Is the US headed towards a socialist government?

[Jester]

I see things happening around me that bother me, so I voice my opinion about them on these forums, but apparently (and thankfully), I am not the only one whom is bothered.

Here is another one for you. This little piece says that taxing people for the miles they drive instead of a flat tax on gas will help pay for bridges and roads and is inevitable. Here is a quote I found very interesting:
If Congress has indeed been toying with this idea for awhile, and it is "inevitable", then this is just another step toward what I've been talking about since the creation of this topic: Control. That is the real issue here, not neccessarily Republic vs Socialism, but who controls your life and how you live it. Do you really want a GPS notifying Congress where you are and have been at all times?

Now that is a stupid tax.

If I idle my Hummer in traffic for 2 hours, contributing to congestion and getting absolutely nowhere, I get charged ... nothing.

This does not make any sense to me, unless they want to encourage people to drive in high-congestion areas, which is about the most perverse incentive I can think of.

And that's even before getting into the issues of why the government needs to know where you're going at all times.

-Jester

[eppie]

I see things happening around me that bother me, so I voice my opinion about them on these forums, but apparently (and thankfully), I am not the only one whom is bothered.

Here is another one for you. This little piece says that taxing people for the miles they drive instead of a flat tax on gas will help pay for bridges and roads and is inevitable. Here is a quote I found very interesting:
If Congress has indeed been toying with this idea for awhile, and it is "inevitable", then this is just another step toward what I've been talking about since the creation of this topic: Control. That is the real issue here, not neccessarily Republic vs Socialism, but who controls your life and how you live it. Do you really want a GPS notifying Congress where you are and have been at all times?

Yeah that seems really idiotic. Taxing fuel is the best method. Anyway don't worry about the control part. Now with everybody using cell phones the government knows where we are all the time anyway.

Actually coming from fox news I wouldn't be surprised if that article wasn't really telling the truth. I mean nobody in such a position can be that stupid right?

[kandrathe]

Yeah that seems really idiotic. Taxing fuel is the best method. Anyway don't worry about the control part. Now with everybody using cell phones the government knows where we are all the time anyway.

Actually coming from fox news I wouldn't be surprised if that article wasn't really telling the truth. I mean nobody in such a position can be that stupid right?

No, it's true that Secretary Ray LaHood called it an idea "we should look at." Here is a CNN Story discussing the issue. The problem with moving people off gasoline (to electric or the mystic force) or reducing the use of petroleum, is they lose their funding (gas tax) for roads. Maybe the government could just implant a GPS tracking device in my butt, then they could tax me for walking between destinations as well.

[Vandiablo]

Maybe the government could just implant a GPS tracking device in my butt

Hmm, maybe they already have -- that would explain a few things. :P

[kandrathe]

Hmm, maybe they already have -- that would explain a few things. :P

I have my ring tone set to silent, but... deadly.

[Jester]

The White House has nixed the idea.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The White House has nixed the idea.

Which means he needs to get a leash on the tongues of his administration, or these flagrantly volatile ideas which suggest an emerging totalitarian state will continue to be spilled into the press further fanning the flames of insurrection.

[Jester]

Which means he needs to get a leash on the tongues of his administration, or these flagrantly volatile ideas which suggest an emerging totalitarian state will continue to be spilled into the press further fanning the flames of insurrection.

*gets out the measuring tape*

*checks the record book*

"Ladies and Gentlemen, in a stunning display of hyperbole, purple prose, and outright absurdity, Kandrathe has just set the Loungewide record for overwhelming exaggeration in a single sentence!"

-Jester

[kandrathe]

*gets out the measuring tape*

*checks the record book*

"Ladies and Gentlemen, in a stunning display of hyperbole, purple prose, and outright absurdity, Kandrathe has just set the Loungewide record for overwhelming exaggeration in a single sentence!"

Lol, I knew that would get you. :) Yes, it's a bit over the top, but you get the gist of what I'm suggesting. The American Revolution was also mostly a vehicle of written discourse that exaggerated incidents at the Brits expense. It takes a Thomas Paine to outrage a village...

[Jester]

Lol, I knew that would get you. :) Yes, it's a bit over the top, but you get the gist of what I'm suggesting. The American Revolution was also mostly a vehicle of written discourse that exaggerated incidents at the Brits expense. It takes a Thomas Paine to outrage a village...

This isn't Thomas Paine. This is the comments thread over at Little Green Footballs.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This isn't Thomas Paine. This is the comments thread over at Little Green Footballs.

Of course. We can have a little fun here, right? I stay away from sites like LGF, or Huffington because either way there is no civil discourse. Just a chorus of "yeah, you said it...". If any dissent is raised that rare voice is drowned by the collective of sycophants. Here, at least, we have differing views, but can discuss things in a civil manner or even wax poetic in excessive hyperbole.

[Jester]

Of course. We can have a little fun here, right? I stay away from sites like LGF, or Huffington because either way there is no civil discourse. Just a chorus of "yeah, you said it...". If any dissent is raised that rare voice is drowned by the collective of sycophants. Here, at least, we have differing views, but can discuss things in a civil manner or even wax poetic in excessive hyperbole.

What we "can" do is whatever the moderators let us. But that's a silly standard to use.

What I always hope for is a civil and interesting discussion of facts and ideas. If your idea is that "wax[ing] poetic in excessive hyperbole" is somehow a step towards that cause, rather than away from it, then all I can say is that I strongly disagree.

Or, in the parlance, I strongly disagree, because the consequence of your position is no less than the complete end of civilization as we know it!!!!11!!!one!

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Or, in the parlance, I strongly disagree, because the consequence of your position is no less than the complete end of civilization as we know it!!!!11!!!one!

Sell everything! Buy gold! Horde food!!!!

[kandrathe]

More to the point, I'm merely voicing my opinion on the few things I've seen and read about that make my mind go "humm", but I trust there are people in power who see the same things happening and won't let it get too far towards complete government control. I'm not trying to sound like an alarmist (Jester), just speaking my mind over the scenario my wife and I mentioned to one another months ago, one that I see slowly entering the realm of plausibility when before it was just, "hummm."

I heard a pretty lucid argument on the radio today that the US is actually on the road to becoming a fascist government. They covered Umberto Eco's, "Eternal Fascism" article comparing the US today against his fourteen points. Also, they discussed "Laurence W. Britt's -- Facism Anyone?" which was very anti-Bush administration.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime 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.

Do we have an autocratic central government? I would say we are pretty close to making State governments entirely powerless. In the latest stimulus bill, the Federal government added language that told State legislators that even if the Governor of your State refuses the federal aid, the State legislators could decide. I would say that, other than their veto power, it pretty much makes Governors irrelevant to leadership. This is quite a change from the original intent of our founders. The decline in States Rights began with the Civil War and has been degenerating slowly over time as our Federal government has become stronger and stronger through the world wars, and perpetual conflicts since. Would the governor have the power to say "no" to a federal government that wants to place federal troops in your State, or declare a federal state of emergency on your storm or riot damaged cities?

Are we moving to a single party system? Yes. More and more the "Third Way" is dominating both the Democrat and Republican parties bringing about a common platform.

Dictatorial leader is still a no. Fortunately, I still have some faith that we remain a Republic with a democratic process. Although, a two party system that mostly shares a common platform does present us with few choices for our elected leadership. The party apparatus eventually will deny true representation of the peoples will.

Are we being asked to set individual needs aside for the benefit of the State, or the common good? Absolutely, which we discussed in the other thread on communitarian ideology and the tyranny of the common good. The war on terror, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on greenhouse gases and now... the failed economy. These are all social devices meant to steer our efforts and money into "feel good" causes which may not even be winnable. Is there a war on individualism, and the rights of the individual?

Is there severe economic and social regimentation? Yes, and things are getting worse in the regard that the instruments of federal power are stepping into corporations and "fixing" things.

Is there a "forcible suppression of opposition"? Again, with the two party system conjoined I'm not sure I see any opposition (yet), although through denial of media coverage and congress entertaining further limitations on "free speech" I think this is more and more possible in the future.

