FASCISM part 3

Leadership principle
Many people often think of themselves as leaders, but few, understand what that means.  Some people believe that leaders are born, some in the right place at the right time, some who leverage their position to become placed in a leadership position, but few acknowledge people can learn to become leaders.  Leadership has many characteristics, which if acknowledged and learned can propel individuals into a leadership role. 
 
Those characteristics include courage, organization ability, decisiveness, communication skills, have intelligence and be educated, great judgment, develop trust, must be sensitive or compassionate to others, a motivator, and take responsibility and accountability for actions.  One last thing a leader must have is a vision, or a plan of where the leader wants to take the group.

Other than vision, I’m not sure which characteristic is the most important.  Some may say education…one must be academically prepared to lead.  But think about Alexander the Great, William the Conqueror, or Attila the Hun for a moment. What about DaVinci, Michelangelo, or the early architects of the great cathedrals of France?  Just how educated were they compared to education of today?  I mean, in recent years there have been political leaders in Arizona believe the earth is flat, even though Magellan proved them wrong hundreds of years ago.

Better yet, how about the education level of our founding fathers of our country?  Or Abraham Lincoln?

At a dinner in the White House honoring Nobel Prize winners, President John Kennedy said, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
 
It must be noted there is no quantitative measurement for each of the characteristics of leadership.  One may be more talented and blessed in some characteristics than others, but one must possess all of these characteristics.  And it is my contention leadership doesn’t exist only in high business or political positions.  The moms and dads of the family use the same characteristics as those in business and politics…they just use a different set of criteria and subject material. 

What are Leadership Styles?
A leadership style adopted by any leader is usually a combination of their personality, life experiences, level of intelligence, family dynamics, and way of thinking.  Just as important, leadership thrives on the aforementioned characteristics.  Without the presence of those characteristics, leadership may not be as effective as it could be.
Leadership styles have been studied in various fashion to uncover the appropriate or most effective leadership style that motivates and influences others to accomplish set goals. The major tenet of effective leadership style is the degree to which it builds follower trust.

Studies carried out indicate that followers who trust in their leader are more likely to follow through with the leader’s instructions over and above the expected. In turn, they will accomplish set goals while being allowed to speak freely to air their ideas and suggestions on the direction of the projects at hand.

Why Do Leadership Styles Matter?
That being said, leaders should be able to understand their leadership style in relation to a combination of traits listed above and determine how best they can be most effective.  Effective leadership has more to do with leadership style.  Sometimes effective leadership demands the use of a leadership style that may be contrary to a leader’s own leadership style.  However, understanding one’s leadership style allows a leader to take ownership, control, and responsibility for the size and scope of the tasks ahead.
 
Here is a small synopsis of a few selected leadership styles:

Coercive or Autocratic leadership 
Of all the leadership styles, coercive is the least effective in most situations. It’s not difficult to understand why. This style is characterized by top-down decision making, an authoritarian approach, and a demanding, do-what-I-say attitude, of the leader. (Sometimes referenced as “My way or the highway”).  While this style may yield short-term results, it has a corrosive long-term impact on the culture of the followers, leading to high turnover and a disillusioned, disengaged group of followers.  This type of leader shows little compassion for others.
 
This command-and-control leadership style may work in certain crisis situations where swift, decisive action and a clear chain of command are needed: a corporate takeover or in an emergency room, for instance. In most cases, though, this approach is likely to be detrimental.

Authoritative leadership 
The authoritative leadership style, not to be confused with coercive or autocratic leadership, involves motivating your team members by connecting their work to a larger organizational strategy, helping them understand how their day-to-day tasks contribute to a greater purpose. It’s about setting clear guidelines; not micromanaging. It’s also about trusting your staff members to work towards the shared vision with autonomy and creativity, which creates high employee engagement and increased job satisfaction. 
 
This leadership style is beneficial in lots of situations, and it’s particularly useful during times of change or uncertainty. It can also be integrated into daily operations by reminding your team members of your mission or vision.
 
