Fascist Government or Gangsta Government?

“The fascist bargain goes something like this. The state says to the industrialist, ‘You may stay in business and own your factories. In the spirit of cooperation and unity, we will even guarantee you profits and a lack of serious competition. In exchange, we expect you to agree with — and help implement — our political agenda.'” — Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”

Michael Barone has written an intriguing piece describing “Gangster Government” under the Obama regime: http://article.nationalreview.com/432195/gangster-government-becomes-a-long-running-series/michael-barone

Consider that “Fascist Government” may be a better description of the ultimate end game that is being played here.

In just over a year we’ve had UAW-auto manufacturer bailouts, bank bailouts / TARP, and takeovers of healthcare and student loans. With the exception of student loans, there was not a formal nationalization of the targeted industries — but arguably the accomplishment of de facto nationalization.

There’s the old saying that “he who holds the gold is king.” Does not a government lender “hold the gold?” Particularly when that government is outspoken in its intention to enact regulatory and/or statutory as necessary to exert “influence” (if not control) … particularly if the company or industry is recalcitrant.

After all, do we not now have “pay Czars” and “manufacturing Czars?”

As Jonah Goldberg’s book well described, this was the fascist model, particularly in Mussolini’s Italy (today “fascism” is erroneously associated with Nazis and concentration camps, but these were not part of fascist political / economic theory or practice).

In this respect fascism – “crony capitalism” on steroids — is devilishly more clever than communism, even thought the result is the same – government control of the means of production (and in today’s economy means of providing services). The façade of capitalism remains, thus lulling into complacency those who would oppose open communism (or the attempted imposition of it).

Yet while private “owners” will continue to put their own capital at risk (except perhaps to the extent eligible for bailout), government — with a cocktail of regulations, executive compensation limits, and progressive taxation — will control those day-to-day and strategic management matters which it wishes to control, and the net profitability via progressive taxation and fees and fines.

Lenin observed that the capitalists will sell to the communists the rope with which the communists will eventually hang the capitalists. In a figurative sense Barack Obama and his minions may well have taken that to heart: preliminarily to the push for the de facto nationalization of healthcare they’d bought-off and lined-up the presumptive opposition of AARP, health insurers (at least initially), “Big Pharma” and the AMA. The Barone article posits that Wall Street is actually behind the current push for the de facto nationalization of finance, presumably those folks, in return for short-term gain, have been “approached” and “persuaded.”

Many have awoken and begun calling Barack Hussein Obama a socialist — perhaps “fascist” would be a better description of him and his agenda.