Kevin, and others, I'm not really all that sure that the word "fascist" is necessarily excessive and inappropriate, nor, for that matter, should one declare it "inaccurate" without closer examination.

If you use this term in relation to the current Bush administration, Republicans will scream blue murder and put you down as a hysterical kook. Democrats will blanch, say you are overstating the case, and try to shush you up because they feel you're embarrassing them. But many people (I would venture to say most) have a somewhat distorted and inaccurate idea of what actually constitutes fascism. This comes from the historical picture that most people have of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco. Each of these three variations on fascism has its own unique images. The most vivid, of course, are images of black uniforms, jackboots, swastika armbands, and shouts of "Sieg Heil!" Or Mussolini's massive chin as he stands on a balcony with his arms folded, staring, like a Roman emperor, down at the assembled multitudes. But these are only images and outward manifestations. They vary from case to case, and do not constitute the essence of fascism.

For a clearer interpretation of the word "fascism," perhaps one should go to the source. Benito Mussolini, considered the "father of fascism," said, "Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

The word fascism comes from the Latin, referring to a fasces which is a bundle of sticks tied around an ax. This was used in Rome as a symbol of imperial authority. Mussolini is said to have adopted it as a symbol of the unity of corporations (the sticks) with the authority of the State (the ax).

The unity of corporations with the authority of the State.

Work it out, folks. Work it out.

Don Firth