Fascism part two

​
Conservative Economic Programs

One may ask what is meant by Conservative Economic Policy (Programs).  This can be defined  as when conservatives advocate tax cuts, reduced government spending, free markets, deregulation, privatization, free trade, and minimal government debt. Fiscal conservatism follows the same philosophical outlook as classical liberalism. This type of economic policy lends itself to what may be called supply-side economics.  This theory of economics proposes economic growth is primarily achieved by increasing the production of goods and services, rather than through increased demand. 
​
Examples of Supply-Side Policies:

Tax Cuts:
Lowering corporate and individual income tax rates to encourage investment and spending. 

Deregulation:
Reducing regulations on industries to allow for greater flexibility and efficiency. 

Free Trade:
Promoting free trade agreements to increase global competitiveness and access to new markets. 

Labor Market Reforms:
Reducing minimum wage or weakening labor unions to increase labor flexibility. 
It suggests that policies like tax cuts, deregulation, and allowing free trade can boost supply, leading to increased investment, job creation, and overall economic growth.  Some may even call this “trickle down” economics because the benefits of tax reduction and deregulation “trickle down” to all segments of society.
​
Criticism of Trickle-Down Economics

Inequality:
Critics argue that supply-side policies can exacerbate income inequality by disproportionately benefiting the wealthy, without necessarily leading to broad-based economic growth.
 
Limited Evidence:
Some studies suggest that the benefits of supply-side policies may not be as substantial as claimed, particularly in terms of job creation and productivity growth.
 
Impact of Demand:
Supply-side policies may not be as effective if demand is insufficient to absorb the increased supply of goods and services. 

Alternative Theories:
Demand-side economics, which focuses on increasing demand as a way to stimulate economic growth, offers an alternative perspective.
 
On the surface, I would believe most all Americans would agree with portions of the above characteristics of what would be considered conservative economic policy.  Who wouldn’t agree with tax cuts, or reduced government spending, minimal government debt, and free markets.  I would support some of the characteristics of a conservative economic program myself, but, what about the scope of all of the characteristics mentioned?

One must ask who really benefits from the proposed tax cuts.  If the tax cuts are not laid out in a proportionate manner, (the concept of ability to pay a fair share) then the real winner here would be the large corporation.  I have nothing against people becoming millionaires or billionaires.  Those people took the risk to achieve what they have achieved; the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward.  But if tax policy doesn’t include large corporations paying their fair share of the tax burden…then something is amiss, and the wealthy become wealthier.  Is that fair tax policy?

Years ago, a Republican candidate for the Presidency, Steve Forbes suggested a flat tax for all.  Forbes estimated that a 10 per cent flat tax would generate more money for the country than was being taken in at that time using the current tax programs.  In essence, if a person made one hundred thousand dollars a year, the tax for that person would be ten thousand dollars.  If a corporation made one hundred million, the tax would be ten million.  Very simple, and his numbers said it would work.
  
The caveat however, was the self-employed person.  How would the self-employed report their earnings if everything was done in cash?  How would the government determine what the tax would be for the self-employed?  And the loudest complaints about this came from whom?  Take a guess…large corporations.

What about deregulation of industry?  Is deregulation a good thing for industry?  Read the book, “The Jungle”, by Upton Sinclair.  The book may change your mind about eating sausage and, you will know why the FDA is so important.  Do you think the EPA is a necessary regulatory commission?

Is privatization a good thing?  That depends on what is being privatized.  Think education.  And with that, deregulation occurred in the Charter Schools movement.  Our national educational profile has taken a big dip in the past few years.  The State of Arizona does not require a charter school to follow the same teacher certification standards as public school districts.  Each charter school can set its own requirements for teachers; however, some schools do require you to obtain a traditional teaching certificate.  Do you believe someone without mastery of a subject matter can provide proper instruction.  After all, a teaching certificate is the state education department stating an individual has the proper subject material knowledge and training to be leading a classroom.

Think prisons.  Who actually pays for the prisons?   Someone would have to pay for the cost of the building, the correction officers, the utilities, the food, the medical care of prisoners.   It would seem the taxpayer, because I can’t believe an investor would make available a holding cell for a prisoner for no profit.  The prisoner is not going to pay…so that leaves it up to the government who sentenced the prisoner in the first place.  So how does the privatization of prisons save money?

