Yes, the U.S. is probably a fascist country

Fascism is a slippery word. We generally agree that Hitler and Mussolini were fascist, but to say what it is that actually constitutes fascism is to venture into less well-agreed upon territory. Further, even the approach that would consider labeling the U.S. fascist deserves caution:

Calling the Bush administration fascist promotes a distorted picture of U.S. politics or history. In some versions, the f-word is essentially a scare tactic to rally people behind Democrats such as John Kerry, whose 2004 campaign literature urged that we “keep 95 percent of the Patriot Act and strengthen the rest.” In other versions, the charge of fascism reflects conspiracy theories that the Bush administration itself somehow orchestrated the September 11th attacks.

Even when it’s coupled with a deeper critique of the U.S. political system, the claim of impending fascism lumps together radically different forms of right-wing authoritarianism under one label. This confusion hurts our ability to develop clear and effective anti-right-wing strategies.[1]

In the foregoing, Matthew Lyons is at least right about “lump[ing] together radically different forms of right-wing authoritarianism under one label.”[2] It happens that conservatism is the specialty I’ve settled on in my doctoral work, and I’ve come to understand conservatism as authoritarianism[3] and to identify seven different ‘species’ of conservative thought,[4] many of which come into play with an analysis of U.S. fascism. I will disagree, however, with Lyons’ defense of the Bush administration (and the U.S. government) against fascism:

In contrast to fascism, the Bush administration represents a much more conventional form of capitalist authoritarianism. Bush has significantly eroded the liberal-pluralist political system by increasing state repression, claiming a presidential blank check to ignore the law, and promoting an atmosphere of political conformism and national siege mentality. Some pro-Bush factions promote populist hostility toward so-called liberal elites. But the Bush regime is in fact controlled by traditional political elites within established institutions — it lacks fascism’s totalitarian mass mobilization, promotion of a new outsider elite, and vision of sweeping cultural and political change. Even in the crisis atmosphere following the September 11th attacks, President Bush urged people to live their lives as normally as possible. And while fascism challenges capitalist control of the state and attacks bourgeois values such as individualism and consumerism, the Bush administration is solidly and unambiguously pro-capitalist.[5]

First, I would have to point out that it is not at all clear what a “conventional form of capitalist authoritarianism” would be. There is the classical liberalism as described by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, which capitalist libertarians claim to resurrect.[6] There is the regulated capitalism largely associated with the New Deal as Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought to rescue capitalism from its own excesses.[7] There is a compact of somewhat shared prosperity that arose in the 1950s and 1960s. There is the neoliberal emphasis on so-called “free” trade, deregulation, and trickle-down policies that have devastated workers.[8] Last, there is the emphasis adopted by the George W. Bush administration that committed the U.S. to a policy of rewarding savings in order to provide investment capital, further exacerbating neoliberal oligarchic tendencies.[9] Finally, Lyons seems to overlook neoconservatism, which not only sees neoliberalism as a morality system,[10] but whose adherents rose to power in the Reagan administration,[11] which radically changed the tone of U.S. governance and set the stage for all that has happened since.

In what may be the most widely seen (at least on the left) article on the topic of whether the U.S. is slipping into fascism, Sara Robinson writes,

The word [fascism] has been bandied about by so many people so wrongly for so long that, as Paxton points out, “Everybody is somebody else’s fascist.” Given that, I always like to start these conversations by revisiting Paxton’s essential definition of the term:

“Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline.”

Elsewhere, he refines this further as

“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

Jonah Goldberg aside, that’s a basic definition most legitimate scholars in the field can agree on, and the one I’ll be referring to here.[12]

I don’t know who ‘most legitimate scholars’ are, but the definition Robinson attributes to Paxton seems to invoke, first, traditionalist conservatism, which explicitly and deeply distrusts democracy. Russell Kirk, for instance, writes repeatedly of the squire (landlord) and the parson (pastor) at the center of society and opposes universal suffrage.[13] Christopher Olaf Blum writes more specifically of the squire as a member of nobility.[14]

At first blush, this anti-democratic sentiment may seem contrary to, at least as Robinson renders it, the elaborated part of Paxton’s definition, which seems to invoke authoritarian populism (in its present incarnation, the Tea Party) with its hyper-patriotism and, thence, one might expect, democratic values. As we shall see, however, there are numerous anti-democratic right-wing efforts under way which in fact may be attributed principally to authoritarian populists. When Paxton refers to “nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites,”[15] he seems to refer to their strained collaboration with functionalist conservatives, who are necessary to get anything done.[16]

As for “obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood,”[17] this invokes both traditionalist conservatism and authoritarian populism. Traditionalists Richard Weaver[18] and T. S. Eliot[19] share an image of society in decay as their values, which we cannot be sure were ever widely held, face challenge.

Thomas Frank depicts authoritarian populists as having been victimized by economic globalization, so-called “free” trade, and neoliberalism but accepting all this as “just business,” and as disdainful of intellectuals and big city culture.[20] I hope I’m not stretching Frank’s point too far to suggest that this backlash against intellectuals, government, and big city culture may stem from a sense of humiliation. Kim Messick points to a crucial element:

This series of equations — self with community, community with nation — underlies, I believe, the characteristic elements of the Tea Party’s vision of politics. In the quotation above, [Glenn] Beck makes explicit the identification of “our country” with what we “believe,” such that a change in our “ideas” must prompt the question, “Who are we?” It never occurs to him that America might be seen as a prolonged argument about which ideas we should adopt, or that even when we agree on what these ideas are (liberty, say, or equality or fairness), we tend to disagree about exactly what they mean. In Beck’s mind, those whose definition of freedom differs from his own — who don’t take it to mean that we “make … our own way in life” for instance — aren’t advocates of an alternative notion of freedom; they’re simply people who don’t understand what “freedom” is. Because Beck’s community — the Tea Party community — is normative for America as a whole, its vocabulary is the standard reference for all political actors. Their lexicon is our dictionary. Anyone whose usage differs from theirs literally speaks a foreign tongue.[21]

