Re: Fascism: Are we there yet?

At antiwar.com is the question Fascism: Are We There Yet? Hmmm... I suppose if I'd taken more political science courses in college I might have an understanding of the meaning for fascism and totalitarianism but, like Democrat and Republican and Liberal and Conservative, these are just words which, to me, seem more like the name of a team rather than an ideological anything. I'd written before from the quest to understand what fascism is. There's a lot of people who'll declare Bush is a Fascist, but it doesn't seem to me they understand the meaning any better than I do. The Nazi party in Germany was Fascist, but what does that mean?

All that aside, the article linked above does make for an interesting (and alarming) case. There's clearly a growing capability within the U.S. Government to establish ubiquitous screening of all activities. Their justification is to find terrorists, and to find terrorists they'll capture records of all our activities and then deploy a zillion computers to sift through that data to find suspicious patterns.

When the plan was more public it was called Total Information Awareness ... while that project name was canceled and closed by the DoD, the individual projects were continued to be developed. For example document analysis, tracking telephone calls and more. Again the article linked above has other examples of TIA projects continuing onwards.

As he points out - the administration officials promised us they weren't spying on us. They've also said that revealing the existance of surveillance programs would give "the terrorists" too much information. And they promised the wiretapping that was revealed in 2005 was "it", and that the surveillance they were doing was targeted carefully and did not track domestic phone calls. But the most recent program revelation showed those were all lies. The most recently revealed program is tracking all phone calls, even domestic. Why are we not surprised they lied to us again?

The most interesting thing I found through the above linked article is a discussion of totalitarianism: Lecture 10, The Age of Totalitarianism: Stalin and Hitler ... this is part of a series of lectures about history, so it's mostly about events that happened in Eastern Europe and other European countries in the 1900's. There were many regimes during that period with brutal governments, brutal supression of the people, and which are called totalitarian.

What I gather is totalitarianism is a government practice of having total control over the people that are being governed.

Several times in the article it said totalitarianism required sufficiently fancy technology to make total control effective.

As I've discussed in other blog entries, what is enabling a vision like Total Information Awareness is the increasing capability of computer systems.

So, it's worth pondering how it could be that a database of phone calls leads to totalitarianism? The Fascism article makes a claim it does, but to understand what he's getting at lets try and reason it through.

It's clear that by itself a database of phone calls doesn't tell very much. Especially as, supposedly, the database doesn't have peoples names in it, just phone calls. The most you can do with just a list of phone calls is to build up a map of connections between phone numbers based on who is calling whom.

Building up a map of connections between phone numbers is interesting, but without a connection to people it's not terribly useful. You know phone A called phone B, but that carries little information. If you can add to that the names of the caller and callee, that adds a lot of information. If you can record the phone call, that adds even more, especially if you can automatically translate the voices to text.

By the way, one of the projects in the TIA was specifically to automatically translate any voice into text.

With that in hand you have information. Information about connections between people based on the phone calls between them. There are databases showing the owner name for a given telephone number, and since the phone companies are apparently willing to cooperate with the government to give them access to the phone calls being placed, it's not too far a leap to think they might also share with the government the owner names for each phone number.

But, where is the totalitarian control?

I think it gets to the stereotype of the totalitarian regime. That "spies are everywhere", and that there's a file of your activities being kept by the secret police. Except, in this case the ubiquitous spies are being built into the computer equipment that's running our society, and the files are being kept in a database.

I'm pondering away and keep coming back to this: Collecting data is one step. The totalitarian control comes when the government acts on that data.

Archbishop of Canturbury backs evolution over creationism

Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution ... Apparently the Intelligent Design quandry has been raised in England as well as here in the U.S. I shouldn't be surprised since it's clear the political strategists behind this are international in scope. In any case it's interesting how Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canturbury, have all announced that it's a mistake to teach creationism in schools, and how we should accept evolution into religious peoples view of the world.

The Intelligent Design crowd are fundamentalists who seem to be at odds with leading religious figures. Hmmmm.... Interesting.

Here's the Guardian article: Archbishop: stop teaching creationism ...or...

"I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it," he said.
The debate over creationism or its slightly more sophisticated offshoot, so-called "intelligent design" (ID) which argues that creation is so complex that an intelligent - religious - force must have directed it, has provoked divisions in Britain but nothing like the vehemence or politicisation of the debate in the US. There, under pressure from the religious right, some states are considering giving ID equal prominence to Darwinism, the generally scientifically accepted account of the evolution of species. Most scientists believe that ID is little more than an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into science teaching.

