Opinari.net
Opinari - Latin term for Opinion. Opinari.net is just what it seems: a cornucopia of rants, raves and poignant soliloquy. |
Friday, October 24, 2003
Today, I have to take exception to something that irks me every time I see, or hear it. Many times, when someone on the left disagrees vehemently with someone else (usually someone on the right), they like to use language that is as damaging as possible to that person, or persons. One of the most often selected words from the English lexicon in this context is "fascist". When Reagan failed to support public funding for AIDS research (wrongly so, in retrospect), he was labeled a fascist. When George W. Bush... well, seemingly when he does anything contrary to the left's agenda, he is invariably labeled a fascist. Reading the many quotes in context, it could be interpreted that the intended definition of fascist is something akin to an angry, stubborn, and downright bad person. If you look at the definition of fascist, you will see this:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Perhaps those who call Bush a fascist intend to label him a dictator. In practice, Bush couldn't be farther from a fascist. In fact, invariably, a fascist leader in a democracy would likely veto any legislation that didn't come from his hand. Bush's veto record? Zero. Zip. Bush, if anything, leans toward legislative democracy.
Bush as one who exalts nation above the individual? Forcible suppression of opposition? Not hardly. Fascists don't cut personal taxes if they value the state over the individual, nor do they attempt to demarginalize an obviously militant religion like the type of Islam we see manifested daily in the Middle East. A fascist would be prone to confiscate incomes, and exterminate international opposition. This is not the modus operandi of Bush at all.
Why the treatise on fascism? It is bothersome to me that people will reinvent the language in such a way as to attach an enormously negative stigma to someone or something with which they disagree. Far right pols often questioned Bill Clinton's morality, but I never recall such monikers as "fascist" being slung at him. The left and the right are perpetually going to disagree on policy. However, it would be nice if the discourse would contain enough intellectual honesty as to not give a label to something which it doesn't deserve.Labels: Archives_2003
.: posted by
Dave
12:30 PM
| |
Recommended Reading
|