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership is all about transforming the group by inspiring followers to keep increasing their production and achieve what they never thought they were capable of. Transformational leaders expect the best out of their team and push them consistently until their work and lives go through a transformation or considerable improvement.

To be effective, transformational leaders should possess high levels of integrity, intelligence, a shared vision of the future, empathy, and good communication skills.

Such a style of leadership is often associated with high growth-oriented organizations that push boundaries in innovation and productivity. Practically, such leaders tend to give followers tasks that grow in difficulty and deadlines that keep getting tighter as time progresses.

However, transformational leaders risk losing track of individual learning curves as some team members may not receive appropriate guidance to complete challenging tasks. At the same time, transformational leaders can lead to great results and engagement through shared trust and vision between the leader and followers.

Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership is more short-term and can best be described as a “give and take” kind of transaction. Team members agree to follow their leader based on job acceptance.  Essentially, it’s a transaction involving payment for services rendered. Team members are rewarded for exactly the work performed. If one meets a certain target, one may receive a bonus, whatever that may be. 

Transactional leadership establishes roles and responsibilities for each team member and encourages the work to be completed as scheduled. There are instances where incentive programs can be employed to motivate followers.  In addition to incentives, there are penalties imposed to regulate how work should be done.

Transactional leadership is a more direct way of leadership that eliminates confusion between leader and follower, and tasks are clearly spelled out by the leader. However, due to its rigid environment and direct expectations, it may curb creativity and innovation. It can also lead to lower job satisfaction and high turnover.

Ask yourself what type of leadership style is being exhibited by the President.  Is he governing by using the appropriate strategies of the Constitution that are in place, or is he ruling by issuing Executive Orders?  There is a distinct difference.

Struggle against decadence

decadence | ˈdekəd(ə)ns | noun moral or cultural decline as characterized by excessive indulgence in pleasure or luxury: he denounced Western decadence. • luxurious self-indulgence

woke | wōk | verb past of wake adjective (woker, wokest) often derogatory alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination

Many times, the comment has been spoken about how the American society has declined.  It is a constant in the news of today, and has been for several years.  The thought is so prevalent that it has permeated politics, sports, marriage…the list goes on.  The current term for this decline has been associated with the work “woke”.  Because of the notoriety of the subject, there are many half-truths and complete falsehoods regarding “wokeness”.

As a nation, we have been told by our leaders there are certain roles for each gender.  These are ascribed roles one is born into, and that is that.  One may have even read or heard there are only two genders and they are assigned at birth, male and female.  While that is true, the issue of transgender people jumps to the front of the line in regards to “hot issues” regarding acceptance or denial.  And this issue is repugnant for many people.

The idea of “wokeness” has reached into public education.  There are claims by politicians, one in particular, that public schools are permitting students to use pronouns of choice instead of pronouns that reflect one’s sexuality.  It has been bandied about that public schools are changing student’s sex, by sending the students to have surgery for sex reassignment without the permission of parents.  Other than this being laughable, it is believed by many.

This same issue caused Connecticut female student/athletes to sue on the grounds transgender athletes were allowed to compete in track meets and defeat standout girl athletes.  The basis of the suit was the transgender athletes cost the female athletes accolades and scholarship opportunities.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the lawsuit ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a policy that allowed transgender youth to participate on sports teams that align with their gender. The Court also ruled that discrimination against transgender students violates Title IX.

This legal decision has not calmed the waters of transgender people.  Many parents have stated they will not comply with schools that allow transgender students to use the restroom of their choice of gender, instead of the gender assigned at birth. 
 
Even clergy members are at opposite ends of the spectrum regarding transgender people.  Theologians have spoken against this issue because, as some say, Jesus gave life to one to live as one is born.  Others counter with Jesus loves all regardless of condition or station in life.

In 2014, a young black man was killed by police in Ferguson, Missouri.  There have been conflicting reports as to what actually happened, but it is known a police officer killed a young, unarmed, black man.  As one may imagine, this caused turmoil and riots.  The police were accused of covering up for the officer who shot the young black man.  This caused President Obama to send Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States to investigate regarding this event.  This marked one of the few times in US history the DOJ was sent by the President to investigate an event, even though the jurisdiction was held by the Ferguson police department.