It's clear these religious leaders aren't saying to ignore the Creation story and only look at Science and Evolution. The Archbishop's words seem to center on guarding the specialness of the Biblical Creation story.

In my eye the story isn't as simple as Evolution is superior over Intelligent Design. And, for that matter, its disturbing that the Archbishop seems to be saying we shouldn't be questioning or debating the validity of the Creation story.

First, consider this: Establishing control over a society ... the gist is that religion is easily be used to control the beliefs of society. The Intelligent Design debate is precisely an example of religious claims being pushed by political operatives to establish some control over society. And, further, it's an example of the people in society being expected to suspend their power of critical thought just because their church tells them to do so.

Why shouldn't the claims of religion be tested? We have the power of critical thought. We have the power of independant reasoning. Why not examine spiritual practices, experiences and beliefs?
Okay, one problem with that leaps immediately to mind. Scientists have regularly tried to test religion and ended up bashing religion, largely because they're testing it in the wrong way. Religious folk are expected to lean on "faith" and to not ask questions, leading to a dependency on something other than rational critical thought for making decisions. Scientists, on the other hand, are expected to trust only logic and equations and critical thinking, and to distrust subjective experience.

The problem is the nature of the religious claims. God is said to be something which created the universe and everything within it. God is said to be everywhere. How can a scientist hope to measure such a claim? The proof of God comes from subjective experience, the thing scientists are taught to distrust.

For example, when you pray what happens? Do you feel good when you pray? Most do. Is that a subconscious thing firing off some brain chemicals, and that because you believe God is helping you feel nice when you pray, therefore the chemicals your subconscious fires off will help you feel good? Or is there a divine presence that reaches inside you?

What about miraculous healing? What about prayer for someone who's sick? It's been shown in several studies (double-blind etc) that intercessionary prayer helps the ones who are prayed for.
It seems to me the critical mind, the dependence on logic, can easily go too far. And that the dependence on logic interferes with subjective experience. That the way to experiment with the divine is to operate with both subjective experience, and the critical mind. Subjective experience is not to be pushed away but to be embraced. Just as we are wired for the critical mind so are we wired for subjective experience.

Hmmm... I seem to have strayed from Intelligent Design versus Evolution. Sorry....

Establishing control over a society

I want to share a realization that recently came to me. It is a way of establishing control over a society, allowing you to bend them to your will. However in practice this will take generations to really lodge into society, so you probably won't have direct benefit but your heirs will.

Step 1: Beg, borrow, steal or forge a set of spiritual writings

Step 2: Present those writings as the Word of God

Step 3: Present the writings as being the infallible source of truth

Step 4: Appoint a group of people as the official interpreters of Gods Infallible Words as written in those writings

It helps to have an authentic spiritual guru deliver the writings you are going to start with. That's not an absolute requirement. The other steps serve to separate the individuals in the society from their own authentic ability to determine the truth.

The other steps make it so Truth is determined only from the spiritual writings, and that Truth is so difficult to understand that only the select anointed ones can tell what's right or wrong. Hence when someone has a question, they won't be able to answer it for themselves but instead have to turn to the official interpreters of Gods Infallible Words to tell them the truth.

Once the official interpreters of Gods Infallible Words are established with credibility, then can claim literally any idea as being Gods Infallible Truth. Of course this assumes the official interpreters become corrupt, and no longer be serious students of spiritual truth.

In the ideal the priesthood's role is to explore the divine and to have the freedom to devote their lives to authentic spiritual practice. But we can think of dozens of religions throughout history where it began as an authentic spiritual practice, then devolved into corruption and power mongering.

I believe we all have access to divine truth. There are many spiritual teachings which say so, and which say we can look within for the divine truth. They tend to encourage us to explore and experiment for ourselves divine truth. In my experience the confidence this gives is stronger than "faith".

Corporate Fascism is ruling America?

A couple years ago when I started this site, I was thinking to myself "what do these different political labels mean", one of which is the term "Fascism". You hear it thrown around, so-and-so gets called a Fascist, and of course you have Hitler's and Mussolini's regimes as the primo examples of Fascism. Since Fascism equates to death camps, we can't have Fascism exist anywhere, can we?

