Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious.

 

Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

 

Examples of such patriotic zeal may be found in the ever-present yellow ribbons showing support for U.S. troops to the plethora of American flags and bunting at large public events such as the Super Bowl.
 

 

Disdain for the importance of human rights
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted.

 

When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation. In November 2007, former federal judge Michael B. Mukasey was sworn in as attorney general of the United States, despite contentious confirmation hearings focused on the issue of torturing prisoners.

 

He replaced Alberto R. Gonzales, who was criticized for his part in crafting the Bush administration’s secretive legal arguments permitting the torture of suspects.

 

Mukasey, who served eighteen years as judge of U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York, presided over the trials of Omar Abdel Rahman and El Sayyid Nosair, the convicted bombers of the World Trade Center in 1993; the trial of José Padilla, the man declared an “enemy combatant” by President Bush and the only person convicted in connection with the 9/11 attacks; and the lawsuits between World Trade Center leaser Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies over damages stemming from the 9/11 attacks.
 

Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice - relentless propaganda and disinformation - were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly. Examples of such tactics can be heard from the mouths of those who constantly use racial slurs. Afghanistan’s former “freedom fighters” have semantically changed into “insurgents” then into “al-Qaeda terrorists” in the news columns, while such epitaphs as “rag head” and “sand nigger” are commonly used in the general population.
 

 

The supremacy of the military and avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

 

The U.S. military budget for many years has consumed the bulk of the national spending. President Bush’s 2008 budget provides $439.3 billion for the Department of Defense’s base budget - a 7 percent increase over 2006 and a whopping 48 percent increase over 2001. This figure does not include military-related expenditure such as nuclear weapons research or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Neither does it count trust funds, anticipated costs of Social Security, and Veterans Administration costs of services to veterans.

 

“The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human-needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller,” according to literature from the War Resisters League (WRL), an antiwar organization founded in 1923.

By totaling all government figures relating to the military, the WRL estimated that more than half (51 percent) of all federal spending goes to the military.
 

 

Rampant sexism
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male- dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

 

This practice is less prevalent in the United States today, although many women still find it difficult to break through what has been termed the “glass ceiling,” in which they can see higher positions in the workplace but never seem to get there. Modern America also differs from Nazi Germany and other cultures in that women are beginning to fill the corporate chairs formerly held by men.

 

Many seem agreeable to advancing fascist and globalist philosophy.
 

A controlled mass media
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats.

 

The leaders of the mass media were oft en politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually successful in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses. As previously detailed, the American corporate mass media today is essentially in the hands of six giant multinational communications corporations.

 

The owners of these corporations are proponents of “free trade” in business policies, yet coverage of alternative news and views is mostly ignored.

 

“One of our best-kept secrets is the degree to which a handful of huge corporations control the flow of information in the United States. Whether it is television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, or the Internet, a few giant conglomerates are determining what we see, hear, and read. And the situation is likely to become much worse as a result of radical deregulation efforts by the Bush administration and some horrendous court decisions,” warned Congressman Bernie Sanders, adding, “This is an issue that Congress can no longer ignore.”
 

Obsession with national security
Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was labeled unpatriotic or even treasonous.

 

While all Americans should be concerned about national security, many see it as a pretext to strip away constitutional rights.

 

Thoughtful persons also worry about a man like Michael Chertoff, son of a Jewish rabbi, who has been accused of having dual citizenship (American and Israeli) and was a major architect of Bush administration policies, being named secretary of the Homeland Security Department.

 

Religion and ruling elite tied together
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion.

 

The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

 

Earlier in this work, the obvious parallels have been drawn between the use of religion in Nazi Germany and modern America to support government policies.
 

 

Power of corporations protected
Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states) but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

 

According to the Federalism Project of the American Enterprise Institute, a group that conducts and sponsors original research on American federalism,

 

“Consumer advocates, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and state officials argue that broad federal preemption claims - often by federal regulatory agencies, without a clear congressional mandate - interfere with the states’ historic role in protecting citizens against corporate misconduct. Corporations and federal agencies respond that preemption is often the only viable safeguard against unwarranted state interferences with the national economy.”

