Political leanings defined reveal a lot

Recently, a discussion with a close friend led to a dive for the dictionary that lives on my desk at home. The debate centered on a quote I came across, which was this:

“‘Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.’ – Benito Mussolini”

Powerful stuff, coming from someone who presumably understood fascism

Typically, as political discussions between friends have a tendency to do (particularly on a Friday night over a bottle of wine), the discussion named names, wandered and broke into quite a few off-topic rants. But I’m not going to name names or break into any rants here, though I don’t really blame anyone who does these days. It’s a confusing world out there, after all.

The first word I looked up was “terrorism.” (In copying the definitions, I changed nothing, they are typed exactly as they appear in my well-worn copy of Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition, published 1966.)

ter-ror-ism (ter’er-iz’m), n. [Fr. terrorisme], 1. A terrorizing; use of terror and violence to intimidate, subjugate, etc., especially as a political weapon or policy. 2. Intimidation and subjugation produced in this way.

I find it particularly interesting that the definition does not specify or limit what sort of organization would be engaged in terrorism. Specifically, states, governments, and military organizations are not at all discluded. In fact, the word “policy” suggests they are definitely included.

Anyhow, that was not the only interesting tidbit. Then there was this:

fas-cism (fash’iz’m), n. [It. Fascismo: fascio, politcial group organization, club< L. Fascis: see FASCES], 1. [F-] The doctirnes, methods, or movement of the Fascisti. 2. [sometimes F-], a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition (unions, other, especially leftist, parties, minority groups, etc.), the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc., first instituted in Italy in 1922. 3. a) the political philosophy and movement based on such doctrines and policies. b) fascist behavior. See also Nazism.

The second definition, the one for “generic” fascism, I find particularly interesting. I think it’s worth reading several times, in fact. Consider the right-leaning swing the Supreme Court has recently taken combined with a multi-term executive and legislative right-wing majority, the decline of unions and worker’s rights as well as wage erosion, privitization of government services, lobbying scandals that painfully remind us exactly how entwined our government has become with the whims of big business, recent and ongoing presidential comments regarding the current multiple overseas situations (did you forget the troops in Afghanistan?), the Katrina fiasco, the wiretapping of American citizens and surveillance of clearly nonviolent opposition groups (such as the Quakers). Now read definition number two one more time....

“Corporatism” was, alas, not to be found in my Webster’s, but there was this gem:

corporative (or corporate) state, a government, as theoretically in Italy under Fascism (1924-1943), in which political and economic power is vested in an organization of corporations

Would that be, perhaps like the relationship of Halliburton and it’s subsidiaries seem to have with the current administration?

Or perhaps the relationship between the executive branch’s private financial oil interests and the record-breaking oil profits the big oil companies have reaped recently?

But still determined to find ‘corporatism’, I turned to a more modern reference device on my desk: the Internet. An article entitled “Corporatism” on Wikipedia.org was rather interesting.

“Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process,” one key paragraph reads.

Another Wikipedia article, “Neo-fascism”, had other interesting things to say:

“Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state, or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it,” the article reads. It goes on to say that fascism is is typified by “Totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic” and that the “state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production.... (fascism) demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.”

This sounds eerily familiar, but it doesn’t bear much resemblance to the America I imagine most of us would like to think we live in.

Turning back to Webster’s, I looked for a happier word, one that might be closer to the ideal this country was founded on—government by the people, for the people. A people who no longer accept being lied to, who demand integrity and accountability from their elected officials and will not stand by while attacks on their Constitutional rights erode their quality of life, liberty and pursuit of the American dream.

That word is:

impeach (im-peech’), v.t.[ME. Empechen; OFr. Empechier, empescher, to hinder; . impedicare, to fetter, catch, entangle < L. in-, in + pedica, a fetter < pes, pedis, foot]. 1. To challenge or discredit (a person’s honor, reputation, etc.). 2. To challenge the practices or honesty of: accuse: especially, to bring (a public official) before the proper tribunal on a charge of wrongdoing.

It’s a word whose time is long overdue.

(Originally published in The Easton News, June 15, 2006)