In short, for authoritarian populists, it is inconceivable that people should be, aspire to be, or hold values different from themselves. That there is value in education, that a big country might require a big bureaucracy to administer it, that the ‘common sense’ capitalism they would engage in with each other might be in any way problematic on a larger scale or for people other than they perceive themselves to be simply blows right over their heads. And, that any of that might be true thus becomes an attack upon themselves. This is what lies behind the accusation that white working class people vote against their own interests or, instead of lashing out at their true oppressors, the big businesses that have replaced their well-paying manufacturing jobs with poorly-paying service level jobs, adopt a false consciousness and lash out at other subaltern people whom they perceive as being in competition for what jobs remain.[22]

I call that an accusation, because as Frank observes, Democrats usually identified as being on the left have in fact repeatedly betrayed the working class, thus, to some degree, bringing the curse of authoritarian populism upon themselves.[23] As Chris Hedges explains a “yearning for fascism,”

The Democrats and their liberal apologists are so oblivious to the profound personal and economic despair sweeping through this country that they think offering unemployed people the right to keep their unemployed children on their nonexistent health care policies is a step forward. They think that passing a jobs bill that will give tax credits to corporations is a rational response to an unemployment rate that is, in real terms, close to 20 percent. They think that making ordinary Americans, one in eight of whom depends on food stamps to eat, fork over trillions in taxpayer dollars to pay for the crimes of Wall Street and war is acceptable. They think that the refusal to save the estimated 2.4 million people who will be forced out of their homes by foreclosure this year is justified by the bloodless language of fiscal austerity. The message is clear. Laws do not apply to the power elite. Our government does not work. And the longer we stand by and do nothing, the longer we refuse to embrace and recognize the legitimate rage of the working class, the faster we will see our anemic democracy die.[24]

Similarly, Marc Pilisuk and Jennifer Rountree explain,

The rugged individual and family model values preached by the religious right reflect the larger phenomenon of a Christian fundamentalism that some see dangerously reminiscent of the association between the Christian Church and Nazi Germany. The teachings speak of the relationship between an economically declining lower middle class and a leader who offers them a scapegoat and a promise to establish a new and better world, preserving the old values of God, country and shared community purpose. The elite network of the Christian Right—a network that benefits from support of the political, economic, and military institutions it promotes—has connected with the dispossessed of Middle America through the demonization of minorities and immigrants and promises of retribution and of salvation. Under the guise of representing the mainstream of America, they promote a radical ideology that is in important ways closer to fascism than to Christianity.[25]

George Seldes, writing in the immediate aftermath of World War II and largely about corporate corruption in the Depression era, quotes Franklin Delano Roosevelt saying, “That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”[26] Seldes’ own distinction between those corporate managers he called “reactionaries” (who seem very much like today’s neoliberals) and fascists rests on how far they are willing to go in enforcing (their own) extremely expansive view of “property rights.” If, according to Seldes, they are willing to resort to violence—a coup, perhaps, as Seldes reports some sought to organize early in FDR’s presidency—to achieve their ends, they are fascist. Anything less and they are merely reactionary.[27]

Most other definitions of fascism I’ve seen are more complicated. Laurence Britt identifies fourteen hallmarks: 1) “Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.” We might say this crosses a line from patriotism into chauvinism. Britt continues, “Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.”[28] It’s hard to see how the U.S. had not crossed this particular line in the wake of 9/11, but since Barack Obama’s ascendance to the presidency, and the polarization (albeit between one brand of right-wing authoritarianism and another slightly more extreme brand of right-wing authoritarianism) in U.S. politics that has predominated since, unity can now be said to have evaporated. Still, those I label authoritarian populists would certainly seem to pass this test.

2) “Disdain for the importance of human rights.”[29] This seems particularly prevalent among conservatives, many of whom subscribe to a notion of natural right (yes, conservatives usually refer to it in the singular form), a concept they seem to think so obvious in its meaning as not to require definition. So naturally, it’s not at all clear that they agree as to what it means. I think, but cannot be sure, that for traditionalist conservatives, natural right refers to property rights and a right to participate in the marketplace.[30] I would expect that capitalist libertarians and neoconservatives would probably share that view.

The emphasis on so-called natural right comes at the expense of a somewhat broader notion of human rights, in which the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[31] codified into international law[32] with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[33] and the International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),[34] comprise a mere beginning.[35] That the U.S. has failed to ratify the ICESCR immediately suggests diminished human rights in the country, manifest with high unemployment, stagnant or declining wages, degrading employment practices, expensive higher education, and diminished labor unions (see #10, below).

3) “Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.” Britt explains that the identification of these “enemies” and “scapegoats” distract public attention from and shift blame for other problems.[36] The U.S. seemingly always has “enemies” and “scapegoats,” whether they are people of color, undocumented migrants, Muslims, “Socialists,” “Communists,” “Liberals,” labor unions, or the poor. A point of recognizing authoritarian populism, currently visible as the Tea Party, is to understand that their characteristic binary between “us” and “them” dates back at least to the U.S. Revolution.[37]

4) “The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.” Britt explains that this is tied in with nationalism (see #1, above) and appears in disproportionate budget allocations to the military. “Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it,” Britt writes, and the military “was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.”[38] Again, the U.S. easily qualifies, with a defense budget that dwarfs other nations, estimated at nearly $1 trillion, a number which “will turn out to be a conservative figure.”[39] This is compounded by militarization of the police.[40]

5) “Rampant sexism.” Britt points to sexist, homophobic, and anti-abortion policies.[41] In the U.S., the battle goes on, but people of non-heterosexual sexual orientations have won hard-fought gains. But it is also apparent that this battle is part of a social conservative legacy which seeks to control women’s bodies in order to preserve white male hegemony. It dates back at least to the immediate post-Civil War era.[42] A rising tide of abortion restrictions[43] coupled with open advocacy across the political spectrum for abstinence-only sexuality education and restrictions on access to and even for a right for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception[44] leaves little doubt that women are expected to produce babies. That they are less valued for anything else appears in their ongoing battle for equal pay,[45] a battle in which the disparity with men has been mitigated to some degree with a reduction in men’s pay.[46] Finally, that we live in a rape culture[47] imposes practical limits on women’s freedom and consigns women to the second-class status that Britt cites as a criterion.[48]

6) “A controlled mass media.”[49] My mother was a newspaper reporter for many years. It’s a job she wouldn’t have stuck with if she didn’t feel she had freedom to report fairly and I’m sure that many reporters would say something similar.