Another concern of mine with the “conservative economic programs” is the ignoring of Adam Smith’s idea of the invisible hand of the economy.  In his book, “The Wealth of Nations”, Smith explained in his book, when individuals act in their own self-interest in a free market, they unintentionally benefit society as a whole. This occurs through the interaction of supply and demand, where prices adjust to reflect both the cost of production and consumer demand, leading to an efficient allocation of resources.
​  
Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Self-interest and the market:
Individuals, pursuing their own financial gain, are motivated to produce goods and services that consumers want and need.
 
Invisible hand in action:
The collective actions of these self-interested individuals, guided by the market forces of supply and demand, lead to a natural and efficient distribution of resources and goods. 

Benefits for society:
While individuals may not have the intention of benefiting society, the market system ensures that their actions ultimately contribute to the overall welfare of the community. 

​Without this thought of how society benefits from those who take the risk to produce the goods and services needed by society, how does society progress?  If Eli Whitney had not come up with the idea of interchangeable parts, what would have happened to industry?  Would it have never grown?  How would the automobile industry have been different?  If Eli Whitney had not invented the cotton gin, what would have happened to the southern plantations that thrived on cotton?  Can you imagine what the world would be without the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg?
 
In my opinion, a conservative economic policy without moderation allows the rich to become richer, maybe even become “robber barons”.  It doesn’t allow society to progress at the rate it should.  It doesn’t allow the “little person” a great deal of economic freedom.
  
 
Corporatism

corporatism | ˈkôrp(ə)rəˌtizəm | noun the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

Historically the ultimate aim was to destroy labor movements and suppress political dissent. Ideally, large corporations do not want the labor to unionize for fear of not being able to control labor and wages.  In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act was passed by Congress and signed by FDR.  The NLRA guarantees employees the right to organize, form or join labor organizations, bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.  This act was an attempt to prevent “robber barons” from re-emerging in American society and pressuring the national government to be lenient on large corporations.  It also allowed the labor pool to seek out an “honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work”.  The large corporations did not like this because it cut into the huge profits the corporations were making prior to 1929.
 
This idea of corporatism provided the CEO’s and CFO’s of the corporations became politically active in a “shadow” role of advisors to the administration.  Sound Familiar?  
 
President Trump’s present cabinet and advisors “includes a wrestling magnate, a private space pioneer, a New York real estate developer, the heir to a small appliance empire, and the wealthiest man on the planet -- with several being donors and close personal friends of the incoming president.

In total, the combined net worth of the wealthiest members of his administration could surpass $460 billion, including DOGE co-head Elon Musk -- whose net worth of more than $400 billion exceeds the GDP of mid-sized countries.

Even discounting Musk, Trump's cabinet is still expected to be the wealthiest in history, with reported billionaires Howard Lutnick nominated as commerce secretary, Linda McMahon nominated as education secretary, and Scott Bessent nominated as treasury secretary. Together, Trump's expected cabinet is worth at least $7 billion.”

As it has already been indicated, a favorite tool of modern-day fascists is deregulation that results in profits to businesses at the expense of consumers.  This group of people now have the ear of the President.  One may arrive at the conclusion this group of people may use their position to gainfully improve their financial worth.  I will not conclusively state that this will happen, but a past political slogan of “Drain the swamp” now must be questioned.
  
When the stock market took a big dive after the tariff war began, the President himself said, “This is the time to buy”.  When the President floated the idea he may pause the tariffs, the stock market rocketed upward.  Who made out with their investments?  Was it manipulation of the economy or was it coincidence?  Is this government by oligarchy?

I’ll let you decide.


Imperialism

imperialism | imˈpirēəˌlizəm | noun a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

The United States has created “spheres of influence” around the world.  There are many methods in which this may be done.  Obviously, military action can get this done, but this risks the entire world going to war.  Japan found this out after attacking Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Japan had wanted to have power and influence in Southeast Asia as well as China.  Southeast Asia could provide raw materials (like tin, rubber, and some oil) that the islands of Japan did not have.  China had natural resources that Japan did not have.  At the time Japan had a much better military than either the countries of Southeast Asia or China, and diplomacy wasn’t thought of much by the Japanese. 
 
