Fascism in the United States? or just increasing alienation and possible chaos?

My analysis of the financial and economic crises and proposals to address them started as an effort to show the need for a second federal stimulus package, both to prevent draconian cuts in state and local government budgets and to prevent renewed freefall in the economy. But I’m afraid the US and global economies may be down for the count. If that’s true, many more people here and around the world will ultimately become destitute, and desperate.  And as it becomes clear that we’re in a Second Great (or perhaps an even Greater) Depression, as people move from discouragement to despair, as it becomes clear that the “American way of life” is not going to last much longer and won’t be coming back, we could have, gradually or not so gradually, increasing violence and a descent into chaos.  Against that scenario, my proposals are also an effort to buy time, in the hope that by stretching out the collapse of the economy and increasing understanding of what is happening, we might enable more people to learn to cope with changing circumstances effectively and in time to save both civility and lives. My hope is that we might thus hold together, build community, and transition peacefully to a sustainable and survivable future.

Recent events have led me to wonder if we might already be seeing signs of the chaos I’m hoping we can avoid. There’s an interesting discussion going on at http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009083205/fascist-america-are-we-there-yet (Campaign for America’s Future) around some articles by Sara Robinson titled “Fascism in America: Are We There Yet?” and “Fascism II.” In the second installment, Sara discusses the disruptions at Congressional “town hall” meetings as possible practice for and preludes to “goon squad” activity – the intimidation of dissenters and anyone beyond the pale of the “goon squad” culture – and suggests means of resistance to prevent the disruptions from growing into such a threat. She promises in the third installment to outline her recommendations for a broader range of activities to head off fascism in the US on a more long-term basis. She says her readers’ reactions tend to be either disbelieving (“It can’t happen here and certainly hasn’t started to”), dismissive of her naiveté (“of course it’s been here for some time”), or grateful for her having raised the issue and interested in discussing it. I’m in that third category.

Much of the commentary on Sara’s articles and her responses are worth checking out if the issue interests you. I intend here to draft some commentary of my own, which I will also copy and submit as commentary on Sara’s articles at the Campaign for America’s Future blog.

The threat of fascism in the US has concerned me at least since the days of the Nixon administration. But I’ve always been a little unclear as to exactly what the implementation of fascism here would involve. The current discussion helps to clarify that, and leaves me a little unsure it matters whether we call the problem fascism or not. What is worrisome is the prospect of suppression of dissent and the growth of an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, in which people are afraid to express dissenting views on either cultural or political matters. If that happens on a national scale and obtains government backing and enforcement, I supposed that’s fascism. That may be overly simple but I’m going with it for purposes of this discussion. On that basis, I have a number of observations to make that do not focus on whether fascism is here or on the horizon, but on the suppression of dissent and how an atmosphere of fear and intimidation could develop.

First, it does seem that disruptive and sometimes threatening behavior at the “town meetings” could be harbingers of tomorrow’s goon squads. I don’t say they are, but they could be, in the sense that at least some of the disrupters are or could become threatening, and as Sara says, like any bully if allowed to succeed they could become worse – more numerous, organized, and aggressive.

Just as clearly, some of the disruptive behavior comes from people who are fed up with Washington and government on many levels, including the Wall Street bailouts. In other words, there may be some xenophobes, some relatively malevolent people, involved, but that doesn’t seem to constitute everyone. There are people protesting who are doing so spontaneously and independently of outside or centralized influence, for reasons that are personal and perhaps not antisocial or potentially violent. We’re all being lied to and robbed, and some of the rage is a response to such more generalized grievances. For a sympathetic treatment of the widespread distrust of government and some of the reasons for it, see Alexander Cockburn’s “Health Plans and Death Plans” at www.counterpunch.org, August 14-16, 2009.

On the other hand, however spontaneously and independently many individuals may be acting, a large share of the “acting out” at these events is, if not orchestrated, clearly encouraged by others with a national perspective and agenda. An article in the Financial Times (8/16/09, p. 2) quoted Dick Armey, for example, as advising people to express their dissent with the tactics developed by Saul Alinsky. (You can access at least a few Financial Times articles free at ft.com before they ask you to subscribe for further access.)