Another issue that caused concern in the recent past was the “Black Lives Matter” movement.  Many cities across the United States painted streets with "Black Lives Matter" in the wake of the 2020 protests following the killing of George Floyd. Some notable examples include Washington, D.C., with a mural on 16th Street. Other cities that also painted streets with the phrase include Oakland, CA, Charlotte, NC, San Francisco, CA, Denver, CO, Seattle, WA, and Albany, NY, among many others. 

Hints of racism and civil rights emanated from this issue.  Many people who were not black said “All lives matter”.  And the racial gap widened.

What has been forgotten in this is the meaning of decadence and woke.  Do the people of our nation over indulge in luxury and pleasure?  Is it not good to have nice things in life; to spend money as one may wish, provided one has the money to do so?  It is wrong to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor?  Gluttony comes to mind.  Envy comes to mind.  So does Greed.

The definition of woke would indicate people are concerned with discrimination and social injustice.  The Supreme Court of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954) was about discrimination and social injustice.  The Little Rock Nine and the action of President Eisenhower was about discrimination and social injustice.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about discrimination and social injustice.  Public Law 94-142, also known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, is a landmark U.S. federal law enacted in 1975 that guarantees a free, appropriate public education to all children with disabilities, ages 3-21 was about discrimination and social injustice, just as Title IX provided an opportunity for girls to compete in interscholastic sports.  All were acts regarding discrimination and social injustice.
 
And, in the event, one may believe all of these court actions or laws benefited black or handicapped students, Bakke v. UC Davis Regents once again attacked discrimination and social injustice.  Steven Bakke was a white citizen trying to get into medical school at UC Davis.  He was denied because his test scores were not meeting a certain threshold.  However, when Bakke discovered that minorities were admitted to the medical school who had lower test scores than his, he sued…and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

Finally, the 14th Amendment, which one person in particular is arguing it is out of date and needs to be amended or deleted from the Constitution, flat out guarantees first class citizenship to all, regardless of race, creed, color…et al.  The operative word is ALL which is 100 per cent in most languages known to mankind.
Do I agree with many of the issues surrounding the decadence or wokeness of our society?  No, I do not.  But what I have to understand is discrimination and social injustice fails to allow citizens of our nation to chase their dreams.  That violates one of our most cherished aspects of our national fabric…opportunity to live as one wishes.  And as the song goes, “Catch your dreams, before they slip away…”

Extreme nationalism

extreme | ikˈstrēm | 
adjective:  1 reaching a high or the highest degree; very great:  • not usual; exceptional:  • very severe or serious:  • (of a person or their opinions) advocating severe or drastic measures; far from moderate, especially politically
 
nationalism | ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm | 
noun:  1 identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations:  2 an ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others and that places primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations, nationalities or supranational groups

In my lifetime of 70 years plus, the times that I can remember our nation exhibiting nationalism is during the Olympic Games.  Most all Americans cheer on our athletes, often with the “USA, USA, USA” chant; and when an American wins an event.  Going back into the Olympic archives, Lake Placid, 1980…The USA Hockey team defeating the defending, four-time Olympic Gold Champions, Soviet Union Hockey team…characterized by Al Michael’s call, “Do you believe in Miracles?”, our nation swelled with pride.  And two days later, the American team won the Gold Medal, beating Finland, the heart of our nation once again swelled with pride.

It was our nation; it was us being as nationalistic a possible; it was a great deal of hubris being displayed.  It was, a great time for our nation.

Without question, writing about this facet of Fascism has been the most difficult for me.  It is because I believe the extreme nationalism being experienced now in our nation is leading our country down a dangerous pathway.
The definitions I have listed clearly suggests the concept of nationalism puts the interests of the nation above all other nations of the world.  It also indicates this ideology can be detrimental or even exclude other nations.  One facet of the aforementioned definitions indicates nationalism promotes the culture and interest of a nation as opposed to other nations.  It is this aspect of nationalism that I object to.  One may wonder why, so please allow me to explain.