That's kind of the idea, but there's little concrete definition available of what this term means. Hence my earlier article What is Fascism, and where is it now? took information from a very informative book review to try to derive a meaning to this word. In that article I concluded it's a political style emphasizing domination by the goverment of the people, seeking simply to control everything. In other words, its an exercise in overbearing power.

Another example of "Fascism" in action is demonstrated in The Plot: The Secret Story of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Protocols is a book full of faked up charges against Judaism first written in Russia during the Czarist days. It is the source of peoples claims for a great Jewish conspiracy to control everything. It was later used to great effect by Hitlers regime to sell the German population on the dangers the Jews presented to the world. The Plot exposes the propoganda and the conspiracy to distribute this book, and how its been widely distributed to many countries around the world even though it's been exposed numerous times as a complete travesty.

But, we think, that's not what is happening in America. We don't have goon squads patrolling the streets beating up anybody that walks funny, do we?

I think the answer gets back to the question of the definition "Fascism".

For example: Harper's Magazine: We Now Live in a Fascist State (Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:34:38 -0700) This is a speech given by Lewis H. Lapham, editor of Harpers Magazine, in which he says that America is already, and has been for a long time, a Fascist state. It's just that the Fascism isn't by the government, but by the corporations.

First he points out how the word has been stolen from its original meaning, and instead redirected to mean "evil acts" such as genocide.

The bulk of the article talks of how the corporations strive to control everything. Employees of corporations are expected to walk and talk the corporate line. If what you say, do, believe, etc falls outside some bound of corporate acceptableness, then you'll get fired. What keeps people in line is the way that so many things are tied to having a job. Ones identity, livelihood, reason for being, health insurance, retirement, etc, is all tied up with whether one has a job or not. The corporation cannot stand the free thinker.

Hmmmmm?

What is terrorism?

In the days since September 11, 2001 (and, well, before that date as well) the label "Terrorist Organization" has been slapped on many groups. That label is used to justify attacks on those groups, and attempted destruction of them. The label, though, has been used pretty broadly and with little understanding of what it really means. For example some groups are labeled "freedom fighters" and others labeled "terrorists" but they both commit the same kind of actions.

For example there is a Kurdish movement covering parts of Turkey, Iraq and the former Soviet Union that does not have a country of their own, and in Turkey are fighting for their freedom and autonomy. In order to gain Turkey's assistance in the war on Terrorism, Turkey has been allowed to label their Kurds as a terrorist group. At the same time the U.S. has been protecting the Kurds in northern Iraq. Are the Kurds in Turkey fighting for their freedom, and thus the good guys, or are they scummy evil terrorists? And what of the Kurds in northern Iraq, who were instrumental in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003? Seems the difference is one of a point of view, and the differing treatment serves only to confuse the viewer over what the word means. Similar things could be said of the Palestinian resistance and its many organizations. Are they fighting to free their land from the usurping Israeli's, or are they evil terrorists? And in the former fight by the African National Congress against the apartheid regime formerly ruling South Africa, the ANC committed many gruesome acts but was generally lauded as fighting for freedom against the evil apartheid regime. See? This "terrorism" word cuts both ways, and we don't really know what it means.

The word "terrorism" has an obvious meaning. Namely, it would be a military strategy in which the proponent causes events to happen that invokes terror in a target population. That terror then is expected to cause the target population to do some response out of fear, and the proponent aims to control the response of the target population to achieve some end. In other words there would be a psychological element to the attack in addition to the physical element.

For example, in the second Gulf War currently being fought, the main tactic in the opening of the war was called "Shock and Awe". This was a massive bombing campaign of epic proportions. The massive scale of the bombing was supposed to shock the Iraqi's into surrendering. In other words, that was a terror tactic, to terrify the Iraqi's into surrender. Does that mean the U.S. government is itself a terrorist organization? Certainly not, the government would have us believe, but undeniably the strategy was one of inciting terror and inducing a desired response to that terror. And it depends on what definition you use for "terrorism", as the official definition used by the U.S. State Department identifies terrorist acts as ones that are done against civilian (non-military) targets. Under the definition I gave above, the U.S. government would be a terrorist organization.

