George W. Bush 's `` Fascist America `` And 10 Easy Steps `` By Naomi Wolf

Ever since the founding of the United States of America on July 4, 1776, the desire for more or less government intervention has fluctuated among both politicians and the common people, thus creating the Republican and Democratic Parties, originally named as the Federalist and Anti-federalist Parties. Nonetheless, given that the current President is a Democrat, surveillance and government intervention has only increased, especially since the terror attacks at the World Trade Center on September of 2001, and the recent attacks in San Bernardino, California, Paris, France, and Brussels, Belgium, therefore creating the notion that our society is gradually becoming similar to that of Winston Smith's in George Orwell's 1949 novel, “1984”. The notion

From the early 1840s to the present day, a democracy can be described as a flawed establishment which has been shaped by the power of wealth and control, complex social relations, and most importantly the people’s desire to live a fulfilling life. Throughout this time period the principles of democracy, such as equality, protection of the people’s interest, and promotion of human rights were shifting in order to increase the democracy efficiency. Therefore the continued importance of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution remain significant since, in American today, democracy is a system that is continuously being shaped by the people within it.

Despite the many crises that the United States has faced historically, democracy has persisted. However, this is not to say that the system is secure or deeply rooted. In fact, based on the events of recent decades, it has been weakening. In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt provide examples of how American democracy has exemplified the positive and negative aspects of other global democracies of the past and present. Although the US is exceptional in some ways, with its longstanding democratic institutions and diverse population, it is more similar to others than different. Thus, the idea that few parallels can be drawn to other nations is disproven. The process of comparing each state is analogous to that of differentiating between

Since the founding of the United States of America, freedom has been the basis of the governmental and ruling systems in place. Individual freedoms are protected in both the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and Schwartz (2009) explains that ‘public liberty ultimately enhances collective rationality—it is a path to heightening our wisdom by increasing access to pertinent information and improving decision making’ (p. 409). However, there have been many times in history when the true freedom of citizens is called into question. There has always been controversy about how much power the government should have, who is keeping the government in check, and if citizens are properly informed about what their elected governed are doing. The passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 was no exception to this controversy. The

Politicians have used fear during a time full of a sense of disorder in order to gain popularity. The reaction to fear is universal and everyone is susceptible to it, forcing them to seek refuge/comfort. Political candidates then take advantage and paint themselves as a form of refuge. This makes fear a favorable strategy for politicians to gain popularity votes. Fear has the power to persuade voters more than any other strategies as seen in modern day politics and in 1964.

Despite being one of the oldest and most consistently stable democracies in the Western world, the American government, and American democracy as a whole, has frequently come under fire in recent years. Whether it is political parties, pundits, bloggers or citizens, Americans and non-Americans are all lining up to take shots at what they diagnose as a storied democracy crumbling before their eyes. Two of Robert Dahl’s criteria for a healthy democracy are enlightened understanding: are citizens able to acquire the political information necessary to participate in their own democracy, and control of the agenda: do the American senators and members of congress have exclusive and

When founding the United States, the founding fathers sought to avoid the tyrannical rule they thought Great Britain exemplified. In order to do this, the founding fathers looked to history, specifically, the failed democracies of Ancient Greece and Rome, to model their country after. Now, the United States is regarded as a nation being founded upon and one that upholds the principles of democracy and liberty. Due to the United States’ association with liberty and democracy, it has become the common assumption that tyrannical rule could never occur here. However, recent occurrences of authoritarianism in Europe throughout the twentieth century, show that there is not much of a difference between Americans today and

Fascism is a 20th century form of nationalistic, militaristic, totalitarian dictatorship that seeks to create a feasible society through strict regimentation of national and individual lives. Total subordination to the service of the state and unquestioning loyalty to its leader would adjust conflicting interests. It is a modern political ideology that looks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging of ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas of freedom and individual rights, it often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures and other elements of democracy. Despite fascism’s idealistic goals, attempts to build fascist

In recent years, there has been an attack on a basic American right, a right so fundamental and deeply rooted that it defines the basis of American culture. With the ever growing and sweeping power of the U.S. government, society is beginning to feel like this right has been crushed and forgotten. Wars were fought and people sacrificed their lives in the name of protecting the right worth dying for. What defined one’s livelihood, gave one a personhood, ensured democracy, promoted labor, and maximizes the happiness of the people will all come crumbling down. What was once an indicator of the elite leaders of a democratic society has become nothing more than a pawn in a political game.

The events that took place on September 11th 2001 have forever changed the United Sates. On that day it was clear that our borders were not secure. Our nation’s security was questioned, and our national security plan, as a result, had to change. President Bush did what he felt was needed at the time, laying out the foundation for a surveillance apparatus, involving the Patriot Act and the National Security Agency. This United States’ surveillance apparatus though, draws a thin line between privacy and security, forcing us to trade our liberty for security. By trading our liberty for security we lose both, and thus, move towards losing our democracy.

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

Another big area that we focus on for being controlling is Germany and the Soviet Union. It is hard to look past the faults in this countries Government when we have been taught about things like Hitler and Stalin our whole lives. Hitler for example, took people’s lives and even made the people of Germany believe lies about the Jews. He taught people that Jews caused all the problems with Germany and therefore should be punished and if you say a lie enough people begin to believe it. So, of course it is not shocking when people were not bothered by the segregation and hate towards a certain group of people. Or even when Stalin began to rewrite history books during his time ruling and making teachers believe that certain history events were

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival” (Orwell). The world today is full of many dangers domestic and abroad. It has become a routine in the news to report on the daily mass shooting or update with the war on terror. We live in a world where being worried is justified; however, we should not give up our constitutional rights in the face of fear. The NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs, such as PRISM, are both ineffective and are surpassed by less questionable national security programs. The FISA court's’ approval of NSA actions are not only illegal, but exist as an embarrassing formality. Surveillance is a necessary

America is synonymous with the word freedom, even being dubbed “the land of the free” by its own national anthem. But, what makes America so much more “free” than other countries? Some would argue that it’s America’s system of democracy, despite the fact that democratic governments are now the most common form of rule found in countries around the world. American democracy, although effective, is not the best democracy style for all nations; because, like many other countries, its government contains many flaws, including: its low voter turnout, two-party political parties creating division and deadlock in congress, and government positions of power being bankrolled and controlled by the rich.

The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator