I'm sorry to dissapoint Mr. Noah, but a lot of very calm and normal progressives consider the United States to have become a fascist society. The Republican pro-corporatist class is blatantly fascist, while the Democratic pro-corporatist class has instincts that lead it in two directions... but certainly since Bill Clinton genuine anti-fascist beliefs and actions have been on the decline.

Fascism combines corporate/governmental alliance (eg. Eisenhower's "military industrial complex"), along with ethno-national and religious appeals, along with demonization of external and internal enemies.... along with suspension of the rule of law. In what sense are we not now a fascist country and is the Bush administration not now a fascist regime.

Elections? Oh really? Democracy was thwarted in 2000, and probably (we don't know for sure) in 2004. Even under President Obama, who will be in charge, the President and Congress or the corporations that set their agendas?

No, we live in a fascist society, and its power is evident in the unwillingness of powerful institutions, media and commentators like Noah to acknowledge this reality.

Fascism isn't far away and scary, and it doesn't always involve jack boots. It's right here and now, and plenty scary if you take the time to see it. As the author said, "when fascism comes to America it will be carrying a cross and wearing a flag"... but he might also have added that it will be managed by flag waving corporations like Wal Mart, Exxon and Verizon, who view the government as an extension of themselves.

Fascism is real, and the term well describes America today.

He didn't say that every day people didn't believe that, he said that intellectuals, and people in political circles never seriously talk about it. In other words simple minded people looking for an easy slogan, IE Neo Nazi conservatives, and Hippie Liberals might use it, but the important people who discuss politics do not.

Yes, but I use it and I am not a hippie liberal.

I'm just a middle class salary man in the American hinterlands, and I talk about fascism and what we can do about it all the time. So I'm adding a data point that normal progressives raising their children and working for a living undestand that we live under a fascist regime.

I'm complaining about the world view that considers using the word "fascism" to be an indicator of not being serious.... or being too far out of the mainstream. The problem with Goldberg is not that he uses the word fascism, but that he is a fascist propagandist, using the old trick of accusing your enemies of your worst crimes. Fascism itself should be part of the dialogue, but Goldberg's ridiculous book is on the same side as Noah... because they are both trying to discredit the term.... Goldberg by say "liberals are fascists too, and maybe even worse than the right", and Noah, unfortunately by saying that serious people don't talk about fascism at all. Both approaches are wrong... serious progressives should and must talk about fascism, Goldberg's book is a classic fascist propaganda tract, and fascism itself should be part of any serious political discussion about what is going on in America today.

The Sinclair Lewis quote is of course...“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” - Sinclair Lewis, It Can’t Happen Here.

...and that in no way is intended to equate Noah and Goldberg... just to point out that they are both, for different reasons and in very different ways, trying to assure that fascism is not taken seriously. Noah has written many things I admire, but dismissing the concept of fascism is something that, in this argument, puts him on the same side as Goldberg, whose rhetorical goal is the same... although his political goal is far more evil. I'm sure Noah didn't meant to do it.

"The important people who discuss politics do not."

With that sentence you've managed to capture the essence of modern American politics. Democracy is a joke when everything is decided by the "important people" for everyone else.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a problem with Fascism in the US (I go by the classic definition of the state over everything, which doesn't yet define our government), there are real issues that these "important people" won't discuss or touch with a ten foot pole. Nobody in that class wants to mention the dreaded word "Imperialism", though it's hard to find another for continuous US meddling in other countries affairs. None of those "important people" wants to talk about why we have the largest prison population of the western world. And it seems most of these "important people" is hoping to give the telecom companies a free pass for spying on us when asked to, illegally, by the government.

We don't have "Fascism", but we don't exactly have democracy either.

Yes, that attitude is very annoying.

I think that your definition is a definition of totalitarianism, and applies to communism as well. But fascism is better defined as a close alliance between corporations and the government... the government controls things politically... but the government itself is controlled by the business and corporate sector... and that well describes America.

No argument about imperialism. Of course Hitlerian fascism had an imperialist agenda, but was thwarted. No external enemy exists to thwart American imperialism, so only our own wisdom could accomplish that, but American corporations and corporate owned media are working hard to prevent voters from understanding the cost of being an empire. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to change.

I would agree with you, after all I'm not one of those important people either. But at least in that instance, the author wasn't referring to regular people, but people who he might consider important. I did word it badly, call me a presidential candidate, I have to apologize for the strong language, I was trying to defend the authors view point.

