included the military, the police and the Catholic Church.  But Mussolini’s followers also included shopkeepers, teachers, and laborers.   Many of them were good people who would feed the hungry and help the poor whenever they could.  They were just people who were frightened by changes that seemed to threaten their children’s futures. They were just people who were somewhat unnerved by threats to to their idea of the nation or the church.  

Mussolini exhorted his followers to call him “Il Duce” (the leader).

Adolph Hitler was a German authoritarian populist leader.  He used ancient symbols associated with the Germanic People (The “Volk” ) to stir up nationalism and a sense of unity in his German followers.

Hitler’s followers were people of all stripes.  Most of them were good people in their own way.  But they felt threatened by strange changes and the strange types of people calling for justice and freedom.  The Germans thought of themselves as a people who could be stern, but deep down they were kindly and civilized.  The Germans, had been forced by history to become stern.  After all, they weren’t French.  And who were the French anyway?  Weren’t they Franks, a German people, who had been seduced by Roman favor, Roman Power, and Roman ways?  Didn’t the Franks betray their Germanic heritage that way by learning Latin and mongrelizing themselves with Gaelic peasants and slaves?  And hadn’t the French brutalized and terrorized the pure, good, and peaceful Germans ever since Charlemagne - with Napoleon being only one of the most recent invaders?  And hadn’t France led the Allies in unjustly putting all the blame for The Great War of 1914-1918 on the Germans?  The French were also responsible for the humiliating conditions of the Armistice which required harsh payments and an emasculating surrender of military armaments. 

Some of Hitler’s followers were very wealthy and powerful.  Some of them were institutional leaders who served this rich, powerful, but tiny elite.  These institutions included major corporations, some of which still prosper today.  They also included the military, the police, land owners, and the universities.  But Hitler’s followers also included postmen, teachers, shop girls, and laborers.  These were people who would give the shirt of their back to help someone in need.  These were heroic people who would champion victims and stand up to victimizers. They were just good people who felt threatened by changes that seemed to be poisoning the future for their children and grandchildren. 

Hitler required his followers to cal him “Der Führer” (The Leader!)

Generalissimo Francisco Franco was a Spanish authoritarian leader.  He used the symbols of Spanish Monarchy and Roman Catholic Christianity to stir up nationalism and a sense of unity in his Spanish followers.  The Spanish were a great people who had also known much suffering.  Hadn’t they been subjugated by Muslim invaders for dreary centuries before finally, as Conquistadors, they drove the infidels into the sea?  Hadn’t the Spanish led the way in opening the Americas and bringing soul saving Christianity to the savage inhabitants of those lands?  And hadn’t their beautiful country been scourged with division and slaughter for too much of the last hundred years?  Didn’t the pious, honest, hardworking people of Spain deserve some measure of peace and order?

Franco’s followers were people of all walks of life.  They had good reason to be threatened by change and suspicious calls for justice.  Hadn’t Spain been torn by civil and guerrilla wars since the invasion of Napoleon?  Kings and Queens and come and gone, some of whom probably had no right to rule.  Weren’t liberals and republicans (those inspired by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution) threatening the Holy Mother Church so important for salvation and the souls of children, grandchildren, and the as yet unborn? 

Hadn’t Franco stopped the Civil Wars?  Franco called himself a totalitarian, but sometimes a strong man is needed when so much is at stake.  Harsh measures are terrible but sometimes necessary, and none of the factions had no blood on their hands.  Civil war is vicious.  Guerrilla war means never knowing when an enemy might strike.  Franco brought peace through strength.

Franco’s followers called him, “El Caudillo” (the Leader).

*****

Since the dawn of history, there have been strongmen. There have been kings who inspire armies to conquer and defend.  There  have been priestly castes who claim authority based on their special skills and wisdoms, their ability to explain and channel the forces of nature, and their power to represent the will of ancestors and gods.  There have also been tyrants who claimed their power from the people, or dictators who served to save the state and preserve order. 

