Lincoln and FDR were fascists.

I will start off by saying that your definition of fascism is a very broad one and by your definition I think that the great majority of the world could be painted as fascists. However, this defies all logic. There is a reason that there is a distinction between fascism, democracy, republic, communist, socialist, anarchist, and minarchist forms of government. I think instead we should use a more objective definition of fascism. Here is how the American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism: Fascism- A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. Let's notice the distinction. A fascist government is one that is under the authority of a dictator. Again let's get a good definition of dictator. Here is how WordNet defines a dictator: dictator- noun 2. a ruler who is unconstrained by law As we all well know the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not allow our President to do whatever he wants unconstrained by law. There were protests of Lincoln's actions in the North and no one stopped them (the Copperheads are a good example). There were elections and the democratic process continued under the Presidency of both leaders. In that way I say that they were not dictators and thus not fascists. However, let's look on now to your other claims. "1. A political ideology that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state: Lincoln, the Whigs, and later the Republicans, clearly believed this. They wanted high protectionist tariffs to subsidize internal improvements for the alleged "common good." Of course, the real purpose was to aggrandize themselves as the ruling party, but so sick is the fascist mind that it thinks this is for the "common good." The interests of the central state were exalted above the individual states and their citizens under Lincoln." First of all, how do you propose a nation builds up its own industry without tariffs. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that tariffs did not work for the common good, they clearly did. I would like to see one example of a superpower or even an industrialized nation who has never used tariffs or other measures to build up their own industry against the competing nations. Again I say those who work for the betterment of society are not fascists. There is a distinction that a fascist must ignore all law and do whatever he/she wants. This is clearly not the case of Lincoln as he was his actions were approved by Congress, the Courts, and the democratic process of elections. "FDR's New Deal was clearly the same idea. Individual liberties mattered nothing -- what mattered was the supposed "common good" and the preservation of the centralized state." The New Deal programs raised taxes, true. But juxtapose that fact to the fact that the country was picked up out of a crushing depression and came out as the richest nation in the world with the same liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and really you have nothing to squabble about. Again FDR was not unconstrained by the Law and his actions were also held up by the Congress, the Courts, and the democratic process of elections. Therefore he is not a fascist. "2. Authoritarianism: Lincoln imprisoned political opponents without charges. He ordered newspaper printing presses destroyed and editors jailed. It was a crime to criticize Lincoln. FDR, for his part, was also authoritarian. When the Supreme Court ruled elements of the New Deal unconstitutional, he threatened to "pack the court" with new members who were favorable to his fascist ideology. How is this not authoritarian? How is ordering the internment of Japanese American citizens not authoritarian or fascist? It clearly is." According to the Constitution "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" (Article 1, Section 9). Under Lincoln there was obvious a rebellion going on; therefore, he was justified under the law in his actions. Trust me though, I don't like that part of the Constitution either; however, the law is the law and he did work inside of it in this case; therefore, he is not a fascist. In reference to FDR, "Congress has various means at its disposal to impose a degree of control over the courts, including impeachment of justices, limiting court jurisdiction, and altering the number of Supreme Court justices." (http://www.cnsnews.com...). Again this is not a law that I am particularly fond of but it is the law that the Congress can expand the number of the courts to break what they see to be an obstacle to the welfare of the nation. I'm not saying it's right, but it is the law and to suggest that the threat by him makes him a fascist is ludicrous because obviously he is still working inside the law. Also the case of the internment camps is a great argument for my side because it shows that he conceded when he was proven wrong, thus making him not a fascist. "3. National unity: Clearly, this was Lincoln's goal -- "preserving the Union." In reality, he destroyed the original intent of the Union, which was voluntary confederation. FDR was also a grand centralizer and enemy of states' rights." Is it so wrong to preserve the Union? I thought that was the point of the Constitution after the complete failure of the Articles of Confederacy. The point of making a stronger federal government to protect and provide for the welfare of the STATE of America, not the Confederate States of America. Show me that FDR was what you claim he is. I have seen no proof that he centralized power. "4. Lincoln and FDR were both adamantly opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. Lincoln wanted high taxes, protectionism, a central bank controlled by the government issuing fiat money, and corporate welfare for "internal improvements." You can't get any more anticapitalist than that. FDR was almost as bad -- he created tons of new bureaucracies, regulations, and planning boards that regimented and regulated every aspect of private business. He also instituted price and wage controls, as is characteristic of fascism." I don't see how wanting to balance and build the economy makes you a fascist. Their steps if anything expanded our freedom to a better standard of living, but they were clearly not dictators and only moved to grow the economy not control it completely as a fascist would. "5. Managed currency: Lincoln shared the Hamiltonian/Whig dream of a national bank issuing fiat money. He unconstitutionally printed greenbacks and forced people to accept them under unconstitutional legal-tender laws. FDR suspended gold convertibility and confiscated the gold of private citizens. How much more fascist can you get?" The constitution says that the government may not take your property without just compensation. By taking the gold and replacing it with just as valuable paper money FDR committed no crime. He again worked inside the law and therefore is not a fascist. "'Fascist' is not an empty slur. It means something. Not only were Lincoln and FDR fascists, but virtually every member of Congress from both parties today is, too. They (almost) all support the things that are outlined above, to one degree or another." This just works for me, because you seem to not be able to comprehend the difference between creating a safety net for society (Lincoln and FDR/democracy) and taking complete control of all facets of society with complete disregard for the law (fascists). The refusal to see these distinctions has caused the word to become an empty slur. Again I will reiterate both Lincoln and FDR worked inside the law and the Constitution in their actions and therefore cannot be logically seen as fascists.