To be honest, any military attack or battle incites terror in the soldiers involved in the fighting ("war is hell", after all) and often this terror-incitement is purposely enhanced to try and cause the "enemy" to surrender with less fighting. That's likely why the State Department definition does not include military targets in the definition. Military units are obviously trained to deal with the terror induced by war activities, and are also to be expected to receive those kinds of actions against them. Civilians do not have this training, and do not have the expectation of being attacked by military forces. This distinction made by the State Department is useful. Though there is a further distinction, that military that are off-duty yet are attacked, their attackers can be labeled "terrorists". Well, this seems to be a funny distinction. Should not troops in a war zone be expecting attack at any time? Would not an attacking force, coming across a contingent of their enemy, seeing them in a relaxed and unarmed state, want to attack them when they're at their weakest?

The border between "Freedom Fighter" and "Terrorist" is largely determined on your viewpoint. Al Queda no doubt has fans in the Middle East who see them in a highly positive light as fighting for Muslim Ideals in a world that is increasingly slanted to Corporate and Consumption based ideals. Not that I am attempting to defend the Taliban or Al Queda, but am merely trying to illustrate the point. Another, cleaner, example is the difference of opinion over Tibet, where the Chinese government sees Tibetan Buddhists as a terroist organization, while the rest of the world sees Tibet as an occupied land, the people scattered to the wind or abused by the Chines government, and with their leader in exile.

Here's another example:

[August 22, 2003; San Diego NBC] Arson At Hummer Dealership May Be Ecoterrorism (nbcsandiego.com/news/2424844/detail.html) WEST COVINA, Calif. -- Fire raged through a Hummer dealership in the Los Angeles area Friday morning, and graffiti spray-painted on many of the damaged vehicles indicated that the fire was set intentionally. Dozens of SUV's were vandalized at three other dealerships, prompting the FBI to investigate the incidents as acts of domestic terrorism. ... "With all the evidence ... its highly likely it's an arson fire," said Rick Genovese, fire marshal for West Covina. ... Video from the helicopter of NBC 7/39's sister station in Los Angeles showed slogans spraypainted on the hoods and sides of several SUVs, including "I (heart) pollution," "Fat Lazy Americans" and "American Wastefulness. One vehicle had the letters "ELF" sprayed on a door.

First, obviously whoever set this fire broke several laws, and should be punished for the illegal vandalism. What's shocking is the escalation of rhetoric. At one level you have a case of arson, and but for the slogans painted on the vehicles that's all it would be. By calling this "Eco Terrorism" the level of hyperbole raises considerably, doesn't it?

How is painting a few slogans of the sort quoted here to be causing "terror" in anybody? Yes, it's a clear political statement tied to an illegal act. Yes there are extremists in the Ecology movement who believe they must act to gum up the works of capitalism through direct action of this sort. But, does that make it "terrorism"? What does this word, "terrorism", mean?

And another example

[May 29, 2004; Counter Punch; counterpunch.org/potter05292004.html] Protest Torture of Animals; Get Arrested as a "Terrorist"

The Bush administration sent a calculated message to grassroots political activists this week: The War on Terrorism has come home.

FBI agents rounded up seven American political activists from across the country Wednesday morning, and the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey held a press conference trumpeting that "terrorists" have been indicted.

That's right: "Terrorists." The activists have been charged with violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 1992, which at the time garnered little public attention except from the corporations who lobbied for it. Their crime, according to the indictment, is "conspiring" to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences, a company that tests products on animals and has been exposed multiple times for violating animal welfare laws.

... Bush's War on Terrorism is no longer limited to Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden. It's not limited to Afghanistan or Iraq (or Syria, or Iran, or whichever country is next). And it's not limited to the animal rights movement, or even the campaign against Huntington Life Sciences. The rounding up of activists on Wednesday should set off alarms heard by every social movement in the United States: This "war" is about protecting corporate and political interests under the guise of fighting terrorism.

... Some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet, and the U.S. Attorney's Office must protect them from a bunch of protesters. This is what the War on Terrorism has become: The Bush administration can't find real terrorists abroad, yet it spends law enforcement time and resources protecting corporations from political activists.

The horses mouth

Given the confusion over what the word means, how about we turn to the U.S. State Department. We know they have experts on Terrorism, so let's see what we can find there.

Terrorism: A War Without Borders (future.state.gov/future/educators/lessons/terrorism.html) is an instructional package produced by the United States Department of State in collaboration with a special committee of social studies educators. The video [Cable/DSL, Dial-Up, Audio], print materials, and other resources in this package are intended for use with middle school and high school courses.