While there are exceptional cases, as with coverage of the Edward Snowden leaks exposing domestic spying,[50] a lot of media scholarship, however, tells a different story. Some of this appears in rushed reporting under deadline. It’s often easier to get information from purportedly authoritative sources, that is, powerful sources than it is from groups or people who lack the organizations that elites have at their command. But as well, journalism has been a means of access to power for wealthy owners, powerful people have multiple means of leverage over news organizations and multiple means of retaliation for reporting they disapprove of, and reports are produced under often-unchallenged ideological constraints. Media consolidation has meant increasing corporate conglomerate control which raises serious doubts about editorial freedom. News seems to be a construction, not just “what I say it is,” as David Brinkley may have remarked, but rather what news organizations, each looking over their shoulders at each other, collectively, and under the influence of political and economic authority, agree it is.[51] Finally, freedom of the press in the United States is under an unprecedented attack as courts demand that reporters expose confidential sources and the Obama administration cracks down on whistle blowers and leaks.[52]

7) “Obsession with national security.”[53] Given an incident in which, in a long-shot hope of capturing Edward Snowden, U.S. allies forced a Bolivian jet to land and submit to a search in Austria,[54] in combination with numerous other hysterical remarks by politicians and the invasions of personal privacy that Snowden exposed, any defense against a claim that the U.S. government is obsessed with national security is surely unsupportable.[55] But as well, we have the increasing attacks on freedom of the press (see #6, above), which are all conducted in the name of national security.

8) “Religion and ruling elite tied together.”[56] Many of the attacks on women (see #5, above) in the U.S. are rationalized using a right-wing interpretation of Christian doctrine. Though few social conservatives would count Barack Obama as one of their own, and in what, in hindsight, progressives should have taken as a heads-up that Obama was also not of their own, Obama had a homophobic right-wing pastor give the benediction at his 2009 inauguration.[57] Obama has since provoked resistance from right-wing Christians over a birth control mandate in his health care law, but the fact that courts, including the Supreme Court, have favored religious exemptions is no defense of the U.S. government. While these cases amount to a weighing of religious freedom rights against rights to health care, the courts are ruling in favor of corporations, which cannot themselves attend church, effectively allowing corporate managers to impose their religious preferences on their employees,[58] which is to say now that right-wing Christian corporate managers have privileges that are unlikely to be accorded to managers of any other religion.

9) “Power of corporations protected.”[59] Among the more curious neoliberal ideas is that corporate monopolies are benign, while labor unions form a monopoly that must be eliminated. In general, the (property, understood as including money) rights of the wealthy have been expanded and protected from a series of government intrusions, while the power of the wealthy has been expanded through an increasing faith in the so-called “free” market, not just in economics but in other areas of life, and with an assumption that increased savings (in practice, significantly possible only for the wealthy) would strengthen the economy.[60] Courts have contributed as well. While the Citizens United decision has rightly attracted considerable ire, an article in Mother Jones points to a two hundred year history in which the Supreme Court has made corporate personhood a reality with a long series of decisions.[61] Since it is the wealthy who can afford to control corporations, it is the wealthy whose influence is enhanced.

10) “Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.”[62] Capitalist libertarians tend to view the labor market as a level playing field. As Paul Krugman put it, “anyone who has ever held a job in the real world — or, for that matter, seen a Dilbert cartoon — knows that it’s not like that,”[63] Max Weber pointed out, roughly ninety to one hundred years ago, that an economic system of exchange inherently privileges whomever has the greater power to say no, at the expense of whomever has the lesser power. Further, these advantages and disadvantages are cumulative,[64] inherently leading to wider social inequality. This inequality has come to be seen as a necessary incentive for the “job creators,”[65] but on the other side, labor is horribly abused,[66] undermining any claim that many workers have any power in relation to their employees whatsoever.

11) “Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.”[67] One part of this is that facts—real facts, not just the superficial quantitative “facts” that often further afflict the afflicted and further comfort the comfortable—often challenge elite and colonial privilege.[68] Such facts are thus intolerable and a cultural preference for quantitative data[69] enables a practice of education which is too often about reproducing, rather than challenging, the power relationships of the status quo.[70] The intellect is now to be directed to producing not art for art’s sake, but intellectual property for the marketplace,[71] while universities increasingly hire not well-paid tenure-track professors, but instead, adjuncts, who make barely anything at all and whose tenuous employment arrangements encourage  a silencing of nonconformist views.[72]

12) “Obsession with crime and punishment.”[73] Crime rates have dropped, but politicians hype fear of crime, and people have not felt safer.[74] This exists in a curious dynamic with a demonization of the poor (see #3, above) in which people stigmatize the poor because they suspect that many poor people are criminals, and therefore will not support policies to relieve poverty,[75] which itself is a major cause of crime.[76] A rush to ‘close cases,’ combined with a number of investigative and judicial failings in finding truth, contributes to many wrongful convictions.[77] Incarceration not only damages individuals but their families and communities, contributing to poverty and desperation,[78] and thus must be a factor in undermining the effectiveness of efforts to reduce crime. For ideological reasons, we cannot address the actual causes of most crime and we pursue people, whether in fact guilty or innocent, with a vindictiveness that is less concerned with truth than with locking someone up—as evidenced by sky-high incarceration rates[79]—or putting someone to death. This pursuit, therefore, is not about justice, but rather about a refusal to acknowledge human need. I don’t see how this can be said not to be both delusional and obsessive.

