I could go on (and on and on), but keep in mind that for many decades "Fascist" and "Nazi" had virtual trademark signs attached: they could only be applied to Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, and Hitler's Germany. There was some reason for this: In my college years (early '70s) and long after, too many lefties, especially lefties too y…
I could go on (and on and on), but keep in mind that for many decades "Fascist" and "Nazi" had virtual trademark signs attached: they could only be applied to Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, and Hitler's Germany. There was some reason for this: In my college years (early '70s) and long after, too many lefties, especially lefties too young to have memories of the 1930s or WW2, regularly called their political opponents Fascists or Nazis. ("Nazi" was usually capitalized; "fascist" usually wasn't.)
What got lost was what those words actually meant -- that they described conditions that weren't unique to Italy, Spain, or Germany. So when those conditions arose elsewhere, for instance in Chile or Brazil, people tiptoed around the F-word and the N-word and hushed or ignored anyone who used them. What happens when you don't have the words to identify something? Maybe you apply a different word, or come up with a new one. These alternatives don't have the power of the originals. "Far right" is vague, even mild, compared to "fascist" or "Nazi," and until fairly recently if you actually used "fascist" or "Nazi," you would be accused of hyperbole.
I think things changed in a big way after the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville. When swastikas appear and white guys chant "Jews will not replace us," the word "Nazi" is not hyperbole. More and more of us started seeing the connection between the U.S. "far right" and the Nazis, even if there were no swastikas in sight. But the mainstream media -- and too many liberal politicians --remain so excruciating cautious about their language that they can't see, and don't want to see, what's happening right in front of them.
I could go on (and on and on), but keep in mind that for many decades "Fascist" and "Nazi" had virtual trademark signs attached: they could only be applied to Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, and Hitler's Germany. There was some reason for this: In my college years (early '70s) and long after, too many lefties, especially lefties too young to have memories of the 1930s or WW2, regularly called their political opponents Fascists or Nazis. ("Nazi" was usually capitalized; "fascist" usually wasn't.)
What got lost was what those words actually meant -- that they described conditions that weren't unique to Italy, Spain, or Germany. So when those conditions arose elsewhere, for instance in Chile or Brazil, people tiptoed around the F-word and the N-word and hushed or ignored anyone who used them. What happens when you don't have the words to identify something? Maybe you apply a different word, or come up with a new one. These alternatives don't have the power of the originals. "Far right" is vague, even mild, compared to "fascist" or "Nazi," and until fairly recently if you actually used "fascist" or "Nazi," you would be accused of hyperbole.
I think things changed in a big way after the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville. When swastikas appear and white guys chant "Jews will not replace us," the word "Nazi" is not hyperbole. More and more of us started seeing the connection between the U.S. "far right" and the Nazis, even if there were no swastikas in sight. But the mainstream media -- and too many liberal politicians --remain so excruciating cautious about their language that they can't see, and don't want to see, what's happening right in front of them.