Where the Left sees systems, the Right sees only instances. And even if the instance is non existant will still use it to generalize from welfare Caddilacs to the rare instance that guns in the house caused the intruder to be captured, when few on welfare could afford any car, and far more family members are killed by guns than intruders.
Even the predations of Wall Street are considered "just a few bad apples" that should have been spotted by clients under the principal of "buyer beware" with the CEOs not responsible for the underling under the bus, and certainly not oversight and paperwork from the government punishing the pure of heart that managed not to get caught in a manner they could observe.
The cognitive defecit on the Right has been well documented, and the solution not so much. But the problem of guns cannot be addressed until the rest can as well. A simple message of values would help but the system vs instance vision issue will frustrate the most reasonable discussions.
Yes Loughner was psychriatriactly challenged but the old name of Lunatic Fringe of such psychiatrically challenged folk used to be a group that no public leader would support much less pander to. Now that the political climate has moved so far to the right those folk are being mainstreamed so the political "ideas" that have no relation to logic or facts are commonplace and treated as not just sane but normal. Loughner's ideas about grammer and currency are not the invention of his own damaged mind, but common threads that were found on many sites that were quickly down and scrubbed within minutes of his name even being known.
In randomly wandering through web pages I came across another psychiatrically challenged individual who's paranoid schizophrenia was both original and apolitical, being certain that the secret group out to get him taunted him, and identified themselves to each other by wearing red somewhere on their clothing. Probably this person suffers in nonviolent obscurity as most schitzophrenics do. But if he found reason to act out violently there would not be obvious political leaders, or even awareness of his reasons usless they found the blog.
That would be what a random crazy would look like, and that is not what Loughner, Roeder, David Adkisson, Eric Rudolph, William Krar, Tim McVeigh, or any of the many other right wing killers that have attacked in recent years (or in the case of Krar, stopped ahead of mass murder) would look like. Even the crazy Islamists like Al Queda stand on the political right of their community and promote a very similar Authoritarian agenda.
Sorry not to see this for so long but I wrote and used the term from the time I was able to write any comment on the Internet. But was only first attempting to do a blog with the Aol webpage stuff in 2003, so what I can find dates from then.
Though as you point out the term is fairly obvious and hopefully many folk beyond the two of us have also invented it. The important thing is to make Islamic Theofascism the obvious counter word to Islamofascism that wingers try to use.
I had a very long brilliant post that vanished in a blink of the lights.
The first point I recall was that I had always heard the word "Hegemony" always spoken with "American" in front, and always by a communist leader or writer. It is true that all I have ever heard was with my own ears, and that perhaps has colored my expectations. Your definition is the first I have heard that was discriminative.
As to Fascism, perhaps there is a better word for a modern mercantilist, corporatist, carving up of society into tyrannical satraps. Kleptocracy might fit for the likes of Enron or KBR, but misses the oppression of the likes of insurance companies, or the gorilliatude of Mal-Wart, Microsoft, or Disnay. (not to perpetuate such slander on gorillas) Perhaps you have a better word for that particular flavor of megalomania.
All that is needed for a full manifestation of American fascism, at this point, is for a genuine crisis of democracy to erupt. And if that occurs, it is almost inevitable that the differences between fascism and pseudo-fascism will vanish.
I was quite astounded (and very happily so)that we dodged that bullet Nov 7, but view it as a two year respite to repair the damage to democracy or take that last step. Never the less my concerns about going over that cliff are not assuaged by the fact that we are not yet in open freefall.
For the coalition we are talking about however, that cliff is their main objective, and if they put a smiley face on it, it is only because that is the means necessary. In anycase it appears to me that Mr Neiwart would regard a description of these folk as Theofascist as more redundancy than "over the top".
More to the point complex accurate discussions as to when it is fascism, or trying to introduce a new concept, is the main way we have been beaten for twenty-odd years. They run on emotional impact and are not so circumspect about accuracy. We don't need to stoop to their level, but we do need to keep up to their speed.
Formerly these were spread out among both political parties, but, particularly with Reagan, there was a great shift, with many Democrats becoming Republicans. Certainly in the leadership they were all a part of that coalition and are so to this day.
Because they were the dominant pair, I coined the natural word Theofascism and tried to apply it widely without much success. Then by calling the Islamists, Islamofascists, it was the Theofascists themselves that highlighted the similarities in policy and goals, and allowing Theofascism to be the general case of the enemies of mankind, including both themselves and the Islamists.