"No external enemy exists to thwart American imperialism..." True, but American imperialism needs an external enemy. That's what "islamofascism" was invented for.

It is surprising such a bizarre view is presented coherently. The fact that, despite your check mark, your views haven't been seriously challenged, suggests a lot of folks are in silent agreement with you which is frightening if not surprising to me even if so to Mr. Noah.

Since you are commenting only in generalities, allow me to pose some general questions for you.

To start with, when exactly do you think America was not a Facist country? When was the golden age? Surely you would have to contend it was during all of the slavery and Jim Crow eras, and doublly so during WWII and WWI, and the depression, and during the 50's. So when was America not Facist?

And in the world today, which countries would you suggest are not Facist? Surely not most in Europe, whose governments are mainifestly more controlling than ours. Asia in general, forget it.

You did have one specific focus on the elections of 2000, but you got it almost exactly backwards. Due to the malfeasance of a rogue court in Florida, a legally conducted election was almost overturned because it conflicted with a sloganeer's definition of "Democracy". That's one way Facist and indeed other totaliarian agencies achieve their ends: when the law conflicts with your desired results find a mantra to chant so as to ignore the law.

I'm glad you find my argument coherent even if you disagree with my conclusion.

The ideological rise of fascism in America dates, as I see it to Henry Ford and the rise of industrialism.

The unsuccessful coup attempt in the 1930s (names escape me but you can look it up... it involved the DuPont family among others, and a famous WWI general) was an expression of this tendency. However the rise of Roosevelt and the New Deal generally slowed fascism.

It was the rise of what Republican President Eisenhower described as the military industrial complex in the 1950s that began to mark a new resurgence of the economic structure of capitalism, in which major industries began to become the dog that wagged the tail of government. That process continued to grow, and really gripped government under Ronald Reagan and Bush.

While I spoke in black and white terms, (is/is not a fascist country) it would be more accurate to speak of the strength of the fascist tendency.

I do not think it is historically or intellectually justified to speak of fascism prior the 1920s in America. (However I'm open to arguments to the contrary, if supported by coherent historical reasoning.)

The subserviance of government to industry is a leading indicator of fascism, but it is not a sine qua non. Fascism really must include ethno centrism or religious fanaticism. There do exist examples of countries that are not ruled by their corporate or business classes and not reliant on ethnocentrism as a strategy of rule. In general many European social democracies meet this standard. Control of corporations by a democratic government is a very different thing from control of the government by privately held corporations, although I suspect that conservatives would like to obscure that difference.

We disagree about the elections in 2000, but that is a whole other argument. In my view they marked the return to power of a blatantly fascist leader and party. The democrats whom I support will roll back some of the more odious elements of fascism (religious and ethnonational extremism), but unless they are willing to roll back corporatism (corporate control of government and elections), it is hard to score them as being fully anti-fascist and true advocates of democracy.

I hope that answers some of your questions about how I understand 20th and early 21st century political reality.

Not everyone is fascist, and not everything has been fascist... but fascism is an endemic problem for which the only antidote is democracy and open societies based on equality and the democratic control over the economic institutions of a society (social democracy) so that the economic institutions do not ultimately hollow out the institutions of democracy completely.

Well your view is remarkable, I'll say that.

To summarize it briefly, I guess Facism is almost inherent in the technique of mass production especially if held in private hands. Question: was Stalin a Facist? Those in charge of mass production were party loyalists and government controlled the means of production, but there's no question these communjist industrialists had influence. Witness the willingness of the government to permit the destruction of the environment and "the people" to further production.

Even accepting your notion of an extreme and broad degree of influence of corporations on US policy (a view I've never found echoed among those who've partcipated in the political process including myself), a potential difference between government control of "mass production" and private control is that the latter has more potential for conflicting or countervailing expressions of interests. Industry does by no means speak with one voice in the halls of Congress, and that voice is typically adressed to very narrow points of interest, rather than exercising any broad influence where if tried it tends to fall flat.

As to your notion that Facist tendencies declined during the Roosevelt period, you ignore the fact that America was then more regimented, a hallmark of Facism, then before or since. One might be sympathetic to Roosevelt, who, in desperate circumstances, tried to adapt something that seemed to be working in Germany and Italy, but turning it on its head as you do is denying the obvious.

From what you write, I'd suggest that the only reason you'd decline to call America Facist from inception is the lack of mass prodution and big industry for part of its history. Surely a more generic term: "Evil Empire", fits nicely don't you think?

