He [Fritz Stern] warns of the danger in an open society of “mass manipulation of public opinion, often mixed with mendacity and forms of intimidation.” He is a passionate defender of liberalism as manifested in the spirit of the Enlightenment and the early years of the American republic.”

“The radical right and radical left see liberalism’s appeal to reason and tolerance as the denial of their uniform ideology,” he said. “Every democracy needs a liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for self-correction and reform. Without it, the survival of democracy is at risk. Every genuine conservative knows this.”

That comes from a recent speech Fritz Stern, a refugee from Nazi Germany and Columbia University professor who has dedicated his life to studying the collapse of democracies and rise of authoritarianism, gave comparing the ascendence of National Socialism in Germany and the Christian Right in this country. Stern, like myself, does not believe we are yet on the verge of embracing fascism, but there is plenty of reason to exercise caution in the direction we are headed.

longing in Europe for fascism before the name was ever invented,” he said. “There was a longing for a new authoritarianism with some kind of religious orientation and above all a greater communal belongingness. There are some similarities in the mood now, although also significant differences.”

Neoconservatives have done a wondeful job tossing this sort of commentary off as out of touch, radical, conspiracy theory just as some liberals imply that the end of third trimester abortions will lead to absolute government regulation of a woman’s reproductive health.

Clearly, Bush is not Hitler and 2005 USA is not 1930′s Germany, but there are trends in the health of a democracy that should be looked at, using historical examples, without being branded as out of touch and conspiratorial.

Conservatives are like this and liberals are like that

If there was an MLA for political bloggers, this would probably be the official way to start a post. Maybe I am being ridiculous and psuedo-nostalgic (it has only been a year) but it seems like as the blogosphere grows we are becoming increasingly bi-partisan, falling into the same trap as the major media we so fervently criticize. Again, it feels like what used to be an arena of ideas has turned into a super bowl of two competing teams.

Personally, I am going to stop calling myself a liberal because the more my political thought “evolves,” the less it is represented by any one party. For example, I support Ahnald Swarzanegger’s call to turn redistricting over to a committee of judges in California and his plan for a merit based pay scale for public teachers. (though I think university demographers should also be part of the redistricting committee) In fact, above all, government transparency and accountability is what is most important to me. If that is in place and journalistic integrity keeps the public informed, then I am confident the rest will fall into place.

Which is why I am fearful of where we are today. Because neither of those two conditions are in place. Fritz Stern calls it “mass manipulation of public opinion, often mixed with mendacity and forms of intimidation.” Which is exactly what I see. Hitler was a complicated racist who truly believed in the superiority of the “Aryan race” and played up fears to a hurt but patriotic population that Jewish financial success was a threat to the sovereignty and Prodestant tradition of Germany. That is quite different from George W. Bush who has absolutely redefined conservavism by making it big government, multicultural, encouraging immigration, supporting pre-emption, and not so subtly covering it with born again Christian rhetoric. I’m not trying to be dramatic, but I don’t like our trajectory and I think it needs to be pointed out, over and over, where we have gone and where we are going.

Pre-Emption Validated

Before 9/11 it looked like the Bush White House was trying to take America into a period of isolationism with the missile defense shield idea, his minimal involvement in international issues, and decision to not ratify the Kyoto protocol. The country was divided. After 9/11 patriotism surged and the United States seemed fully supportive of whatever Bush declared as our national interest. It became clear that some sort of retaliation would (need to?) take place. Despite the fact that the majority of 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan presented itself as the ideal target and few in the international community protested to the removal of the authoritarian Taliban government. All of this was business as usual in the United States which has never been the most outstanding model of peaceful diplomacy. But then came the administration’s tough sell of the Iraq war and the most important implication of all was that the United States could now invade a country if it appears as a threat. That defintion can be extended far and wide and was too easily accepted by an American public which had previously relegated such global bullying to the CIA, but never so extensively to the Armed Services.

Tax Reform

The most cliche example of the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats want a step ladder tax system which taxes the rich more heavily than the poor and uses that revenue for social services. Conservative Republicans ideally want a flat income tax and, if anything, increased sales tax, which would distribute taxing more evenly and increase incentive to make and spend by investing more and working more. If this results in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, Republicans argue that there will be a net improvement amongst everyone and that the fat saving accounts of the CEO’s of the world will trickle down to the working class and service sector. It should come as no surprise that Bush aggresively pushed tax reform, but the extent he was able to change it and the eager acceptance by the people it hurt most should be suprising if not alarming.

