Fascism is on the Rise in the United States

Howdy y'all! This is your resident fascist, Cody Franklin, coming at you with a most exciting debate! By the end of these 3 rounds, I hope I'll have established that, in today's America, fascism is anything but 'on the rise' - and, coming from someone like myself, who knows what fascism is really all about, you can trust me on my word. :) Speaking of legitimate fascism, let's look at an in-depth definition, and bring in my opponent's opening arguments where appropriate. Oh, and one other thing; since all that's necessary is to disprove my opponent, I won't really bother with presenting a case on my own behalf. I've done a bit of extra research on fascism, and I've come up with a couple of different sources. "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." [http://dictionary.reference.com...] And then, I looked at the wikipedia page that detailed general fascism. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] I'll be referencing these two definitions throughout the round, as these seem to be more applicable to historical and contemporary fascism, as opposed to "palingenetic ultra-nationalist populism", quoted from... one scholar. Alright then. The first section in my opponent's wall o' text essentially compares fascism to Christianity, whether baptism, revivalism, reconstructionism, and overall conservatism. Three problems here: a. Historically speaking, fascist movements, like those of Mussolini and Hitler, were based around the charisma and determination of a central messianic leader, like Italy's Il Duce, or Germany's Fuehrer. In these cases, religion was entirely thrown out the window, in favor of worship of a central political icon. In fact, if we reference the encyclopedia page, "fascism presupposed a post-Christian, post-religious, secular, and immanent frame of reference." Clearly, the religious right would hardly embrace a secular agenda, such as that promoted by fascist movements. b. My opponent is also committing a huge logical no-no. His logic is as such: American conservatives = right-wing Fascists = right-wing therefore, American conservatives = fascists Clearly, while both political movements are on the right, he fails to account for the fact that, while conservatives are, obviously, in favor of conserving traditional values and religious ideals, fascists tend to be even farther to the right, to the point of being reactionary. So, while they may share the same side of the political spectrum, fascism is clearly harsher than American conservatism, even where religious fundamentalists are concerned. c. All that needs to be pointed out is the recent election. Clearly, even if we equate moderate conservatism to fascism, the recent election results in both Congress and the White House reveal a clear democratic majority, showing that the political right has become less popular since the two terms of G.W. Bush. If anything, "fascism" as my opponent defines it would clearly be on the decline. Next, my opponent discusses the characteristics of fascist movements, listing things like militarism, racism, and authoritarianism. While my opponent makes the baseless assertion that "this appears to be where it is going", there are two issues that must be addressed. a. The United States is hardly militaristic. Our army is completely voluntary, first of all, and second of all, my opponent again makes the logical mistake of assuming that having a powerful military equates large-scale militarism. b. Racism and authoritarianism are hardly words to describe the American way of life. With civil rights on the rise for all American citizens, and a republican government based upon a Constitution packed full of juicy freedom, we can look more to words like liberty and equality, not racism and authoritarianism. We hardly see racial slurs being casually tossed around, and as far as I know, I still retain the liberty to speak freely, express myself, petition my government, and keep tabs on my elected officials. After this, my opponent moves on to define fascism in 14 different ways. I apologize if I don't hit everything in my opening arguments. Nothing was really numbered, and like I said... it's a wall of text. 1. Cult of Tradition a. Another logical fallacy. Believing in traditional values doesn't equate being a fascist. Strangely enough, the term is used to bring a negative stigma to one's political opponents. For example, liberals might use it pejoratively to describe the religious right - like that radical authoritarian dictator, John McCain. 2. Rejection of Modernism Nothing is further from the truth. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Note that fascists tend to embrace a secular, progressive agenda - not reject it; in fact, "The leader of the Hitler Youth stated 'the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement' from the start". We can see that, in Germany for example, the Catholic Church was fiercely oppressed, as it provided competition against the state for citizens' loyalties. Also notice the freedom of religion in the United States. Separation of church and state tends to provide an agenda free from religious meddling. 3. Irrationality a. Alright. Let's assume that all right-wingers are ignorant (an irrational assumption in itself). As far as I'm aware, ignorance doesn't equate fascism. My opponent's position thus far seems to be based on a chain of logical fallacies, from equivocation to the classic non sequitur. 4. Action for Action's Sake a. Fascists, as I understand them, tend to take away gun rights from their citizens. The Nazis, for example, forced everyone to register and turn in their firearms, in order to ensure that, if there were any uprisings, they would be harmless ones. b. Again, understand that both left AND right-wingers try to 'impose' their views upon the population. That's voting. As far as the country is concerned, we make decisions in a majority-rules manner, where that majority can, as John Locke would put it, "act, and conclude the rest." While a vote in favor of conservatives could be seen as imposing their views upon the population, that doesn't make them fascists any more than a vote in favor of the liberals would make them fascists. Keep in mind that Pro's position rests entirely on the equivocation fallacy - "right wing = fascism". Alright. I've scrolled down the list, and he's basically got the same thing going. He constantly finds even the tiniest way to tie conservatism into fascism. Let me just show my opponent's logic for what it ultimately is. 1. A dog has four legs. 2. A dog has fur. 3. A dog can walk. 4. A dog has a tongue. 5. A dog has two eyes. 6. A cat has four legs. 7. A cat has fur. 8. A cat can walk. 9. A cat has a tongue. 10. A cat has two eyes. Conclusion: Dogs = Cats? I'm not sure what to call this. Hasty Generalization? Association Fallacy? Even if we accept that conservatives happen to share some ground with fascists, that doesn't MAKE them fascists. I'm sure that I share similar answers on the BIG Issues with other members of DDO; however, this doesn't make our political ideology the same. In fact, I have my own 'fascist' box on the politicalcompass graph. :) And, though proving that violent, authoritarian, single-party politics are the farthest things from present American ideology, there's one last thing. As I've explained, even assuming that everything my opponent states is true, the right-wingers lost the last election, while winning the one prior to that. Clearly, left-wing politics are on their way in, while the reverse is true for the conservatives. Sieg Heil, and I'll see you in round 2, Pro.