Unfortunately, your definition suggesting industrialists uber alles doesn't really fit Nazi Germany or Facist Italy. Industrialists in those countries, especially Germany, were subservient in the extreme to the national will embodied in the National Socialist Party. Do you really think German industrialists were behind WWII? Hitler was good for business, and therefore had early and as it turned out naive support from industrialists, but I doubt you can come up with any convincing evidence he was pushed to war by the private sector industrialists.

To summarize it briefly, I guess Facism is almost inherent in the technique of mass production especially if held in private hands.

Response: Hardly. Privately held wealth subject to democratic limitations is the very definition of social democracy.

Question: was Stalin a Facist? Those in charge of mass production were party loyalists and government controlled the means of production, but there's no question these communjist industrialists had influence. Witness the willingness of the government to permit the destruction of the environment and "the people" to further production.

Response: No he was not a fascist. He was a totalitarian and a communist. The state actually did own and control the means of production. There are evil forms of government that are not fascist... the Soviet Union surely qualified as a distinct one.

Even accepting your notion of an extreme and broad degree of influence of corporations on US policy (a view I've never found echoed among those who've partcipated in the political process including myself), a potential difference between government control of "mass production" and private control is that the latter has more potential for conflicting or countervailing expressions of interests. Industry does by no means speak with one voice in the halls of Congress, and that voice is typically adressed to very narrow points of interest, rather than exercising any broad influence where if tried it tends to fall flat.

Response: From my perspective that's what I'd expect to hear from a participant in the political process. I suspect you of being unaware of the extent to which you have allowed yourself not to see the reality all around you. I realize that may sound like an unfair accusation (the fact that she denies she is a witch proves that she is a witch!)... but nonetheless I find it incredible when insiders deny the extent to which I perceive Washington and State House politics to be owned and operated by corporate America... each sector having its own agenda to be sure... but agreeing on the broad outlines of how America should be run in the interests of stockholders rather than citizens... on the one dollar one vote principle rather than the one person one vote principle.

As to your notion that Facist tendencies declined during the Roosevelt period, you ignore the fact that America was then more regimented, a hallmark of Facism, then before or since. One might be sympathetic to Roosevelt, who, in desperate circumstances, tried to adapt something that seemed to be working in Germany and Italy, but turning it on its head as you do is denying the obvious.

Response: That's a Goldbergian argument, equating socialist and communist regimination with fascist regimentation. Roosevelt battled against domestic fascists, and expanded the government's role in the economy in classic early 20th century "socialist" directions, albeit very weakly.

From what you write, I'd suggest that the only reason you'd decline to call America Facist from inception is the lack of mass prodution and big industry for part of its history. Surely a more generic term: "Evil Empire", fits nicely don't you think?

Response: I don't think the idea of fascism makes much sense as a political description prior to the 20th century. There are various reasons for that... the role of mass media being one of them.... the role of centralized government and its control by industrial and private enterprises... The U.S. was certainly "imperial" on the American continent... and begining most notably in the Phillipines and Cuba, began to become an international imperialist in the late 19th and early 20th century... but no, fascism doesn't seem to apply until around the 1920s. Even then we did not become fascist... but elements or our society began to push us in a fascist direction.

Unfortunately, your definition suggesting industrialists uber alles doesn't really fit Nazi Germany or Facist Italy. Industrialists in those countries, especially Germany, were subservient in the extreme to the national will embodied in the National Socialist Party. Do you really think German industrialists were behind WWII? Hitler was good for business, and therefore had early and as it turned out naive support from industrialists, but I doubt you can come up with any convincing evidence he was pushed to war by the private sector industrialists.

Response: Agree and disagree. Yes he was not pushed to war explicitly by them but no his rule was not possible without them. It was an alliance of mutual need, mutual perspectives, and mutual interests. Was there support "naive"? Only in light of the outcome of the war. He and they, like Bush and (Exxon/Verizon/Fox etc.), were peas in a pod.... the political level and the business level sharing world views, interests, and plans, and willing to use the media and the military to achieve their goals.

"It is surprising such a bizarre view is presented coherently. The fact that, despite your check mark, your views haven't been seriously challenged, suggests a lot of folks are in silent agreement with you."

I disagree with him, but it's obvious an argument would be fruitless with him. There's certainly enough things that look like facism, but I bristle at the terming of america as a whole fascist, in part because fascism is an alliance that crosses all class lines. Most importantly, poor street thugs running around beating up liberals, jews, and homosexuals.

All the quasfascists nutjobs can conjure up now is harsh language, and on that, I blame the internet moreso than politics. The pottymouth phenomenom is due to the inherent anonymity of the web. You're free to use the most harsh language in a game of oneupmanship.

Meanwhile, nationalism in general is weak. People buy little magnets to stick on their SUVs, but still buy crap made in China and give money to the poor in Africa.

A truly fascist nation would be out to dominate africa, not save it from AIDS.

A truly fascist nation wouldn't be forcing corporations to do a bunch of "sensitivity training".

A truly fascist nation would shoot John Edwards and his clients rather than let them take a slice from the corporate pie.

What we have instead, is a nation with a two party system, and a large moderate center annoyed with both parties, but the "majority" party more often than not whichever it is at the time. So, what we have is a seesaw. We will not tolerate anyone one group in charge for very long. It is in our nature to seek political change peacefully and often.

"I disagree with him, but it's obvious an argument would be fruitless with him."

Why is it obvious argument would be fruitless?

I myself clarified that I don't think the "is/is not" fascist categorization is valid, and that if we get into it we must discuss the strength and size of the fascist tendency. I consider it to be very large today indeed under the Bush regime.

Fascism self evidently doesn't include everyone... it's victims are on the outside.

Fascism also doesn't have to look identical to Nazi Germany or fascist Italy. We're trying to extract some general principles here. There were liberal and religious opponents of German fascism, cowed into submission.

Contemporary fascism isn't white supremicist nutters... it's men in business suits and executive jets making decisions that consign cities to flood, countries to starve and children to go without health care... its politicians who subvert democracy in the courts and the voting booth. It's plans to privatize the military (aka Blackwater and friends). It's plans to outsource foreign policy (Iran Contra.)

A true fascist regime only has to do some of those things if it is weak. A strong fascist regime, an interlocking power structure of corproations and governments can throw sops to Africa, tolerate "sensitivity training" because it knows it doesn't change anything, and shut John Edwards out of the media so that nothing he says gets heard, until he whithers on the vine.

A society with fascist tendencies keeps a lot of corporate drones ("the great middle") employed and fearful of losing their health insurance so that they will shut up and not think very deeply about the real structures of power in their world.

If only we had a sea saw, a genuine competition between the fascistic leaning and the communitarian leaning. Unfortunately we have a centrist to right wing Democratic party, mostly quite comfortable with serving corporate interests, and attempting to appear idealistic and pro-democracy around election time to appeal to the many people who want to believe that democracy is still possible, and on the other hand we have a radical right wing fascist party (the GOP) that uses ethnonationalism, media control, war and violence in a classic fascist pattern, while also including many modern innovations that Hitler and Mussolini never dreamed of. The GOP and its friends are impressive and dangerous.

Now why would you think that argument with me is fruitless? I'd love to hear your views.

Response: From my perspective that's what I'd expect to hear from a participant in the political process. I suspect you of being unaware of the extent to which you have allowed yourself not to see the reality all around you. I realize that may sound like an unfair accusation (the fact that she denies she is a witch proves that she is a witch!)... but nonetheless I find it incredible when insiders deny the extent to which I perceive Washington and State House politics to be owned and operated by corporate America... each sector having its own agenda to be sure... but agreeing on the broad outlines of how America should be run in the interests of stockholders rather than citizens... on the one dollar one vote principle rather than the one person one vote principle.

Do you realize how self referential this is? No one especially the participants in a process understand it as well as you? You presumably participate in American society. Why doesn't that similarily disqualify you as an objective commentator?

Response: Agree and disagree. Yes he was not pushed to war explicitly by them but no his rule was not possible without them. It was an alliance of mutual need, mutual perspectives, and mutual interests. Was there support "naive"? Only in light of the outcome of the war. He and they, like Bush and (Exxon/Verizon/Fox etc.), were peas in a pod.... the political level and the business level sharing world views, interests, and plans, and willing to use the media and the military to achieve their goals.

You are trying to have it both ways. Germany was a purely Facist state. Either industrialist controlled it or they didn't. And in fact they clearly didn't. This is wholly contrary to your attempt to define a US Facism.

Response: That's a Goldbergian argument, equating socialist and communist regimination with fascist regimentation. Roosevelt battled against domestic fascists, and expanded the government's role in the economy in classic early 20th century "socialist" directions, albeit very weakly.

You're not responding directly to the point. Among other things, the Roosevelt prgrams involved a large number of men organized into regimental and millitary like corps. I know of no "social democracy" that is so organized.