The operative word in a portion of the definition of nationalism or extreme nationalism is “culture”.  While there are many definitions of the word culture, I have concentrated on the definitions I believe are most appropriate for this subject.

culture | ˈkəlCHər | 
noun 1 the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively: 2 the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group:  the attitudes and behavior characteristic of a particular social group

To clarify, intellectual achievement, customs, arts, and social institutions (government, economics, religions, marriage, education) that are shared by a nation of people within the boundaries (borders) of a country is considered culture.

Let me ask the question, “How would one describe the culture of the United States using the aforementioned definitions of culture?”

The question is relevant because, in my view, American culture is like a bowl of vegetable soup.  Some historians and sociologists have referred to American culture as a “salad bowl”. Why”.  Because American culture is a combination of all cultures of the world. 

Millions of people have immigrated to the US for a chance to better their station in life.  The first three waves of immigration took place from 1607 to 1830, from 1830s to 1880s, and from the 1890s to 1920s.  They came because of the words at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, …"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  These people bought in to the American dream.
As these people matriculated to the US, they brought with them their customs, arts, religions, and intellectual mindset.  All people from different countries with different ideas and customs, but they chose to be American citizens.  In effect, these immigrants grew the American culture.

Taken to the extreme, nationalism becomes an ideology of group rights that denigrates individualism in favor of “the nation”.  Its foundational principle is that government exists primarily to protect the culture and interests of the nation or its dominant group.  This implies that government can use its authority to protect the national culture against potential dangers including other domestic groups and the potential spread of their cultures.  And, take a guess who would decide the dominate group.

The conflicting statement regarding the denigration of the individual in favor of a dominant group is individualism and individual rights are part of the spine of our nation. 

Extreme nationalism gives rise to discrimination, persecution, and the denial of rights of certain classes of people as determined by the national government.  We know this because Hitler blamed the Jewish people for the failings of Germany prior to WWII.  He claimed the Jewish population of Germany sold out Germany at the end of WWI to end the war.  Germany had to pay war reparations that literally bankrupt Germany…and without a major battle fought on German soil, Hitler had a sympathetic ear to speak to.

Today, in the US, the scapegoat has become the undocumented citizen.  The undocumented citizens have been described as murderers, rapists, mentally insane, and just bad people by the President.  Our national leaders have found a sympathetic ear, and they are using it.  It is unfortunate that Congress has shirked its duty to develop a reasonable, comprehensive immigration policy, something that has been called for since the Clinton administration, and by every President since.  I will say this, Congress is the real culprit regarding illegal immigration.  Congress has done nothing about immigration since before the Clinton administration.

So, imagine if you will, that bowl of soup I suggested resembled American culture.  In extreme nationalism, if one takes out the undocumented citizen (the scapegoat) out of the soup…gone will be the food, the music, the traditions, the language, the religious beliefs, the taste of the soup will not be the same. 
And, after the original scapegoat is taken from the soup, which immigration group will be next?  And with it, more missing food, music, traditions and such will be gone, and the taste of the soup will certainly not be the same.
 
And neither will the American culture be the same.

So, I ask, how does the government action of group deportation protect the culture of the United States?  In a statement, “It doesn’t”.

That is how extreme nationalism fits in to the concept of Fascism.  The government determines a dominant group, picks a scapegoat, persecutes the scapegoat, and then will turn on the dominant group when the plan begins to fail.  That is exactly what Hitler did.  I have an opinion of what or whom the President will blame when his plan to eliminate the scapegoat runs into a series of hurdles.  He has already set the stage by calling judges that do not support his agenda as “bad judges”, some who even he nominated to the bench.

And one more nugget for thought…there has been talk in Washington, led by the President, to do away with birthright citizenship.  In my view, birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  If this becomes a reality, will people have to submit an application for citizenship even though the same people were born in the United States?  Think about that for a moment…the application process for citizenship will be no more than determining the dominant, or preferred group in the United States.