These attacks are in part a continuation of the attacks on the Clinton administration, and constitute an attempt by some to weaken and ultimately destroy the Obama (or any Democratic) administration. So long as the Democrats are in power, these people will express their dissent destructively, refusing to compromise or work within the system in that sense. It should be remembered in this connection that there is considerable continuity of personnel from the Nixon administration through Reagan and the two Bush regimes, a substantial cadre of individuals whose agenda is to suppress dissent and grow the empire, the imperial presidency, and with them the national security state. The earlier lineage of these folks goes back to President Truman’s decision to “scare hell out of the American people” to obtain support for maintaining the military rather than disarming at the end of World War II, while government planning documents from that period show an explicit intent to dominate the world for the purpose of continuing to control the disproportionate share of the world’s resources being utilized by the US. See, for example, Policy Planning Study 23, published by State Department planning staff, written by George Kennan in February 1948 (“We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. … Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.”)

Truman’s agenda laid the groundwork for the McCarthy era and the Red Scare of the 1950s. Richard Hofstadter, in The Paranoid Style in American Politics, theorized that as a relatively rootless society, America is peculiarly fertile ground for anyone suffering from economic or status anxiety to become susceptible to the politics of scapegoating.

The prevalence of economic and status anxiety in the US today can hardly be exaggerated. On Hofstadter’s theory, this would lead large numbers of people to become susceptible to the politics of scapegoating. Unfortunately, there are thought and opinion leaders aplenty who are only too quick and glad to encourage that tendency, and the scapegoating has begun.

It should be borne in mind, by the way, that suppression of dissent is a current reality, not just a future threat, for some whose views deviate from the mainstream or who express their dissent in certain ways and who are in vulnerable positions. Speaking of vulnerable positions, a great many people, who have already been scapegoated for years, experience the US right now as a police state in which arbitrary raids, detention, separation from family, and deportation are immediate threats. Not to mention Guantanamo.

Mike Whitney has also pointed out that enormous transfers of wealth from taxpayers to Wall Street continue to take place. See his “There Is No Recession: It’s A Planned Demolition,” at http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08102009.html. It could be that elite elements are opportunistically encouraging disruptions to distract attention from the ongoing heist.

Finally, and frankly of most concern to me, there are larger problems on the horizon that may exacerbate the most destructive tendencies currently on display. With the onset of problems arising from peak oil and other resource shortages, the frustration of the culture and lifestyle based on motor vehicles and suburbia, the high likelihood the recession and with it, unemployment will persist or worsen – and unemployment is already at staggering levels – how will people react? The prospect of current systems of social and economic support breaking down makes plausible any number of unpleasant scenarios, including an increase in antisocial conduct and violence. Thus the immediate threat may not be so much fascism as spontaneous social and economic unrest leading to chaos and violence – though in that case, perhaps fascism would not be far behind.

Momentum for a second stimulus, & manure for the US economy

I first latched on to the idea of a second federal stimulus when I was preparing testimony to the Oregon Legislature, trying to avoid funding and services cuts to vulnerable people.   I proposed some progressive tax increases, but those were not enough, and Robert Reich had calculated that state budget cuts and tax increases were already projected to total $350bn, enough to negate nearly half of the first stimulus.  So I joined Mr. Reich, Paul Krugman, and James K. Galbraith in calling for an additional federal stimulus.  At the time the idea was eminently sensible and reasonable but like many such ideas, was almost too far out to propose without people rolling their eyes.

