#1) fas·cism [fash-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
#2) the·oc·ra·cy [thee-ok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -cies. 1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
#3) so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
I'm posting these definitions to show the differences between the three. It is glaringly obvious that #1 and #2 more represent far right wing dogma and the third (without the presents of #1 or #2) would be the far left taken to it's most extreme.
The fact that these 3 different things can and have been used in various combinations in no way invalidates what each one is on its own... nor does it change the fact that Conservatives have been very accommodating in letting Bush consolidate more power in only one branch of government the Executive, often imply racial overtones in their rhetoric and have been caught several times breaking the law trying to suppress opposition & criticism (from Watergate to Libby and everything in between). So there are pseudo Fascist overtones.
Radical evangelist that want, campaign for and contribute to, extreme religious influence & interference in government are in bed with the neo-cons (no gay pun intended... but also not uncommon). Pushing for extreme religious interference and influence in government are the stepping stones to a theocracy.
The far Liberal end of the scale would be if everything was divided up and endowed equally. Which is a more socialist view. In theory this could be done in a democracy if that's what the people wanted and voted for... and would not have to be a dictatorship at all.
None of these things are good in the extreme. However we now see a country sick and tired of what the neo-cons have pushed and they are now being firmly rejected as elections play out.
–noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
#2) the·oc·ra·cy [thee-ok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -cies. 1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
#3) so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
I'm posting these definitions to show the differences between the three. It is glaringly obvious that #1 and #2 more represent far right wing dogma and the third (without the presents of #1 or #2) would be the far left taken to it's most extreme.
The fact that these 3 different things can and have been used in various combinations in no way invalidates what each one is on its own... nor does it change the fact that Conservatives have been very accommodating in letting Bush consolidate more power in only one branch of government the Executive, often imply racial overtones in their rhetoric and have been caught several times breaking the law trying to suppress opposition & criticism (from Watergate to Libby and everything in between). So there are pseudo Fascist overtones.
Radical evangelist that want, campaign for and contribute to, extreme religious influence & interference in government are in bed with the neo-cons (no gay pun intended... but also not uncommon). Pushing for extreme religious interference and influence in government are the stepping stones to a theocracy.
The far Liberal end of the scale would be if everything was divided up and endowed equally. Which is a more socialist view. In theory this could be done in a democracy if that's what the people wanted and voted for... and would not have to be a dictatorship at all.
None of these things are good in the extreme. However we now see a country sick and tired of what the neo-cons have pushed and they are now being firmly rejected as elections play out.
