Dear Log,
I'm not enjoying this slide into fascism. Not one bit.
Re:It's hardly fascism.
TorgoX on 2004-09-06T06:42:38
Churches can't be overtly political, and members of churches are citizens too. The point is that something as big as letting active-duty military people take part in the democratic process is a Big Deal, not something that should've been slid thru days just before the RNC. This reeks.Re:It's hardly fascism.
brian_d_foy on 2004-09-06T07:07:29
So I don't get to take part in the democratic process? How am I any less a citizen than anyone else?
Who are you going to exclude next?Re:It's hardly fascism.
TorgoX on 2004-09-06T07:24:02
Democratic governments and uniforms don't mix.Ever.
Period.
We have already enough militarism and nontransparent structures of unquestioning obedience as it is.
Or maybe we should just completely re-run the Spanish-American War and get this fascist spree over with. Hell, it has wrecked everywhere else on the planet about once a century; might as well get it over with here.
Re:It's hardly fascism.
chromatic on 2004-09-06T17:28:39
You know what scares me? Politicians attending political rallies. I mean, these people have the power and positions to put some of those ideas into reality.
Do something on them next!
Re:It's hardly fascism.
hfb on 2004-09-06T07:24:57
Maybe you missed the part brian, the one where it states that IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. Not that laws matter to these folks anymore. Not like the military coup didn't take place years ago, but it's nice to try to keep up the illusion.Re:It's hardly fascism.
brian_d_foy on 2004-09-06T08:51:13
Which law are you talking about?
Some newspaper says something and you believe it? I've read the entire Uniform Code of Military justice and it doesn't say I can't take part in a political party as a citizen. They even have officers especially appointed to let us register to vote! The horror!Re:It's hardly fascism.
hfb on 2004-09-06T09:12:10
Vets and non-active duty, sure, but active duty guys in uniform? Hey, aren't they supposed to be out shooting at something brown and vaguely menacing? this DoD directive seems pretty clear but, then again, I guess you don't count since you were just in the National Guard and it isn't listed. The contention is on active duty officers....like having a regiment show up at a political rally or something, even if it weren't considered illegal, it'd certainly be very worrisome for this thing the US continues to call 'freedom'.Re:It's hardly fascism.
zatoichi on 2004-09-06T09:56:19
That directive says that someone in the military can attend as long as they are NOT in uniform. Read it again "not in uniform". As a veteran myself I can cound zero times that I was told how or who to vote for. Facism? Hardly. Alarmist? Certainly. The reason a church cannot politicize is because there are no rules regarding it. There are plenty of rules and regulations governing the DoD and the services.Re:It's hardly fascism.
brian_d_foy on 2004-09-06T10:06:19
I don't recall anyone saying anything about people in uniform being at the convention. The law is pretty clear that that uniforms are right out, but I haven't seen any part of the linked discussion that said anything about what people were wearing. All I've seen is an unsubstantiated sentence in an AP wire report that looks like it's based on a RNC press release. That doesn't look like a credible chain of information to me.
The RNC press release says "active military personnel will make up 3 percent" and then later "Another 3 percent, or approximately 140 delegates, identify themselves as currently serving in the U.S. military". They don't say "active duty", and then equivocate by saying that those delegates identify themselves a serving in the military, which could be National Guard. The National Guard is a state organization and not subject to DOD policy until they are federalized. We call this being "Title X" (the same law that the DOD policy references). I am not Title X right now. Those 3% may not be Title X either. I still would identify myself as military, though.
The telling statement, however, is "when the Democrats gathered in Boston last month, veterans made up only 11.5 percent of the delegates." That's the giveaway. It's a partisan pissing contest over who has the most flag-wavers on their side. It sure sounds like the RNC is doing what they can to make it look like they have more of the poor soldiers in the field on their side.
And this is what everyone is arguing about: something that the RNC said in a political press release that might not even be completely true. I tend to think that the people that write these things know what they are writing and choose the words for the right reasons. They didn't say that any "active duty" personnel took part. I'm not on active duty right now, but I am "active Guard" because I still show up once a month, rather than "inactive Guard" (which we call "ING") which only shows up for a yearly muster. I think they are playing on that word to actually say something that is correct but make people think something else.
The DOD directive which addresses this is not a law, though. Congress makes laws. DOD makes internal policy, which it can change as it likes since it is not law (and I think is part of the original source of this little dust-up on kiro5hin).
The actual US code (the laws that Congress made and the DOD policy references) says that active duty (Title X) military members can't hold elected civil office or take part in political actions when their participation would be construed as an official statement of their branch. Title X military personnel can still act as citizens. The actual law doesn't address convention participation: only the internal policy mentions that, and it's not law.Re:It's hardly fascism.
hfb on 2004-09-06T10:27:29
Well, alright then, the more active duty military guys showing up at conventions the merrier. I don't have to care anymore as I left and I don't know why I bother. It should be very worrisome that any active personnel did in fact show up at the convention, law or not. I think people jump to conclusions because things are slipping away from democracy and when people get upset they're just told they're lefties and such.Re:It's hardly fascism.
zatoichi on 2004-09-06T10:58:44
How are things slippiing away from democracy?Re:Democracy Slipping Away
kingubu on 2004-09-06T20:35:40
Fascism Checklist (source)
- Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
- Disdain for the importance of human rights.
- Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
- The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
- Rampant sexism.
- A controlled mass media.
- Obsession with national security.
- Religion and ruling elite tied together.
- Power of corporations protected.
- Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
- Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
- Obsession with crime and punishment.
- Rampant cronyism and corruption.
- Fraudulent elections.
Any of these ring a bell?
Of course, any of these are likely to appear periodically and to varying degrees in the political mix of a democratic society. However, the emergence of all of them at once, combined with the fact that same political party controls (or holds a majority presence) in all three branches of government is cause for grave concern. When you add the neo-"conservative" agenda expressed and/or embraced by many ranking officials, and the psychological volatility of a population that is in many ways still coming to grips with the reality that acts by external terrorist groups can indeed happen on their home soil, you have, IMO, a sort of "Perfect Storm" in which fascism (or at least, many of it tennets) seem to be flourishing.
-ubu
Re:Democracy Slipping Away
jdavidb on 2004-09-09T17:57:21
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
That's not a bad thing, unless combined with some of the things you mention below.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
Not happening, although there are some disagreements in implementation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
Nobody's been used as a scapegoat, and yes, we did need to unite in the presence of enemies.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
Respecting the military is a bad thing? Dude, I'm a pacifist and I don't even feel like that.
5. Rampant sexism.
Nope.
6. A controlled mass media.
Nope.
7. Obsession with national security.
Also tends to happen in the fact of mass terrorist activity. Perfectly normal, given the situation. Who didn't obsess over their own security for at least a few days?
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
Statutorily prevented, in this country, so I don't know where you're seeing it.
9. Power of corporations protected.
If they own something, shouldn't their rights be protected? As long as the rest of us are protected from them.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
Can't argue with you here; government needs to get completely OUT of private disputes. Note that that means not putting the corporations down, either.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Nobody's being suppressed. Arts don't need to be funded at public expense, however.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
If you don't like an attitude, it's an "obsession." That's an ad-hominem attack, not a point. Let's put it this way; when you're in danger of crime, you tend to be obsessed with it, at least for a while.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Thankfully, no!
14. Fraudulent elections.
Also, no! Everything's been legal!
However, the emergence of all of them at once
Oh, good! We have nothing to worry about!
maybe not fascism, but it's bad enough
brev on 2004-09-06T15:00:38
Thanks for the info, it puts the k5 story into perspective.
I'm certainly no expert but it doesn't smell quite like fascism to me. Bush supporters in the military now get to be extras in the RNC crowd scenes. They're not writing the platform. (Although, I wonder if we'd have fewer wars if military rank and file got to vote on these radical new doctrines for when you start a war.... yeah I know, that's not what it's about, but just saying.)