13) “Rampant cronyism and corruption.”[80] The power of corporations and the wealthy (see #9, above), particularly with regard to the Citizens United ruling is inseparable from suspicions of corruption.[81] Montana’s history[82] led it to (unsuccessfully) challenge the decision.[83] “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United … make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,’” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in counterpoint even as she granted a stay of the law that the Supreme Court ultimately overturned.[84]

But the old-fashioned “campaign contribution” is far from the only way in which crony capitalism and corruption operate. Neoliberal deregulation has enabled “regulatory capture,” in which government agencies that are supposed to monitor and regulate industry instead facilitates violations, by looking the other way, accepting industry claims at face value, or softening regulations and their enforcement. This has only been most visible with the financial collapse that began in 2007 and with the massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[85]

Neoconservatives in the Bush administration had a sweet arrangement with Blackwater that often evaded the usual bidding rules for federal contracts[86] and is usually taken only as one of the more egregious examples.[87]

Finally, there is corporate welfare, sometimes subsidizing favored industries,[88] sometimes meant to attract industry to a particular state or locality,[89] but has also recently come to refer to minimum wage laws that allegedly enable corporations to save money by evading costs for health insurance and living wages.[90]

14) “Fraudulent elections.”[91] Some on the left claim that George W. Bush “stole” the presidential elections in 2000 and 2004. This may be hyperbole, but the dispute over “hanging chads” and a Supreme Court decision halting a recount in Florida in 2000 and an allegedly intentional shortage of voting machines producing long lines in foul weather in Ohio cities in 2004 followed by allegations that ACORN, a now defunct non-profit, “stole” the election for Obama in 2008, hardly point to a properly run electoral system. Further, ongoing right-wing efforts to disenfranchise voters, particularly ex-felons and people of color, by removing them from the voter rolls and requiring identification[92] were followed by right-wing criticism when, finally, international monitors appeared to observe elections in 2012.[93]

We cannot say that all of Britt’s criterion are fully met. As a historian pointing to several fascist precedents (not just Italy and Germany), Britt himself does not say how many must be met for a system to be judged ‘fascist,’[94] but we have seen interplay among the criteria that suggests a systemic effect, and I have been analyzing these criteria reductively, an approach which is of limited value where complexity theory applies. What emerges may be fascist or it may be something else, but it probably is fascist when we account for all the actors on the scene.

