A Fascist America: How Close Are We? Essay -- essays research papers

The idea that America is turning fascist has been popular on the Left for as long as I can remember: in the 1960s, when antiwar radicals raged against the Machine, this kind of hyperbole dominated campus political discourse and even made its way into the mainstream. When the radical Weather Underground went into ultra-Left meltdown and began issuing incoherent "communiquà ©s" to an indifferent American public, they invariably signed off by declaring: "Death to the fascist insect pig that preys on the life of the people!" Such rhetoric, too overheated for American tastes, was quite obviously an exaggeration: America in the 1960s was no more "fascistic" than miniskirts, Hula Hoops, and the rhyming demagoguery of Spiro T. Agnew. Furthermore, we weren't even close to fascism, as the downfall of Richard M. Nixon made all too clear to whatever incipient authoritarians were nurtured at the breast of the GOP. Back in those halcyon days, America was, in effect, practically immune from the fascist virus that had wreaked such havoc in Europe and Asia in previous decades: there was a kind of innocence, back then, that acted as a vaccine against this dreaded affliction. Fascism – the demonic offspring of war – was practically a stranger to American soil. After all, it had been a century since America had been a battleground, and the sense of invulnerability that is the hallmark of youth permeated our politics and culture. Nothing could hurt us: we were forever young. But as we moved into the new millennium, Americans acquired a sense of their own mortality: an acute awareness that we could be hurt, and badly. That is the legacy of 9/11. Blessed with a double bulwark against foreign invasion – the Atlantic and Pacific oceans – America hasn't experienced the atomizing effects of large-scale military conflict on its soil since the Civil War. On that occasion, you'll remember, Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator," nearly emancipated the U.S. government from the chains of the Constitution by shutting down newspapers, jailing his political opponents, and cutting a swathe of destruction through the South, which was occupied and treated like a conquered province years after Lee surrendered. He was the closest to a dictator that any American president has come – but George W. Bush may well surpass him, given the possibilities that now prese... ...tting out all political opposition, and arresting thousands on account of their political and religious convictions – in Uzbekistan. How far are such people from rationalizing the same sort of regime in the U.S.? At least one prominent neocon has made the case for censorship, in the name of maintaining "morality" – but now, it seems to me, the "national security" rationalization will do just as well, if not better. McConnell is right that we are not yet in the grip of a fully developed fascist system, and the conservative movement is far from thoroughly neoconized. But we are a single terrorist incident away from all that: a bomb placed in a mall or on the Golden Gate Bridge, or a biological attack of some kind, could sweep away the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and two centuries of legal, political, and cultural traditions – all of it wiped out in a single instant, by means of a single act that would tip the balance and push us into the abyss of post-Constitutional history. The trap is readied, baited, and waiting to be sprung. Whether the American people will fall into it when the time comes: that is the nightmare that haunts the dreams of patriots.

A very brief history of human relations management

Human Relations Management began with Mary Parker Follet, a social worker with 25 years of experience working with schools and non-profit organizations. She is best known for developing ideas of constructive conflict (also called cognitive conflict). She believed conflict could be beneficial. She believed the best way to deal with conflict was not domination or compromise, but rather integration. Elton Mayo, best known for the Hawthorne Studies, investigated the effects of lighting levels and incentives on employee productivity.Chester Barnard, an experienced top executive, became very influential (and best known) for his ideas about cooperation and the acceptance of authority. He proposed a comprehensive theory of cooperation in formal organizations and defined an organization as â€Å"a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons. † The human relations school of management is also known as motivational theory. Not everyone is on board with a ll its concepts; however, it would be hard to argue the fact hat it has changed management practice overall (and over a period of years) for the better.Human Relations Management Theory considers employees differently than the more overbearing management theories strong in the past. Largely based on theories of Douglas McGregor, HR Management Theory makes the assumption that people want to work. The assumptions are also made that people are responsible, self-motivated, and wanting to succeed; and, further, that they nderstand their own position in the company hierarchy.McGregor called this Theory Y. Theory Y is the total opposite of what McGregor called Theory X. Theory X takes the view that employees are lazy, not at all motivated, seek only their own security from work, and that they require supervision and discipline. In a nutshell, Human Relations Theory clearly views workers as much more than a cog in the company wheel. It makes the assertion that businesses prosper as they hel p their employees prosper.

The Apartheid Of South Africa - 1174 Words

Some periods in human history are simply shameful. The period of apartheid policy in South Africa was one of these times. Apartheid featured a rebirth of racist legislature in South Africa from the 1950s to the 1990s. Essentially, these laws treated people who were not white as completely separate from society; the term apartheid literally means â€Å"apartness.† The national legislature in South Africa wanted to suppress blacks and ensure a white supremacy in the government. Basically, political goals predominated over human rights. Fortunately, enough support eventually rallied to abolish apartheid. Nevertheless, it was still unjust and devastating. The South African government’s policy of apartheid was a deplorable chapter in human†¦show more content†¦Apartheid laws were created to ensure a white supremacy in the governemnt. In 1948, the apartheid laws first began, and â€Å"racial discrimination was institutionalized.† Among the first aparth eid laws were a prohibition of marriage between whites and blacks, and the distinction of ``white-only jobs. Then, these laws became even more serious. â€Å"In 1950, the Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be racially classified into one of three categories: white, black (African), or colored (of mixed decent)†. This specific law enabled a myriad of racist legislature to be enacted. For example, one law required that those classified as blacks carry a pass book containing their fingerprints to step foot in a non-black area. Also, in 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act divided African reserves into â€Å"homelands.† Each African was designated a homeland, and their political rights, including voting, were confined to its borders. The goal of this was to eradicate any sort of African power in the South African Parliament; whites desired â€Å"hegemony† over the people. Essentially, between 1976 to 1981, four homelands were formed and â€Å"nine million South Africans were denationalized.† Notwithstanding, the homelands â€Å"refused the nominal independence†¦and [maintained] pressure for political rights within the country†. Outrageously, Africans from these homelands were required