General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Get One Thing Clear: NSA Domestic Spy Op Is FASCISM [View all]phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Fascism is defined as:
1 : often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) 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
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality J. W. Aldridge>
The NSA programs has nothing to do with exalting "nation or race" above individuals.
We don't have a government headed by a dictatorial leader (if Obama was a dictator, someone should let Congress know).
There is no "severe economic and social regimentation" being enforced in this country.
And there certainly is no "forcible suppression of opposition". If that were the case both Fox and MSNBC would have been shut down by one administration or another. There would be no Tea Party or Code Pink. I don't even think DU would be allowed to exist.
Furthermore, these programs exist because Congress created the allowance for them to exist... Congress that the American people elected. I don't care if you are talking about Alan Grayson, Louie Gohmert, Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Al Franken or John McCain... they were all elected by the American people and are subject to being unelected just as well. If the American people want to elect a Congress that will gut the NSA programs, we have the power to do it. We probably won't, but we can. Likewise, the Congress we currently have elected have the power to gut those programs.
I believe the NSA programs go too far. I believe we DO need a certain amount of national security surveillance, but I believe it needs to be miles more narrow than it is and should be done on a case by case basis. Perhaps we require private companies to keep communication records for a certain length of time and then only get at certain pieces of it pertaining to suspects via a court order or something along those lines.
Regardless of that, one can disagree with the nature of our current surveillance programs without utterly destroying their own argument by engaging in hyperbole and hyper-exaggerated labeling of these programs. When you use the word "fascism" to describe something that comes nowhere near meeting the criteria for what fascism is, you don't help move the conversation along, you just make your argument look stupid.