Madeleine Albright - Fascism - A Warning

What the country needs is a plainspoken commitment by responsible leaders from both parties to address national needs together, accompanied by a general plan of action for doing so. Instead, Republicans are guarding their right flank and Democrats their left, leaving a gaping hole in the only place in the ideological spectrum where lasting agreements on behalf of the common good can be forged. Years from now, we may look back on Trump as a onetime oddity who taught us a lesson we will not forget about the quirks of democracy. We may also look back on him as the agent of a political fracturing from which it will take decades to recover, during which every president will fail because the only candidates elected are those who make promises impossible to keep. Much depends on the lesson politicians draw from recent experience—whether it is better to reject Trumpism, or copy it.

That’s one reason for concern. There are others.

We have learned from history that Fascists can reach high office via elections. When they do, the first step they attempt is to undermine the authority of competing power centers, including parliament or, in America, Congress. As another of my students noted, the United States has been at war since 2001 based on a sixty-word-long congressional authorization to use force against those who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the September 11 terror attacks. That straightforward phrase has since been relied on by Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump to justify anti-terror operations not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan but also Cameroon, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Niger, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, Uganda, and Yemen. Much of this activity has been directed at groups that did not even exist in 2001. The connection between the original authorization and the subsequent actions has stretched to a thinness no longer visible.

One might think that members of Congress would be eager to reassert their constitutional right to declare war and to set boundaries on the use of force. Some are, but the majorities of both parties have chosen to duck the responsibility. Hawks fear that a second resolution would tie the president’s hands; doves are wary of giving the commander in chief what might amount to a blank check. So year after year they do nothing. As a result, three presidents have ordered thousands of military strikes over a period of years based solely on their own judgment of effectiveness and need. It’s hard to imagine an authority more susceptible to future abuse. Aware of this, President Obama urged Congress to approve new legislation—to no avail. Congress isn’t doing its job in this arena, just as it has become über-politicized and undereffective in so many others—approving a budget, scrutinizing nominations, conducting objective investigations, overseeing government agencies, and holding serious hearings before trying to rush through laws.

My students point to additional troubling developments. Fascism feeds on social and economic grievances, including the belief that the people over there are receiving better treatment than they deserve while I’m not getting what I’m owed. It seems today that almost everyone has a grievance: the unemployed steelworker, the low-wage fast-food employee, the student up to her ears in debt, the businessperson who feels harassed by government regulations, the veteran waiting too long for a doctor’s appointment, the fundamentalist who thinks war is being waged against Christmas, the professional with her head brushing against a glass ceiling, the Wall Street broker who feels unfairly maligned, the tycoon who still thinks he is being overtaxed.

Obviously, personal gripes—legitimate or not—have been part of the human condition ever since Cain decided to work out his jealousy on his brother. What is an added concern now is the lack of effective mechanisms for assuaging anger. As described above, we all tend to live in media and information bubbles that reinforce our grievances instead of causing us to look at difficult questions from many sides. Rather than think critically, we seek out people who share our opinions and who encourage us to ridicule the ideas of those whose convictions and perspectives clash with our own. At many levels, contempt has become a defining characteristic of American politics. It makes us unwilling to listen to what others say—unwilling, in some cases, even to allow them to speak. This stops the learning process cold and creates a ready-made audience for demagogues who know how to bring diverse groups of the aggrieved together in righteous opposition to everyone else. Consider this summons: “The time has come for a movement that takes the best of the left and the right, forging a new unity amongst the various peoples who make up America, molding them into a single people, a united nation.” Such is the benign rallying cry of a group calling itself the American Blackshirts.

At this juncture in the discussion, my students brought up the issue of trust. How is it built? Are there any individuals or institutions who will be listened to by all sides? These are harder questions to answer than they should be. In the political realm, broadly respected leaders are rare precisely because, in trying to establish a middle ground, they leave themselves open to attack from the extremes. Candidates with the best chance to win general elections can’t get past their primaries. Legislators who try to work across the aisle are unappreciated by one side and castigated for disloyalty by the other. In a recent Reader’s Digest survey, the four people most trusted by Americans were all fictional role players—movie actors—with Tom Hanks heading the list. Evidently the individuals we most believe in aren’t real.

What about the press? My generation came of age watching three nightly news shows, staying up late for Johnny Carson, and pondering the thoughts of such eminent columnists as James Reston, Flora Lewis, Mary McGrory, William Raspberry, and William Buckley. The information they provided served as a mighty centrifugal force in American society.

We did not all subscribe to the same beliefs. On the contrary, there were substantial divisions between the major parties, and at the margin there was competition for space among Nazis, Communists, Black Panthers, the John Birch Society, Yippies, and the Klan. But the media played a huge role in preserving our equilibrium. People actually read the editorial pages of major newspapers. Most everyone knew who was on the latest cover of Life , Time , Newsweek , and Rolling Stone . Together, we sat in our living rooms and watched our country bury a president, then his brother, and, in between, Dr. King. We witnessed the first televised war, the first lunar landing, and the first resignation by a president. We disagreed frequently, but at least we started from the same general base of information. That’s no longer true. Today citizens get their news from a kaleidoscope of sources, some reliable, many not—and we’re pretty sure it’s the other guy, not us, who is being taken in by partisan propaganda and fake news.

MY CLASS IS FAR FROM UNIFORMLY GLOOMY IN ASSESSING THE future. One student offered as a hopeful sign the nonmilitary aspects of George W. Bush’s response to the 9/11 terror attacks. Bush cautioned Americans not to blame Islam or its practitioners for the actions of a small group of terrorists. On this principle, he was consistent and courageous throughout his presidency. Not once did he seek to win cheap applause at the expense of American Muslims, nor did he spread lies about them, nor fail to speak out when some were targeted by hate crimes. The example he set in the face of the most serious attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor is worth remembering.

Another student seconded her classmate’s earlier warning about complacency but saw a possible remedy in the response to Trump’s election. Among her peers, she was seeing an eruption of interest in public affairs and a greater willingness to organize and participate in protests and to sign up for campaigns. She was excited about the number of smart women who have announced plans to run for office. Trump, she hoped, might be the wake-up call that American democracy needs.