Fascism is how modern corporate and other institutional elites mesmerize enough of the populace into fantasies of dominance and humiliation regarding "others" These "others" often include groups who live in the same nation state. (Don't forget that one of the most common motifs for sadomasochism includes fetishized versions of an SS uniform.)  

The extremely wealthy is always a tiny fraction of one percent in any population.  They and the multitudinous institutional elite who manage the affairs of commerce, law, and the state always have some tendency toward fascism because they recognize the power of organized factions of the people. (They also tend, with some justification, to view "the people" as ignorant, ungrateful, insatiably needy, and easily gulled)  

The tiny core elite can use subservient members of the institutional elite to keep the people unorganized, divided, and distracted. They don't want mobs of slobs wondering who's behind the curtain so they lull us with fancies, entertainments, and shallow gratifications.   If the times call for it, they whip us up into frenzies of fear and hate which repeatedly subside into numb craters of resentment and distrust. 

Fascists need paranoia (Fake news, conspiracy theories etc.) because they want the appearance of a great many "curtains" people can rip down to mock and vilify whoever gets caught behind them. This is all good for the fascist elements of the elite who want to hide behind the reassuring strongmen who would protect and glorify us all if only our enemies would let up on them (and us).

Since The Enlightenment, ordinary people are also always susceptible to fascism because it's impossible to really have a sure sense of what is going on in extremely complex modern societies. This is especially true when people are insecure, but have a sense that institutions are not working for the greater good.

It's always hard to have patience with the elaborate institutional mechanisms of democracy which, by design, fractionalize power and authority. We just wish things could be more straightforward - and we believe they could be if only the right kinds of "good people" were in charge. And if our leaders are good, it's even more important that they be strong - and maybe even harsh - because true leaders only want what's right for us, and if the leaders' enemies are trying to thwart them, this (intentionally or not) will only expose us to grave harm and terrifying evil.

The institutional elite and their minions know how to revive, create and manipulate symbols of home, nurturance, power, fear, and purity to wind us up and keep us exhausted.   

They don't need to fool all of the people all of the time.  They know they only need fool enough of the people enough of the time.  They know we're overworked and insecure.  They like it that way.  They know we're ignorant. That's a good thing for them too.  They're ignorant too, most of them.  They don't need to know everything; they can hire smart people to work in their institutions and keep things stirred up.

The tiny core elite (0.1%) and the larger institutional elite know what they need to know.  Most of them are good people.  Most of them are not idiots. But "idiot" is a term derived from the first formal democracy to give substantial power to ordinary people (if you don't count slaves and women) in a complex civilized society.  The word "idiot" comes from Classical Athens in Ancient Greece.

By the way "civilized" really doesn't mean "kind and polite" although it does have some association with "the rule of law".  Civilizations are really just cultures able to support cities - or large number of people who don't need to spend all their time finding, hunting, or growing food.  In civilizations some people can devote significant amounts of time to commerce, trade, and all types of special skills related to controlling nature across large spans of land and time - or to controlling people across many generations and wide expanses of territory.  A civilization is the type of human culture that can hold territories and people together for long time even if some of of those lands were conquered, their peoples exterminated or enslaved.

And "idiot" really doesn't mean "stupid".  An idiot is not an idiot because he is stupid, even though he may well be fairly slow witted and ignorant in certain ways.  In democratic Athens an idiot was someone who tried to shirk his duty to participate in the Democratic Assemblies.  Maybe they were just lazy. Maybe they were too sensitive or timid to endure the jostling of loud onion munching crowds of workmen and sailors. Maybe some were stupid.  Some of them probably didn't see the sense of standing around scratching on potshards and listening to morons pretending to understand long winded, flowery speeches. Maybe they just wanted to be left alone. Maybe they just wanted to conduct their own affairs for the benefit of themselves and their families.  To ancient Greeks, the word "idiot" meant a childish, ignorant, and irresponsible sense of selfishness. 

