Re: Conservatism and Fascism

[Emailed in response Conservatism and Fascism 5/21/2007]

James Joyner's response was wildly off the mark, and yours a bit so.

What your reader was saying in describing today's conservatives as an “intensely nationalist movement intent on defining membership in the ‘nation’ on linguistic, religious, and (increasingly) ethnic/racial criteria, ”was that he observes the right wing saying that the only “real Americans” -- the nation in quotes as opposed the the nation -- are those that are Christians, that are English-speakers, that are Republicans, etc.

There are two possible definitions of “nation” used -- as the people of a sovereign state, or as some other large collection of people independent of the soverign country -- the Aryan nation, or whatever.  I believe your reader was referring to the nation of the the people of the United States of America as a nation and the fascist right as defining the nation in “tribal” terms, which in fact is the very notion that Joynes rose to defend:

First, by definition, membership in a nation is exclusionary.  Matt Rosenberg’s short description of nations as “culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institutions, religion, and historical experience” is pithy and consistent with most established uses.  Certainly, in the United States, we have expanded the definition to include belief in certain core values and have removed the racial component given our multi-ethic heritage.

Yes, membership in a nation is exculsionary: it excludes those that aren’t people of that soveriegn state.  America defines itself by that definition, not by belonging to other attributes.  This is the reason your reader put what the fascistic conservatives define in quotes.  What Joynes defends by quoting Rosenberg is a subset of America because Americans are not necessarily culturally homogenous, nor do they share a common religion (which is in fact expressly a forbidden requirement in the Constitution), etc.

Now, to bring that back in more detail to the entire question of fascism, your definition is quite a bit narrower than the standard definitions of fascism or of its common understanding, narrow enough to not represent the accepted definition.  From various dictionaries:

'A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.'“

and

” 1. A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalting nation, state, or religion above the individual.
2. A system of strong autocracy.“

and

”an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.  (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.“

Historically this sort of authoritarian political/social system includes a corporatist state.

Joyner, by using Rosenberg’s definition of nation in his defense, instead of refuting your reader, actually proves your reader’s point that fascistic tendencies run deep in the outlook of modern conservativism -- defining the American nation not by the people of the United States of America, but rather as Christianist, English-ist, non-immigrant-ist, War-ish, cronyist, corporatist.

[For more, Every 50 Years - America Fascism in 2004, Reclaiming The Issues: Islamic Or Republican Fascism?, The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: ”It Can Happen Here“,  Recent Right-wing language manipulation.]

Technorati Tags: fascism, Immigration, right-wing_myths