Progress Report on the Global War on Terrorism [Sep 10, 2003; http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/24087.htm]

Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003 [http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31880.htm and http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/] The previous two items were linked for reference sake, this has an interesting actual definition that is pretty useful. It's interesting to note they too talk about the unclarity over what the word is supposed to represent.

Definitions

No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant¹ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term international terrorism means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

The term terrorist group means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

Domestic terrorism is probably a more widespread phenomenon than international terrorism. Because international terrorism has a direct impact on US interests, it is the primary focus of this report. However, the report also describes, but does not provide statistics on, significant developments in domestic terrorism.

¹ For purposes of this definition, the term noncombatant is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following US military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, US defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the Labelle discotheque bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty US Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.

What is Fascism, and where is it now?

"Fascism" is, at times, a popular label to throw around as a smearing technique in political stand-making. But, like I noted on the Conservatism page, the true meaning of the word "Fascism" has been lost in the process. Do you know what it means? I sure don't. I just know that Hitler's and Mussolini's regimes were said to be Fascist, but my High School History teacher didn't bother to tell me what it meant.

Let's first start with a Salon Book Review of "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert O. Paxton [April 19, 2004; Salon.COM; Laura Miller; http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/04/19/fascism/]. The book appears to be a scholarly study of Fascism, and the review attempts to be a short tutorial on what Fascism is drawing lessons from the book. At this moment I haven't read the book, only this review.

The review starts by noting that "even those who have devoted themselves to studying fascism can't quite agree on what it is", referring to the professional political scientists. So perhaps I should feel better about not knowing what Fascism is if even the professionals can't describe it very well. The book in question, "The Anatomy of Fascism", is Robert O. Paxton's attempt.

Another resource is Living Under Fascism by Davidson Loehr First UU Church of Austin (Unitarian Universalist).

The working definition of Fascism, quoted from "The Anatomy of Fascism":

"... 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."

Note that the definition doesn't include the specific acts of Hitler or Mussolini (such as building concentration camps). And it's interesting to think of the Bush family, whom some label as Fascist, yet they are the very epitome of the traditional elites. This says to me that when Hitler was receiving funding from Prescott Bush, that this was likely an example of the "uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites", and that the powerful people whom Prescott Bush represented were aiming to achieve some goal through using Hitler.

The review describes how Paxton believes Fascism, as a political system, has very high hurdles to jump in order to become the dominant system in a country. Witness the Ku Klux Klan type activities in the South and how they failed to become dominant. What allowed it to become dominant in Europe in the 1910's-1920's was this combination of events:

Take one nation demoralized and economically devastated by a massive war. Add two political forces that have failed to offer a solution to this mess: conservatism and liberalism. (Paxton uses the classic definition of "liberalism," meaning an outlook favoring a free-market economy and a vision of citizenship based on individual rights with minimal state interference in most aspects of life.) Add to that the threat of revolution from the left. "It is essential to recall how real the possibility of communist revolution seemed in Italy in 1921 and German in 1932," Paxton writes. The mostly liberal parliamentary governments running Europe at the time seemed impotent in the face of the Red Menace, and the conservatives, believers in old-fashioned hierarchies, didn't have the constituency to fight back.

Into this situation introduce a white-hot political party that can mobilize lots of people from all classes and that fiercely opposes communism. Fill it with young, angry men more than willing to show up and bust a few heads if necessary. Conservatives didn't like a lot of things about the coarse, violent, riffraffish fascists, but if teaming up with Hitler or Mussolini was the only way to protect their property and station in life from the Bolsheviks, they were willing to cut a deal or two. Plus, they believed they could control their wild-eyed new friends, who had so little savoir faire and experience in the subtle arts of governance. This, to put it mildly, was a big mistake.

This still doesn't tell us much about what Fascism is, but instead the strategy for getting into power. But then, later in the review they point out that Fascists tend to discard the rhetoric they use to get into power, and once into power concentrate on using that power. In any case, what we see here is how the traditional elites were scared by the rise of Communism, and allied with the Fascists to drive off the "Red Menace". Which is instructive into why Prescott Bush was involved with funding Hitler, then.

The book review then gets into some uses by Paxton of his definition as a yardstick to measure whether certain leaders or political movements were, or were not, Fascist. Speaking for myself, in some of his examples I think he's being too rigid in the definition.

Slobodan Milosevic: Even though his rule was brutal, involved cleansing of undesirables, nationalistic fervor and expansion of boundaries, Milosevic was the sitting President. As the sitting President he could not be a Fascist, and instead "'adopted expansionist nationalism as a device to consolidate an already existing personal rule'".

