Reply #67: Yes, you're quite right: two different points for two different audiences.

[Wordie]

It seems to me that you -- and mary and James McClean are making two separate points. One is that there is a real difference between this administration (which you and them are characterizing as falangism) and fascism. And the other is that, even if this administrations IS fascist, using that term with moderates or right wingers serves to cut off conversation on the topic because it makes us seem so extreme.

There are two points being made. The first is a technical definition point, which might appeal to more intelligent and/or highly educated RWers. On this point I feel somewhat at a disadvantage, as my own thoughts are somewhat not-quite-ready-for-prime-time, and I don't really want to do an injustice to the ideas of MacLean and mary. I'm nowhere near as well-read on the topic as you are. But I too have noticed different definitions of fascism, and ways that the Bush administration is different. I'll give this part a stab, but hope that other readers will go to the MacLean/mary source for answers, rather than relying on me.

First, I don't think that MacLean's point is to at all claim that falangism is more benign than fascism. What he is saying, I think, is that there are genuine differences between the two "isms" and that by using the wrong "ism" to make our point, we may be doing more to increase the likelihood that, as you say quite accurately, "... few Americans seem to notice or care." He says it better than I:
Now, there's a reason I'm explaining this: it's a distinction which I think is really worth noting. On the one hand, the current administration is horrible; but it's horrible in a way which is very different from the horrible-ness of the European fascist regimes. And it will be noted that sometimes people who accuse the administration of being fascist are tripped up by this distinction, because in many respects a society degenerating towards falangism does the opposite things from one plunging into the hell of fascism. Both are horrid, but apologists for American rightists--or ordinary skeptics--can point to the fact that the GOP's supporters defend the 2nd amendment , tax cuts, deregulation, devolution of power to the states and so forth. And they haven't quite "militarized the state," either.

In other words, I don't think MacLean is saying that because "the GOP's supporters defend the 2nd amendment , tax cuts, deregulation, devolution of power to the states and so forth," that the support of those things means falangism is more benign. Instead, I think he is saying that support of those things runs contrary to the usual definition of fascism, and hence, when a definition of fascism is applied, it will be found inaccurate. thus obscuring the very real threat. He is saying that it is falangism that can explain those differences. Again, my knowledge here is not as extensive as yours, but for instance, I do know that fascism tended to impose a great deal of regulation upon industry. Our own administration takes the opposite tack, and is extremely laissez faire. Thus, a difference between a classical definition of fascism and the facts of the Bush administration's approach could lead some to dismiss any impending threat to our democracy.

And here's another way in which the Bush administration more closely resembles a falangist enterprise, than a fascist one:
Another distinction: under a fascist state, laws simply are in abeyance... Nazi Germany was a society where laws, in a sense, were meaningless: the state excluded any theoretical bounds on its own power.

...Falangism, in essence, is class warfare by a state which is assuredly devoted to a particular elite and which remains subordinated to that elite.

In so many ways, Time for Change, we are saying the same things really. It seems to me that most of those things that you identify as common to our situation now under the Bush administration and the Nazis are entirely valid, and indeed they are common to both the Bush administration and fascism. I'm only pointing out that in the ways that they are different (many of which you also insightfully point out), a definition of "falangism," may be the very thing that helps explain those differences.

The second point has to do with the the use of the term "fascist" itself and I'm on easier ground here. It seems to me that however many valid parallels one can draw between the current administration and facism and/or Nazism, there is a significant danger in making that case. Here's how the average American (the second audience I referred to) is likely to mentally process such claims, imho (you have to imagine the thought bubbles): "Fascism?" (or, because it was more the point you were making, "Nazism?") >>>"Germany?" >>> "Hitler!" >>> "ovens!!" >>> "Holocaust!!!." When the thought process reaches that last point, there will be this comparison: "Does GWB=Holocaust?" (or it could occur further back: "Does GWB=Hitler?"), and that comparison will be found to be so wanting (however bad GWB is, he does not approach Hitler), that the entire package of ideas that you are trying to present will be tossed right out the window with it.

None of this is to say that the ideas don't have a lot of merit, merely that there is a brick wall immediately erected between you and your desired audience when you make them. So that's why I (and MacLean) think there are problems with "Nazi" and "fascist."

As I said before, better to get it straight from MacLean himself, than me. Here are the relevant links:
http://mars-or-bust.blogspot.com/2003_04_13_mars-or-bust_archive.html#92702209

On the same site, MacLean goes on to refine his thoughts somewhat, coining the term "techno-falangism." You can find those comments here: http://mars-or-bust.blogspot.com/2003_04_13_mars-or-bust_archive.html#92866966

Finally, although the above referenced site appears to be no longer operating, MacLean himself has a website (I'm not yet certain how up-to-date it is) which also has some interesting reading, here: http://www.jamesrmaclean.com/archives/archive_postwar_i...

Perhaps we can discuss this further at a later date. I feel I need to do more reading and investigating before I say much more. I want to thank you again for such a thought-provoking and well-written post. I've recommended it.