Mr. Moderate

In his recent book and Salon excerpt It Could Happen Here, Salon columnist Joe Conason argues that George Bush represents a dangerous next step towards an authoritarian fascist dictatorship that would gain power here in the United States much as Adolph Hitler gained power in Germany through winning a popular election. While there might be some reason to fear a fascist takeover of America, given the close links between the Republican Party and big business, I believe that the greater fear would be a popular dictatorship of the type predicted by Oswald Spengler in his book The Decline of the West. The distinction is subtle, so I will begin by defining a few terms.

Fascism is a form of anti-socialist state where the leaders of big business organizations are effectively drafted as “generals” in the army of the state. Fascism does not change the ownership situation, as communism does, but still effectively expropriates the largest business organizations by subjugating their leaders to the dictates of a state bureaucracy. Profits still flow to the owners, but only to the extent allowed by the state. And of course, the state retains its usual powers of taxation. Since business under fascism is effectively a representative of the state, it becomes treasonous to take up any position that is in any way anti-business. Accordingly, labor unions are abolished and workers’ rights are eliminated, all in the name of efficiency. Dissent is not allowed, so the election where the dictator is first elected becomes the last free election that the nation ever has.

What Spengler predicted was the “victory of force-politics over money.” That would not necessarily imply a fascist government, or even necessarily an oppressive dictatorship. What it implies is a charismatic leader who, due to the force of his own personality and the political power he can command, obtains near-dictatorial power. More likely than not, such a leader would be some kind of populist. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a good example of this kind of leader. His approach, while authoritarian and dictatorial, cannot be categorized as either fascist or communist in nature. He is a popular leader, and the people actually support his exercise of dictatorial powers because he uses those powers to take back control of valuable economic power from foreign big business interests. He does not centralize all business operations under his command, but only the large monopolies that yield the largest undeserved profits. And he does not merely expropriate those business interests, as a communist government would, but is quite willing to pay a “fair” value for them. If the United States is headed towards an authoritarian leader, I would believe that it is far more likely to be of the Chavez (populist) type than the Mussolini (fascist) type.

Another point raised by Spengler is that money is eliminated from political influence by law, replacing money with government supplied means of getting elected. Those means are, however, under the control of the government, so the last restraint on a self-perpetuating oligarchy is removed. Freed of the need to respond to the desires of business leaders, taxes on businesses can be raised and used to fund programs that increase the popularity of the political class among those who vote. As I said, above, this is more or less what Hugo Chavez has been doing for some time now. Thus, if you want to see where I believe the United States is headed, you need only look to Venezuela.

One of the lessons of history is that the next attack will almost necessarily never come from the direction you are expecting it. Before 9/11, who would have believed using commercial airliners as flying bombs to attack big buildings? We are now guarding that mode of attack, and so the next attack will almost-necessarily come from a different direction where, once again, we are least expecting it.

So, too, I believe the progression towards authoritarian governments will not necessarily repeat the exact pattern(s) of the past, but will instead create its own unique pattern. But in this case, we know what to expect because we have witnessed its birth in a neighbor nation. Fascism was a flash-in-the-pan because it tended to alienate the bulk of the population. For long-term success, the people (and especially, those among the people who cast ballots) must be placated in some fashion so that they will willingly give their votes to their own oppressor. That is what a populist leader like Hugo Chavez is necessarily an expert at accomplishing. And that is exactly what I believe is in store for us here in the United States.