Are the TeaPartyers just plain old Fascists?

Are the Tea Partyers just plain old Fascists?  Well, here is the definition of Fascism, let's see where they differ.


"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy. Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum, although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality. They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism. In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety. They advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation."


When I first read this definition, I was a a bit confused, so let's break it down, and compare each point to the Tea Party movement of today, and even some of the positions of the more mainstream GOP in the past which most Tea Partyers are part of.

1. "Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems" - Certainly the GOP is clearly in the pocket of Corporate America. They show this by constantly taking the side of the corporations against the public interest. They say it all the time in their campaigns as well. Words to the effect of "I ran a company, therefore I know how to run the government better" are all over the place.
2. "Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right" - Nuff said.
3. "Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong." - I only have two words for you "Dick Cheney".  In general, this was the position of ex-President Bush and the GOP for 8 years. Any opposition to war was called "un-American", and GW Bush's idea that the US had the right to "strike preemptively" in order to protect it's interests sounds an awful lot like this part of the definition of fascism.
   
4. "Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement" - See #3, also see all of the hated and violence directed at people who don't agree with the Tea Party that's all over the news, and has been ever since the inception of the group.
5. "Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation" - Can you say "Lou Dobbs?  Seriously, anyone who looks, sounds, or acts differently from these people is attacked, both figuratively, and literally. Reference the spitting on a U.S. Congressman last Sunday.

Where the test fails is in the part where the definition says "and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.". Although I do think that the "unitary executive" theory that Dick Cheney believes in comes close. But still, I think that these people do still think that democracy is a good thing, at least as long as they are winning the elections...


So, is the Tea Party a Fascist organization? I don't think so, but it sure seems to have a lot in common with one.

Let’s pass health-care reform now!

Folks,

We are just way to close not to pass health-reform. As you probably all know, I'm a notorious Progressive, so believe me I hate some of the provisions in this bill. Among other things I think it's a huge giveaway to the health insurance industry. But what's the alternative? Should we just leave the status-quo in place? Does the idea of ever increasing premiums, more rescission when you need your health insurance, and yearly lifetime maximums that keep getting lower and lower sound appealing to anyone? Anyway, I've talked about the issues with the current system a lot already and I won't repeat all that here. Just remember this; Capitalism is Socialism for the rich and the corporations! It's time for the middle class in this country to rise up and take back all of the handouts to the rich that were put into place by the Republicans going all the way back to Regan! A great first start would be to pass this health-care reform bill and begin the process of curbing health insurance company abuses.

One of the things I hear from my conservative friends is that this bill doesn't even go into effect for 4 years. This is a place where I tend to agree with them. However, there are some things that do go into effect much sooner, and I think it's worth pointing those out here. Here's a list of things that will take effect in the first year:

1. Eliminating caps: If you buy a policy, a health care company will not be able to place a lifetime -- or annual -- cap on how much they will cover. This is will be especially important for those diagnosed with serious illnesses, such as cancer, who face steep medical bills.
   
2. Pre-existing conditions: The Senate bill includes $5 billion in immediate support to provide temporary coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. (risk pools) The money would help you until the new health care exchanges in the Senate bill are put into effect in 2014.
   
3. Children and pre-existing conditions: Another thing that's going to be very important is that there will be no exclusion of children with pre-existing conditions. This takes effect as soon as the President signs the bill.
   
4. Dependent children: Your children will be covered until the age of 26. Children who are over 21 and may not have a job that pays their health insurance can still be on your policy
   
5. Small business tax credits: Those tax credits are aimed at helping small businesses buy health insurance for their employees. Tax credits of up to 50 percent of premiums will be available to firms that offer coverage, according to the Senate's plan.
   
6. Preventive care: All new insurance plans, will be required to offer free preventive care in order to "catch preventable illnesses and diseases on the front end."
   
7. Appeals process: A new independent appeals process will be set up for those who feel that they were unfairly denied a claim by their insurance company.
   
8. Help for seniors: If you fall into the Medicare Part D Drug Benefit coverage gap, dubbed the "donut hole," you will receive $250 to help pay for prescriptions.
   

All of the above will go into effect within one year of the bill being passed. There are some really good things there, even if it doesn't go far enough. Here's a list some of the things that are in the current bill that take a bit longer to go into effect:

1. New health insurance subsidies would be provided to families of four making up to $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
   
2. Health insurance exchanges would be created to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage just like congress has today.
   