In just the ten weeks since, the idea, still as sensible as ever, has nevertheless entered the mainstream of public discourse.  I commented on that fact, and outlined the need for a restructured economy, in a letter today to the Financial Times, the pre-eminent financial newspaper (it’s much more useful and informative than the Wall Street Journal, and Obama says he’s been reading it for 20 years).  Here’s the letter, which I hope speaks well enough for itself:

Sir,

Progressive Democrats of America went on record in support of a second stimulus with its May 18, 2009 publication of my assessment of the financial and economic crisis and a plan to address it.  The idea was not original — I got it from Robert Reich, and Paul Krugman and James K. Galbraith also supported it — but it was hardly part of mainstream discussion, despite Reich’s calculation that a projected $350bn in State budget cuts and tax hikes would predictably negate nearly half the impact of the $787bn first federal stimulus.

In less than two months, that snowball has become at least a small avalanche:  on June 29^th, the FT reported that Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, had said the administration would be open to further stimulus if needed, acknowledging that cutbacks by states facing budget crises would push in the opposite direction.  Laura Tyson of the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board came out in favor the following week.  But my jaw actually slackened a bit when I realized the July 11-12, 2009 FT editorial I was reading called for a second stimulus, specifically targeting the states on condition the money be spent quickly.

A second stimulus is critical as a holding action, to keep us from going over the cliff.  As Aline van Duyn notes (also July 11-12, 2009), alluding to Nouriel Roubini’s recent analysis, “green shoots” have been replaced in the discussion by talk of weeds that may, in the case of the US economy, turn to manure.  Obama should recognize and level with the public about the dimensions and severity of the problem, and return to Congress for a second stimulus to help the states maintain vital services and avoid tax increases, and Congress should heed the request.

But if we are to pull back any substantial distance from that cliff and begin to grow our economy, it must be done sustainably, and here I think the metaphor of manure in its positive meaning, as a fertilizing substance that replenishes and nourishes the soil, is useful.  The US economy isn’t a car in running condition that just needs a jump start to resume operations, it’s a field of depleted soil that needs a whole range of remedial measures, so that when we’re done with stimuli the debt we’ve incurred has not just ameliorated the effects of the crisis but encouraged the emergence and growth of real green shoots with a future.

Of course we need the capacity to generate and sustain sufficient aggregate demand.  Since wages have stagnated for roughly thirty years, the demand that sustained the world economy till recently came from US consumer debt.  That source cannot be revived both for arithmetic and psychological reasons:  People can’t afford to borrow more, and they’re understandably afraid to.  So we need debt relief as well as more and better jobs at higher wages.  Hence the roots of the problem must be addressed, including the obscene concentration of wealth that has left US households without money to spend, and the so-called trade agreements that have offshored and outsourced much of the US manufacturing sector.  We should facilitate rather than hamper labor organizing, through such measures as the Employee Free Choice Act, and revisit the trade agreements, through such legislation as the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act, to be introduced in this session of Congress by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME).

We of course also need repaired and improved infrastructure, with the emphasis on energy conservation, mass transit and renewable sources, as well as education to prepare workers for the jobs of the future, and a universal healthcare system to enable U.S. firms to be viable and compete.

However, when the U.S. and Western economies have recovered from past recessions, as well as the Great Depression, they had at their disposal – and have now substantially disposed of – the resources of the natural world – including not only cheap oil but also abundant land, air and water – to resume operations. With natural resources now considerably more expensive and the continued operation of the Old Economy threatening the means of life (e.g., overfishing the oceans) and the biosphere itself (e.g., arable land, breathable air, drinkable water), the creation of more jobs at higher wages will require a complex process of reconstructing an economy as if people and the Earth mattered. We need something – indeed many things – to be substantially different, including, for example, the means of producing food by sustainable agricultural practices, with less chemically dependent agribusiness and much more locally based, smaller-scale and sustainable farming.