Torture Accepted

Torture is a strong word and it brings up images of Middle Ages and Inquisition torture chambers. Restricting inmates to a diet of bread and water is something else entirely and it perhaps deserves a different word, but I don’t know what that word would be. The fact remains however that the United States and its people have always believed in something called human rights. I am actually philosophically skeptical of the idea of absolute, universal human rights. However, as Stern says, “Every democracy needs a liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for self-correction and reform.” The international version of the Bill of Rights is the Geneva Convention and the White House’s (not just Alberto Gonzalez’s) view of this document as obselete could potentially be just as internationally destructive as terrorism. They certainly do encourage each other.

This doesn’t cover everything. The clean air act and the No Child Left Behind program come to mind, but environmental and education reform will constantly swing back and forth as Democratic and Republican parties gain control of the capitol and White House. But more or less, this brings us to where we are now. Gonzalez has already all but been approved to attorney general and the Bush administration is already pushing it’s P.R. team towards two new and long lasting objectives. But before we get to those, we should talk about some positive programs that Bush has tried to enact, but have not succeeded. First was the 15 billion dollar package to help combat the spread of AIDS in Africa and the developing world. Some liberals scorned the program for emphasizing abstinence over protection, but few could call the general intention of the aid package a bad idea. Unfortunately, not a single dollar of it has been spent and the major media has been sufficiently distracted to not bring it up. Bush has also promised much needed legislation on immigration reform and he is probably the only person who could pull it off in the post 9/11 nativist frenzy. But this has also been left to gather dust. He should, however, be congratulated on increasing aid to tsunami victims up to $350 million. That, for one shining moment, was the America we had all known.

So, what to look forward to over the next year or two. As if you hadn’t heard, Social Security is up to bat and privatization is the mantra. The best piece I have read about it so far is by Barry Schwartz who both admits that privatized social security would in fact yield a greater return in the long run and describes the overall implications of privitization despite increased efficiency.

Privatized Social Security – from Shwartz’s Op-Ed

“This brings me to the final defense of privatization: the payroll taxes you pay are your money, and you ought to be able to do what you like with your money. This, I suspect, is the real justification behind the move to privatize, and it is the worst reason of all. The payroll tax is not “your” money; it’s our money. Social Security was created as an insurance scheme, not a pension scheme. It was meant to provide a safety net, to protect the unlucky from immiseration in old age. The benefits we get are not payouts from accounts in which we have accumulated our own private stash. What we get is largely determined by what we earned, but we keep getting it even after we’ve taken out every penny we put in. And if we happen to die early, someone else reaps the benefits of our contributions.

The Bush administration should be honest with the American people and ask us if we want to do away with Social Security, without pretending that privatization will solve the problem of financing the trust fund without pain. I suspect that the American people would reject this effort to transform their “old-age insurance” into another opportunity to roll the dice in the investment casino. “

Transforming the Supreme Court

I believe George W. Bush loves the individualistic, moralistic, capitalist, and Christian tradition of this country. That is what he wants to bring out and make part of our institutions. What Bush does not appreciate and does not want to even acknowledge is our long tradition of liberalism, egalitarianism, populism, and social services. Yes we are rugged individuals, but we also have a long tradition of turning to rationality and enlightenment values in order to work together not just for the good of America but for the good of all people. You saw it in the post-depression New Deal Era and you saw it in the outpouring of contributions and volunteerism during the tsunami. The Supreme Court has always been an important institution in keeping this spirit alive. It protects our people based on the Englightenment values and not current political trends. Those values, however, seem to be in threat of being overturned by our current political trend of Neoconservativism. Which is exactly what Bush and company would love to see happen.

I have legitimate fears that if social security – a long tradition of collection, cooperative insurance – is privatized, the supreme court becomes lopsidedly conservative, and we continue down a path of pre-emption that pits us against Iran and North Korea and Libya and Cuba and whoever comes next and we elect another Neoconservative President in a fearful, wartime climate, that our path will eventually lead us towards irreversible authoritarianism.

Many will probably accuse me of stirring up fears of Nazism just as Cheney stirred up fears of another terrorist attack were Kerry to be elected. I am not trying to play to fear, but to reason. We need to be very much aware of where our decisions will take us and until the future is read, history is our only guide. Past precedence does not paint a pretty picture.