...a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Then laying out its development, which started thus:
In the first stage, a mature industrial state facing some kind of crisis breeds a new, rural movement that's based on nationalist renewal. This movement invariably rejects reason and glorifies raw emotion, promises to restore lost national pride, co-opts the nation's traditional myths for its own purposes, and insists that the country must be purged of the toxic influence of outsiders and intellectuals who are blamed for their current misery.
(Sound familiar yet?)
In the second stage, the movement takes root, turns into a real political party, and seizes a seat at the table.
I also featured a clip from Countdown of Sharron Angle's latest attack ad on Harry Reid, all about the threat of illegal immigration and crime:
This ad is, in fact, a perfect embodiment of what Paxton was writing about. We already saw this in Arizona with Jan Brewer and SB-1070. The immigrant/crime narrative was a very big part of that, with Brewer making outlandish claims about beheaded bodies in the desert that obviously had no basis in fact, In fact, the entire attempt to link crime and immigration is driven almost entirely by the anti-immigrant logic of proto-fascism, with a sprinkling of a few annecdotal incidents that in turn are highlighted in the media precisely because they fit this narrative so well.
But when one looks at statistics, one discovers that the immigrant/crime connection is precisely the opposite of that alleged: immigrants are far less likely to be perpetrators of crime. If anything, they're more likely to be victimized--particularly undocumented ones who are afraid of turning to the police. That was the reason for LA's Special Order 40, instituted by the very conservative Chief Daryl Gates, precisely to encourage all immigrants to cooperate with police, to enable them to do their job. This not only protected immigrant communities, it protected everyone, since crime allowed to fester in one sub-community may eventually produce threats to others as well.
First she quickly reviewed the foundations of those posts in Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism, first citing Paxton's definition, then some key stages in the development of fascism, and finally a set of three questions to ask if you've crossed the line to the stage where there's no turning back. There are very few movements that cross this line, but the ones that do enter into decades-long nightmares. Could we be next? With that in mind, she then looks at three possible outcomes of the coming election. All this, obviously, was written before Lauren Valle had her head stomped on by Rand Paul's thugs. But it provides the historically appropriate background for understanding what we saw happening. Perhaps--just perhaps--this violent thuggery got out ahead itself, and tipped its hands to the wider public in time to turn the tide. We won't really know until late election night. But it's well worth reviewing what Robinson warned us of.
First off, there's Paxton's definition:
Paxton defined fascism as:
...a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
There there's Paxton's stages. She doesn't go through them all--as she did in her original. But she goes through enough:
In the first stage, a mature industrial state facing some kind of crisis breeds a new, rural movement that's based on nationalist renewal. This movement invariably rejects reason and glorifies raw emotion, promises to restore lost national pride, co-opts the nation's traditional myths for its own purposes, and insists that the country must be purged of the toxic influence of outsiders and intellectuals who are blamed for their current misery.
(Sound familiar yet?)
In the second stage, the movement takes root, turns into a real political party, and seizes a seat at the table. Success at this stage, Paxton writes, "depends on certain relatively precise conditions: the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner."
(Paging the Party of No....)
In the face of this deadlock, the corporate elites forge an alliance with rural nationalists, creating an unholy marriage that, if it continues, will soon breed a fascist state. And, of course, this is precisely what's happening now between the Koch Brothers, the oil companies, Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party.
And, of course, candidates like Sharron Angle:
This is where most proto-fascist movements die, primarily because of "the basic authoritarian ineptitude of their leadership," as Robinson puts it. Now, however, we have some of the slickest, most experienced professionals around. But there are also some real loose cannons and wild cards as well. So were definitely still could get lucky. We can use all the luck we can get:
All through the dark years of the Bush Administration, progressives watched in horror as Constitutional protections vanished, nativist rhetoric ratcheted up, hate speech turned into intimidation and violence, and the president of the United States seized for himself powers only demanded by history's worst dictators. With each new outrage, the small handful of us who'd made ourselves experts on right-wing culture and politics would hear once again from worried readers: Is this it? Have we finally become a fascist state? Are we there yet?
Previously, the answer had been "As bad as this looks: no -- we are not there yet.". Now, though...
In tracking the mileage on this trip to perdition, many of us relied on the work of historian Robert Paxton, who is probably the world's pre-eminent scholar on the subject of how countries turn fascist. In a 1998 paper published in The Journal of Modern History [pdf], Paxton argued that the best way to recognize emerging fascist movements isn't by their rhetoric, their politics, or their aesthetics. Rather, he said, mature democracies turn fascist by a recognizable process, a set of five stages that may be the most important family resemblance that links all the whole motley collection of 20th Century fascisms together. According to our reading of Paxton's stages, we weren't there yet. There were certain signs -- one in particular -- we were keeping an eye out for, and we just weren't seeing it.
And now we are. In fact, if you know what you're looking for, it's suddenly everywhere.
STATE BLOGS
