January 7, 2015
There was a provocative column by Andrew O’Hehir on Salon last Saturday, entitled "The NYPD’s mini-rebellion, and the true face of American fascism."[1] He used the recent behavior of the New York Police Department and Sinclair Lewis’ dystopian novel It Can’t Happen Here as his points of departure. The novel, published in 1935, posited an authoritarian American government modeled on the German and Italian governments of the time. Although O’Hehir aptly described the story as "melodramatic . . . and . . . highly specific to its era," he thinks that "certain aspects of Lewis’ fascist America still resonate strongly," and that the New York police unions’ protest against Mayor de Blasio "carries anti-democratic undertones, and even a faint odor of right-wing coup."
He’s certainly right that many of the police officers and their union have acted irresponsibly, and that their defiance of the mayor is little short of open rebellion. He’s also correct to criticize the secrecy, spying and militarism of the national government, which he describes (with some slight exaggeration) as "a vast subterranean ‘deep state’ no one can see or control." However, I have two quarrels with his analysis.
The first is the use of the term "fascist." Apart from historical reference to Italy under Mussolini, it has no exact meaning, and attempts to define it have been unsuccessful. Using that word is like the right calling liberals communists; it creates more heat than light.
The other criticism— and I confess to some uncertainty about it — is of O’Hehir’s belief that Sinclair Lewis’ "clearest insight came in seeing that the authoritarian impulse runs strong and deep in American society . . . ." O’Hehir refers to support for the police "from ‘true patriots’ eager to take their country back from the dubious alien forces who have degraded and desecrated it." Certainly there is a great deal of rhetoric along that line. It is only sensible to worry about a government, present or future, which has too much power, which it uses badly, and which has too many secrets. I expressed a similar concern, and worried about authoritarianism, during the Bush-Cheney years. [2] However, that focus ignores the strong libertarian streak in contemporary American conservative politics. There are more on the right who wish to tear down government than those who want it to be stronger (except, of course, for the military).
However, Mr. O’Hehir certainly is correct in this observation: "We still comfort ourselves with mystical nostrums about American specialness." The constant bleating about exceptionalism distorts history and ignores present sins and failures. He’s also on target with this description of views on the right: "[T]hese worldviews rest on the idea that America is not defined by its democratic institutions, but by a mystical or spiritual essence that cannot be precisely described — but is understood far better by some of its citizens than by others."
The last, I think, defines the current right-wing position. It is an attitude, not a philosophy.
______________________
2. See my note of January 7, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment