Sure it is. The framers of the Constitution never intended for the President to have all encompassing powers. The powers were limited, intentionally.
"Unitary executive" does not equal "the president having all encompassing powers". It means that the president has all the power the constitution gives to the executive branch, but that doesn't mean he gets the power given to the legislature, or the courts, or the powers reserved to the states, or those not permitted to any branch of the government. In addition to supporting the unitary executive idea Bush also supports a vision of federal government power that goes beyond what I see the constitution as supporting, but those holding power in all three branches of government over most of modern American history have held exaggerated opinions of the power of federal government power, and often exaggerated opinions of the power of their particular branch. Why I don't agree, there is nothing fascist about such opinions. I guess in a sense they could be "a step toward fascism" but if I turn to the north and take a step I have taken a step towards the north pole.
Yes the framers of the constitution never intended for the president of have all encompassing power, but the "unitary executive" doctrine doesn't support all encompassing power for the president either. In any case "supporting an opinion contrary to what the framers intended" does not equal "fascist", and if it did then much of American government since FDR, and perhaps even earlier was fascist. A better case can be made for FDR then for Bush on the economic side, although whether FDR's economic ideas where more fascist or more socialist can be argued. But "fascist" is a reasonable interpretation as he wasn't for the most part calling for government ownership of the means of production (socialism) but private ownership subordinate to the needs of the country, as seen by the government (fascist economics).
They often call for the suppression of "liberals" and other groups.
Those statements would IMO be under the listing of the over the top, offensive, but not serious comments I referred to before. Why both of them want liberals to lose politically, I don't think either of them want them rounded up and put in concentration camps, or given some sort of 2nd class citizen status.
"in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism."
Are you claiming they don't track with this?
In oppostion to socialism? Yes. Liberalism? Well I think in that statement it meant economic liberalism, and I don't think they are serious opponents of that idea. Democracy and individualism? No I don't think they are serious opponents to either idea.
In any case I'm probably done with this topic for now (esp. as it refers to Longshort, because he's here and can explain his own ideas if he wants. As for Coulter, I'm not a big fan. I think she's smart, a decent writer, and I think she sometimes makes some good points, but she makes the points in such an over the top way that the points get lost in the offense taken at her statements. For example her comments about the 9/11 widows enjoying their widowhood. That's over the top, offensive, and quite likely inaccurate. She made the comments in the context of an argument that just because someone has suffered doesn't mean they should be deferred to on political issues. Its a very good point, but it got lost in the context of her offensive statements and the reactions to them. I'm not really lusting after the opportunity to spend many posts defending someone who's statements I have problems with, but while I don't support her, I don't think she's a fascist.
Also she isn't a post on SI, and even if Longshort was "openly fascist" (and I say he isn't), he isn't many - "Consider how many posters on the various boards are openly Fascist."
As for your earlier statement - "I don't think the drumbeat to totalitarianism has ever been stronger."
Well lets see - FDR's economic controls (and socialist and fascist and communist that where beating the drum from even more government intervention), arguably the red scare, even Nixon's wage and price controls. And of course you have the war time controls during WWII, but they where of limited duration, and for the most part had more justification. |
