Archived: Feb 18, 2008

> Editorial

Op-Ed: The road to fascism

The latest actions of the SA

By JJ Burseth

While the SA president claims that he'll not issue any cease and desist orders, it is clear that several people within our government agree that this law needs to be enacted.

Last week our splendid student government legislative body, the Student Association (SA) Senate, passed a bill called the SA Sedition Act.

Proposed by Sen. Joseph Ohler, it passed with a 10-7-3 vote. According to the bill, any group or individual would be held accountable for releasing libelous or slanderous material. Such actions would result in a cease and desist order from the student government.

During the previous week, the bill was vetoed by SA President Robert Grover and attacked by the ACLU. After two of its three original sponsors dropped their support, that veto was upheld by the Senate, despite initial reports that its author would fight to override that veto. Ohler did not attend last night’s meeting.

Needless to say, criticism against SA is usually pretty legitimate, considering the body’s troubled past, and it's apparent why Mr. Ohler would find the silencing of the student body beneficial to the SA and its members.

But before we start discussing how great it would be for no one to be able to disagree with the actions of our student government, let’s take a look at similar legislation in recent history.

Many countries and governments have a history of passing such laws. In 1934, Germany passed the Heimtueckegesetz law. This law specifically criminalized any “libel and slander” toward the Nazi government. This resulted in over 100,000 arrests, including the arrest of many people imprisoned for telling jokes. This law also made it illegal to print or be in possession of literature critical to the government.

The similarities to Nazi Germany are particularly interesting because, as a member of the Student Association has pointed out to me via e-mail, SA is also an abbreviation for the paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party of Germany. That SA played a major role in Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s, which, as we all know, led to the Holocaust and World War II.

In Soviet Russia, Joseph Stalin passed many laws infringing on his citizens’ right to free speech. While the foundations of the Holocaust were being laid in Germany, newspaper editor Nikolai Bukharin faced charges for criticizing Stalin in the Soviet Union. Bukharin was found guilty and subsequently executed.

This is something that is known around the world to be done by oppressive, undemocratic governments. In addition to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, similar legislation has been enforced by governments in Italy, Czechoslovakia, Chile, China and others.

Obviously our student government isn't full of Nazis, and they’re not going to do something like start a world war. However, they are no longer acting in appropriate representation of the students. They will continue on this path until their constituents start to hold the student government accountable.

Instead of the students of UWM telling the representatives what they can or cannot do, the representatives are telling the students what they can or cannot do, say or write. Or to quote “V for Vendetta,” a major motion picture about a masked hero fighting a dystopian society that has lost all its rights: “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

This Sedition Act would have allowed SA to crack down on school newspapers, radio shows and students. This would have been especially interesting with the coming SA elections at the end of the semester. It would be incredibly difficult for student government candidates to call SA members out on their wrongdoings if there were a law that specifically made such a practice illegal.

So should the UWM Post be reprimanded for printing this editorial? Should they have to go through all their records and destroy anything that quotes SA members in a negative light?

While Grover said he would not have issued any cease and desist orders, it is clear that several people within our government agreed at one point that this law needed to be enacted. So how far should we let it go? How much power should these un-representatives get?

Historically, governments that pass legislation like the Sedition Act don't listen to their constituents whatsoever. The same goes for our student government. Since the SA elections are coming within the next two months or so, we need a shift. While this was a close call, 10 people initially supported this legislation, and that is 10 people too many. The fact that this bill was even written should be shocking, let alone that it had enough support to pass the first stage of the legislative options.

Many, many people are deeply involved in the current United States presidential race, but we also need to look at our own university's student government at this time. It's becoming increasingly clear that we need to vote the current members of the student senate out and vote for people who may actually consider listening to the students, extreme though that may be!

Op-ed pieces published in the Post do not necessarily represent the views of UWM Post, Inc. or its staff.

> Comments

Ted Reilly on Feb 18, 2008 at 09:29 PM:

Do you even know what 'fascism' means, JJ? I challenge you to come up with a good, definitive definition - because most intellectuals agree there isn't one.

Personally, I'm in agreement with George Orwell, who said in "Politics and the English Language": "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable.""

