How Fascists Take Your Country
Things That Matter, By Dennis Rizzo
“First, we kill all the lawyers.” – (Shakespeare, Henry VI-Pt2). Cade, a pretender to the throne, hopes to destabilize the existing social order, and the line serves as a tongue-in-cheek recognition that lawyers, by upholding the law and administering justice, are impediments to anarchy. By hobbling the legal system, he is able to create and define anarchy and other threats to the population to fit his agenda. He is also able to punish critics.
Italian dictator Benito Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to characterize the new fascist state of Italy, which he further described as all within the state, none outside the state, none against the state. By the beginning of World War II, totalitarian had become synonymous with absolute and oppressive single-party government.
There is a pattern. Whether we call them fascists, authoritarians, despots, or dictators, there is a pattern for how they co-opt entire populations. History – if we read it – tells us despots are a product of crisis, real or imagined. Of course there are pre-existing conditions that will be exploited. Among those are generally precarious or unstable employment, perceived or real grievances, media complacency, and fear of real or pending changes in status. Despots know how to stage and manipulate these conditions.
The Greeks called them tyrants – influential opportunists who came to power by securing the support of different factions of a deme [population]. The word ‘tyranny’ referred to anyone, good or bad, who obtained executive power in a polis by unconventional means.
Support for the tyrants came especially from the growing middle class and from the peasants who had no land or were in debt to the wealthy landowners. The Greek tyrants stayed in power by using mercenary soldiers from outside of their respective city-state.
Despots thrive in ultra-conservative environments. They know how to play to these bases and to manipulate them. In most respects we can view authoritarian governments as ultra-conservative in nature.
Extreme Liberal governments are generally not totalitarian, despite the feeling of some that they are limiting personal freedoms. Libertarian governments are almost non-governments, and we can ignore that for now.
- Ultraconservative ideologies are extreme political beliefs that advocate for a return to traditional values, strict adherence to a conservative interpretation of the law, and often a resistance to social change; often advocate for strict immigration controls, believing that national identity should be preserved against perceived external threats.
- … may promote religious values in governance, seeking to align laws and policies with particular moral or religious standards.
- … frequently resist social changes related to gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and multiculturalism and are often skeptical of climate change policies, favoring economic growth over environmental regulations.
- In electoral politics, ultraconservative factions can influence major parties by pushing them further right on social and economic issues.
History – if we read it – tells us despots are a product of crisis – real or imagined. Of course if there is no crisis, perhaps one is created just for the occasion. This applies to Left or Right despots – there is little difference. The total control permeating authoritarian regimes acts against any opportunity for individual initiative or change not endorsed by the charismatic leader. Finally, when fully incorporated into the beliefs of the base supporters, there can be no tolerance for any challenge to what we might call Truth du Jour – the convenient information fed through controlled media.
In the 1920s and 30s, the post war economy of Germany failed. The evolution to ultra-nationalism that would establish the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSPAD) as the sole party to govern post-Depression German began as a trickle of local party clubs. Several right-wing and left-wing parties were jockeying for power.
Local and regional leaders attempted to address issues of concern, such as food insecurity, housing shortages, lack of well-paying work (or any work), a sense of hopelessness and self-recrimination fed by some religious organizations, and the retributions of the Versailles Treaty. Unemployment, lack of housing, feelings of disempowerment, lack of faith in the democratic process, all contributed to fertile ground for radical elements. The population was looking for leadership and there was only chaos. A strong, people’s (populist) government looked great.
Leaders in the NSPAD took the stage. Stacking the courts (killing the lawyers figuratively), applying remote and restrictive laws, sending Brown Shirts to monitor polling stations, and promising to make Germany great again got them representation in a minority government. Through a gradual introduction of intimidation at the polls, the union halls, the arts and sciences, and government offices, they were able to become the leading party by 1933. The stage had been set and within six months, democratic Germany had become a totalitarian regime.
Once in power they proceeded to exercise micro-controls. Offices were changed; leadership and experienced managers were replaced with loyal followers; science and education funding was reallocated to police and military; regulations prohibiting certain citizens from working were put in place; allegiance to the leader was paramount.
