What is a fascist?

First the facts as claimed by some.

What is a fascist? Well according to the Encarta Dictionary, a fascist is a 'dictatorial movement – any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism.". This is a statement backed up by most other sources as well; some even go a bit further in their descriptions such as Merriam-webster.com, who states fascism as follows. "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) 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."

Second, the fun parts made up by me.

Wow, that's a bit of an overload of info if you ask me, but by reading these definitions we can get a grasp on what we can call fascism, and therefore whom we can call a fascist. Both definitions look alike at first. However if we look closely at both we can see some disparities. Both define properly, but both are potentially tools to accuse another unjustly of fascism. Rush Limbaugh has used the Merriam-Webster definition to call one of former 2003 presidential candidate Dick Gephardt's proposed ideas fascism. While the Encarta definition must be a standard used by nearly all liberal media; we've all seen this become the name for nearly all conservatives lately. Now I do not give a specific name for the liberals here, and that is not meant as a way to protect them, but simply the list was too great to go through, and none have Rush's clout.

After some thought I came up with some ideas on how to compare the two sides(right and left wingers)against these definitions and perhaps pick a winner in the "who's a fascist race". I thought that we should first lay down some basic rules to fascism using both of the aforementioned definitions, and congeal them into a simpler form. My idea is as follows.

What makes a fascist?

1. A Dictatorship- this is a constant in both definitions, so must be widely accepted as fact.
   
2. Extreme Nationalism- Again this is mentioned in both, so as far as we can see fact.
   
3. Repression of all opposition- Once again both definitions agree here.
   
4. Political/social ideology- This is not stated identically in both, so I took words from both and put them together. (this is called "sampling "and is used often in the music industry)
   
5. Racism- This is not claimed by either but implied by Merriam-Webster's definition, and when most of us think of fascists we think of Nazi Germany, and who were bigger racists' than them?
   

I left out some points from both definitions because there have been more than a few instances of fascism, and all have varied in some degree on the internal workings related to business and social regimentation. To make a boring story short, no one can say for sure about the rest of it, and it seems irrelevant to the point, so, it is not on my list.

Okay, moving on to how this will work. First, I'll pick a side, (liberal or conservative) then I will take the numbered traits from the above list and rate each side. The ratings will be on a 1-5 scale, 5 being most like the Nazi's, 4 like Joe McCarthy, 3 Microsoft, 2 corporate news media, 1 The French. Again, I must stress this is only a general scale to help me and hopefully some others, gain some insight into who the real fascists are, and should by no means be a definitive calculation. Definitive calculations are for people with agenda's that need proof of their statements. I am presenting an opinion only, and my agenda is only to appear funny, therefore I need only assure I am not outright lying or defaming anyone.

Conservatives

1. Dictatorship- Based on the current administrations' attempts to stack the deck in the Judiciary branch, and manipulation of the voting system in certain states, I must give it a solid –3
   
2. Extreme Nationalism- This is an easy one; with the idea that and we know what's best for everyone else in the world – 5
   
3. Repression of opposition- Another easy one; the whole idea that disagreeing with our government is treason – 5
   
4. Political/social ideology- Okay this is the toughest one; by saying our government must step in and tell us what is morally right even when we were unaware of it – 3
   
5. Racism- With all the PC people ready to scream racism, it should have been easy, but there are more ways to be a racist than just saying racial slurs – 4
   

Liberals

1. A Dictatorship- While liberals are not quite as visible on this, they too have attempted to stack the deck in the past (just not as successful) – 3
   
2. Extreme Nationalism- Okay these guys really need help here, they seem to have given many Americans the impression they are ashamed of us; everything bad is apparently our fault - 2
   
3. Repression of all opposition- Another area where they suck; They try to act tough and ready to fight, but never actually do: I went to school with some guys like that - 1
   
4. Political/social ideology- They wish they had this problem; the only thing that looks like an ideology here is the Green party, and they are not even classical democrats - 1
   
5. Racism- Okay here is where their strengths lie, (finally) they play the race card at every opportunity, which gives fuel to the fires of the more open racists, making themselves appear the friend of minorities – 5
   

The conclusion

The scorecard is as follows, conservatives 20, liberals 12. Therefore, by this demonstration, the conservatives are by far the more fascist-like, and the liberals at this time have the right to call them fascists. However, a score as low as the liberals' points to them being nearly French, and that of course is the same as that "S" word. That word is not spineless, but close that word is SOCIALIST.

