During my freshman year in college, my professor for “Political Ideologies” class made a pretty bold claim: “In the next fifty years,” he intoned, “we will see the rise of a major fascist movement in the United States.” It’s not as outlandish as it sounds.

Usually, I am opposed to the use of the word fascism, because, as George Orwell notes, the term has such a nebulous meaning. Fascism is used synonymously with “big government,” “repression,” etc. I was chagrined to no end when the right compared Obama to Hitler in 2008 and onward. But what fascism means in this context is a virulently racist, pro-corporate, and violent right-wing extremism. And I believe that the recent right-wing violence against perceived national enemies is a prelude to this kind of ideology.

Ideology is a result of crisis, political scientists Terence Ball and Richard Dagger tell us. In Germany and Italy, this crisis came in the form of a loss, and tepid victory, respectively, in the First World War. The loss of national fortunes called for a rebirth and revitalization. This regeneration first took the form of lashing out against those the far-right in Germany and Italy considered responsible for republican decadence: socialists, communists, pacifists, Jews, democrats of all stripes. In Germany, during the failed communist revolution of 1918, far-right militias called freikorps “roamed the countryside, killing with impunity”.

What is our crisis? Certainly the crisis of 2008 qualifies. And who are our freikorps, our street-fighters? We are seeing their rise as a reaction to social justice movements like Black Lives Matter. In the past several days alone, we’ve seen five people shot by white supremacists at a Minneapolis BLM protest, and a black man beaten up at a Donald Trump rally, with Trump saying maybe he “should have been roughed up.” The recent Planned Parenthood shooting also embodies this violent response to “national enemies.” If this isn’t freikorps-esque street fighting, I don’t know what is.

I do not know if American imperial fortunes are in decline, but this truism is held by a large chunk of the population. Our fears are manifold: ISIS and Islamic extremism; the fact that white people will be a minority in the USA by 2042; the challenges to “traditional” or “Judeo-Christian” inherent in issues like Planned Parenthood support and homosexual marriage. With this fear, and sense of decline, we may face a reactionary ruling class ready to “circle the wagons” by curbing republican freedoms. We can counter this tendency by standing for free speech, pluralism, law and order, and social justice, along with other classical liberal ideas. If conservatives actually believe in these things, if their bluster on “freedom” isn’t just lip service, then they will stand with us.

The post Recent right-wing violence reeks of proto-Fascism appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The right-wing Obama hate squad called me today. A very excited roboman informed me that he was calling on behalf of the Conservative Majority. “If the thought of another four years of Obama makes you cringe, you need to hear this message,” he said. Why?  Because “President Obama has an immediate plan to release terrorists from Guantanamo prison, to overturn the 2nd Amendment, and to allow the United Nations to tax Americans. These plans are flat-out unconstitutional. Our only choice is to impeach Barack Obama. We believe that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors–not to mention the fact that he may not even be an American citizen. The Conservative Majority is the most powerful conservative lobby in America. If you want to more know about the Conservative Majority’s plans to impeach Barack Hussein Obama now,press 1 now.”

In case you’re interested, the number that appeared on caller ID when this call came in was 202-810-0485. I called it. It’s the Conservative Majority Fund, and the recorded message describes the group as a “political action group whose  purpose is to expose Barack Obama and his mysterious past.” It was founded in 2012, as “the most aggressive organization advocating for the defeat of Barack Obama through investigative research and tv advertising.”

So, how’d that defeat-y thing work out for ya?

This is why I keep a pad of paper and a pen next to all phones in my house. I take notes, so you don’t have to. But, geez: These people never stop, do they?

The post Robocall says: “Impeach Obama” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Right winger Martin Gheen has called for  violent overthrow of the American Government as a solution for those who disagree with President Obama’s policies. In a radio interview with host Janet Mefferd, Gheen stated that his group (Americans For Legal Immigration PAC) had begun to refer to the President as Dictator Obama and that “extra-political activities” that were “illegal and violent” appeared to be the only viable option.

Mefferd failed to call Gheen on his statements and allowed them to pass as normal, despite describing her show as “taking a Christ-centered look at news and events of the day” on her bio page.  She later claimed not to think that much about the comment at the time – an interesting commentary on the state of national discourse.