The United States had told Japan to stay out of Southeast Asia.  That didn’t mean much to the Japanese because in 1941, the US wasn’t really a force in the world.  The US had realized victory in WWI, but the US Senate didn’t ratify the Treaty of Versailles to effectively end WWI.  President Wilson proposed the League of Nations, but the Senate didn’t go along with the plan, and the US failed to join.  The US wasn’t really thought of as a “world power”.  However, that all changed on December 7, 1941 when Japan attacked US forces at Pearl Harbor.  Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned the attack would reportedly write in his diary, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with terrible resolve.”

Let us not forget what was going on in Europe at this same time.  Germany was busting at the seams to militarily take control of Europe.  In a move that was carefully orchestrated by Adolf Hitler, the Munich Agreement signed in 1938, was an agreement between Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany, where a region in Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland, a region with a large German speaking population was to be ceded to Germany.  This agreement was aimed to prevent war by bowing to Hitler’s territorial demands.  As we all know, Germany then invaded Poland and WWII began.
These are two examples of imperialism using the military to spread influence over an area of the world.  There are other measures that can be used to further the concept of imperialism.  One measure that the US uses to a great deal of success is foreign aid.  This aid can come in the manner of money, and often does…but, the country accepting the foreign aid must accept the terms as indicated by the US government to receive the foreign aid.  And those terms are to the benefit of the United States.

Another measure, and this did happen after WWII was the rebuilding of Europe with what was known as the Marshall Plan.  It was a diplomatic masterpiece for the US.  Europe had been decimated by war and had no way of rebuilding.  The European economy was virtually non-existent, citizens had little to no money to purchase needed items, if they could find the needed items.  So, it became incumbent for the US to take action to rebuild Europe.  Why one may ask?  It was understood by the US government, if Europe had no money to purchase necessary items, and had no way of generating income, then how would Europeans purchase American goods?  With the rebuilding of Europe, the availability of employment took off for the Europeans, disposable cash began to rise, and American goods could be purchased.  In a roundabout manner, this could be viewed as economic imperialism.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is another example of using diplomacy to expand power and influence in other lands.  This treaty allows for American military to establish military bases in countries that are members of NATO.  Some people question the need for this organization, but the basis is really simple.  Other than the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11…how many battles have been fought on American soil?  In 250 years as a country…with the exception of the Civil War, only 3 attacks with foreign enemies have taken place on American soil.  Through NATO, unless the US is attacked in the homeland, we will fight battles outside of the US.  Yes, that too is a result of imperialism.

So how does this all apply to present times?

The President has issued tariffs against the world.  It has been said that trade with countries around the world has been in favor of the countries of with which the US trades.  This leads to imbalance of money coming in and going out of the US, thereby resulting in foreign nations making a large(?) profit by trading with the US.  Is the President trying to expand the power and influence of our country, or just level the playing field.  If the President is trying to expand the economic power the of the United States, that is economic imperialism.  Should the US continue down the path of issuing tariffs?  The end result of tariffs will raise prices for the American consumer, because in reality, a tariff is a tax on the country that is trading with the US, and that tax is passed on to the American consumer by higher prices.

I understand the President’s stance about fair trading agreements.  It makes sense, but at what cost will it be to the American consumer?  How will this improve the economy for the United States in the short term?

The President has indicated he believes Canada and Greenland would be better off being a state in our Union.  The President has also stated he believe the US should re-take control of the Panama Canal.  These statements have been made in total disregard of the sovereignty of those countries.  What is the rest of the world to think about that?  Politicians understand what was said and what suggested by those comments. And, to my surprise, the President didn’t take military action off the table in regards to the Canal and Greenland.

The President has tried to broker a peace between the Ukraine and Russia.  One of the components of the agreement was for the Ukraine to cede to Russia the Crimea and those parts of the Ukraine Russia now holds.  This would create a peace for both countries…but, if history does repeat itself, one only has to review what took place in Munich in 1938, and most importantly, afterwards.  As of today, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the President is contemplating walking away from the peace talks altogether.  This move will certainly raise an eyebrow or two in the world, as the leader of the free world and the protector of democracy turns his back on the Ukraine.  That definitely will shrink the sphere of influence created by those that came before President Trump.

I would only ask that one reviews this idea of imperialism and how it can affect you individually.  You have the wherewithal to make your own determination about to what extent our President may be using imperialism for the benefit of whom?


Military values

Historically fascists favored military values such as courage, unquestioning obedience to authority, discipline, and physical strength. 

