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.