In a 2006 article in the Los Angeles Times, Alan C. Miller and Myron Levin noted how a series of steps by federal agencies were meant to “shield leading industries from state regulation and civil lawsuits on the grounds that they conflict with federal authority.”
 

Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass that was viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

 

As previously noted, antilabor actions of the Bush administration prompted Jack Heyman, an official of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, to state that,

 

“Bush is effectively declaring war on the working class here.”

Those with long memories know that labor news has largely dropped from the mainstream media’s radar screen.
 

 

Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
Intellectuals, and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them, were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled, politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed.

 

To these regimes, art and literature had to serve the national interest or they had no right to exist. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, many conservative groups on college campuses denounced academic freedom, according to a report by John K. Wilson, coordinator of the Independent Press Association’s Campus Journalism Project.

 

Other academics were fired or reprimanded for merely speaking out on the issues of war or questioning the official story of 9/11.
 

 

Obsession with crime and punishment
Most of these regimes maintained draconian systems of criminal justice, with huge prison populations. The police were oft en glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime.

 

Fear and hatred of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power. The United States today has a higher incarcerated population than all Europe an jails combined, and in certain areas, such as Washington, D.C., police presence is at an all-time high.

 

One visitor to Washington in the summer of 2007 asked a police officer why there were so many cops around.

 

He replied,

 

“People would rather have security than freedom.”

 

Rampant cronyism and corruption
Those in business circles and close to the power elite oft en used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways: the power elite would receive financial gift s and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources.

 

With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

 

The cronyism and outright nepotism of the Bush administration has been well documented. Elizabeth Cheney, the vice president’s daughter, was named as a deputy secretary of state in late February 2002, and within about a week, her husband, Philip Perry, became chief counsel for the Office of Management and Budget, where he joined director Mitchell Daniels, whose sister Deborah is an assistant attorney general.

 

“That’s just the beginning,” noted Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank. “Among Deborah Daniels’ colleagues at Justice is young Chuck James, whose mother, Kay Coles James, is the director of the Office of Personnel Management, and whose father, Charles Sr., is a top Labor Department official.

 

Charles James Sr.’s boss, Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, knows about having family members in government: Her husband is [Kentucky] Sen. Mitch McConnell and her department’s top lawyer, Labor Solicitor Eugene Scalia, is the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. . . . Ken Mehlman, the White House political director, regularly calls his younger brother Bruce, an assistant commerce secretary, to get his input.”

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell is the father of Michael Powell, who chaired the Federal Communications Commission. An informal survey of 415 historians conducted by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten, or 81 percent, of the responding historians rated Bush’s presidency as an overall failure.

 

One respondent to the survey wrote that Bush “ranks with U. S. Grant as the worst. His oil interests and Cheney’s corporate Halliburton contracts smack of the same corruption found under Grant.”

Central to this belief were the numerous Bush administration scandals, including:

• the deceit that preceded the invasion of Iraq

• the Abu Ghraib mistreatment of prisoners

• pre-9/11 intelligence failures

• the $2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon, announced by Donald Rumsfeld the day before 9/11

• the mishandling of the Katrina disaster, which resulted in the resignation of Bush’s appointee Michael D. Brown as director of FEMA

• Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan that shifted 6.2 million low-income seniors whose medications had been covered by Medicare over to private insurers

• the non-competition government contracts to Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s former employer

• the substitution of political ideals for science

In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement blasting the administration’s politicization of science. Ultimately, this statement was signed by 4,062 scientists, including 51 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 195 members of the National Academies.

 

Buzzflash.com, which styles itself as marketplace for progressives, after listing several debacles and scandals of the Bush administration, said it operated in a “culture of cronyism and corruption.”
 

 

Fraudulent elections
Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would, as a rule, be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result.

 

Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Americans are well aware of the controversies concerning the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. George W. Bush’s first term was decided by the Supreme Court, not the voters. And it was just as bad in 2004.

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., writing in Rolling Stone magazine, stated,

 

“Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted - enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.”

Controversy over both elections continues today and in 2008 charges of vote fraud were already being voiced in the state primary elections, primarily over computer voting machines.