Not all of the 0.1% elite are idiots working only to benefit themselves and careless of the impact they have on society and the rest of us.  It only takes a few very rich crackpots to actually organize enough institutional minions to disrupt the institutions of democracy and the trust that might hold the 99% together in some sense of shared responsibility.

The destruction of democracy doesn't require a majority of a tiny elite to be idiots if such people command enough resources so that just a few can wreak havoc.  The destruction of democracy and the rise of fascism only requires that most of the 0.1% mind their own business.

The most idiotic of the tiny elite probably don't recognize themselves as "fascists".  They are just doing what seems right and good for them.  And few in the institutional elite think about fascism.  They do what they do for the rewards of power, prestige, and money.  They follow the money and, in America right now, too much money is the hands of a tiny elite that contains too many idiots.

Few ordinary people march around in sheets or sport swastikas. But lots of us distrust our institutions, often with good reason.  Few institutions are, after all, insulated from the power of big money.  To survive all institutions have to cater somewhat to the idiot elite (0.1%).  This is, most of all, true for certain types of democratic institutions - especially those involved in electoral politics (like the major parties).  When a society is ultimately ruled by democratic institutions but there is too much wealth inequality, this is what will naturally happen.  Wealth finds its way to where it benefits its owners most of all.

Fascism is always sponsored by a tiny idiot elite supported by hard working institutional elites and their minions.  Their wealth gives them an unfair advantage.  It's also much easier to undermine institutions than build them up and maintain them.  And the open, complex, and bewildering rules of democracy make it hard for democratic institutions to defend themselves. Most of all it is easier to sow distrust than it is to protect meaningful relationships built on hard work, responsibility, and tolerance.

And democracy is not just "the people vote and the majority rules".  That would never work as anyone would realize if they thought soberly about it even briefly. There has to be protections for minorities and individuals.  There has to be mechanisms for dividing and checking power. There has to be avenues for uncovering and removing the corruptions of self dealing and influence buying which will always creep into institutions like weeds will creep across lawns and ants will creep through walls.

Democracy is not just a series of triumphs for freedom and "rule of law" based on popular sovereignty. Democracy has won stirring victories, but even those were often at least partially the result of some very squalid circumstances and the actions of some very sketchy and conniving people. 

Democracy is not a given. And the common people are rarely noble, self sacrificing, or tolerant - although we can be. Wouldn't most of us want to be, under the right circumstances?  (Aye, there's the rub.)

Democracy is not simple or straightforward.  A casual study of democracy can make it obvious that democracy is a fragile layer of complexity built into and over the complexities of some civilizations. Unfortunately our schools rarely teach it that way.  They make it boring except sometimes when it comes to wars and slaughter. But, give schools and teachers some credit too.  It's very hard whip up interest in complex, intentionally ponderous institutions. 

Democracy is not simple and straightforward.  Nor are its prime defenders the armed forces though it may (partially) depend on men and woman who could rightly be called heroes. Armed forces have always been as dangerous for democracy as they have been necessary.  War is always dangerous to democracy even when fought to defend it.

Democracy is the grueling, frustrating, and never ending attempt to convince and influence people.  It's also all the disappointments and disillusionments that arise from this type of struggle.  It's having to endure and listen to idiots (a Greek Word), shysters (a Yiddish word), carpetbaggers (an American word), ignoramuses, and bullies.  It's about tedious tasks of organization and oversight.  It's about building the discipline to understand not only people with all their foibles, but institutions with their roots in history and necessity.

Democracy is the complex set of institutions that protect the people's rights to influence distant centers of power.  It is the complex set of rules, regulations and oversights to ensure that people have influence over all institutions so that they are safe, honest, and helpful.

