Neoconservatism’s Fascist Roots
I have mostly avoided comparing neoconservative views to fascism in my previous critiques. But I guess it's understood around the blogosphere that it would be an apt comparison, if the word "fascist" wasn't overburdened with history. Andrew Sullivan:
The contempt for the masses, the esoteric agenda of small elites, the loathing of the judicial branch, the use of an executive to trash constitutional norms in the name of security, and the necessity for constant warfare as a way to instill traditional virtues in the citizenry: these are not specifically fascist. But they have fascistic undertones. This used to be speculation. When you remember their instincts under Bush-Cheney, it's more like an observation.
In support of this point, he cites Damon Linker over at Cato (emphasis mine):
I agree that the strong second-generation neocon emphasis on nationalism and warmaking as a means to overcoming domestic nihilism does lean in the direction of fascist political ideas. But I would still counsel against using the term because the similarities are mainly formal. A political program that advocates war as a means of spreading democracy and overthrowing dictators [...] is very different from a political program that advocates war as a means of territorial aggrandizement and/or racial and ethnic oppression, domination, and genocide. That means that however much William Kristol’s foreign policy views resemble fascism on one level, they diverge from fascism pretty fundamentally on another.
So the argument is that the ends justify the means? That neoconservatives' particular offshoot of fascism will use state supremacy to achieve desirable outcomes?
That line of thought is simply unacceptable. Legitimate government requires not just that its outputs are good, but that the process used to arrive there is in line with the same rights and principles. There must be at least that basic harmony between ends and means, or the process is moot and the outcomes illegitimate.
I'll still generally be using the term 'security-statist' to refer to the neoconservative program, because I agree with Linker that the goals of that movement are radically divergent from those of twentieth-century fascism. But the fascist roots of the ideology are no less clear, and no less dangerous.
Security-Statism and Budget Cuts
Don't think American conservatives have abandoned security-statism just because they plan to shrink parts of the security budget. These are the non-defense parts. These are the parts of the security budget that actually increase our national safety. These are the parts of the budget that true fiscal conservatives should want to expand dramatically, even in the midst of austerity, because real safety reduces the need for military security - and therefore reduces the size of the government by reducing the need for defense outlays.
But America's conservatives don't want that. America's conservatives want to ensure that the military budget continues to grow as it has since 2000 -- maybe they just want to brag that America spends more on guns than the rest of the world combined, and stop there, but I doubt it. America's conservatives are different:
The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on armaments. Finally, 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' under full employment are maintained by the 'new order', which ranges from suppression of the trade unions to the concentration camp. Political pressure replaces the economic pressure of unemployment.
Sound familiar? That's from a source I love to cite, Michal Kalecki's 1943 description of Hitler's national-security state -- fascism. It just perfectly predicts current Republican policy (okay, not the concentration camps). Fringe conservatism, that is, mainstream Republicanism, is really rather radical. But it's not unpredictable.
Tea-Party Security-Statism
Here's more evidence that Tea Party Republicans are no more likely than other Republicans to fret about the Patriot Act -- i.e., not likely at all:
Much of the reaction to Tuesday's vote not to fast-track some provisions of the Patriot Act has painted it as a victory for the Tea Party (e.g., here, here, here, andhere). Tea Partiers, the story goes, were central to a group of Republicans bolting their party and preventing the measure from passing.
The problem is that the numbers don't suggest the Tea Party had anything to do with it.
Pinning down the role of the Tea Party can be tricky, because the exact membership of the new "Tea Party Caucus" in the 112th Congress is not yet known, although we do know the membership in the 111th. Michelle Bachmann's office says the new list will be released Feb. 17. But we can look at who was endorsed by a Tea Party organization or identified as a Tea Party candidate by a major news outlet in the 2010 midterms. And those members were not really less likely to support the Republican leadership on this vote than members who were not:
The Tea Party is many things, but a generalized and principled opposition to government power is not one of them. Primarily, the movement is an intensification of recent trends within the Republican Party.
If we look at the liberal-conservative divide today as it relates to the role of the state, we see clearly two key factions: welfare-statists (liberals) and security-statists (conservatives). The Tea Party is nothing more than an explicit vision of government with all vestiges of the welfare state stripped away. To Tea Partiers, the social contract is nothing more than a legitimate monopoly on violence. By that logic, the only civil right the government is even entitled to grant is the right to share in that monopoly (ie, the 2nd Amendment).
Security-Statism in Wisconsin
On Thursday, the newly-elected Republican governor said he would refuse to negotiate with unions, and on Friday, Walker said he's contacted the Wisconsin National Guard, making sure they're prepared to respond to a protracted labor dispute, doing some of the jobs union members currently do.
Even by GOP standards, the scope of Walker's union-busting efforts is striking. We're talking about a governor effectively stripping nearly all government workers of their collective bargaining rights, and then trying to break the backs of unions themselves.
This is security-statism at its finest: using the military to replace civilian employees in order to diminish the bargaining power of the working class. President Reagan invented the tactic in 1981 to cripple the labor movement during the infamous air traffic controllers' strike:
Aug. 5, 1981: Most striking air-traffic controllers are fired. Reagan bans them from ever being rehired by the FAA. They are initially replaced by controllers, supervisors and staff personnel not participating in the strike and in some cases, by military controllers.
In both cases the employment of military force to undermine the legitimate bargaining power of labor unions is a gross violation of workers' rights. It displays the willingness of the security-statist right to deploy force as a means to deprive working civilians of their fair share.