Fascism and the Trajectory of the Republican Religious Right
Since the principal
focus of this book is on how the Republican Religious Right would come to create
fascism in the United States, I feel
thatit is important to present the
definition of fascism that I use here. The bulk of this section is taken from Appendix
II, "The Nature of Fascism and Its Precursors," supposedly written by "Dino
Louis" in "1998".
In the book, I project that in "2048", were a real equivalent of "Jonathan Westminster" to be writing, when describing the economic and political system which existed throughout the period "2001-2023," first in the old United States and then in the apartheid- state the New American Republics (NAR, see Chap. 13: "White," "Negro," "Indian," and "Hispanic"), the words "fascist" and "fascism" would generally not be used.
However, it should be understood that with few exceptions the Republican Religious Right leadership and its successors in both the old United States and New American Republics would vehemently deny that they were fascists, and would strongly shy away from ever using the term to describe themselves or any of their activities. They would, of course, continue to use it to describe the Resistance. Perfect Orwellianism.
Even at the height of the projected NAR's racist oppression of the non-white peoples of the Second, Third, and Fourth Republics, and violent repression of dissent and resistance within the White Republic itself, even at the time of the most extreme concentration of power in the hands of the Executive Branch of the NAR and the substitution of the rule of men for the rule of law, and even with the perpetuation of one-party (American Christian Nation Party, the ACNP, the successor to the Republican Christian Alliance) government, in my projection the Right would pursue the fiction that it was following the precepts of Democracy and was the protector of traditional American freedoms.
Even after it would have used the Constitutional Amendment process in the most grotesque way to make the original U.S. Constitution a mere shadow of its original self, the Republican Religious Rightists would claim that they were doing nothing more than protecting the traditional "American way of life." And they shunned the use of the term "fascism" even at the risk of alienating some of their projected strongest, and most violent, supporters from the traditional U.S. Far Right, groups and organizations that proudly labeled themselves "Fascist" and "Nazi."
But the ACNP leadership would persist in this policy to the very end. It was the natural outgrowth of a fashion broadly used by Republican Religious Right during the Transition Era, of racists claiming they were not racists, anti-Semites claiming they were not anti-Semitic, misogynists claiming they were not anti-female, xenophobes claiming they were not xenophobic, Islamophobes claiming they were not Islamophobic, and homophobes claiming they were not homophobic. Mindspeak again.
It was a peculiar tactic bred of a time just before the commencement of the projected Transition Era in 1980 when in fact prejudice of most kinds was considered by most people to be nasty stuff. The tactic, as we can see today, has served a very useful purpose for the Republican Religious Rightists because many of their opponents were drawn into useless, distracting, no-win "yes-you-are, no-I'm-not" arguments, rather than discussing and exposing the true policies and desired social outcomes advocated by the Right-Wing forces, regardless of how they characterized themselves. In Westminster's time, the phrase "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck" would most certainly characterize the approach of most historians to the study of the period 1980-2022.