Islamist militancy: We have been told by our government leaders that the rise of militant fundamentalist Islam, with their screwy interpretation of the Koran, is Fascist. For what it's worth, Dave Emory says the same thing, pointing to historical connections between Hitlers regime and the Islamic factions some of whom are still in power today. However these groups fail to meet Paxton's yardstick because Fascist governments only rise to power in failed democracies. This is one place where I disagree, and feel he's using the definition too rigidly.

George W. Bush and his regime: Nope, not fascists, because America today doesn't resemble Germany of the 1920's. Hmm? Say what? Paxton points out that Bush's regime is encroaching on civil liberties and the like, but that doesn't complete the requirements to truly be Fascist. Sure, that's a good point. But Paxton has an example of just two governments he can call Fascist, and from that small an example he's going to define the totality of what Fascism is or can be? Where I would agree with him is that George W completely is an example of the traditional elite, and that George W cannot be a Fascist because of that, however in the campaign that elected George W as president he appealed directly to the "angry white male" voter in a way that's evocative of this observation in the review:

The first modern campaigners, fascists realized that for the less educated and attentive classes, politics was a matter of feeling not ideas. So, as Paxton writes, "Fascism was an affair of the gut more than the brain."

What does the word mean?

One avenue to understanding is to look at the word and where it comes from (from Living Under Fascism):

The word comes from the Latin word “Fasces,” denoting a bundle of sticks tied together. The individual sticks represented citizens, and the bundle represented the state. The message of this metaphor was that it was the bundle that was significant, not the individual sticks. If it sounds un-American, it’s worth knowing that the Roman Fasces appear on the wall behind the Speaker’s podium in the chamber of the US House of Representatives.

What is conservatism

What makes one a conservative? (in a political sense, as the term is used in modern American politics) After years of listening to this term bandied about, I have been completely unable to determine what this term means. Do you know?

The meaning which I derive for "Conservative", as practiced in modern American politics, is little more than a name for one "team". That is to view modern American politics like a football game, there's two teams, one named "Democrat" and the other "Republican" and it's the "Republicans" who are "Conservative", while the "Democrats" are "Liberal". What I'm searching for is the meaning of these labels.

An obvious thing is to turn to the dictionary

conservative: 1) Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2) Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit. 3) Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

But all that does is confuse the issue, as modern self-styled "conservatives" in the political arena seem to mean other things. And, as for "oppose change", why is there so much preaching for "regime change" around the world by the "conservatives" in charge of the U.S. government during the 2000-2004 time frame (at the time of the World Trade Center attack, and the following wars in Afghanistan and Iraq)?

The Cato Institute

Doing a Google search for "Conservative" turns up a lot of hits, and the first one of any seeming credibility is the Cato Institute, a Washington DC think-tank. In their "About Us" page is a section "How to Label Cato" which gives a piece to this puzzle:

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.

Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.

Well, so much for clarity, since they seem just as confused as anybody. "Conservatives" seem to profess a love for free markets and personal liberties, but this is really "liberalism"? In any case we have these attributes to think about

Individual liberty

Limited government

The free market

Rule of law

These attributes are ones which I clearly have heard the "conservatives" talk about.

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

Reference: http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/503ab.html

Reference: http://why-war.com/resources/files/read.php?id=119

The title of this section is the title of a research paper that's causing conniptions among the "Conservatives". A group of psychologists have been tracking, for decades, different styles of political leanings. The paper in question studies the Conservative, as practiced in politics.

ABSTRACT: Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375

Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

0033-2909/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339

No doubt there's a lotta good stuff in that article, but I don't have time to summarize it right now.

A tour of conservative web sites

While writing this article I took a break to go to a bookstore, hoping to find something in the political studies section to help understand this conundrum. Nothing to be found would offer a simple explanation of the meanings of these labels of "Liberal" or "Conservative" or any other political label. Instead all the books were busy espousing some political view or another.

Lacking any guidebook to consult, I've decided to go on a tour of "Conservative" web sites and summarize what's there. Largely what I've found is a disgusting level of intolerance for others ideas, and in some cases an appalling level of attack and slamming. In verfy few cases was the tenor of the material examination of issues in a clear manner, but instead the majority of the material was highly postured US versus THEM positioning.

There are many more of these sites than the few I've listed here. My stamina was not enough to tour them all.

