Are you proud to be an American citizen?

[QUOTE="YourChaosIsntMe"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Fascism is ultra nationalism.. Things like the past 8 years in the Bush adminstration could be considered rather fascist in approach.. Such as the fact that the adminstration suggested that any kind of criticism towards them or the government is unamerican, unpatriotic.. Cowardly for letting the terrorists win etc etc.. This exact same thing was also done during the Cold War especially during the 50s where basically YOU had to be "proud to be a American" or you may be considered a commie.sSubZerOo

The Bush administration was certainly nationalist, but every administration is at least vaguely nationalist. The term nationalist has been skewed in the pop culture lexicon by the Nazis, National Front, KKK, and their analogues. The effect of the entertainment-news media needs their recognition here too, hahaha. Most importantly, nationalism is not expressly related to fascism; it exists in all political ideologies. I wouldn't consider anything the American government did throughout it's entire existence "fascist." Lamentable, disgusting, incorrigible, repressive, exploitative, and classist certainly, but in any way fascist? I've really grown weary of the ease which people use the word "fascist." Out of curiosity, are you implying Italian and German fascism, or ideologically pure fascism? If you would like to discuss political ideologies in vague terms, then we can use the terms more freely, but I don't think you intended for the word to be vague.

***Whatever the hell that word means.

Edit: As a sidebar, political theory, sociology, and history (or social sciences in general) were my first academic interests, and my current major (economics), I'm not opposed to a more thorough conversation. :)

Ideological.. And Bush was text book, he used nationalism in trying to push forward bills like the Patriot Act and allow torture even though it violated human rights and trampled over the Constiution.. But it was the "Patriotic" thing to do, and if you disagreed you were not a patriot, quite possibly a coward or a traitor.. Hell Kerry's smearing was based not only on claiming he was a coward, but they called him unamerican for standing up against the Vietnam War... This is not narrowing Bush down, because we had this kind of thing for the past 50 years for the Cold War.. Now we have a new Cold War, in which we are now going against Middle Eastern fundamentalism.

It's funny how we violate human rights, and there is a huge outcry from the world, but when terrorists behead or blow up a dozen civilians the world just gives it the cold shoulder. I can't believe how these politicians make such a big deal about this stuff when there are other bigger thans to worry about. And the Geneva Conventions is a joke, these men don't deserve the laws of the war because it does not fight for a country.

Not only that but I'd really like to ask the President where are the Taliban, and al-Qaeda's Geneva ID cards, because I sure as hell got mine.

Ideological.. And Bush was text book, he used nationalism in trying to push forward bills like the Patriot Act and allow torture even though it violated human rights and trampled over the Constiution.. But it was the "Patriotic" thing to do, and if you disagreed you were not a patriot, quite possibly a coward or a traitor.. Hell Kerry's smearing was based not only on claiming he was a coward, but they called him unamerican for standing up against the Vietnam War... This is not narrowing Bush down, because we had this kind of thing for the past 50 years for the Cold War.. Now we have a new Cold War, in which we are now going against Middle Eastern fundamentalism.

sSubZerOo

"Violated human rights...trampled over the constitution." Phrases like this are mere hyperbole that don't touch upon the complexity of what is being considered. It's essentially yellow journalism. A phrase like that is ripped directly from The Nation, and influenced by a rigid adherence to the ideas of Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky. Some things are not the product of politics, but of the human condition and the inevitable consequence of human relationships and communities (or any type of group). Regardless of what country and head of state that is being discussed, such nationalism is prevalent during any type of armed conflict. You cannot expect political organization or culture to develop so rapidly that nationalism ceases to occur within a century.

Again, the comparison between recent U.S. domestic policy and "The Red (and anarchist) Scare" of the early 20th century into the 1950's is fallacious. Self-described anarchists who may not have been involved in the Haymarket riot were executed in public "to make a point." Artists, scholars, actors, etc. were ostracized, blacklisted, and in rare occasions stripped of their citizenship or visa and deported. Going into the official Cold War through the 80's, such nationalism, ethnocentricity, and repression wasn't as overt for various reasons, but still far exceeds any ideas or actions held or undertaken by the U.S. government in the last decade. It would be more astute to say that there is a relationship between the Cold War and the present decade, though with acknowledgment that there is little to compare. It is not simply about what the government does, or what the executive office does, but the cultural standards and geo-political climate in a given period of time. The most simplistic reason I can give for the lack of comparison is that the reception to nationalist fervor espoused by one segment of society and government is muted when compared to the general response of the public during the Cold War. The only comparison that can be made between the Cold War and the vague 20 year conflict with what is primarily a product of fundamentalist Islam is the general opposition to the others' ideas (which is a relevant similarity), how does this alone qualify what is occurring now as a "cold war?" The phrase has been thrown about in the sensationalized media in recent months, but what those publications have to say is inconsequential to me. In specific terms, there has only been one legitimate cold war, and what is on our hands now simply does not qualify as a cold war.

The Patriot Act is not as onerous as The Nation would like you to believe, and a consideration for the Geneva conventions and UDHR in relation to U.S. domestic and foreign policy in the last decade is too multifaceted for me to begin to address right now, though if you respond to this specific thought, I will respond accordingly tomorrow. So much of linear socio-political rhetoric is rooted in identifying a boogeyman and vilifying him/her, be it Bush or Bin Laden. Keep in mind that names don't really matter.