However, it certainly is a flagrant abuse of power by someone at the DoD. They timed a significant change in regulations to help one political party. If Wolfowitz is really behind this, he ought to lose his job.
Though that would be like citing a murderer for littering because he threw away the knife.Re:maybe not fascism, but it's bad enough
zatoichi on 2004-09-06T16:26:38
I do not agree. When not in uniform, someone in the armed forces should be able to participate in ANY political event anyone not in the military can.huh?
brev on 2004-09-06T18:51:57
I don't see how your rebuttal relates to what I said. But anyway, as brian pointed out, the US military disagrees with you.Re:huh?
brian_d_foy on 2004-09-06T19:45:46
I don't think I pointed that out. When not in uniform there isn't a problem.
I also don't see an abuse in power. Indeed, the Secretary of a cabinet level department is mandated to set policy for that department.
Re:huh?
brev on 2004-09-06T21:05:00
I don't think I pointed that out.
My mistake. I meant "as in the military regulations brian linked to", but I misremembered -- you didn't link to them, I looked them up myself.
When not in uniform there isn't a problem.
The 1344.10 document lists example activities that are proscribed, like speaking before a political gathering, or doing clerical work for a campaign. I'm not a lawyer, but don't those apply whether in or out of uniform?
I also don't see an abuse in power
Well, the policy took effect the Monday after the Democratic convention ended, with plenty of time to get the word out for the Republican convention. That's a hell of a coincidence.
The actual policy looks innocuous to me, and the whole "we are more soldieriffic than you" thing is stupid. The timing only gave the Republicans a small PR advantage. But it's the principle of the thing. Army regulations aren't supposed to be crafted or implemented to suit any political party's needs.Re:It's hardly fascism.
hfb on 2004-09-06T07:12:40
Nigga bettah get yo ass outta that ghetto before they start gassing all the registered dems in their sleep before the election.
Yeah, those soldiers are citizens....so were Senator McCarthy, Mussolini and the brownshirts. It's illegal for them to do that since a military coup, although it has already happened, is nice to avoid giving the impression of to the young and optimistic.
The only law, the only rule, that has stood the test of time is self-interest so follow the money or just find a good nuclear bunker you can jazz up for when the time comes.
Re:It's hardly fascism.
zatoichi on 2004-09-06T09:58:00
Well now we know that you are at least at full mental capacity. Why not just continue your diatribe and say either Bush or Daschle is Hitler and the US is ready to take over the world!Re:It's hardly fascism.
hfb on 2004-09-06T10:29:41
Well, Bush isn't that literate or that smart so why would I suggest that and invoke Godwin? Btw, was that paragraph supposed to actually say something?:) Re:It's hardly fascism.
chaoticset on 2004-09-06T15:44:01
Hey, hey, hey. Nobody's saying we're ready to take over the world. We won't be ready to take over the world for a few more decades.Re:It's hardly fascism.
brian_d_foy on 2004-09-06T10:16:42
So you don't want church members to participate either?
However, you miss the situation: churches can't take part in political activities and still be considered non-profits by the IRS. They are free to be as political as they like, though they might have to pay more taxes if they go that route (and get caught).Re:It's hardly fascism.
pudge on 2004-09-06T16:48:34
It turns out that most reports of this are wrong. I first heard about it on the site of Eric Alterman, who at least framed it in the form of a question, and then I saw him correct the record with Brian Lamb on CSPAN last week: these "active duty" delegates were reserves. His web site has the correction.
You can still have a problem with it, if you wish, but it was and is not a violation of the DODD. And it seems to me the changes in the DODD were clarifications, not substantive changes, and not anything that would allow active duty personnel to be delegates (although to me it is still unclear whether active duty personnel could be alternates, but that's beside the point here).Re:It's hardly fascism.
jdavidb on 2004-09-09T17:45:56
Actually they can, it's just that they lose their tax exempt status. It's all a big racket. I never felt churches should necesarily be tax exempt, anyway.