Organization & its web site	Discussion
The Common Conservative http://commonconservative.com/ "Practical conservatism for the common man"	The site is an archive of articles written by Tom Adkins, Thomas Lindaman, Patrick J. Shanahan, Heidi Parent, Carter Fletcher, Ray Mc Clendon, Gary Aldrich, and Sean Carter. In addition there are links to conservative-oriented books, and the Conservative Book Club. The tenor of the articles are entirely blasting "liberals" in general and specifically Democrats. No discussion of issues, just attack after attack. A special target is the Clinton years.
The Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org/	This site is the online home for a Washington DC based conservative think tank and research organization.
The CATO Institute http://cato.org/ "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets and Peace"	"The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government." A think tank with lots of research articles and educational activities.
Townhall.com http://www.townhall.com/ "Conservative news and information"	"Townhall.com is the first truly interactive community on the Internet to bring Internet users, conservative public policy organizations, congressional staff, and political activists together under the broad umbrella of "conservative" thoughts, ideas and actions. Townhall.com is a one-stop mall of ideas in which people congregate to exchange, discuss and disseminate the latest news and information from the conservative movement. Townhall.com is committed to inform, educate and empower the public through this emerging electronic medium. "
Human Events Online http://www.humaneventsonline.com/ "The National Conservative weekly"	The web site contains news articles, as well as opinion columns. The named columnists are Ann Coulter, Terrence P. Jeffrey, Robert Novak, John Gizzi, Patrick J. Buchanan and others. The tenor of the articles is largely a very partisan, lopsided, look at the news. Running through it is a constant slam of "liberals".
60plus Association http://www.60plus.org/ "Kill the death tax & Save Social security"	A citizens lobbying group for retirees. They take "a free enterprise, less government, less taxes approach to seniors issues". Very focused on the two issues of ending taxes on estates of the deceased, and privatising Social Security.
Accuracy in Media http://www.aim.org/ "For fairness, balance and accuracy in news reporting"	Articles and reports about political events. Largely these events are related to various hot issues that had received news coverage. Many of the reports are about the Clinton years, and the smearing of Hillary Clinton in particular.
American Civil Rights Institute http://www.acri.org/ "Race has no place in American life or law"	A legal lobbying and activism organization apparently dedicated to eradicating racial preferences from the law. Ward Connerly is presented as the leading member of this organization, and much of the material has his name attached to it.
Americans for Tax Reform http://atr.org/	The web site contains a collection of reports, "talking points", and opinion pieces around various tax related issues. There's not an apparent outright slant. No repeated slams against the Clinton years. There are occasional slams against liberalism.
Capital Research Center http://CapitalResearch.org	"Capital Research Center (CRC) was established in 1984 to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism." They go on to explain that the Great Society programs launched in the 1960's inspired a bunch of charitable organizations. Along the way these charitable organizations, they explain, are guilty of promoting more government welfare programs, especially in types of activities that had previously been taken care of by families, charities, neighborhood organizations, and volunteer organizations. "Capital Research Center is analyzing organizations that promote the growth of the welfare state - now almost universally recognized as a failure - and in identifying viable private alternatives to government welfare programs."
Center for Equal Opportunity http://ceousa.org/	"As the only think tank devoted exclusively to the promotion of colorblind equal opportunity and racial harmony, the Center for Equal Opportunity is uniquely positioned to counter the divisive impact of race conscious public policies. CEO focuses on three areas in particular: racial preferences, immigration and assimilation and multicultural education. " Position papers and legal filings around affirmative action. The logo contains an American Flag theme.
Center for Security Policy http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ "Promoting security through strength"	"The Center for Security Policy has, since its founding in 1988, operated as a non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength. It accomplishes this goal by stimulating and informing national and international policy debates, in particular, those involving regional, defense, economic, financial and technology developments that bear upon the security of the United States. " The web site contains an extensive set of pointers to articles and reports about various world situations. It's hard to tell whether there is a slant one way or another.
Free Conservatives http://freeconservatives.com/ "Where Freedom Rings"	"Is a website dedicated to the free expression of conservative ideals and principles in a world that too often seems to be gripped in the tentacles of political correctness, confusion, disinformation, and derision of anything "conservative". " The site largely collects pointers to conservative news sources, and runs a message board full of conservative chitchat. The artistic flavor leans heavily on the American Flag and Eagle motifs.