Why George W. Bush is Not a Fascist
Firstly, this is to all those whom find it suitable to label George W. Bush a nazi or a fascist. There are certain aspects to these respective ideologies that make any comparisons with Bush completely, and utterly false. First and foremost, we’re going to examine fascist thought and the basic tenets of this beliefe. Perhaps the most widely accepted defining piece of contemporary literature on fascism was undertaken in The Authoritarian Personality by Stagner. Stagner developed a scale for the assessment of fascistic attitudes. Throughout his observations of German and Italian fascistic writings, he identified seven characteristic content areas: 1)nationalism, 2)imperialism, 3) militarism, 4) racial antagonism, 5) anti-radicalism, 6)middle-class consciousness, and 7) a benevolent despot or strong man philosophy of government. These trends, while perhaps only two of which are exemplifeid by mainstream politicians in the United States (nationalism and imperialism) are far from defining characteristics of the presence of any American fascist government. Simply looking at the psychology of many of the captured Nazis from WW2 indicates different characterization causes that separate Bush from fascism. What has since been defined by most political psychologists as an “authoritarian personality,” this sense of sycophantic obedience towards higher authorties and sharing a common goal of statist supremacy are in staunch contradiction to the actions and beliefs of our current president.
In assessing fascism, political psychologists and sociologists have constructed a number of scales in which to denote right-wing authoritarianism (left-wing authoritarianism being a completely separate matter). These scales measures the tendencies amongst individuals or groups of individuals to display what would commonly be associated with fascistic leanings. The first of these scales is known as the anti-Semitism (A-S) scale. Anti-semitism as we shall define as the stereotyped negative opinions describing Jews as threating, immoral, and categorically different from non-Jews, and of hostile attitudes urging various forms of restriction, exclusion, and suppression as a means of solving the “Jewish problem” (Adorno). The scale measures hostility towards Jews as responsible for the social ills, and/or the belief that there is a social degeneration responsible due to the actions and/or presence of Jews. The A-S scale is formulated in such a way that it is successful in hinting at some of the most subtle anti-Semitic hostilities, while not setting off other tendencies that may be described as fascistic.
Now, when placed on this scale, George W. Bush has demonstrated no antagonistic attitudes or behaviors towards the Jews. In fact, Israel remains one of the United States’ strongest allies, and there has historically been in favor of Israel over the Palestinian people, and this is no exception under the leadership of George W. Bush. Furthermore, while it is impossible for me to ascertain the actual numerical value of George W. Bush’s A-S score, the evidence of his unbridled support for Israel makes clear note that he doesn’t foster any hostile.
The next scale that demonstrates fascistic tendendies is one of ethnocentrism. We can understand the important fact that most who are antagonistic towards Jews will perhaps similarly be hostile towards Negroes, Hispanics, and other racial/ethnic minorities within the country. THis was a key indicator amongst not only German and Italian fascists, but those who defined themselves as fascist right here in America. One only has to look at past leaders of Fascist movements in the United States to understand that ethnocentrism has played a significant role in the undertakings of bringing about a fascist movement of any noteworthy significance. This is just an expression of extreme outgroup hostilities manifested through ideology.
Evidence shows that Bush is not antagonistic towards those groups of various ethnicities other than his own, as is the case with almost all neo-liberals (neo-conservatives). Capitalism, the main concern for those like Bush, is neither pro nor anti-racism. It is simply pro-profites. Bush, nor the bourgeois elites would find no satisfaction in prescribing to any kind of racialist or racist sentiments that threaten profit (For more information on this, read Social Attitudes vs. Social Behaviors). He may be indffierent to the plights of black people, as he is indifferent to the plight of all working peoples. His policies demonstrate contempt for the working class, not any pure subjugation of any particular racial group.
The third scale of political and economic conservatism (PEC). Fascism has been identified (by Marxists and intellectuals alike) as extreme right conservatism, based on the traditional values that are typically associated with conservative thought. Fascism makes connections between the traditionally conservative and the extreme. Bush’s neoliberalism falls on a more moderate scale of conservative liberalism. The association between typical conservatism (or mainstream American conservatism) and ethnocentrism/anti-Semitism does exist; however, it is not strong enough to correlate any connection with outright fascism. Ethnocentrism in American politics doesn’t typically result in direct antagonism to minorities (since the Civil Rights movement). Bush exemplifies what is currently labeled political and economic conservatism. However, while perhaps a social conservative, Bush’s economics are undeniably traditionally liberal. His value of free trade, tax-cuts for the rich, and movements towards further privatization only fuel a neo-liberal laissez faire assessment, certainly not fascist.
Finally, and perhaps the most widely known scale in assessing fascistic tendencies is the F-scale, or the implicit antidemocratic trends of potentiality for fascism scale. The F-scale measures implicit authoritarianism trends in personality, the same trends that render the personality susceptible to explicit fascist propaganda. The content of the F-scale is broken down to nine “syndromes” that indicate an affiliation with antidemocratic or fascistic trends. These “syndromes” or characteristics, are outlined as follows:
1. Conventionalism – as a rigid adherence to conventional middle-class values.
a. “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important values children should learn.”
b.”The businessman and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the professor.”
2. Authoritarian submissio – submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup.
a. “Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down.”
b. “Science has its place, but there are many important things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind.”
3. Authoritarian aggression – a tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemnt, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values.
a. “Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped or worse.”
b. “If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be better off.”
4. Anti-intraception – an opposiiton to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender minded.
a. “When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.”
b. “Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should remain personal and private.”
5. Superstition and Stereotypy – the belief in mystical determinants of the individual’s fate, the disposition to think in rigid categories.
a. “Seomday it will probably be showsn that astrology can explain a lot of things.”
b. “Some people are born with an urge to jump from high places.”
6. Power and “Toughness” – a preoccupationwith the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimensions; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the go; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness.
a. “People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong.”
b. “Most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places.”
7. Destructiveness and Cynicism – a generalized hostility, vilification of the human.
a. “Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict.”
b. “Familiarity breeds contempt.”
8. Projectivity – the disposiiton to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconcious emotional impulses.
a. “Wars and social troubles may someday be ended by an earthquake or flood that will destroy the whole world.”
b.”Nowadays, when so many different kinds of people move around and mix together so much, a person has to protect himself especially carefully against catching an infection or disease from them.”
9. Sex – exaggerated concern with sexual “goings-on.”
a. “The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame compared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it.”
b. “Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be serverely
These included not only a description, but actual statements from the F-scale itself, in which those taking the test would indicate to what level they agree or disagree with each statement. Now, these indicators aren’t all that meaningful by themselves, as we have all undoubtedly heard such statements on any given day. It is, however, combined with the data from the previous scales that could possibly indicate fascistic tendencies or predispositions.
Now, we must look at fascism as an ideology in itself. The most stringent tenets of fascism rest on mysticism, anti-class consciouness theory, and statism. The state, above all else, the end in fascist ideology. Fascism rejects both Marxism as well as liberal democracy and bourgeois capitalism. Fascist economics were indeed more progressive than the laissez-faire economics of the traditional liberals and what would be considered “neo-liberal” or “conservative” today. The fascists were indeed more Keynesian in their approach to economics than the system of economics proposed by George W. Bush. The original proponents of fascism also had strong links to socialist and syndicalist movements prior to their becoming fascists. This is a trend in staunch opposition to the bourgeois nature of George W. Bush. Mussolini defined fascism in the following manner:
“Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State.”
Nazism, as a separate ideology, holds many distinct characteristics that make it almost an entirely different branch, as opposed to an offshoot of fascism itself. Nazism was far more ethnocentric, anti-Semitic, and the social engineering of an entire culture. Fascism is mere statolatry, where Nazism focused on bringing about a new world based upon the principles of the National Socialist leaders.
While this is just the beginning, and for the sake of time we must make only short assertions, it becomes all the more evident that Bush is neither a fascist nor a Nazi. It would be foolish to compare Bush to any foreign leader with the exception of the Anglo Commonwealth. If any comparisons of Bush to past leaders can be made, perhaps we should look at our own political system that has its own defining characteristics. If Bush is similar in comparison to any other leader, it is perhaps Harry Truman. The fact remains, Bush holds profits and capitalist gains to be the center of his values – something that stands in contrast to the goals of both Nazis and Fascists. Making unfounded generalizations and accusing one of being a “fascist” has led to the word “fascist” almost losing its meaning in its entirety. Fascism shouldn’t be used as a poiltical epiteph or pejorative attack; it should be used in the manner in which it was created – a defining political movement and system. Using it as an attack word not only discredits your side of the argument by offering a childish rhetoric instead of critical thought, but shows nothing more than contempt for actual study and analysis of the situation or the past.