  1. [1]Matthew N. Lyons, “Is the Bush Administration Fascist?” New Politics 11, no. 2 (2007):
  2. [2]Matthew N. Lyons, “Is the Bush Administration Fascist?” New Politics 11, no. 2 (2007):
  3. [3]David Benfell, “Defining conservatism,” April 12, 2013,
  4. [4]David Benfell, “The Quixotic Quest to Comprehend Conservatism, Part 1,” May 16, 2014,; David Benfell, “The Quixotic Quest to Comprehend Conservatism, Part 2,” May 29, 2014,
  5. [5]Matthew N. Lyons, “Is the Bush Administration Fascist?” New Politics 11, no. 2 (2007):
  6. [6]David Benfell, “The Quixotic Quest to Comprehend Conservatism, Part 1,” May 16, 2014,
  7. [7]Alan Nasser, “The Threat of U.S. Fascism: An Historical Precedent,” Common Dreams, August 2, 2007,
  8. [8]Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010); Daniel Stedman Jones, Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2012).
  9. [9]Daniel Altman, Neoconomy: George Bush’s Revolutionary Gamble with America’s Future (New York: Public Affairs, 2004).
  10. [10]Gertrude Himmelfarb, “Irving Kristol’s Neoconservative Persuasion,” Commentary 131, no. 2 (2011): 25-29.
  11. [11]David Benfell, “The Quixotic Quest to Comprehend Conservatism, Part 2,” May 29, 2014,
  12. [12]Sara Robinson, “Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?” Alternet, August 6, 2009,
  13. [13]Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, 7th ed. (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2001).
  14. [14]Christopher Olaf Blum, “On Being Conservative: Lessons from Louis de Bonald,” Intercollegiate Review 41, no. 1 (2006): 23-30.
  15. [15]Sara Robinson, “Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?” Alternet, August 6, 2009,
  16. [16]David Benfell, “The Quixotic Quest to Comprehend Conservatism, Part 1,” May 16, 2014,
  17. [17]Sara Robinson, “Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?” Alternet, August 6, 2009,
  18. [18]Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order: The Cultural Crisis of our Time (Louisiana State University, 1964; Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995).
  19. [19]T. S. Eliot, Notes Toward the Definition of Culture (1948; repr., London: Faber and Faber, 1962).
  20. [20]Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas? (New York: Henry Holt, 2005); Thomas Frank, Pity the Billionaire: The Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right (New York: Metropolitan, 2012).
  21. [21]Kim Messick, “The Tea Party’s paranoid aesthetic,” Salon, August 10, 2013,
  22. [22]Raymond A. Morrow with David D. Brown, Critical Theory and Methodology (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994); Scott Sernau, Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a Global Economy, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge, 2006).
  23. [23]Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas? (New York: Henry Holt, 2005); Thomas Frank, Pity the Billionaire: The Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right (New York: Metropolitan, 2012).
  24. [24]Chris Hedges, “Is America ‘Yearning for Fascism’?,” Truthdig, March 29, 2010,
  25. [25]Marc Pilisuk and Jennifer Achord Rountree, “Divine Politics and Warning Signs of Fascism,” in Who Benefits from Global Violence and War: Uncovering a Destructive System (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2008).
  26. [26]George Seldes, 1000 Americans: The Real Rulers of the U.S.A. (New York: Boni and Gaer, 1948; Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive, 2009), 6.
  27. [27]George Seldes, 1000 Americans: The Real Rulers of the U.S.A. (New York: Boni and Gaer, 1948; Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive, 2009); see also Alan Nasser, “The Threat of U.S. Fascism: An Historical Precedent,” Common Dreams, August 2, 2007,
  28. [28]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  29. [29]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  30. [30]David Benfell, “The Quixotic Quest to Comprehend Conservatism, Part 2,” May 29, 2014,
  31. [31]Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations, December 10, 1948,
  32. [32]Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, International Human Rights Law, 2013,
  33. [33]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), United Nations, December 16, 1966, U.N.T.S. 171.
  34. [34]International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, December 16, 1966,
  35. [35]In this broader thinking, self-actualization is a recurring theme. See, for examples, David P. Barash and Charles P. Webel, Peace and Conflict Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002); Maria Pia Lara, Moral Textures: Feminist Narratives in the Public Sphere (Berkeley: University of California, 1998); Martha C. Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2011).
  36. [36]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  37. [37]Chip Berlet, “Taking Tea Parties Seriously: Corporate Globalization, Populism, and Resentment,” Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 10 (2011): 11-29, doi: 10.1163/156914911X555071
  38. [38]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  39. [39]Chris Hellman and Mattea Kramer, “War Pay: The Nearly $1 Trillion National Security Budget,” TomDispatch, May 22, 2012,
  40. [40]Matt Apuzzo, “War Gear Flows to Police Departments,” New York Times, June 8, 2014,; Rosecrans Baldwin, “Personal Kill,” Morning News, November 18, 2013,; Radley Balko, “‘Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book’: The new warrior cop is out of control,” Salon, July 7, 2013,; Andrew Becker and G. W. Schulz, “Local police stockpile high-tech, combat-ready gear,” Center for Investigative Reporting, December 21, 2011,; Daniel J. Bier, “Overkill: Militarizing America,” Freeman, September 15, 2014,; Center for Investigative Reporting, “Military Equipment for Local Police,” June 9, 2014,; Democracy Now!, “From Dorner to Waco to MOVE Bombing, A Look at Growing Militarization of Domestic Policing,” February 15, 2013,; Justin Elliott, “How the feds fueled the militarization of police,” Salon, December 24, 2011,; Henry A. Giroux, “Neoliberalism and the Machinery of Disposability,” Truthout, April 8, 2014,; J. David Goodman, “Lesson for the Police: Be Careful What You Tweet For,” New York Times, April 22, 2014,; Jens Erik Gould, “A Sleepy Campus in Crisis: Pepper Spray at UC Davis Sparks Online Uproar, Calls for a Chancellor’s Resignation,” Time, November 21, 2011,,8599,2099919,00.html; Matthew Harwood, “To Terrify and Occupy: How the Excessive Militarization of the Police is Turning Cops Into Counterinsurgents,” TomDispatch, August 14, 2014,; Natasha Lennard, “Militarization creep: Texas cops get army tanks,” Salon, September 30, 2013,; Dara Lind, “Why the feds are putting grenade launchers in the hands of local cops,” Vox, June 9, 2014,; Caitlin MacNeal, “#myNYPD Backlash Spreads To Other Cities,” Talking Points Memo, April 23, 2014,; Chase Madar, “The Over-Policing of America: Police Overkill Has Entered the DNA of Social Policy,” TomDispatch, December 8, 2013,; Eric Nicholson, “Dallas County Now Has Its Very Own Bulletproof, ‘Mine-Protected’ Military SUV,” Dallas Observer, September 27, 2013,; Aaron B. O’Connell, “The Permanent Militarization of America,” New York Times, November 4, 2012,; Kyle Paoletta, “Listen up, police officers: Real life isn’t like ‘Breaking Bad’,” Salon, April 13, 2014,; Kent Paterson, “Challenging a Militarized Police State in the U.S.,” Center for International Policy Americas Program, May 7, 2014,; William Rivers Pitt, “Weaponized Cops and the Future of Freedom,” Truthout, April 25, 2014,; Steven Rosenfeld, “How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian’s Nightmare,” Alternet, April 18, 2012,; Fernanda Santos, “Justice Dept. Accuses Albuquerque Police of Excessive Force,” New York Times, April 10, 2014,; Bruce Schneier, review of Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces, by Radley Balko, Schneier on Security, August 13, 2013,; Naomi Wolf, “The coming drone attack on America,” Guardian, December 21, 2012,
  41. [41]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  42. [42]David Benfell, “The Quixotic Quest to Comprehend Conservatism, Part 1,” May 16, 2014,
  43. [43]Eric Eckholm, “Access to Abortion Falling as States Pass Restrictions,” New York Times, January 3, 2014,; Guttmacher Institute, “More State Abortion Restrictions Were Enacted in 2011–2013 Than in the Entire Previous Decade,” January 2, 2014,
  44. [44]Pam Belluck, “Judge Orders Morning-After Pill Available for All Ages,” New York Times, April 5, 2013,; Charles M. Blow, “Santorum and the Sexual Revolution,” New York Times, March 2, 2012,; Irin Carmon, “Who’s winning the abortion war?” Salon, December 4, 2011,; Irin Carmon, “Mitt Romney’s birth control fake-out,” Salon, January 8, 2012,; Ellen Chesler, “The Long History of the War on Contraception,” Ms., February 14, 2012,; Democracy Now! “The Paul Ryan Vision of America: Ban Abortion, Defund Contraception, Outlaw In Vitro Fertilization,” August 13, 2012,; Sarah Kliff, “Under Obama administration, abstinence-only education finds surprising new foothold,” Washington Post, May 8, 2012,; Amanda Marcotte, “More conservatives hit Twitter, explain to women that only dirty girls do sex,” Raw Story, July 1, 2014,; New York Times, “The War on Women,” February 25, 2011,; Sarah Posner, “Why women’s rights are under siege,” Salon, February 29, 2014,; Stephen Dinan, “GOP on losing side of birth control,” Washington Times, March 5, 2012,; Sara Robinson, “Why Patriarchal Men Are Utterly Petrified of Birth Control — And Why We’ll Still Be Fighting About it 100 Years From Now,” Alternet, February 15, 2012,–_and_why_we%27ll_still_be_fighting_about_it_100_years_from_now; Michael Scherer, “Rick Santorum Wants to Fight ‘The Dangers Of Contraception’,” Time, February 14, 2012,; Kate Sheppard, “Ron Paul vs. Birth Control,” Mother Jones, February 14, 2012,; Andrew Sullivan, “Crisis of Faith,” New Republic, May 2, 2005,; Louise G. Trubek, “The Unfinished Fight Over Contraception,” New York Times, March 1, 2012,
  45. [45]Noam Chomsky, “Destroying the Commons: How the Magna Carta Became a Minor Carta,” TomDispatch, July 22, 2012,; Robin Marty, “A Debate in Which Women Were Left Drinking Alone,” Reproductive Health Reality Check, October 4, 2012,; Ruth Rosen, “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby (Or Have You?): The Women’s Movement, the Next Half-Century,” TomDispatch, February 21, 2013,; Adele M. Stan, “Progressives Love Elizabeth Warren. Will Massachusetts Voters?,” Alternet, June 12, 2012,
  46. [46]Susan Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, 15th anniversary ed. (New York: Three Rivers, 2006).
  47. [47]A. Ayres Boswell and Joan Z. Spade, “Fraternities and Collegiate Rape Culture: Why Are Some Fraternities More Dangerous Places for Women?” Gender and Society 10, no. 2 (April, 1996): 133-147; Ross Douthat, “Stopping Campus Rape,” New York Times, June 28, 2014,; Travis Gettys, “Maine Republican regrets saying men should rape women if abortion is legal,” Raw Story, February 27, 2014,; Travis Gettys, “George Will defends rape column, saying critics don’t take rape seriously and maybe can’t read,” Raw Story, June 20, 2014,; Jen Gunter, “An OB/GYN’s Open Letter To George Will About His Rape Column,” Talking Points Memo, June 16, 2014,; Amanda Marcotte, “7 ways colleges and universities have ignored sexual assault,” Salon, August 16, 2013,; Katie Mcdonough, “Republican lawmaker very sorry he said men should be able to rape women if abortion is legal,” Salon, February 27, 2014,; Tony Messenger, “Editor’s note: Michael Gerson replaces George Will,” Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, June 19, 2014,; Mike Tipping, “Maine Rep. Lawrence Lockman’s decades-long history of extremism,” Bangor Daily News, February 25, 2014,; Erik Wemple, “St. Louis Post-Dispatch alone in bagging George Will’s column,” Washington Post, June 19, 2014,; Erik Wemple, “St. Louis paper dumps George Will for Michael Gerson,” Washington Post, June 19, 2014,;
  48. [48]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  49. [49]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  50. [50]David Benfell, “N.S.A. scandal timeline,” November 7, 2013,
  51. [51]J. Herbert Altschull, Agents of Power: The Media and Public Policy, 2nd ed. (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1995); Eric Boehlert, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush (New York: Free Press, 2006); Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies (Boston: South End, 1989); David Croteau and William Hoynes, Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge, 2003); David Halberstam, The Powers That Be (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, 2000); Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon, 2002); George Seldes, 1000 Americans: The Real Rulers of the U.S.A. (New York: Boni and Gaer, 1948; Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive, 2009).
  52. [52]Associated Press, “Survey: Zealously protecting national security, armed conflict hurt press freedom around world,” Minneapolis Star-Tribune, February 12, 2014,; Chris Cillizza, “How President Obama got out of balance on leaks,” Washington Post, May 20, 2013,; Susan Crabtree, “Probes of journalists widen under Obama; reporter group calls it ‘overreaching dragnet’,” Washington Times, May 20, 2013,; Glenn Greenwald, “Will journalists take any steps to defend against attacks on press freedom?” Guardian, May 29, 2013,; Ryan Lizza, “The Justice Department and Fox News’s Phone Records,” New Yorker, May 21, 2013,; New York Times, “Another Chilling Leak Investigation,” May 21, 2013,; Reporters Without Borders, “Biggest rises and falls in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index,” 2014,; Sacramento Bee, “Holder crosses a line in going after leaks,” May 22, 2013,; Charlie Savage, “Manning Is Acquitted of Aiding the Enemy,” New York Times, July 30, 2013,; Daniel Strauss and Jordy Yager, “Holder recused himself from DOJ decision to seize AP records,” Hill, May 14, 2013,; Trevor Timm, “Court Guts Reporter’s Privilege in One of the Most Significant Press Freedom Cases in Decades,” Freedom of the Press Foundation, July 20, 2013,; Jonathan Turley, “Obama Orders Holder To Investigate . . . Holder?” May 24, 2013,; Jonathan Turley, “United States Drops To 46th in Press Freedoms Under Barack Obama,” February 14, 2014,
  53. [53]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  54. [54]David Benfell, “Moral bankruptcy,” July 4, 2013,