Ultimately, the lack of understanding you display about this concept is what damages your credibility as a writer. Comparing the Student Association to Nazi Germany? Come on. Not even the morons who signed on to the "SEDITION ACT" take Student Government that seriously. That is why the opposition to those currently in power lost - they were too crazy and couldn't call a spade a spade. Your concerns with the party in power appear to me to be some sort of personal vendetta - are they?. As someone who follows student government only through what is written in this paper, it is my understanding that SUFC has accomplished everything they laid out in the platform on their Facbook group. Why do you seem so surprised as to what happened, especially with the funding issues?

Separation of Powers on Feb 19, 2008 at 12:10 AM:

Despite claiming he would enforce a separation of the branches, Rob Grover established an executive branch filled with SA Senators as his predecessor did to control both branches. Look up his words in the UWM Post from March/April 2007. He hasn't done a thing on one of the most basic ways (but not a guarantee) of preventing corruption in your govt.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 19, 2008 at 08:19 AM:

Using fascist willy-nilly like this isn't very intelligent. I've studied fascism for a while now and believe it or not I now know less about it than when I started. I have yet to find a definition of fascist that is anything more than a perjorative label. Everyone thinks they know if something is fascistic but when you get into the details no one really seems to know what fascism is.

The White Rose on Feb 20, 2008 at 02:13 AM:

Right, but even if it is merely "perjorative" or "not desirable," it is being used correctly on both counts in this case.

But let's be realistic, gentlemen, fascism is associated with right wing, militaristic, undemocratic, repressive, violent governments wherein government economic policy is typically dictated by business elites for their own personal benefit.

The mere fact that you do not recognize fascism or its symptoms when you see them does not mean that the same is true of others.

You are the people who someday, not tomorrow, not next week, but someday, will look back and say, "but I didn't know."

"I didn't know we were torturing, committing genocide, supporting others doing the same, overthrowing democratic governments, destroying the planet, imprisoning our own population for profit, buying products made by slave labor..."

Well you should know. The information is readily available if you want to find it.

How many Germans later said that they didn't know they lived down the road from a death camp?

Of course, the good news is that when you figure it out, many of us will still be willing to work with you, together as equals.

Hopefully you don't have us all killed in the meantime.

In God we Trust on Feb 20, 2008 at 05:51 AM:

There is a difference between what women like Sophie Scholl did and what idiots like you try to aline yourself with.

The White Rose was a noble cause that saw the injustices that were going on with Hitler's killing of the Jews, they saw how corrupt the Nazis were, and they had a cause to fight against.

The United States is not a 'Fascist Regime', we are not 'committing genocides next door', nor are we 'overthrowing democratic governments'.

We are seeking out and targeting terrorism, we are alleviating the threats posed to our nation and its democratic principles by radical islam, and we are overthrowing radical regimes in the name of bringing in democratic governments.

It's not going to be us killing you, it's going to be you killing us by not allowing our intelligence agencies, military, or government to do their jobs in protecting our homes here in America.

It's sad that Americans would chose to desert their country like you have and side with those who would see our downfall instead.

Chris Walker on Feb 20, 2008 at 06:54 AM:

This is an interesting debate, and I'm glad it's being brought about. What one defines as "fascism" is usually a product of their perceptions on what the word means.

Of course, looking back at history, most people see Nazi Germany - a then-fascist country - and then define fascism in those terms. Sure, there was censorship and punishment for voicing dissent with the ruling party of the time (the Nazis). But we have seen such methods in other forms of government, notably coming from communist regimes like the Soviet Union and China. Thus, suppression of the right to speech is not just a fascist trait.

How do I personally define fascism? I see it as an overly nationalistic and overly patriotic vision for a state that aspires to enforce the prevailing and hegemonic forces of the populace. In short, a state that enforces the social norms of society upon the entire population. Nazi Germany certainly did this, through the extermination and removal of Jews and other minorities within its borders.