Going mentally through Umberto Eco's 14 points I find;

1) cult of tradition (check)
2) rejection of modernism (check)
3) action for action's sake (super check)
4) disagreement is treason (check, "the argument is over")
5) fear of differences (not so much yet, except Muslims)
6) appeal to a frustrated middle class (Oh, yes! check)
7) obsession with overwhelming adversity (Yes, yes yes.)
8) humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies (Not so much)
9) life is permanent warfare (Yes. check)
10) elitism and contempt for the weak (minded) (Yes, check)
11) everybody is educated to become a hero (Not so much)
12) machismo of ego (emerging, but not yet)
13) selective populism (check)
14) Newspeak, and meaningless rhetoric (check)

So, 10 of 14 aspects are fully engaged to various levels with 4 of them (5, 8, 11, 12) not yet a factor in USA politics.

[Jester]

Going mentally through Umberto Eco's 14 points I find;

1) cult of tradition (check)
2) rejection of modernism (check)
3) action for action's sake (super check)
4) disagreement is treason (check, "the argument is over")
5) fear of differences (not so much yet, except Muslims)
6) appeal to a frustrated middle class (Oh, yes! check)
7) obsession with overwhelming adversity (Yes, yes yes.)
8) humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies (Not so much)
9) life is permanent warfare (Yes. check)
10) elitism and contempt for the weak (minded) (Yes, check)
11) everybody is educated to become a hero (Not so much)
12) machismo of ego (emerging, but not yet)
13) selective populism (check)
14) Newspeak, and meaningless rhetoric (check)

So, 10 of 14 aspects are fully engaged to various levels with 4 of them (5, 8, 11, 12) not yet a factor in USA politics.

Quick, panic!

No, wait. Scratch that. You're exaggerating again.

10 of the 14 aspects are "fully engaged"? The US is now entirely (like, Nazi Germany entirely) enaged in selective populism? Elitism and contempt for the weak? The country that brought us Google has descended in a few short years to total rejection of modernism? The country of Jefferson now has "fully engaged" with the idea that disagreement is treason?

Or do the "various levels" include everything above zero? (How does one "fully engage" with something that is at a low level?)

Some of these things are troubling, but the idea that they amount to imminent fascism is no more realistic than the idea that taxation plus inflation equals Leninism.

Strangely, one of the trends that is most disturbing to me, manifested in the rise of an angry populist anti-immigrant voice, a lingering and vicious anti-gay sentiment, and of course the "Obama (pronounced like alabama) is an ay-rab" crowd, is not one of the 10 you checked off. (Fear of differences.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Quick, panic!

No, wait. Scratch that. You're exaggerating again.

Not entirely. I'm relaying what I heard on the radio and making comments based on my observations.

10 of the 14 aspects are "fully engaged"? The US is now entirely (like, Nazi Germany entirely) enaged in selective populism? Elitism and contempt for the weak?

"You are either with us, or against us." Our leadership is elitist, and has abandoned trying to explain law or policy to the common citizen. When necessary, outright deception is used to sway popular political positions in line with our governments intended policies. Rather than our policies resulting from representing the populace, we move public opinion to fit the policies of the elites. Whether intentional, or not, our laws are often so complicated that even if they know, and are trying to be lawful, most people cannot consistently remain lawful.

The country that brought us Google has descended in a few short years to total rejection of modernism?

You misunderstand the use of the term. Rejection of modernism is not the rejection of technology, or science. It is the rejection of adapting to a modern age, and trying to force the traditional metaphor to work no matter what the cost. The idea is that with enough force, the government can make these bad ideas successful, even though they have failed for a lifetime of trying. In political terms, its the process of rejecting any radical change for traditional methods and groups.

The country of Jefferson now has "fully engaged" with the idea that disagreement is treason?

