Sunday, January 24, 2010

Mental wanderings at 3:00 am

I didn't sleep very well last night, which was annoying because I had to get up early this morning to run though a bell solo with the church pianist before the service. During the times I was awake I thought a lot about what I wrote yesterday on the Supremes granting unlimited political speech to corporations. The consequences were quite unsettling, especially since I'm a member of a group that is likely targeted.

Since this sounds like the way fascism develops in a country (which I've written about before, mostly last August and September) here is a reminder of the description. See my earlier writing for references and a more complete description.

The whole process begins when the conservative political party, backed by business interests, develops a belief that it has the right to rule, yet, because its message has become extreme, it loses at the ballot box and sees no way back into power. Yes, liberals might develop the same belief, but the outcome is called communism, not fascism. This party concludes that democracy is a hindrance, not an ideal to uphold. We've seen the modern GOP do some highly undemocratic things over the last few decades.

The second part of the process is a disaffected working class, whose social contract has been broken -- they no longer see the ability work towards a better life. The social contract is dismantled by the conservative party, yet that same party is able to harness the anger of the working class and convince it that democracy itself is the problem. Along the way there is lots of talk of victimization and the need for national purity. Sound familiar yet? These hopeless workers become the thugs that intimidate the rest of society in an attempt to clean out the impurities, whatever is causing the working class to stagnate or lose ground. The recently formed Tea Party movement appears to fit this role quite well.

If the home-grown terror escalates far enough these two groups are able to convince enough others to abandon the constitution.

That scenario now appears to be interrupted, but not in a way that leads back to democracy. The conservatives, through business, have been handed a way back to power. This route may not exactly eliminate the progressive party, but might make the two parties indistinguishable (they're not?). The path to power may bypass the need for working class thugs to enforce compliance. Even so, there will be an appeal to the working class simply to get the votes and the poor will be agitated with the loss of the safety net. We may not get full fascism, complete with demands for ideological and racial purity. But the corporatocracy we get won't be democracy, either.

If we're headed towards fascism I'm convinced gays will be a target for purification. If we're merely headed toward corporate control of government then gays might be valued for their creativity.

But that leaves some questions running through my mind. How long will this take to develop? How much lead time will we have between the time we know gays will be a target and the time they come knocking? Toronto has possibilities, but Vancouver and Melbourne sound more appealing. How much time will I have to get my affairs in order and will I be able to shift my retirement accounts out of the control of a US management company without losing a huge chunk to taxes? A lot to think about at 3:00 am.

Back in August, while I was discussing fascism, I was guided to this poem by Martin Niemoeller:

When the Nazis came for the communists, I said nothing;
I was, of course, no communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing;
I was, of course, no Social Democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I said nothing;
I was, of course, no trade unionist.
When they came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

Another thought at 3:00 am.: If Niemoeller had protested to the Nazis about the disappearance of communists and unionists, it seems to me the Nazis would have hauled him away then, rather than saving him for later. Would Niemoeller have gained anything with his protest? Even if quite a few others protested with him would it have made a difference?

Yes, there is a reason for me to make those points. I like to think I'd stand up for the little guy. But if America turns seriously thuggish is there any reason for me to stick around?

No comments:

Post a Comment