Yes, socialist which is nearly communist, and that would make us Chinese. I do not speak Chinese and feel this would be a bad deal for me and many of my friends or family. The food would be good but without an ability to communicate, I wouldn't be able to order it anyway.

I have concluded that to vote conservative is to lean towards fascism, while to vote liberal is to align with socialism. Neither is good for America so I'm voting for Ralph Nader.

The new fascists

In the information age we have become desensitized to sex, violence, and the foul actions of criminals, almost to the point of complete apathy. With radio shock jocks and television shock hosts, very few things are taboo these days. We grew into this state slowly, starting with the televising of the war in Vietnam, and steadily on through the subsequent decades.

Just in my Thirty-Nine years I went from watching cigarette commercials to reality tv and all points in between. Some of these programs contributed positively to society, others did not. I have managed to keep it in perspective for the most part: despite the coyote and road runner cartoons I knew that an anvil on the head was deadly.

At times television even inspired me to reach for goals, which I had thought impossible before. When I first saw Muhammad Ali speak before a fight, I was in a state of shock. Here was a guy that said anything that came into his mind seemingly without any fear. Little did I know then that others would try and capitalize on that;" Hate me all you want as long as you watch me" style. Everyone from talk show guests to radio disc jockeys would soon have a few of these extremists.

Once the shock and awe style invaded political commentary, I thought well, it was just a matter of time, and accepted it. However some have taken this style and gone too far. A few of these have been able to make vast fortunes and fame using blatant lies and misquoted garbage. They have been able to sell millions of their books, and win awards for documentaries that despite having perhaps an idea of the truth, somehow manage to completely avoid it. Even when shown the truth alongside their own blatant lie, they manage to find a way to either; blame the other person for a mistake, misprint, or incompetence, or keep shouting over them until they can find a way to back out gracefully. Some have built whole careers on attacking the homeless, and drug addicted; all the while they themselves are drug-addicts. They attack homosexuals on one hand while on the other have same sex relations in private.

One went so far as to attack the widows of 9/11; claiming they have enjoyed the deaths of their husbands and profited from it. That same person also claimed John Edwards had a bumper sticker that read "ask me about my dead son". When John Edward's wife Elizabeth tried to ask that person to stop using the death of her son to attack them, they went into a scripted style of talking over her and trying to turn what she said into something all together different. I've even seen this person claim Jews were imperfect Christians, needing to be perfected by a Christian religion like hers of course.

If this is what debate has become I fear for our future. When substance is forsaken for shock value, and truth becomes a matter of if it will sell, we are truly lost. "If it bleeds it leads" has taken over political commentary, as well as the tabloids. When we have no place to turn for truth, we will accept whatever we are given as gospel. And then where will it end? When we are robotic sheep, all going towards the slaughter without questioning our fate, will we then realize the value of truth?

Entertainers are now frightened of being called a traitor, anti-American, communist, or even a socialist for expressing their views on our government, yet there is no cry of outrage, no protests or assembling of the masses. Artists are one of the purest forms of truth a society can have, and ours are now quieted from fear of their own government.

There has been a frightening trend in our society, a trend that has allowed so many to take no responsibility whatsoever for their own actions. This has allowed murderers to go free, politicians to lie to the people, and doctors to turn health care into a cash cow. It has corrupted religious leaders, business men, and the media to the point we can no longer accept what they say as truth. Instead if we want the truth, we must find as many sources as we can and then filter the information to remove any impurities. Gone are the days of accepting your local news paper's account of something as being truthful.

I could go on forever with this and still not scratch the surface. So I will end by saying; I hope for my children's sake we can start to take responsibility for ourselves soon, before truth, justice and liberty have become ideas we only read about. As the great Benjamin Franklin once wrote: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."