What is fascism? The word has been overused and misapplied more frequently than ever, usually in the context of condemnation, or to characterize certain conservative views. Jonah Goldberg’s best-selling book has renewed the discussion, and appears to have enraged liberals.
I haven’t yet read Jonah’s book, and he’s a better expert than I, but I’ll go out on a limb and state that fascism is the heavy-handed intrusion of the state into the economic (including private property), social, political, or religious affairs of its citizens.
It’s wrong to believe that fascism requires a malevolent dictator to be in effect. A fascist state can be both well-meaning or democratic, and in many cases, they’re both. Many governments (even local governments) have used electoral (and judicial) mandates to impose fascistic rules under the guise of public good. Our founders recognized this when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Even benevolent governments can become oppressive if unrestrained.
Libertarians (small “l”) consider themselves the bulwark against fascism of all kinds. But they go too far when they oppose governmental (or collective) action in the public realm. We expect the state to regulate activities in public property, such as roads, schools, parks, the airwaves (communication infrastructure), airports, waterways, etc., just as private citizens impose rules on their own property. We generally have no objection when speed limits are imposed on interstate highways, to cite just one example. One could even argue that laws prohibiting smoking or alcohol on public beaches are well within the state’s prerogative, and thus not fascistic by even a liberal definition of the term.
But the line separating fascism and liberalism is crossed when the state imposes rules on private property, whether by regulation or outright confiscation (including taxation) to effect its goals (see definition above). Such overreach includes taxation to effect social engineering, employer mandates (such as minimum wage laws or health care benefits), and other attempts to establish a socialistic society. (If federal mandates on home bathroom fixtures and light bulbs aren’t fascistic, what is?) In every case, the power of the state is strengthened, the power of the individual is weakened, and the power of special interests is concentrated.
Wait. Am I trying to equate socialism with fascism? Not exactly. Genuine socialism outwardly and honestly confiscates property and distributes it to its constituent base (workers, elderly, disadvantaged, etc.), usually through a government agency, while fascism prefers a more nuanced approach, such as mandates on wealth-producing private enterprise and industry. So while socialists can be appreciated for their honesty and directness, fascists can be appreciated for recognizing the true sources of wealth and economic vitality.
In summary, while socialism is (at least doctrinally) anti-capitalist, fascism seeks a partnership with capitalism. But while their approach may differ, their goals are the same, as well as their instrument: the coercive power of the state. Both socialists and fascists believe that if capitalism is left unchecked, the power of the state diminishes. So they both (Note: the term “capitalist” was coined by Karl Marx as shorthand for advocates of free markets and private property.)
The problem with both of these approaches is that too many of us have no objection when these rules are imposed upon our neighbors (especially our more fortunate ones), but flinch when they’re imposed upon ourselves. The result of this sentiment is politics.
It’s disheartening to observe that virtually all of the current candidates for president (both Democrat and Republican) are seeking office with fascistic remedies to our nation’s current challenges. (Ron Paul is an exception, but his remedies would leave us defenseless against powerful fascistic adversaries.) Our challenge is to discriminate who will be the person who properly recognizes the correct balance between fascism and libertarianism that can meet these challenges without harming our wealth-creating capacity or weakening our defenses.