President Trump has said we need to strengthen our military.  I would agree.  But to strengthen and not use the military is another question.  Thomas Jefferson was not in favor of building a strong military.  He believed the country would only need this if our country was in danger.  Pearl Harbor may have proved that to be true.  Does Trump plan to use the military…he hasn’t taken military action off the table in regards to the Panama Canal.

In the United States, most all of us know who is and is not military.  However, there are para-military organizations in the US.  Some are part of a government agency, like, the CIA Special Activities Center, Special Operations Group which is a covert action and paramilitary operations division of the CIA, also known as the "Third Option," or, the DOE Federal Protective Forces which is responsible for protecting Department of Energy facilities and personnel, or the DOE Office of Secure Transportation and its responsibility for the secure transportation of DOE materials and personnel, and the FBI SWAT,  which is a Special Weapons and Tactics teams within the FBI.

For those para-military organizations not government affiliated, those organizations adapt to the outward trappings of military organizations, such as paramilitary uniforms and Roman salutes. We see this today in self-styled “militias.”  Some of those groups include the Oath Keepers.  The Oath Keepers is a patriot movement group that has been linked to extremism and involvement in events like the January 6th Capitol attack; the State of Arizona apparently has two statewide self-declared militia, the Arizona Liberty Guard and the Arizona State Militia.  Both the states of New York and Missouri have paramilitary groups as well, the New York Light Foot Militia and the Missouri Militia.

Let us not forget another far-right group, the Proud Boys.  The Proud Boys is an American far right militant organization that promotes and engages in political violence. The Proud Boys are opposed to left-wing and progressive groups and support President Donald Trump.  In fact, the Proud Boys consider themselves the protector of President Trump.  While Proud Boys leadership has denied being a white supremacist organization, the group and some of its members have been connected to white supremacist events, ideologies, and other white-power groups throughout its existence.

For the military branches of the US, the Commander in Chief is the President.  He may command the armed forces to deploy, attack, or protect the citizens of the US.  Members of the military swear to protect the Constitution.  In General Mark Milley’s farewell address, he said...

“We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator,” Milley said. “We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.”

“Every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian and Coast Guardsman, each of us commits our very life to protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price,” Milley continued. “And we are not easily intimidated.”

It appears that while President Trump demands loyalty to him and his agenda, the Constitution protects Americans from any type of military attack by our military on our citizens.  However, that is not the case with the self-declared militias.  Those far-right groups are dedicated to a far-right agenda that can be compared to the agenda of the Third Reich.

Absolute loyalty to the cause, ultra-nationalistic, white supremist, misogynistic, anti-immigrant, and Islamophobic are all qualities of these groups.  And some of these groups have been associated with President Trump.  In a Presidential Debate on September 30, 2020, when confronted by the debate moderators and Candidate Joe Biden, President Trump said this:

“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,” Trump said. “But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem.”

Facing widespread criticism for his failure to condemn the group, Trump also said, “I don’t know who the Proud Boys are.” He added, “Whoever they are, they have to stand down. Let law enforcement do their work.”

Now that may all sound convincing, but testimony from the Congressional Hearings regarding the attack on the Capitol and the ensuing fallout may prove this statement to be different.  Testimony by some said the Proud Boys were main players in the attack.  There were many of the Proud Boys indicted and convicted of seditious acts against the government.  At one point of the legal proceedings, members of the Proud Boys wanted to subpoena Trump to testify on their behalf.  The presiding judge didn’t allow that to happen.

And probably the most contradictory event to take place regarding the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and Trump was reported by the BBC:

US President Donald Trump issued pardons or commutations for more than 1,500 people convicted or charged in connection with the US Capitol riot four years ago.
 
Fourteen members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, two far-right groups, are among those whose sentences were commuted by the new Republican president as he took office on Monday.

Trump also signed an order directing the Department of Justice to drop all pending cases against suspects accused in the riot.
 
The executive action came shortly after Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the US inside the Capitol, which was stormed by his supporters on 6 January 2021 as lawmakers met to certify Joe Biden's election victory.
 
During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office on Monday evening, Trump displayed a list of the names of US Capitol riot defendants he said were receiving a pardon.
 
"These are the hostages, approximately 1,500 for a pardon, full pardon," Trump said. "This is a big one."
 
"These people have been destroyed," he added. "What they've done to these people is outrageous. There's rarely been anything like it in the history of our country."
 
The proclamation says that it "ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation".

So, what do you think?  This is just my opinion…what is your’s?