During the last administration, many dissenters against Bush policies had their loyalty to the USA questioned. Treason is a bit strong, but disagreement is often not allowed or open for debate and people are ostracized for having opinions contrary to the "popular" position. For example, "The debate on global warming is over." Decisions are being made to remove the ability for dissent or public debate from many areas of government. For example, the recent move to give power certain czar's carte blanc decision making authority overseeing policy implementation.

Or do the "various levels" include everything above zero? (How does one "fully engage" with something that is at a low level?)

Yes, it's a continuum. There is not a clear demarcation between "slave" and "free" in these areas unless we are suddenly all put into forced labor camps. The idea here is that we are like the frogs being slowly boiled to death without noticing the slow erosion of liberty. "Fully engaged" in the context of being on the stove at this point with varying degrees of water hotness.

Some of these things are troubling, but the idea that they amount to imminent fascism is no more realistic than the idea that taxation plus inflation equals Leninism.

The simple A+B=C is not the kind of black and white thinking I'm advocating. Eco gave warning signs, and in to what I see happening, I think we have reasons to be concerned. And, that is whether we have a Bush, a Clinton or an Obama in the White House.

Strangely, one of the trends that is most disturbing to me, manifested in the rise of an angry populist anti-immigrant voice, a lingering and vicious anti-gay sentiment, and of course the "Obama (pronounced like alabama) is an ay-rab" crowd, is not one of the 10 you checked off. (Fear of differences.)

Sure it is. Traditionalism as expressed by religious dogma. And, #5, while a concern (certainly visible concern for "Ay-rabs"), but xenophobia among other areas of society is not that visible to me. Anti-immigrant is not ethnically based (ok, some of it might be), but rather mostly focused on an economic concern over a diminishing amount of resource (schools, and other civic services). In that respect, it might also be considered "selective populism". "Up with US, and down with THEM". Mostly I see immigration issues as a power struggle in the middle between the D's and the R's for electorate. I don't care as long as every suckling pig at the trough of government, also pays their fair share in taxes. Our current course, (Robin Hood), will eventually result in us all living in Sherwood with no one left to rob. Next on the American scene, the exodus of wealth and capital from the USA. The best way to preserve wealth is to move it outside the USA, and make investments in places with the lowest taxation.

[Jester]

At those thresholds, there is no society that exists or has existed for all human history which is not in danger of Fascism. Looking at Umberto Eco's writing about the topic, it is abundantly clear he means something rather more specific than the incredibly broad sketches you are drawing.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

At those thresholds, there is no society that exists or has existed for all human history which is not in danger of Fascism. Looking at Umberto Eco's writing about the topic, it is abundantly clear he means something rather more specific than the incredibly broad sketches you are drawing.

You are thinking of the "result", rather than the process of transformation. We won't wake up tomorrow in a jack booted police state, but in due course, yes it is possible here. Also, yes, any society is in danger of becoming statist, authoritarian, and tyrannical.

[Jester]

You are thinking of the "result", rather than the process of transformation. We won't wake up tomorrow in a jack booted police state, but in due course, yes it is possible here. Also, yes, any society is in danger of becoming statist, authoritarian, and tyrannical.

If your argument is that "fascism is possible in the US because it is possible anywhere", then I agree with you.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If your argument is that "fascism is possible in the US because it is possible anywhere", then I agree with you.

Yes, but the other part is that we are closer today than we were 10, 20 or 200 years ago. Incrementally, we are surrendering the concept upon which our Constitution was founded, based on individual liberty and the assumption that the common man would look after their own problems and prosperity and the State would get the heck out of the way. The Bill of Rights was a promise by the confederation of States that these topics would never be intruded upon by the federation. Now, to look at how they are treated, you'd think that they were a boon given us by the Federal government and when extraordinary times (which seem to be quite often) roll around the central government feels they can also reel in our constitutional rights. Do you think the founders imagined a day when federal agents would whisk away a US or foreign citizens (e.g. Khalid El-Masri) in the dark of night to a prison in another country without any trace of where that person went? Rendition to black sites where prisoners are kept as "ghosts" and torture by proxy are not the kind of nation envisioned by the founders. The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by US President Bill Clinton in 1995.