To conclude: fascism means different things to different people. Most would agree that there are fascist “acts,” but a lot of those acts aren’t necessarily limited to being fascist.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 20, 2008 at 08:00 AM:

"fascism is associated with right wing,..., ...undemocratic,"

Even that is highly debateable. That is the popular conception but when you study fascism much of that becomes quickly obfuscated. Fascism is popularly thought of as right-wing however some conservative intellectuals like Goldberg believe it is actually left-wing. My personal opinion after studying it differs from both Goldberg's view and the popular conception. From what I can tell fascism is not uniquely left-wing or right-wing but rather something else altogether which incorporates elements of both.

As for being anti-democratic that is also debateable. Hitler and Mussolini for example were democratically elected and high popularity ratings for quite some time. Fascism seems to strongly dislike what is often reffered to as political correctness and for that matter appears anti-democratic. Almost like Eric Cartman on steroids. However I suspect most people dislike political correctness making that a democratically supported attitude.

I can go on like this about much that is purported about fascism. On a purely theoretical level when you look at fascism under a microscope it seems to vanish right before your eyes.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 20, 2008 at 08:05 AM:

A good example of what I was saying before deals with the "14 points of fascism." Upon examination every single trait can be seen in none fascist countries. Very frequently a large majority of the traits can be seen in most any state you study.

By the 14 points standards everyone is a fascist, and if everyone is a fascist no one is.

John Brown on Feb 20, 2008 at 02:25 PM:

Johanan,

"Very frequently a large majority of the traits can be seen in most any state you study..."

Some more than others, obviously. I assume you do not think that every state is exactly the same.

But you are on the right track.

Also, Hitler was not "democratically elected." The Nazis received the largest block of votes, but did not have anything close to a majority. They then imprisoned or killed everyone in the opposition, held further "elections," re-wrote the Constitution, etc.

Chris, You are absolutely right. I was never defending the repressive actions of China or the Soviet Union. As a patriotic American citizen, I feel that my first duty should be to hold my own government accountable.

In God We Trust, You should study your history before telling me that we do not overthrow democratic governments. Chile and Iran would be good places to start, but they are but the tip of the iceberg. On genocide, see 3 to 6 million dead Vietnamese, over 1 million dead Iraqis, not to mention our unflinching support for death squads and dictators around the world (who trained and funded Bin Laden and Hussein?).

None of these are disputed incidents.

You can say that it was in our national interest if you want, that mass murder is necessary to maintain our place as a superpower, but remember that this is a discussion on fascism.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 20, 2008 at 06:48 PM:

"You should study your history before telling me that we do not overthrow democratic governments."

I never denied that we do. In fact in some instances there is a valid justification for it. My first article to the Post was actually on that topic:

Democracy doesn't equal freedom

http://uwmpost.com/article/52/8/2566-Democracy-doesn-t-equal-freedom-

Democracy is good but should always be confined to the context of a republic.

"Chile and Iran would be good places to start, but they are but the tip of the iceberg."

I know. This is part of modern foriegn policy, and it has allowed us to prevent massive conflicts between superpowers that are far more destructive throughout the later half of the 20th century and into the present. CIA covert wars allow us to avoid bigger wars that kill more people. I'm not sure of the details with Iran but in the case of Chile I remember we removed a fledgling communist state before it became entrenched.

"On genocide, see 3 to 6 million dead Vietnamese,"

I would not classify these as genocide. The people killed here were part of a war to liberate the country from the Viet Cong. The intent was not to exterminate based on race as such it could not properly be classified as Genocide.

"over 1 million dead Iraqis,"

I would watch out for fantastically large statistics like that. General Franks who is a much more reliable source put the number we killed during the invasion as closer to 30000 which is off from the 1m statistic by a couple orders of magnitude.

"not to mention our unflinching support for death squads and dictators around the world (who trained and funded Bin Laden and Hussein?)."

Study the Kirkpatrick doctrine. We do do this however it is usually done as an attempt to prevent an even worse government from taking its place. We sometimes support authoritarian governments like Musharraf or Pinochet to prevent worse regimes (totalitarian ones) like Islamist or communist regimes respectively from taking hold.

In authoritarian regimes you are still allowed many freedoms but the laws are rigid and strongly enforced. In totalitarian regimes by contrast every aspect of life is controlled.

For example in Musharraf's soft authoritarian state women who are raped are freed from jail sentences. By contrast women who are raped in totalitarian Islamist states are jailed and/or beaten for that.