Gheen apparently attempted to walk back his statements after a bit of a hue and cry, but his revised statement seemed to consist of blaming the President for “forcing people to violent and illegal means.” In an appearance on Alan Colmes’ show, Gheen denied that he had used the language “illegal and violent,” until Colmes played the audio, which Gheen tried to get around by claiming he was not “personally endorsing” violent behavior because he is not that kind of guy.

Perhaps Gheen’s most disturbing assertion during his interview was the possibility of a military coup. The implication is that the right wing has connections in the military that would be willing to contemplate making America into something very different than most of us ever thought possible. Of course, the fact that Gheen talks about a military coup does not mean that one is really possible, but it is instructive to know what is aspired to by those who oppose democracy when things don’t go their way.

The statements are part of a pattern for the right wing in America. After the horrible tragedy for the Giffords and others killed in Arizona, leaders of both left and right piously declared that the rhetoric should be toned down. We all remember how both sides of the political divide decided to sit together, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. OK, they skipped the hand holding, because that would have looked silly on TV, but there did seem to be an implicit acknowledgement that hateful rhetoric, with sniper targets on maps, calling people socialists, etc. may have been a tad too much.

Anyone familiar with the history of right wing hate speech followed by action knows that any letup in these tactics was purely temporary. Anders Breivik is known to have been a fan of several American Islamophobic bloggers such as Pamella Geller.  On other issues it is hard to nail down Mr. Breivik’s beliefs or attachments, with each side eager to add him to the other’s column. The point is that he was likely influenced/encouraged to act violently due to the hate speech that he sought out and found fairly easily.

A frequent defense of the right states that “no reasonable person could interpret what I said as inciting violence.” It is not reasonable people that we have to worry about. Congressman Gifford does not appear to have been shot by a “reasonable” person either. When people publicly call their political opponents names that inspire fear and loathing in the general public, those on the edge are moved to take action that they may previously have been sitting on.

An interesting look at how pervasive this problem is can be seen on this interactive map that represents right-wing violence over a few months in 2010. As we get closer to the elections, we are likely to encounter more of the same types of bizarre accusations and calls to action that can and have led to violence.

Certainly, there are concerns about infringing on people’s rights to free speech, but as has been said in the past, there is no right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. As Human Rights First recommends, we can call out such speech for what it is and make sure that the message is spread that it is uncalled for, extremist, and not in the best interests of the nation or our communities.

The post Right wingers call for violent overthrow: Nothing new appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Congress makes it to the daily news but highly influential school boards often fly under the radar. When right wing board members gain a majority, they have been known to force their radical ideas on their unsuspecting communities. Who can forget the introduction of fundamentalist Christian inspired “creationism” into science curriculums?  The most recent example is the Texas School Board’s attempt to insert right wing ideology into its social studies curriculum. A final vote, preceded by another public hearing and another chance to offer amendments, is scheduled for May. Unfortunately, at this time, the makeup of the board almost insures the passage of the right wing amendments and additions to the curriculum. This is an outrage for Texans who may be stuck with this curriculum for a decade. And, because Texas is a big client of text book publishers, the decisions made by its school board could influence curriculum for the whole country.

According the the New York Times:

Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 100 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a panel of teachers.

“We are adding balance,” said Dr. Don McLeroy, the leader of the conservative faction on the board, after the vote. “History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left.”

Battles over what to put in science and history books have taken place for years in the 20 states where state boards must adopt textbooks, most notably in California and Texas. But rarely in recent history has a group of conservative board members left such a mark on a social studies curriculum.

Think Progress has some of the changes passed by the board;

• The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”
• The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
• The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”

About the removal of Thomas Jefferson, According to the New York Times:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

Perhaps the fact that Jefferson was a Deist did not fit with Dunbar’s fantasy that the country was founded on Christian biblical principles? Other issues: the board refused a teacher’s request to add more Hispanic historical figures and role models to the textbooks. As of July 1, 2008 there were 46.9 million Hispanics in the United States, and a full 25% of children younger than 5 were Hispanic. The state of  Texas has a huge and growing Hispanic population. Yet, the message this school board seems to want to send its children is that the United States is a white Christian nation, for white Christian people. In addition, the Board is watering down instruction on the Civil Rights movement while elevating the study of conservative “heros.” For example, history students have to “Describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association.”

TPMMuckraker has complete coverage of this debacle dating back to September of last year. Additional information can be found at Texas Freedom Network.

The post Texas school board removes Jefferson from curriculum appeared first on Occasional Planet.