  55. [55]David Benfell, “N.S.A. scandal timeline,” November 7, 2013,
  56. [56]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  57. [57]Mike Madden, “How the hell did Rick Warren get inauguration tickets?” Salon, December 19, 2008, “ (link is external)” target=”_blank”>
  58. [58]Associated Press, “SCOTUS: Ruling Applies Broadly To Contraception Coverage,” Talking Points Memo, July 1, 2014,; Sam Baker, “ObamaCare birth-control mandate on fast track to Supreme Court,” Hill, August 22, 2013,; Robert Barnes, “Some business owners resist providing employees with contraceptive coverage,” Washington Post, May 22, 2013,; Emily Bazelon, “Did the Contraception Mandate Win or Lose at the Supreme Court? It’s Complicated,” Slate, January 25, 2014,; Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., ________________, (2014).; Ronald J. Colombo, “The First Amendment, corporations and religious freedom,” Constitution Daily, November 27, 2013,; Marc O. DeGirolami, “Supreme Court Agrees to Hear For-Profit Contraception Mandate Cases,” Center for Law and Religion Forum, November 26, 2013,; Marc O. DeGirolami, “On the Claim That Exemptions From the Contraception Mandate Violate the Establishment Clause,” Center for Law and Religion Forum, December 5, 2013,; Marc O. DeGirolami, “Reflections on the Hobby Lobby Oral Argument: On the Establishment Clause Claim,” Center for Law and Religion Forum, March 25, 2014,; Lyle Denniston, “Constitution Check: Does the Citizen United ruling settle the Hobby Lobby case?” Constitution Daily, November 27, 2013,; Ben Goad, “DOJ rejects nuns’ argument on ObamaCare contraception mandate,” Hill, January 3, 2014,; Linda Greenhouse, “Doesn’t Eat, Doesn’t Pray and Doesn’t Love,” New York Times, November 27, 2013,; Guttmacher Institute, “Guttmacher Supreme Court Brief Puts Data Front and Center in Support of ACA’s Contraceptive Coverage Guarantee,” January 31, 2014,; Julian Hattem, “White House faces tough Supreme Court fight on ObamaCare mandate,” Hill, November 26, 2013,; Adam Liptak, “Justices to Hear Contraception Cases Challenging Health Law,” New York Times, November 26, 2013,; Adam Liptak, “Justices Seem Open to Religious Claims by Companies,” New York Times, March 25, 2014,; Mark L. Movsesian, “Ron Colombo on Yesterday’s Cert Grants,” Center for Law and Religion Forum, November 27, 2013,; Reuters, “Nuns get partial win in Supreme Court contraception fight,” CBS News, January 24, 2014,; Jeffrey Rosen, “Why the two new Affordable Care Act cases could refine the religious liberty rights of corporations,” Constitution Daily, November 26, 2013,; David G. Savage, “Supreme Court, citing religious liberty, limits contraceptive coverage in Obamacare,” Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2014,; Jonathan Turley, “Supreme Court Takes Up New Religious Challenge To The Affordable Care Act,” November 27, 2013,; Jonathan Turley, “Sotomayor Grants Last-Minute Stay In Obamacare Challenge From Catholic-Related Groups,” January 1, 2014,; Josh Voorhees, “Slatest PM: The Little Sisters Short-Term Obamacare Victory,” Slate, January 24, 2014,; Sarah Wheaton, “Court Rules Contraception Mandate Infringes on Religious Freedom,” New York Times, November 1, 2013,;
  59. [59]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  60. [60]Daniel Altman, Neoconomy: George Bush’s Revolutionary Gamble with America’s Future (New York: Public Affairs, 2004); Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010); Daniel Stedman Jones, Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2012).
  61. [61]Alex Park, “10 Supreme Court Rulings—Before Hobby Lobby—That Turned Corporations Into People,” Mother Jones, July 10, 2014,
  62. [62]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  63. [63]Paul Krugman, “The Fear Economy,” New York Times, December 26, 2013,
  64. [64]Max Weber, “Class, Status, Party,” in Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings, ed. Charles Lemert, 4th ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2010), 119-129.
  65. [65]Ben S. Bernanke, “The Level and Distribution of Economic Well-Being,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, February 6, 2007,
  66. [66]Donna Ballman, “Your Employer Wants To Erase Your Personal Cell Phone And Computer,” Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home, October 4, 2013,; Daniel D’Addario, “Amazon is worse than Walmart,” Salon, July 30, 2013,; Democracy Now! “Over 110 Arrested as Record Black Friday Protests Challenge Wal-Mart, Major Retailers on Low Wages,” December 2, 2013,; Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (New York: Owl, 2001).; Josh Eidelson, “How Walmart got government support, despite union pleas,” Salon, September 23, 2013,; Josh Eidelson, “Wal-Mart faces warehouse horror allegations and federal Labor Board complaint,” Salon, November 18, 2013,; Josh Eidelson, “Senators blast Wal-Mart ‘trampling’ workers’ rights as dozens of activists are arrested on Black Friday,” Salon, November 29, 2013,; Josh Eidelson, “Tens of thousands protest, over 100 arrested in Black Friday challenge to Wal-Mart,” Salon, November 29, 2013,; Josh Eidelson, “Wal-Mart arrests could fuel “a new political movement of the disenfranchised,” Grayson tells Salon,” Salon, November 29, 2013,; Josh Eidelson, “Amazon Keeps Unions Out By Keeping Workers in Fear, Says Organizer,” Alternet, January 22, 2014,; Steven Greenhouse, “The Changing Face of Temporary Employment,” New York Times, August 31, 2014,; Erin Hatton, “The Rise of the Permanent Temp Economy,” New York Times, January 26, 2013,; Simon Head, “Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon’s sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers,” Salon, February 23, 2014,; Allison Kilkenny, “Cleveland Walmart Holds Food Drive For Its Own Employees,” Nation, November 18, 2013,; Mac McClelland, “I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave,” Mother Jones, February 27, 2012,; Hamilton Nolan, “What Is Life Like For an Amazon Worker?” Gawker, July 29, 2013,; Alex Seitz-Wald, “Amazon is everything wrong with our new economy,” Salon, July 30, 2013,; Alana Semuels, “As employers push efficiency, the daily grind wears down workers,” Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2013,,5976597,1009581,full.story; Alana Semuels, “How the relationship between employers and workers changed,” Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2013,,0,716422.story; Alana Semuels, “Tougher workplace makes home life worse too,” Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2013,,0,4926425.story; Yves Smith, “The Rise of Bullshit Jobs,” Naked Capitalism, August 22, 2013,; Spencer Soper, “Inside Amazon’s Warehouse,” Morning Call, September 18, 2011,; Lindsay Wise, “Report: Temp jobs at all-time high in U.S.,” McClatchy, December 2, 2014,
  67. [67]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  68. [68]David Benfell, “From Authoritarian Boast to Awe and Wonder: A Transformation of the Understanding of Knowledge,” November 21, 2011,
  69. [69]Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society, John Wilkinson, trans. (New York: Vintage, 1964); Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New York: Vintage, 1993).
