I just wrote a blog on Victor Hanson's speculations that President Obama may not be as successful as many have thought as righteous anger springs forth from the grassroots.

I commented that,

"I think he may be a bit off, however.  There is real anxiety mounting, but Obama has a lot of charisma and a lot of support among the media and intellectual elite.  If he gets any of his reforms such as cap and trade and a vast modification of healthcare, he can get himself back on track.

Most worrying is that if he does fail, it will be due to his extreme rapidity in movement.  He probably could get a lot of this piecemeal if he proved himself a bit more patient.  This raises the question whether we are still sliding down the path of Obamaism, just a bit slower than some of us had thought.

I don't see any fundamental changes.  The battlelines of the future are being drawn and favor the young and the non-classically liberal.  Conservatives are still playing defense and will be for some time to come."

Right after that post, I came across a new Spengler piece which says the following,

"Regarding the prospects for recovery, please see “Dave’s Top 10 Reasons the Recession Will Last Forever” over at my Asia Times’ financial blog, “Inner Workings.” The number two reason is that America is entering a demographic black hole comparable to Japan’s at the start of the “lost decade.” As I wrote,

'American demographics look suspiciously like Japan’s in 1990, at the beginning of the “Lost Decade.” Japan’s elderly dependent ratio jumped from 18% to 26% over the 10 years; between 2010 and 2020, America’s will rise from 19% to 25%. In other words, a huge component of the labor force is nearing retirement. They have no savings to speak of and what they thought was their nest egg (home equity) just vaporized. Their savings requirements are bottomless. The combination of demographic and wealth shocks should produce a loop-de-loop in the “marginal propensity to save” such as we have never seen before, except, of course, in Japan.'

But the number one reason that America won’t recover is that Obama has no incentive to foster a real recovery:

Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, thought in effect, “Let’s get economic growth so I can tax it and pay for all my toys and games.” That was the “New Democrat” approach. Obama knows that if the economy crumbles and he’s the only one left with a checkbook, then everyone has to come to him. Where is the independent base of entrepreneurial business to which the Republicans might to to raise money against Obama? The banks, the hedge funds, the manufacturers, the municipalities, in fact everyone who is left standing in the economy is beholden to Obama. This is Chicago city politics writ large. Leave aside all of the individual things that Obama is doing that harm economic growth: Obama is the first American president (with the possible exception of FDR) to actually benefit from economic weakness...


Pardon the excursion into the sort of technicalities I usually relegate to the “Inner Workings” venue. But there is an important political point here: the only way to make seriously money in this market is to get in on a government handout. If you have a big balance sheet, and if the Treasury selects you as a money manager for one of its programs, and if the regulators treat you nicely, you will make money in the financial business. But woe betide anyone who gets out of the good graces of the administration.

Come 2010, from whom are Republicans going to raise funds? There aren’t any entrepreneurs out there. They are lying face up on the beaches with swollen bellies and vacant eyes. There aren’t any independent financial institutions. There’s only a long  line of prospective monopolists looking for a handout from the federal government. And the worse the economy gets, the longer the line gets. That’s the way banana republics work."

This is not "socialism", but it does strike me as a variant of "fascism."

Obviously, this does not mean that Obama is some sort of a "Nazi" any more than Bush was (despite the feverish imagination of those on the fringes of the Left).  Indeed, using this term, while I am certain controversial, should be viewed dispassionately.  Consider what "fascism" really is when not linked to "nazism" as is so often the case.

A quick perusal of the web allows one to see the key distinctions between these terms without being bogged down in academic minutiae.

From WikiAnswers,

"The central theme of Fascism is the state. The state is supreme and everything revolves around the state. The central theme of Nazism is the race. The race is the "master race" and all other races must either serve the "master race" as slaves or must be eliminated from existence."

Further distinctions can be found at http://everything2.com/title/Fascism+vs.+Nazism

"Corporatism –- medieval guilds warmed over

The Italian fascists regarded both parliamentary democracy and socialist class struggle as elements that were bound to cause divisiveness in a nation. Hence they introduced the idea of corporatism, a kind of modernised version of the medieval guild system. Here representatives of all trades and industries, employers as well as employees, could settle matters based on mutual understanding. Of course, in reality this was mostly ideological window-dressing. Mussolini was Il Duce (= The Leader) and had the last word.

In general, fascism was an appreciably lighter version of a dictatorial anti-democratic system than the mercilessly brutal Nazism. Fascist Italy never became completely totalitarian, nor did it commit mass murder on the scale of the Nazis'. The monarchy was intact and the bureaucracy, the military and the church remained as complementary power centres. Originally there was no racism in Italian fascism. Due to Hitler's influence this unfortunately changed toward the end of Mussolini's regime."

Note the key concepts of corporatism and the supremacy of the state.  Obama is not having the government run everything, but is slowly making many private enterprises dependent on government and its lagresse.  This is corporatism, ironically of a much more advanced type than anything pushed by the Bush Administration (which again was often referred to as "fascist" with certitude by the Chomskyite wing of the Liberal intelligentsia).

I suspect no few use the terminology I am, largely because the appropriate use of the term "fascism" has been erroneously linked to Hitler.  "Fascism" is a much broader term that encompasses a far greater range of political activity and regimes.  While a "Nazi" is a type of "Fascist", the reverse is not necessarily the case and usually is not.

Keep in mind the distinctions and observe closely the actions of this Administration and I believe you will see the movement in this direction. 

Obviously it is a slow movement and sold softly, largely because I believe the actors, including Obama himself, may be unaware of what he is exactly doing at the deeper level.

America is allowing this to happen due to the spiritual malaise and nihilism I often refer to in my blog.  This is actually a natural process given the fundamental focus on the transient as opposed to the permanent.  It is inevitable that government will become the guarantor of all once the "all" refuses to exercise its own discipline.  If local communities and, most importantly, families breakdown, what is left to provide service except the government? 

I return to my thoughts on Hanson's work and am far from sanguine.  Those who care should in turn take care that they remain steadfast in their legitimate opposition to the direction we are travelling, but refrain from going down the road of extreme rhetoric.  A measured, rational outlining of the indictment against our present status is the only way to succeed.  Otherwise, Nietzsche's quote,

"Everbody wants the same, everybody is the same:
whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse."

will undoubtedly become the epitaph of the "loyal" opposition.