Among those who have not thought about much, hegemony is a word used (correctly) by the Communists, but will have the effect of branding the speaker as a Communist and thus shut off hearing as well as thinking. Like the word Liberal it has baggage it does not deserve, but the baggage is there none the less.
Because they have created the specific of Islamofascist (that does have accuracy problems)and made it an "enemy descriptor", Theofascist becomes the general "enemy descriptor" and more likely to keep the hearing of those who most need the info.
It is great annoyance that the hardwiring of a few million years of evolution, should be such an impedance to logic, but it is "human condition" and cannot be ignored without consequence.
I guess that is the mechanism of hegemony, but jujitsu may be a better way of fighting it than direct attack.
It would appear to me that like all free and democratic institutions, there is and will be a variety of opinions. It is foolishness to accept that activism alone has anything to do with any policy opinion much less an extreme one. That is the Neocon's talking point and one we should not be entrapped by it.
As long as Bush is trying to kill democracy, eliminate the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta, and launch into a crazy war to support the above, the opinions of people who have access to the facts of all this will be amazingly unified.
However, beyond restoring democracy, there is a very broad spectrum of opinion. For now the person who most "gets it" will get the majority of netroots support. For a long while Howard Dean sat on a pretty lonely place, and got a tremendous outpouring of support as a result.
Howard Dean and Wes Clarke have kept a great web presence, but Dean as DNC chair has had a much better bully pulpit. Al Gore has emerged as the man he should have been 8 years ago, but still gun shy about going through the wringer again.
HRC gets all the MSM talk, but I have seen little of her talking to the web much less listening, Obama and even Edwards (who should know better) don't seem to be doing any more than Hillary.
Because of the two way nature of blogs and their universality of location, a real democrat (small d) has to grow from them and should be a very much stronger candidate because he will hear all sorts of takes on his/her ideas and be ready to articulate and defend them, quite aside from the net as a fund raising tool.
Hopefully the net will be attracted to the person who can talk with us and articulate a vision that can stand up to intelligent challenge. In the past there have been few to do so, if more do so, then that is what primaries are for. A huge primary in many states virtually requires a good net connection to local groups that can build over a long time frame.
The power of the net active can only grow as a result, but they can only do so by being reality based. And of course it depends on keeping the Net free and open.
There have been plenty bullies in high office. Indeed St Ronald was not much smarter, but he was elected, and to that extant, had a sharp ear. Call it actors training, but even Joe McCarthy, as much ignorant bully as any, certainly more personally confrontational than than scurrilous George, still had that "politician speak".
George's smirk indeed said that he knew that he would never face a real election, and at the same time could not believe he was getting away with it. George is certainly more ignorant than Ronnie, and less curious(a hard record to beat), but is not less intelligent.
That moment came for me when on Nov 3, 2000 Bush just declared that he had won when the reality wasn't at all clear. Right then I knew there was something very different. Every democratic politician has a part of their mind that says that every word you say will stay with you forever.
Bush had no such restraint, not because, like Wellstone, or Dean, or even Perot he was brave or straight forward. What was so chilling that day was that it was obvious that he never expected to ever be brought to accounts for anything.
Perhaps another question.... In a "right to work" state that turnover and abusive job practices often mean that the actual work gets done badly and inefficiently, by myriad small businesses. Might it be possible to avoid the whole management vs. union conflict altogether by building democratically run "Team" businesses of, by, and for the workers?
Many business models require a large investment, or there is an existing oligopoly, but there are many industries where the employees are required to have their own tools and the business provides little more than a location and the bidding/office type situation. By organizing as a competing business the workers would be hiring a management team rather than the other way around. As an organizing business they could borrow from a bank or rent equipment just as the small businessman would have to do.
Such a well organized Team could easily compete on efficiency, quality, and esprit de corps as they could expect to have safe, sensible working conditions, and any excess profits would be going into their own pockets.
Some lefties want to censure or even impeach the President for being overly aggressive in defending the country. And many lefties in the party reject even the notion of a war against terror.
And this from a Democrat? Much less a leadership position. Worse, even though he uses Blogger he has disallowed any sort of commenting. Common among right wingers but shows disdain for his readers (duh).
The above comment invites so many comparisons that amount to "crazy out of control wacko (insert variety) is just overly aggressive" or maybe Katrina was just a bit "overly wet and windy".
And all these hornet loving weirdos think that beating a hornet's nest with a stick is a bad way to stop them from attacking, and a war on a technique is just plain silly.
Perhaps if he had comments, someone could leave him a clue