Tirades and semantic nonsense
November 2nd, 2004 | Tags: law and politics | 9 Comments
Madison lawprof and “swing voter” Ann Althouse gets some angry feedback w.r.t. her comments in the NYT about how Kerry lost her vote. Amusingly, her correspondent refers to her as supporting an “unapologetically crypto-fascist” agenda. Independently of any political content, this ascription raises serious questions.
Since “crypto-” means “hidden,” what exactly is an “unapologetically crypto-fascist” agenda? Is it one that isn’t sorry for being fascist? That doesn’t make a lot of sense, since presumably an unapologetic fascist wouldn’t seek to hide her agenda. Perhaps the correspondent means that the espouser of such an agenda is morally neutral about fascism but is not particularly sorry about hiding her fascism. While I’m sure that there are a few closeted fascists who experience profound guilt at not making their convictions public, this hardly seems like a useful category either.
Could it be that penning frothy political tirades causes otherwise intelligent people to utter semantic nonsense? (Never mind the infelicity of adding a Greek prefix to a Latin-derived root!) Or is it more likely that people who are likely to fire off ill-considered nasty e-mails are less likely to have a solid command of language in the first place?
November 2nd, 2004 at 12:45:51 PM (#)
I don’t think it is a case of semantic nonsense. I think it is a case of pseudo-intellectualism trying to sound more educated than they really are.
November 2nd, 2004 at 02:20:54 PM (#)
I think it is a case of someone watching too much Red Dwarf. Pseudointellectualism is implied in THAT mandate.
November 2nd, 2004 at 02:32:00 PM (#)
Because it’s much more fun to say “crypto-facist” or “protofacist” or “neofacist” than it is to simply say “facist”.
Besides, in that person’s day-to-day life, where he/she is used to throwing around such words, nobody has any idea what it means so they never get challenged.
Eventually it just becomes a habit.
Keep on truckin’
November 2nd, 2004 at 03:48:16 PM (#)
Some of these folks from the left really don’t understand. When I was doing my undergrdaute work I always heard them asking “Have you seen Peckinpah’s films?” as if that were a measure of human wisdom or intelligence. It didn’t end at the undergrad level either. There were lots like that when I was in graduate school (seminary). They’d mutter about “considered consequent eschatalogical developments” or “the ground of all being,” and so forth. When you asked them how they would explain all that they said to a cab driver they would just say, in deadpan, this is not for cab drivers, it’s for those of us who are wise enough to understand it.
They’re so full of crap they squish when they walk.
December 4th, 2004 at 03:08:36 PM (#)
No, you clearly misunderstood; an “unapologetically crypto-fascist” agenda is one that its not ashamed to adverise that it hides being fascist. It is fascist, and lets people know that it does not want people to know it.
December 4th, 2004 at 03:21:06 PM (#)
Touché!
June 13th, 2005 at 08:14:19 AM (#)
Crypto-fascism simply means pursuing a fascist agenda while attempting to avoid the label or trying to disguise your movement as something else. It is perfectly valid to call a movement that engages in proto-fascist activities while constantly attempting to shirk the label ‘crypto-fascist’. Fascism via deception.
June 13th, 2005 at 10:51:02 PM (#)
Matt W.:
I know what “crypto-fascist” means. Did you even read this post? The question was whether or not someone who referred to an “unapologetically crypto-fascist” agenda knew what it meant. I believe I have argued that such a person does not, in fact, know.
I would have hoped that reading this post would have dissuaded you from throwing Greek prefixes around willy-nilly, but either you did not read it (as I have posited above), or I am an ineffective user of language. Therefore, I must provide a gentle correction: you probably don’t mean to use “proto-.” Indeed, one can only really determine that “proto-fascist activities” are occurring by establishing a causal connection to some actual fascist activities at a later date.
So, really, you don’t want to criticize someone for being “proto-fascist” — that’s just like categorizing someone as being a “potential criminal.” You probably meant to characterize Prof. Althouse’s view simply as “fascist.” It is with your use of this word at all, however, that I take the most umbrage.
If you are not merely resorting to a cheap, thoughtless jab (viz., you are actually claiming that any current American politicians are indeed fascists), then you are doing a horrible disservice to the memory of 20th C. fascism’s millions of victims and I must dismiss your opinions as the ramblings of an unserious man wholly unfettered by perspective.
No mainstream politician is actually “constantly attempting to shirk the ['fascist'] label,” because no person worth acknowledging is actually ascribing that label to them. I must admit, though, that the image your claim conjures — of various elected officials tiptoeing around like the Hamburglar, trying to hide their zeal for fascism in a trashcan or under a pile of leaves — is utterly hilarious.
July 11th, 2005 at 07:36:21 PM (#)
Will
I think crypto-fascist is a cool term, but a week ago I had to ask Jeves what it meant cause I wasn’t sure. It was pretty much what I thought it was. I think we need to talk more about fascism and be more wary of it.
But your good discussion brings a couple of questions to mind. Does it matter if the Fascist is deliberately hiding it as part of his/their agenda–a need for covertness; or if they are unconsciously hiding it as if it were some large neurosis, or something that causes shame like behavior that they know to be wrong? Are both examples of crypto fascism?
What about the former prohibitionists or today’s group of overeactors to drugs and alcohol who twist laws and create harsh penalties to exact moral revenge on users. Those people have used democratic process in a fascist way. But they thought they were doing god’s work. Crypto or not? What about the Inquisitors in France and Italy, certainly fascist, but they thought they were ridding Europe of evil–as opposed to the Spanish Inquisition where the inquisitors were doing ethnic cleansing at the request of Isabella–certainly that group was crypto fascist.
Your comment about a disservice to 20th century history–Remember that not all facist governments killed 40 million slavs and 6 million jews. Also remember that German Fascism in 1936 hadn’t killed a million people. The annhilations of the 20th century came also from communists and Turks and Africans. I am not willing to limit a discussion on the possibilites of fascism in America today, simply because German fascists played the lead role in a century of slaughter.
Bill Maher made the comment–”Stop saying the republicans are nazi’s; No one is the nazi’s” I would edit his comment–no one is the nazi’s 1938-1945″ I would like to know what was going on with the nazi’s in 1932, 34 36. They were elected. They had popular support. They had religion–volkism and wotanism and blavatskyesque rubbish; darwin and eugenics. They had one of the greatest propaganda machines ever. They had economic ideology. They had nationalism. What about all that? Those are the things we need to find out about fascism. And also how did they grow and change over the twenty years prior to Germany going on their evil rampage.
And if we learn some of that stuff we need to make comparisons with what is going on in our country today. I don’t think our politicians or white citizens should get a pass from critical scrutiny. We were never lilly white. Planter society was as fascist as they get–half of the society had no rights, were considered property. And I can’t shake the feeling that this country is tied far more to the planters and the confederacy than to the sons of liberty or the abolitionists.
If we had a broader knowledge of what german fascism was and were more willing to look at ourselves honestly, the terms neo or crypto might have clearer meaning.
Our combination of domestic politics with evangelical religion, war -mongering, and our disdain of international opinions or alliances is frightening. And the only thing that is hilarious is that we continue to argue about who sucks more, democrats or republicans, all the while failing to look at our country objectively. And we have a great propaganda machine that is making sure the argument keeps going on like that. And that is pretty funny too.