In general, all people who were independent or who stuck to their own opinions were roughly handled or put to the side when the time came for favors. You could be boycotted; you could be driven out of business. These things were noticed by most people, who learned from the fate of others. It was pure force applied to politics and the Nazis got anything they wanted. [Allen – The Nazi Seizure of Power]
The important thing to remember about how the NSPAD took control is there was no COUP. Instead there was a slow, steady series of …quasi-legal actions, threats, imprisonment for bogus crimes against the state, retaliatory action against opponents. It was not so much that criticizing the government was dangerous – not yet. At first it was fear of losing your job, then it was fear for your life. [Allen]
Stoking anger has long been an effective tool of political parties and politicians on the left and right to spur supporters to action, from registering to vote to making a campaign contribution. How strongly a person reacts emotionally to events in general, as well as his or her ability, or lack thereof, to regulate those emotions, is also a predictor of whether a person is willing to take extreme political action. [Harvard Gazette]
So when we look at factors presenting in the United States, we see many, many parallels. It’s likely that the DOGE efforts were not so much about saving money as about replacing experienced managers with those who would adhere to the leader, not the Constitution; it’s just a theory, though it fits the pattern. Suing media that report badly on the leader, and forcing the cancellation of opposing views through intimidation or extortionist lawsuits also sounds familiar.
We see the rise of similar thoughts and actions among the neo- and ultra-conservatives in Canada. The narrative is the same – point fingers of blame, refuse to accept rules you don’t like, slogans instead of coherent policy, stoking fear of outsiders.
History has taught White males to unconsciously accept the first place in line, the best jobs, and more pay than non-whites or women as the natural order. I know – I am one. This has changed, and they don’t like it. A similar scenario occurred in pre-war Germany, and the base for many of the neo-conservative groups today is young, white males.
Uncertainty and instability foster fear. Fear generates an environment looking for scapegoats.
If you can’t make your monthly bills it must be because immigrants took your job. If you don’t make enough to cover expenses, it must be the government’s fault. If taxes are too high, we should cut tax rates for business, or they won’t create jobs.
Why hasn’t business created jobs? Must be those immigrants again.
Why is my paycheck not covering my bills? Must be because that woman got the manager’s job that was mine.
Why do I need to go to the food bank? Must be those druggies sucking up my taxes or the government wasting my money on stupid things like health care, education, and school lunches.
For the NSPAD, scapegoats were first the Communists – the Bolsheviks. They supposedly burned the capital building {Reichstag]. All of their clubs had to be eliminated to make your family safe. Then it was the disabled and destitute – a drain on a productive modern society. Then, when we run out of natural enemies, we create one – the Jews and Gypsies. Finally, there was no one left to fight back – though there was a German resistance.
So what does this portend for Canada?
Charlie Angus sums it up nicely: Interregnum — a term from the Roman Empire that describes the period between two rulers. In that in-between, all things became possible — the possibility for change and the possibility for vicious violence. The interregnum was a frightening time because the Roman Empire had no credible plan for the transition of power. When one Caesar died, the successor was the one who emerged from the violence and intimidation of various competing factions.
Democracy has endured as a system because it is based on a framework that ensures non-violent succession from one elected ruler to the next. Vladimir Putin blew this up in Russia. Donald Trump has followed Putin like a north star.
Are we watching the party of Pierre heading the same way? We cannot allow the radicals on either end of the political spectrum to subvert our democracy for their own gain. Let’s remember this at the polls. Germans thought they were getting a great, liberal leader. Joke was on them.
(Images Supplied)
Dennis Rizzo joins SUNonline/Orillia as a columnist writing on big issues affecting ordinary Orillians. He is an ex-pat Yank from New Jersey. Orillia, Ontario. Canada is his adopted home, but he has brought along a degree of puckishness and hubris. Dennis spent more than 30 years working in the field of disabilities, with some side trips to marketing and management. He presented and keynoted for many conferences and served on a President’s advisory committee. Dennis is the author of several journal articles and booklets in the field of disabilities and work and five non-fiction books, including “A Brief History of Orillia – Ontario’s Sunshine City.” He recently republished a novel set in 1776 and a mystery set in 1860. He also enjoys sitting in on music sessions around town when he can.
