Three important notes about this file

Fascism Turns Genocide/ Racism

Fascism justifies genocide, otherization, and racism- provides license to hate

Kallis 09- professor of Modern and Contemporary History at Lancaster University, PhD from Edinburgh (Aristotle,“Genocide and Fascism the Eliminationist Drive in Fascist Europe,” p. 85-6//MGD)

The following two chapters explore the ingredients, contours, and consequences of the fascist ideological synthesis between national rebirth and cleansing. The former pointed to an ideal state for the individuals (the ‘new man’), the national community, and the nation-state as its historic-political vessel- the three bound together into a single utopian vision. The latter was both the precondition and the consequence of the vision of ‘rebirth’, purging the national community from allegedly threatening and/or harmful ‘others’ and thus preparing it for the future state of a full sovereign existence. It is this latter element of ‘cleansing’- and its incorporation into the core message of ‘rebirth’- that is of particular interest to this book, for it helped shape a redemptive licence to hate directed at particular ‘others’ and render the prospect of their elimination more desirable, more intelligible, and less morally troubling. Through this ‘license to hate’, fascism produced a discourse of permissible hatred against them that helped nurture and later unleash suppressed eliminationist tendencies, first on the level of collective consciousness, and later in terms of violent action. It also legitimized the use of violence against them- as a formulative experience for the ‘new man’ and the reborn national community, as the expression of the nation’s full sovereignty, and as the necessary vehicle for the production of an ideal ‘new order’.

AT Fascism is Progressive

Ideologist parties inevitably fail at reform- lose touch with the people

Fitzgibbon 57- former prof of political science at UCLA (Russell, “The Party Potpourri in Latin America,” The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 1957), pp. 3-22//MGD)

Another difficulty faced by many of these parties is that they so often become so deeply involved in the implications of their ideologies that they fail to respond to the exigencies of practical politics. Latins, in Latin America and elsewhere, are said to be fond of playing with ideas but this fondness, at least in Latin America, is often not accompanied by a corre- sponding intellectual discipline and toughness which would enable the ideas to be properly assorted and evaluated. Hence, the ideology-based parties have in some instances tended to lose touch with reality and progress, such concrete realities as the growth of industrialization, changing patterns of land tenure, etc. Latin-American Socialist parties provide a good case in point. Being originally Marxian, their orientation should be toward the working classes. But in country after country they have become increasingly doctrinaire, academic, and intellectualized. They have developed undeni- ably articulate leaders and their newspapers have had highly stimulating editorial pages, but Latin-American Socialist parties have had relatively little genuine influence over the masses; they have allowed that role to be pre-empted by such organizations as the Communist parties and the Peronista party in Argentina. Jorge Gaitan, the later-to-be-murdered Colom- bian political leader, put it neatly when he said, in almost the only English phrase he used in an evening of conversation with me in 1944, that the Colombian Socialist party lacked "political sex appeal." "The Socialist weakness," wrote Ray Josephs about the Argentine party (but it could describe other Latin-American Socialist parties as well), "lies in addiction to theory and philosophy and what we might call their lack of practical, sound common sense." 23

Ext: Ballot Overextension Links

They overextend the role of the ballot- mixing competition and cooperation undermines democratic processes

Schudson 97- Ph.D. in sociology from Harvard, former prof of communication and sociology at UCSD, current prof of journalism at Columbia (Michael, “Why conversation is not the soul of democracy,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication Volume 14, Issue 4//MGD)

Still, the egalitarian advice was within a context. There was also advice on the ways to speak to one's superiors and inferiors, and it did not have to be said at all that some people were outside the conversation. Spontaneity was encouraged— yes, but there was also advice on how to produce it. Cooperation— yes, but the early manuals also recognized the competitiveness in conversation and the desire to shine. Historian Peter Burke (1995) concludes that "a truly general theory of conversation should discuss the tension and the balance between the competitive and cooperative principles, between equality and hierarchy, between inclusion and exclusion, and between spontaneity and study, rather than placing all the weight on the first item in each of these pairs." (p. 92) Recognizing a tension between principles in conversation is one way to arrive at a more coherent and realistic view of conversation. I propose, alternatively, that two rather different ideals of conversation are intertwined and confused. One ideal could be termed the sociable model of conversation, the other the problem-solving model. The distinguishing feature of the sociable ideal is its insistence that conversation be non-utilitarian. In a conversation, as political philosopher Michael Oakeshott wrote, the aim is not inquiry, there is no hankering after a conclusion. Neither informing nor persuading are crucial. Reasoning "is not sovereign" and conversation "does not compose an argument." Conversation has no end outside itself. It is "an unrehearsed intellectual adventure" and— "as with gambling, its significance lies neither in winning nor in losing, but in wagering"8 (Oakeshott, 1962, p. 198; see also Shapin, 1994, pp 114-121).3