What is your opinion?

Sexism and misogyny

sexism | ˈsekˌsizəm | noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex
misogyny | məˈsäjənē | noun dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women

The role of women in Fascist ideology was foremost to demonstrate her patriotism and supporting her country by giving birth to children which she would raise to become soldiers or mothers who in turn would support expansionism. While girls were not banned from studying, the cost for women students were raised to discourage it; and while women were not banned from working, certain restrictions were introduced to prevent women from being placed in authority over men in the professional life, such as banning women from certain leadership positions in the educational system which could have given them authority over male colleagues.

Unfortunately, in our society, for a long time, women were denied some civil rights…like voting.  Women were given the right to vote in federal elections about 100 years ago.  As it was, the husband of a married couple was to be the bread winner of the family, the wife, the mother and house keeper.  This was the case until about 1960 when women began to enter the workforce.  The economics of our country dictated if Americans wished to enjoy the American dream of living comfortably and having disposable income, women would have to go to work.

At the outset of women entering the workforce, women were not paid the same wages as men for the same work performed.  It is fact few if any women were allowed into leadership positions of whatever labor field they were in.  Thankfully, due to feminist activists, and the realization by many women can be assets to the nation other than bearing children, much of this discrimination or ideology doesn’t exist anymore.

But the times could be changing.

One only needs to listen to the audio tape of President Trump and Billy Bush recorded on a bus taking the two to a tv recording stage to understand what the attitude of the President is towards women.  In the event you have not heard or don’t remember the event, let me help you.
​
On tape, Trump tells Bush about a failed attempt to seduce Nancy O’Dell, who was Bush's co-host at the time (circa 2005) of the recording:

I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it.  I did try and fuck her. She was married.

And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch.

But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden, I see her, she's now got the  big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look. 

Later, referring to  Arianne Zucker (whom they were waiting to meet), Trump says:

I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.
 
As we know, the President was later convicted of providing hush money to a porn actress to not disclose their tryst prior to the 2016 election.  And in May of 2023, the President was also found guilty for sexually abusing and defaming advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996.  Apparently, the President abused Carroll as he had described to Billy Bush.
 
And yet more evidence of Trump’s disrespect for women.

Trump, who owned the Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA pageants from 1996 until 2015, has publicly bragged about invading beauty queen dressing rooms, calling it one of his prerogatives of ownership.
“I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed,” Trump told Howard Stern in recordings released by CNN. “No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. ... ‘Is everyone OK?’ You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

What I can’t fathom is how any father of a daughter could accept this person and ideology as the leader of the free world.  I have asked many men what they would do if a person tried to introduce themselves to either their wife or daughter as described by Trump.  The answer was “kill him” or “knock the hell out of him”. 
 
But let us elect him to be President.

If the actions and ideology of the President were to permeate our society, to what would women be reduced?
 
I’m old enough to remember when women entered the workforce to help support the family.  Without that happening, many families might not have been able to make ends meet.  I’m old enough to remember when women’s sports were not thought of as a component of our society, but an anomaly. As a former educator, I know enough if it hadn’t been for women “manning” industrial factories during WWII while the men were fighting the war, the industrial complex may have failed.

Let me suggest, if women are relegated to the position of bearing children and keeping house, our nation will take a great step backward.  But then again, that is the position of Project 2025, President Trump’s playbook for his administration.  In the manifesto of Project 2025, there are statements that indicate there will be political attacks on:

Attacks on Protections Against Sex Discrimination and Other Forms of Discrimination 
Attacks on Reproductive Rights and Access to Health Care 
Attacks on Workplace Justice 

These statements would roll back laws that brought forth an equalization in society for women.  They would roll back (and this has happened already) women’s reproductive rights such as abortion, and it would roll back instances of workplace injustice against women.  Please reread the opening sentence of this portion of writing.
​  
I have my opinion on this matter, what is yours?
 
 
​