3. Total out-of-pocket expenses would be limited, and insurance companies would be prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurers would be barred from canceling coverage for sick people, as well as charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history.
   
4. Insurers would be required to provide coverage for non-dependent children up to age 26.
   
5. The Medicare prescription drug "doughnut hole" would be closed by 2020. Under current law, Medicare stops covering drug costs after a plan and beneficiary have spent more than $2,830 on prescription drugs. It starts paying again after an individual's out-of-pocket expenses exceed $4,550.
   
6. A 40 percent tax would be imposed on insurance companies providing "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would kick in in 2018.
   
7. The Medicare tax would be imposed on investment income for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000.
   
8. The federal government would assist states by picking up 100 percent of the costs of expanded Medicaid coverage between 2014 and 2016, and 90 percent starting in 2020.
   
9. Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.
   
10. Companies with more than 50 employees would be required to pay a fee of $2,000 per worker if the company does not provide coverage and any of that company's workers receives federal health care subsidies. The first 30 workers would be subtracted from the payment calculation.
    
11. States could choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the health insurance exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage from their own funds.
    
12. Illegal immigrants would not be allowed to buy health insurance in the health insurance exchanges.
    

So, can someone explain to me how any of the above is a "government takeover of health-care" as the conservatives like to scream about? All we are going is putting some reasonable regulations on the health-insurance companies, and ensuring that everyone has reasonable access to health-care insurance. The CBO report issued today also shows that this bill pays for itself, and actually reduces the deficit by 130 billion in the first 10 years.

As I've said time and again, I don't think that all of the problems we have with our health-care system are going to get solved until we remove the profit motive from the system. That means going to a single payer system and eliminating the for profit private health-care insurance companies entirely. But this bill doesn't provide for that, so I have to settle for what I can get, which is a very modest reform to the system that's better than nothing.

 

 

Is there really any difference between Republicans and Democrats?

I have noticed lately that even some of my Progressive friends are beginning to say that there is not much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats these days. This got me to thinking, is that true? Have we reached the point that, in order to get elected to anything, politicians just move to the completely vanilla "center" where there isn't really any difference between the parties?  Are we really a "center right" country, as many would have us believe?

First, I hope not. It seems to me that the "center" is a place where people don't really believe in anything substantial.  It's that vanilla center that sounds good, but is not only boring, but really doesn't get anything done. So, I suppose that based on that definition, that really is where this country is right now. But wouldn't it be great of there really were two parties that embraced two different philosophies? That the Republicans would simply admit, and campaign on, what they really believe in the heart of hearts. And that the Democrats would do the same?

In order to accomplish that the Republicans would have to admit that they simply don't believe in any kind of social safety net funded by, or controlled by, the government (that's any form of government).  that given the chance they would eliminate hateful programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, etc, etc,  That they would also eliminate nearly all government regulations on business and institute a very perverted form of Capitalism in which all profits go to the Corporations and the rich, and all of the risk is held by the tax-payer (which neither the rich no the corporation would be). In their vision for this country, we would continue to have the boom and bust cycles in the economy that we have been experiencing ever since the Conservatives have had any kind of influence over out economy. However, in their world, help for those who lose their jobs, etc during the bust cycles would be completely up to private charities. Forgetting, of course, that the donations to those charities tend to dry up at the times of most need. If you want to see what the bust times without the social safety net looks like, just read up on the Great Depression. Remember, a lot of the social safety net was put into place after the Great Depression because it became clear during the Great Depression that private charities weren't up to taking care of people on that kind of massive scale. But the Republicans don't care about any of that. The think that the unemployed just need to "get up off the lazy asses and get a job".

The Democrats, on the other hand believe strongly in the social siafty net put into place by FDR and LBJ. They believe that the part of the preamble of the Constitution "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." means that we have a solemn duty to help those who need it. That the part that talks about the "promote the general Welfare" means exactly what it says (bet you didn't know I was a strict constructionist). To that end it means that the people of this country have a right to be free from hunger, to receive basic health-care, to have shelter and clothing.  Because without those things, how can we possiblly "promote the general Welfare"?

As you can see, the two positions above have no intersection! There is no "middle ground" between these two diametrically opposing points of view.  One philosophy believes that everyone is on his own, and the other believes that we are all responsible for each other. To "move to the middle" means giving up some of your core beliefs.  How do yo do that?

I wish I had some answers, but I don't.  All I can say is that I strong believe that one of the reasons that we are where we are today in politics is this problem, and until we figure out how to solve it, we will continue to have ineffectual government at every level.

Joerg