Democracy And Fascism

I thought this week I might go over the conservative, right wing rhetoric that transforms democracy into a sort of fake “fascism” and actual fascism into freedom or liberty. I’ve talked about it before, many times, but I thought a formal storm might be helpful. The keys involve playing games with the notion of “tyrannical” or “totalitarian” government and also, in my opinion, neglecting the essential features of fascism, the nature of ethics, and involving fake anarchism. Let’s go over it again in detail, shall we?

I often mention the ethics of the definition, distribution, and use of economic power in markets to resolve particular interpersonal conflicts of preferences, ethics I characterize as external or exogenous to the normative argument in neoclassical welfare economics. Those are the ethics that determine how interpersonal conflicts of preferences in economic settings are resolved, scarce resources allocated, an issue that goes beyond the “utility” in neoclassical welfare economics, which cannot support interpersonal utility comparisons. The crucial issue here is where are those ethical judgments coming from? Who makes them? In our society, they’re made by voters via democracy under the US Constitution. As such, conservatives and liberals have long argued about such issues based on their own ethical beliefs. However, some common ethical arguments in conservative ideology go beyond democracy to suggest the ethics of economic power are rooted in immutable natural or divine law or other things and should thus be protected from the ethical opinions of voters and democracy. In some cases, they argue ethical judgments relating to economic power are written into the US Constitution, a seemingly unlikely proposition. However, as the US Constitution may also be revised or amended using democratic means, albeit not easily, many reject even that. Crucially, according to these conservatives, if democratic government passes laws relating to economic power inconsistent with conservative views on the ethics on economic power, then democracy is “tyrannical” or “totalitarian.” However, conservatives apply that description to not only democracy, but undemocratic, authoritarian, right wing fascism as well as left wing communism. Thus, in conservative ideology, “fascism” is often equated with both democracy, at least of an “active” sort, and communism. Indeed, conservatives are often so concerned to establish government delivering unwelcome laws relating to economic power is tyrannical or totalitarian they veer into fake anarchist rhetoric and start talking about government or the state, in general, as invariably that. However, applying the egoism, selective perception, bias common in conservatism, they don’t see even undemocratic, authoritarian government expressing their own views on the ethics of economic power as tyrannical or totalitarian but rather as expressing freedom and liberty.

I’ve argued the core or essential feature of fascism is that it’s undemocratic, authoritarian government in defense of conservative views on the ethics of economic power specifically against “leftist” views on the ethics on economic power delivered via democracy or otherwise. That, I believe, was the motivation of the old fascist movements in Europe and the primary source of their support. One can hardly understand the deadly animosity between right wing fascism and left wing communism if one sees them simply as two examples of tyrannical government. In that context, one may say the common but simplistic notion right wing fascism was “totalitarian” may be somewhat misleading. Some now don’t seem to realize fascism defended and supported private property and business, labor and capital markets, finance, banking, and so on. It’s unfortunate the historical analysis of fascism in the USA is so muddled, one supposes to avoid implicating conservatism, ignoring fascism’s basis in opposing “leftist” ethics on economic power, preferring to dwell on its nationalism, nativism, militarism, racism, and so on. One suspects concern that if the conservative, anti-“leftist” animus of right wing authoritarian fascism, its goal of defending conservative ethics on economic power, including from democracy, were made too explicit, conservatives in the USA might find it entirely too attractive. Brings to mind that prior to European fascism’s descent into madness, it was not really considered a problem or threat by the economically powerful establishment of most nations, including the USA, who one supposes rather hoped it might be good for business, wished it well.

The result is some or many conservatives now associate democracy with “fascism,” and associate real fascism, pared to its essentials of undemocratic, authoritarian government power supporting conservative ethics on economic power, with freedom or liberty. Indeed, by extension, conservative rhetoric commonly now designates any voter who supports any law they oppose as tyrannical, totalitarian fascists, communists, Marxists, and so on, not just Democrats, liberals, but atheists, gay people, feminists, educated people, etc. It’s an incorrect conceptualization of the issue that has led to the curious modern phenomenon of conservatives fighting against democracy and the freedom and liberty it entails, and for fascism, while proposing they’re fighting against fascism and for freedom and liberty. An important element of contemporary fascist rhetoric meant to support that project is to rhetorically equate fascism with “leftism” so they can address their essential fascist concern of fighting “leftism" while presenting it as also fighting “fascism.” 

If you’ve read my posts before, you’ll know I place much of the blame for this unfortunate bit of confusion and conflict on academic economists and their often studious inability or unwillingness to aggressively confront anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style. Anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, intellectually distinct from neoclassical welfare economics, obscures the role of economic power in markets, the related ethics, and thus also the important role of democracy in economic systems using markets. If you hear conservatives discussing communism or fascism, get a grip on whether they’re referring simply to authoritarian, undemocratic political arrangements, or also to those creeds’ conflicting views on economics, the ethics of economic power, etc. If you hear conservatives equating democracy with tyrannical, totalitarian, authoritarian government, fascism, communism, because democracy may enact laws they don’t personally approve, inquire into their understanding of those terms, the form of government they propose superior.