John Brown on Feb 20, 2008 at 10:42 PM:

Johanan-

[Unless you are posting under your name, Chris, and In God We Trust, not all of those comments were directed at you.]

"[In Vietnam] The intent was not to exterminate based on race as such it could not properly be classified as Genocide."

If not a racial group, then definitely a political group, thus yes, "genocide" is in fact an appropriate label for the mass murdering of the Vietnamese people. Napalm was developed for only one purpose. My Lai was the rule, not the exception. You cannot "liberate" people by killing them.

Further, several independent studies, conducted by professional pollsters and statisticians, have put the death toll for Iraq near 1 million.

The U.S. military is not in fact a more reliable source, as A) it is not in the interest of either the U.S. government or military to reveal the actual costs and B) military personnel (notably including Colin Powell) have repeatedly noted that civilian death tolls are not of interest to them. Franks' estimate was literally a guess, not based on anything solid.

Also, Allende was democratically elected and posed NO threat of violence to neighboring countries or to his own Chilean constituents. The same can not be said for Pinochet, who was guilty of countless crimes against humanity. The U.S. provided training in torture, intimidation, and mass murder techniques for his regime. Logically, this means that much of that blood is on our hands as well.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 21, 2008 at 07:57 AM:

"[Unless you are posting under your name, Chris, and In God We Trust, not all of those comments were directed at you.]"

Oops. Sorry.

"If not a racial group, then definitely a political group, thus yes, "genocide" is in fact an appropriate label for the mass murdering of the Vietnamese people."

No that would be politicide then but not genocide. You see the term genocide refers to the killing off a gene-line (hence GENocide) which is a race. A political group could include members of a variety of races.

I've seen an argument similar to this that confuses race and culture before. The reason I'm calling this out is that the distinction is sometimes relevant to the argument. For example killing of the members of a political group if that group is say radical Islam and the group has officially expressed intent to commit acts of terrorism is not a bad thing whereas genocide is.

Likewise opposing a primitive of barbaric culture may not be bad either however racism is bad.

By confusing the two you can accidentally label something that may be appropriate as something inappropriate.

"Napalm was developed for only one purpose."

Killing large bunches of Viet Cong all at once.

"My Lai was the rule, not the exception."

You don't know that.

"You cannot "liberate" people by killing them."

But you can liberate them by killing the people oppressing them. That's the thing people don't get about Iraq

"Further, several independent studies, conducted by professional pollsters and statisticians, have put the death toll for Iraq near 1 million."

Except those very high estimates are not accepted by the majority of sources I have heard from. It doesn't make sense that the majority of sources will put the estimate in the range of 10000 to 100000 but a few estimates put the toll at grossly above that. A more logical explanation is that the numbers that don't fit the pattern have another explanation:

http://americanewsjournal.com/index.php/more/332

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that precision bombs would result in that much collateral damage. Lastly how many of those people were killed by our actions and how many were killed by the people we are trying to stop. You have to remember we are not there to kill Iraqi's. If the Iraqi's want us out all they have to do is stop the violence as the only reason we are there is to keep the peace until the new government is stable enough on its own.

Seditionist on Feb 22, 2008 at 08:16 PM:

Fascism is the new fashion, don't you know? Just like sedition is the new sexiness! ;)

Jingomania on Feb 22, 2008 at 10:26 PM:

"Fascism is the new fashion, don't you know? Just like sedition is the new sexiness! ;)"

Well I suppose fascism has always been way cooler than communism. I think it's because of all the parades and rock concert style political rallies.

Fascism is the new fashion.... on Feb 23, 2008 at 11:52 PM:

well duh.

doesn't conservative kind of equal prude?

that's why I only dig liberal chicks... slut is just implied in the title!

Proud Conservative on Feb 24, 2008 at 12:04 PM:

"that's why I only dig liberal chicks... slut is just implied in the title!"

Yeah well only manwhores like sluts.

Senator Ohler on Feb 24, 2008 at 10:17 PM:

There's nothing wrong with being a prude; personality is the best birth control, you know! You can't find this advice in the yellow pages.