How to pay for all this, and save the dollar to boot?  We might start by recovering the ill-gotten gains of those who apparently caused or contributed to the crisis through fraud.  In the wake of what appears to have been far and away the biggest financial scam in the history of the world, nobody but pikers like Bernie Madoff has even been investigated.  A tax on financial transactions would also help.  So would cessation of our foreign military adventures deceptively marketed as the “war on terror,” or whatever our current wars come to be called, now shifting from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. These have been an enormous waste of resources as well as human lives, as a substantial consensus among knowledgeable analysts finds – as was predicted – that the result has been an increase in terrorism. Another increasingly glaring fact about these wars is that we just can’t afford them anymore. We’re waging them on credit, and increasingly on credit from foreigners. And – besides the appalling and immoral loss of human life, an immeasurable cost – the resources wasted on these destructive activities are wholly unproductive economically, as well as needed elsewhere.

Much or all of this is of course anathema to US elites.  But these civilizing measures are essential if the US is to avoid becoming a Third World country beset by disillusionment with public institutions, social unrest, and possibly violence on a grand scale, and instead emerge from the present crisis in substantially different but still civilized form.

These and related suggestions are developed in greater detail at http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-05-18-10-29-00-news.php and on my own blog at http://healingjustice.wordpress.com/.  Another useful summation of much of the foregoing is E. F. Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful (recommended by Harry Eyres, January 31 and in Mr Don Cropper’s letter, July 11-12, 2009).

Cordially,

Robert Roth

The Financial and Economic Crisis: Analysis & Action Plan

The article I have posted as a Page under this title was posted on the website of Progressive Democrats of America on May 18, 2009.  I began writing it as testimony to the Ways & Means Committee of the Oregon Legislature for hearings on how to handle the Oregon budget crisis.  I was primarily concerned about prospective losses of funds and services for people  with mental and developmental disabilities and other vulnerable people, but just about everyone who testified at that hearing in Eugene told of other worthy and crying needs that would be denied if the Legislature cut off funding.  I decided the most constructive thing I could do was suggest sources of funding.  After reviewing the recent reports of the Oregon Center for Public Policy, I wrote testimony in favor of a new tax on individuals with $250,000 or more in annual income and on profitable corporations.  But in addition, I suggested the Legislature ask the Congressional Delegation to seek additional federal stimulus money.

Much as the idea of more federal stimulus seemed unlikely — with the Republicans already attacking the stimulus that had been passed — the justification for it is quite reasonable:  The federal stimulus amounted to $787 billion to stimulate economic activity by creating jobs and funding needed services.  State budget cuts and tax increases were (and still are as far as I know) projected to be about $350 billion.  So nearly half of the first federal stimulus would be negated, undone, by those State actions.  Thus we would need more federal stimulus just to get the effect the first package was designed to deliver.

I got the idea for more federal stimulus targeting the States from Robert Reich.  It was also favored by economists Paul Krugman and James K. Galbraith, Jr.  But at that point it was just them, and me, and Progressive Democrats of America on record in favor of it.  However, the idea may be beginning to catch on.

Last week, Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged in an interview with the Financial Times that cutbacks by states facing budget crises would push in the opposite direction from the federal stimulus.  Meanwhile David Axelrod, a senior White House adviser, told NBC Television the administration would be open to more stimulus if it turned out to be needed.  These and related remarks are reported in the Financial Times of 6/29/09.

The idea for more federal stimulus, and the other policy proposals in my article for PDA, are intended to buy time for the transition to what I think will be a new economy.  The pessimism of my assessment of the economy back in mid-May seems to have held up so far, and there’s at least a strong chance the economy will resist the “jump start” the federal stimulus is intended to provide.  As unemployment continues to grow and more people become increasingly desperate, I’m afraid we may face a period of social and political unrest that may even degenerate into chaos and violence.   Our leaders, including President Obama, are doing nothing to prepare us for the worst case scenario that has at least a strong chance of coming to pass.  So the spirit of my “Action Plan” on the financial & economic crisis is really to make the transition to a lower living standard more gradual, and lay some groundwork for a transition to a more sustainable economy.

On a more fundamental level, we need an approach that is best described for me, so far, by Robert Jensen in his new book, “All My Bones Shake,” about seeking the prophetic voices we need to find and use in the times ahead — starting now.  I’m just beginning the book, but have read three excerpts posted in various places.  I’ll speak of them further in a later post.