This means democracy is the never ending struggle against institutions that are not safe, honest, and helpful.  It is the never ending struggle against concentrated wealth that will create institutions to protect itself and accumulate more wealth.  It is the never ending struggle against the efforts of concentrated wealth to influence and corrupt every institution to neutralize the power of ordinary people.  Serious students of history including Aristotle and James Madison (the prime architect of our Constitutional system) have always recognized that democracy is deadly to concentrated wealth, and concentrated wealth is lethal to democracy.  But they compromised and moved on, pushing many conflicts into the future lives of their descendants.  Sometimes that's the best anyone can do.

Thomas Jefferson, sitting perhaps near a warm fireplace stoked by ragged barefoot slaves who also sharpened his quills and brought him tea, wrote that freedom requires "eternal vigilance".  No wonder paranoia seems built into democracy as much as is complexity.

Whatever they think they're doing, it's easy for determined and clever people to whip up more paranoia than democracy can stand.  It's easy for them to do that even if it means they are ultimately undercutting the institutions protecting their own rights.  Idiots may not be stupid, but they mostly end up doing stupid things.

In mid May of the year 2017, the clumsy, awkward, vulgar institutions of democracy may be starting the process of removing a chief executive who is clearly toxic to much more than democracy.  But if those institutions are successful, will it mean people can relax after their celebrations?

The idiot elite (0.1%) will not go away.  They will not admit defeat or acknowledge mistakes.  They will assiduously bore into our institutions and our culture (which means our minds).  They will take advantage of our paranoia and insecurities and always find new ways to trigger them. But they'll only do that when they can't keep us distractedly amused or hopelessly despondent.

They may not go away (in our life time), but recent history in our own nation state tells us they can be tamed.  It took a Great Depression and a gifted leader (who was also a member of the 0.1% with all their cunning and less of their idiocy), but the idiot elite (0.1%) never forgave FDR and never ceased trying to roll back his protections.  They've never stopped targeting either Social Security or the Progressive Income Tax won a generation earlier.

They don't have to fool all of us all of the time.  They only need fool enough of us enough of the time.  They only need a few of us to make us all feel selfish, frightened, and hopeless.  And they only need a credible leader who isn't an obvious buffoon.  But it's now indisputably proven that even an obvious buffoon can win enough votes to be "electorated" president - and once he's gone, how will his followers be left?

Trimp's followers are not bad people. If they are ignorant of history and naive about democracy, so are the rest of us.  Most of us don't live the type of lives that allow careful study or reasoned debate.  We have so few good role models. And the next authoritarian populist that stirs us up will have a big advantage in that he will not be Trimp.

Fascism, just like Democracy, comes from very deep longings that were central to our humanity long before we lived in vast complex civilizations. Fascism is not inhuman, but to recognize its humanity is not to glorify it or to excuse it. There are plenty of human traits that are less then glorified and difficult to excuse.  To recognize the humanity in fascism is to prepare ourselves seriously against its challenging power. All of us are subject to the follies and exhaustions that breed cynicism and defeatism. To be very clear, the real dangerous of fascism do not come from swaggering bullies or manipulative leaders.  The real dangers of fascism are not in our own fantasies of power and revenge.  The real danger of fascism arises from apathy, ignorance, indifference, and especially despair. And resisting the soft seduction of despair may be the true primary life struggle (kampf, jihad,) for all of us. 

Holding our own in this struggle is the only way we can build democracy while recognizing the humanity and the dignity of all of us - including the idiot elite and including preposterous toddling bullies.  It may never be our fate to achieve total victory in either struggle, but that may be why we find honor and hope in never giving up on either of them.

It's been rightly said that "freedom is self control". Democracy is our only way of controlling ourselves and protecting us against "us".   In our struggles against ourselves how can we not feel defeated again and again and again?

*****

It is idiotic to exult over the defeated.  It is fascist. The defeated are us.  And, we can never forget the exhausted, the disillusioned, the tortured, and the betrayed are especially prone to the allure self-destruction - especially the kind that "takes out" the despised people who represent (for them) their tormentors and betrayers.  They are not our enemies.  They are our struggle.