Does any of this ring alarm bells?

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi
Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and
Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted
political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the
characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1
regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original
German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show
remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any
direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual
similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist
regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus
operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political
observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to
restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current
circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following
regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal,
Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. To be
sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures,
developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or
protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power.
Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less
complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link
them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power.
These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes
than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent
displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to
show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of
citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. 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.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves
viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the
objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the
population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by
marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was
egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating
as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift
blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions.
The methods of choice-relentless propaganda and disinformation-were
usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts
against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals,
Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members
of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active
opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt
with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always
identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure
that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The
military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever
possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase
the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the
national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed
women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also
homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that
enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus
lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were
under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from
the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media
orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to
resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats.
The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the
power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public
unaware of the regimes' excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an
instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints.
Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national
security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or
even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the
fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their
opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the
predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as
militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's
behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally
swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling
elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A
perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount
to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary
citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to
operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the
corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in
developed states), but also as an additional means of social control.
Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite
to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression
of "have-not" citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was
seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony
of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or
made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or
outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a
vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals
and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were
anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were
considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal.
Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty
harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were
strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and
literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to
exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained
Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The
police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to
rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often merged into
trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents
of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or "traitors" was often
promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close
to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This
corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts
and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit
of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to
obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing
national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and
the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well
understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public
opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates
were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the
desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the
election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters,
destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a
judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells?