by Dacia Nichol

In the United States, the concepts of communism, socialism, and fascism have been labeled at some point in the past as being “un-American” in nature, and therefore to be avoided based on a variety of negative repercussions that would evolve were any of those concepts to be embraced here. Since all do indeed have similar underlying methods or principles which make them appear to be the same, it is the specific differences among them that will warrant objections from a proponent of legislative initiatives that may seem to fit one or all of these categories. For instance, when a policy is claimed to be socialistic, the general argument is not over whether the policy is practical or good for America, but whether it is fair to label it “socialist”. When the term “communist” is thrown around to describe the general direction a new initiative is taking the country, proponents mock the opponent, belittling their lack of in-depth philosophical knowledge of Marxism - effectively concluding that they cannot label an initiative in such a way without fully understanding it (despite their clear ignorance of the roots of American liberty...). Fascism? Why, that’s irresponsible and hateful. Never mind if it’s true.

So in sum, when presented with a controversial idea (one that conservatives or liberals are screaming about), the casual political observer might just ask themselves: Is it socialism, communism, or fascism? The answer being: Well...it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.  [Ha ha. I made a funny.]

A lot of spin, bluff, and skepticism are put off by supporters of programs wherein the size of government is vastly expanded. They scoff at the notion that such extreme comparisons are unnecessary and fear-mongering in nature. To be clear on what this entails, they might claim that pointing out similarities between Adolf Hitler’s economic ideas and that of the current president are irresponsible, or laugh off the notion that the results of similar trials of a certain idea in every other country should be taken into account since, as America, we are likely to have different outcomes. NOTE: Do not confuse the use of that argument in an opposite nature to justify a point that they in fact agree with.

For the innocent victim of the propaganda involved in pushing fourth these ideas, the supporter only views the promise of success of the program - which in their eyes should be a positive thing. Therefore, they subconsciously separate the patterns involved in that program from the patterns involved in programs under ideologies considered “bad”. For example, a supporter of an expanded state-funded children’s healthcare program will not see the consequences of a larger government role in their life (higher taxes and/or insurance premiums to cover the costs of the program), the absurdity behind the idea of providing socialized medicine at tax-payer expense to citizens who can afford private care (as in the recent S-CHIP expansion to families making over $75,000 p/year), nor will they see the backend legislative pork-barrel crumbs being added in the name of “compromise” to get the bill passed. They just see the picture of the sad little girl in a hospital bed or Her Highness the Evil Empress of the House hugging a disabled young boy in a wheelchair - hey, it’s for the children.

This typified behavior of government combined with the citizens’ lack of unrest over it (i.e., “it’s just business as usual”), are classic steps found in the build up to a great many oppressive regimes in history. This cycle will continue until the people lose their liberty and all sense of true freedom.

More on this another day...