Liberalism Yet Again

I know I’ve done it before, but can we discuss the meaning of traditional American “liberalism” again this week? It's just I suspect a concerted conservative rhetorical effort to muddy the water or even remove the word from our political vocabulary entirely.

For many decades, the traditional juxtaposition in economic and social policy in the USA has been between “conservatives” and what we’ve always called “liberals.” However, these days it’s not uncommon to find people who profess to not know the difference or misstate or ignore it. Part of this seems just typical conservative wordplay designed to confuse and mislead, so equivocating on different definitions of liberalism as, for example, “classical liberalism,” or “neoliberalism,” or “liberalism” as it’s understood in the UK and elsewhere, and so on. For historical reasons, any reference to society or anything perceived as “leftist” was unacceptable in the USA, so “liberalism” was used to denote positions that might be called differently in other countries who kept older definitions like “classical liberalism” (US conservatism). Additional confusion then attends the word “neoliberal," which in the US means a departure from or rejection of “liberal” (US) economic thinking, while in other countries like the UK seems to mean a return to or resurgence of “liberal” (UK) / conservative (US) economic thinking. However, part of it seems to involve a genuine confusion relating to what traditional American “liberalism” was and is actually about, what ideas and values it represents, how it differs from what we call “conservatism,” and so on. So let’s just review, shall we?

With the rise of anti-democracy sentiment on the conservative side, be it of the fascist, theocratist, or anarchist variety, the first thing that must be noted is traditional US liberalism (hereafter just liberalism) is pro-democracy, supports the US Constitution. So that’s currently the top level distinction between conservatism and liberalism in the USA. Liberalism is invariably pro-democracy while conservatism can be, and sometimes is, pro-democracy, but is increasingly anti-democracy, authoritarian.

Formerly, when both US liberals and conservatives reliably agreed the ethos of democracy, the US Constitution, the distinction didn’t involve views on democracy, per se, but on economic policy. So at the next level one can discuss the economics of liberalism and conservatism. Economic conservatism is about distinctive normative, ethical views relating to the ethics of the definition, distribution, use of economic power, including markets. It’s closely associated with the normative program of bad economics in the conservative style and its offspring. In practice, economic conservatism is about opposing voters wanting to express via “activist” democratic government ethical views on economic power inconsistent with conservative views, which may “interfere with” or “distort” economic policies or outcomes conservatives endorse. When conservatives suppose voters are unreliable in that area, may make the “wrong” normative, ethical decision, feel it’s too important to be left to the “mob rule” of democracy, that’s when pro-democracy conservatism gives way to anti-democracy conservatism, fascism. There’s an interesting progression in conservatism involving first trying to convince voters of conservative ethics on economic power, then falsely claiming such issues are expressed in the US Constitution and cannot be revised, to finally just terminating the US Constitution.

Economic liberalism may be defined in opposition to economic conservatism. It rejects simplistic market utopianism, not only recognizing “free” markets may feature so-called “market failures” requiring regulation, but disputing conservative ethics on economic power, markets. Policies designed to augment, revise, improve market results by attending to ethical concerns like fairness, justness, equity, (real) utilitarian, welfare concerns are products of liberal economic thinking, although some conservatives accept attending to “market failure” only. Some examples: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, help for the economically weak, public education, worker and consumer protection regulations, minimum wage laws, environmental protection regulations are products of economic liberalism. A timely one I always find illustrative is that distributing a scarce vaccine by medical need rather than economic power expressed in markets is based on liberal economic reasoning. That mechanism is inconsistent with standard conservative economic thinking.

In the social realm, liberalism promotes both a realm of personal liberty and a realm of law, when the liberty of different people conflict in a significant enough way, beyond merely offending someone’s sensibilities, religious views, what have you, to make law necessary. Social conservatism is typically about reducing the realm of personal liberty beyond what liberals would support in order to enforce certain views relating to religious views, primarily. Conservative “libertarianism” is typically false, rhetorical, with unsystematic takes on law. Insincere, rhetorical, tricksy, conservative “libertarianism” can be made consistent with any proposed conservative infringement on personal liberty by artful wordplay involving whose liberty to do what and why and how others affected are meant to be considered or not. Just as liberalism goes with democracy, economic liberalism tends to go with social liberalism. However, economic conservatism has a less consistent relationship to social conservatism, sometimes linked through the proposed ethical basis of economic power, sometimes less related.

If you think democracy, the US Constitution, good ideas, think markets are sometimes, maybe even often pretty good but support policies to augment or improve them, make them more fair, just, equitable, welfare enhancing, or consider alternatives as appropriate, you’re a liberal. Liberalism was for some time, say from the 1930s to the 1960s, the dominant political view in the USA. Starting in the 1980s to present, its intellectual opponent, conservatism / “neoliberalism” has reigned. Is it time for a resurgence of traditional American liberalism? Why do conservatives in the USA try so hard to obfuscate, mislead, confuse people about liberalism? Perhaps they want voters to think there’s no real alternative to conservatism, or the only alternatives are undemocratic, authoritarian. Don’t buy it. Consider liberalism.