  70. [70]Donaldo Macedo, Literacies of Power: What Americans Are Not Allowed To Know (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2006); Elizabeth Kamarck Minnich, Transforming Knowledge, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Temple University, 2005).
  71. [71]Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity (Durham, NC: Duke University, 2003).
  72. [72]L.V. Anderson, “Why Adjunct Professors Don’t Just Find Other Jobs,” Slate, November 19, 2013,; Josh Boldt, “99 Problems But Tenure Ain’t One,” Vitae, January 21, 2014,; Austin Cline, “Duquesne University: Unions Are Anti-Catholic?”, September 27, 2013,; Peter Conn, “We Need to Acknowledge the Realities of Employment in the Humanities,” Chronicle of Higher Education, April 4, 2010,; Ella Delany, “Part-Timers Crowd Academic Hiring,” New York Times, December 22, 2013,; David Drumm, “Duquesne University Professor Dies In Abject Poverty,”, September 28, 2013,; Sydni Dunn, “As Adjuncts See Their Hours Cut, Some Are Fighting Back,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 2, 2013,; Thomas Frank, “Congratulations, class of 2014: You’re totally screwed,” Salon, May 18, 2014,; Henry A Giroux, “Intellectuals as Subjects and Objects of Violence,” Truthout, September 10, 2013,; Henry A. Giroux, “Neoliberalism’s War on Democracy,” Truthout, April 26, 2014,; Gary Gutting, “The Real Humanities Crisis,” New York Times, November 30, 2013,; Billie Hara, “How Do You, NTT Faculty, Pay Your Rent?” Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 2012,; Keith Hoeller, “The Wal-Mart-ization of higher education: How young professors are getting screwed,” Salon, February 16, 2014,; Scott Jaschik, “Hiding Adjuncts From ‘U.S. News’,” Inside Higher Ed, September 3, 2009,; Sarah Kendzior, “Zero opportunity employers,” Al Jazeera, September 23, 2013,; Daniel Kovalik, “Death of an adjunct,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 18, 2013,; Moshe Z. Marvit, “Duquesne University Adjuncts’ Fight to Organize,” Unionosity, n.d.,; Mark Oppenheimer, “For Duquesne Professors, a Union Fight That Transcends Religion,” New York Times, June 22, 2012,; Stacey Patton, “The Ph.D. Now Comes With Food Stamps,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 6, 2012,; Claudio Sanchez, “The Sad Death Of An Adjunct Professor Sparks A Labor Debate,” National Public Radio, September 22, 2013,
  73. [73]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  74. [74]Christopher Beam, “Crime rates have plummeted over the last 20 years. Why aren’t we less scared?” Slate, February 11, 2011,
  75. [75]Herbert J. Gans, The War Against The Poor: The Underclass And Antipoverty Policy (New York: Basic, 1995).
  76. [76]Steven E. Barkan, Criminology: A Sociological Understanding, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006); Jeffrey Reiman, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, 7th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2004).
  77. [77]Dan Simon, In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2012).
  78. [78]Ernest Drucker, A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in America (New York: New, 2011).
  79. [79]International Centre for Prison Studies, “Highest to Lowest – Prison Population Total,” n.d.,; International Centre for Prison Studies, “Highest to Lowest – Prison Population Rate,” n.d.,
  80. [80]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  81. [81]Democracy Now! “Citizens United Backlash Grows from Cali. to NYC Urging Congress to Overturn Corporate Personhood,” January 5, 2012,
  82. [82]Some of this history is covered in George Seldes, 1000 Americans: The Real Rulers of the U.S.A. (New York: Boni and Gaer, 1948; Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive, 2009).
  83. [83]Jeff Milchen, “Saying No To Corruption: Why Montana is Fighting the U.S. Supreme Court,” Alternet, March 8, 2012,; David G. Savage, “Supreme Court rebuffs Montana on corporate election spending,” Los Angeles Times, February 17, 2012,
  84. [84]Stephen Dinan, “Justice says Supreme Court should revisit campaign finance,” Washington Times, February 17, 2012,
  85. [85]Ryan Chittum, “L.A. Times Quantifies the Dominance of the Finance Lobby,” Columbia Journalism Review, November 15, 2010,; Dan Froomkin, “Regulatory Capture Of Oil Drilling Agency Exposed In Report,” Huffington Post, September 8, 2010,; Simon Johnson, “The Quiet Coup,” Atlantic, May 1, 2009,; Simon Johnson, “The Rich Country Trap,” New York Times, January 2, 2014,; Gretchen Morgenson, “Wake Up the Banking Police,” New York Times, December 14, 2013,; Nathaniel Popper, “Financial reform law offers look at lobbyists’ efforts to shape it,” Los Angeles Times, November 15, 2010,; Tony Romm, “How Google beat the feds,” Politico, January 3, 2013,; Robert Scheer, “Obama’s Friends in Low Places,” Truthdig, September 24, 2013,
  86. [86]Jeremy Scahill, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army (New York: Nation, 2007).
  87. [87]Lee Adler, “Still 1.4 Million Fewer Full-Time Jobs Than in 2008,” Naked Capitalism, September 9, 2014,; Democracy Now!, “Crony Capitalism: After Lobbying Against New Financial Regulations, JPMorgan Loses $2B in Risky Bet,” May 15, 2012,
  88. [88]Paul Bucheit, “5 depressing ways the 1 percent is strangling the US economy,” Salon, October 8, 2013,; Michael D. Shear, “In Signing Farm Bill, Obama Extols Rural Growth,” New York Times, February 7, 2014,; Justin Sink and Mike Lillis, “Obama muddles his message,” Hill, February 7, 2014,; David Sirota, “Right-wing coup: Deluded secessionists have already won,” Salon, October 9, 2013,; Michael D. Tanner, “Pork in the Farm Bill,” Cato Institute, January 29, 2014,
  89. [89]Dominic Gates, “Boeing’s wish list for 777X asks for ‘no cost’ site,” Seattle Times, December 6, 2013,;
  90. [90]Timothy Egan, “Walmart, Starbucks, and the Fight Against Inequality,” New York Times, June 19, 2014,; Ari Rabin-Havt, “Wal-Mart flunks its fact-check: The truth behind its sarcastic response to the Times,” Salon, June 25, 2014,; Allison Kilkenny, “Cleveland Walmart Holds Food Drive For Its Own Employees,” Nation, November 18, 2013,; Ron Unz, “The conservative case for raising the minimum wage,” Salon, May 18, 2013,; Jordan Weissmann, “McDonald’s Can’t Figure Out How Its Workers Survive on Minimum Wage,” Atlantic, July 16, 2013,
  91. [91]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),
  92. [92]Ethan Bronner, “Voter ID Rules Fail Court Tests Across Country,” New York Times, October 2, 2012,; Juliet Eilperin and Zachary A. Goldfarb, “IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups,” Washington Post, May 13, 2013,; Lauren Feeney, Bill Moyers: Election Expert Richard Hasen on Voter Fraud and Disenfranchisement, Truthout, September 28, 2012,; Eric Lipton and Ian Urbina, “In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud,” New York Times, April 12, 2007,; Josh Voorhees, “SCOTUS Strikes Down Arizona’s Voter Registration Law,” Slate, June 17, 2013,
  93. [93]Alexander Bolton, “International monitors at US polling places draw criticism,” Hill, October 20, 2012,
  94. [94]Laurence W. Britt, Facism anyone? Free Inquiry 23, no. 2 (2003),

One thought on “Yes, the U.S. is probably a fascist country

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.