Category: Politics Page 1 of 2

What Is Fascism Anyway?

On March 29, 2025

Fascist! The very word conjures up images of totalitarianism, militarism, suppression of dissent and brutality. Unfortunately, it’s become a ubiquitous portion of our political discourse. Each side, at one time or another, has accused the other of being fascist. But what do they really mean by fascist? Do they understand the definition and the reality of fascism? Or do they simply mean: “I disagree with you, and I really want to make you sound evil.”

I decided I needed to know more about fascism, so I’ve done some research, and I’d like to share the results with you. As I frequently do, I’ll start with the dictionary definition. According to Merriam-Webster fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

As with many dictionary definitions, it gives us the 50,000-foot view without any real detail. What I’d like to do is cover the origins of fascism, its basic principles and how it rose to prominence in the middle of the 20th century. I also want to compare fascism to communism—another ideology that shaped much of the 20th century—and to provide insights into the differences and similarities between these two systems.

The Origins of Fascism

Fascism emerged in the early 20th century, primarily in Italy, as a reaction to the perceived failures of liberal democracy and socialism. The term itself comes from the Italian word “fascio,” meaning a bundle or group, symbolizing unity and collective strength. It also references fasces, a bundle of rods tied around an ax symbolizing authority in the Roman Republic. It was appropriated as a symbol by Italian fascists in an attempt to identify with Roman history, much as American patriotic symbols are being appropriated by the radical right in the U.S. today.

Benito Mussolini, an Italian political leader, is often credited as the founder of fascism. He established the groundwork for first fascist regime in Italy beginning in 1922 after he was appointed Prime Minister. Fascism arose in a period of social and economic turmoil following the First World War. Many people in Europe were disillusioned with the existing political systems, which they believed had failed to prevent the war and its devastating consequences. The post-war economic instability, along with fears of communist revolutions like the one in Russia, provided fertile ground for the rise of fascist movements.

Moussolini, together with Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, published “The Doctrine of Fascism” (La Dottrina del Fascismo) in 1932, after he had consolidated political power in his hands. It lays out the guiding principles and theoretical foundations of fascism, stressing nationalism, anti-communism, the glorification of the state, the belief in a strong centralized leadership, and the rejection of liberal democracy.

The Philosophical Basis of Fascism

Fascism is rooted in several key philosophical ideas:

Nationalism and Militarism: Fascism places the nation or race at the center of its ideology, often elevating it to a quasi-religious status. The state is seen as a living entity that must be protected and expanded through internal police action and external military strength.
Authoritarianism: Fascists reject democratic institutions, believing that a strong, centralized authority is necessary to maintain order and achieve national greatness. Individual freedoms are subordinated to the needs of the state.
Anti-Communism and Anti-Liberalism: Fascism is explicitly opposed to both communism and liberal democracy. It views communism as a threat to national unity and social order, while liberal democracy is seen as weak and indecisive.
Social Darwinism: Fascists often believe in the idea of the survival of the fittest, applying this concept to nations and races. They argue that conflict and struggle are natural and necessary for the advancement of the state.

Implementation and Practice of Fascism

Fascism has been implemented in various forms, with Italy under Mussolini and Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler being the most prominent examples. In practice, fascist regimes are characterized by:

Centralized Power: Fascist governments concentrate power in the hands of a single leader or party, often through the use of propaganda, censorship, political repression, and mass imprisonment and execution of opponents.
State Control of the Economy: While fascists generally allow for private ownership, they maintain strict control over the economy, directing resources toward the state’s goals, particularly militarization.
Suppression of Dissent: Fascist regimes are intolerant of opposition, often using violence, imprisonment, and even assassination to eliminate political rivals and suppress dissent.
Cult of Personality: Fascist leaders often create a cult of personality, presenting themselves as the embodiment of the nation and its destiny.

Comparing Fascism and Communism

While both fascism and communism reject liberal democracy, they differ significantly in their goals and methods.

Philosophical Differences:
- Fascism: As mentioned earlier, fascism emphasizes nationalism, authoritarianism, and social hierarchy. It seeks to create a strong, unified state that can compete with other nations on the global stage.
- Communism: Communism, based on the ideas of Karl Marx, advocates for a classless society where the means of production are owned collectively. It seeks to eliminate private property and achieve equality among all citizens.
Economic Systems:
- Fascism: Fascists allow for private ownership but maintain state control over key industries and direct economic activity to serve the state’s interests.
- Communism: Communism advocates for the abolition of private property, with all means of production owned and controlled by the state (or the people in theory). The economy is centrally planned and managed.
Political Structures:
- Fascism: Fascist regimes are typically one-party states with a strong leader at the top. Political pluralism is non-existent, and the government exercises strict control over all aspects of life.
- Communism: Communist states are also typically one-party systems, but they claim to represent the working class. In practice, these regimes often become highly centralized and authoritarian or totalitarian, similar to fascist states.

Comparative Examples

Italy and Nazi Germany (Fascism): Both Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany exemplify fascist regimes. They were characterized by aggressive nationalism, military expansionism, and the suppression of political opposition. Hitler’s regime, however, took these ideas to their most extreme and horrifying conclusion with the Holocaust, a genocide driven by racist ideology.
Soviet Union (Communism): The Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin provides a clear example of a totalitarian communist state. The government abolished private property, collectivized agriculture, and implemented central planning. Political repression was severe, with millions of people imprisoned, starved to death or executed during Stalin’s purges. It is important to recognize that Stalinist communism differed significantly from the theoretical communism of Karl Marx.

Conclusion

Fascism and communism, despite their profound differences, share certain similarities in practice, particularly in their authoritarianism and intolerance of dissent. However, their philosophical foundations and goals are fundamentally different: fascism seeks to elevate the nation above all else, while communism theoretically aims to create a classless society. Understanding these ideologies and their historical manifestations is crucial for anyone interested in the political history of the 20th century and its lasting impact on the world today.

We can use our understanding of fascism and its comparison to democracy to ask important questions. What kind of government do we want? Are there any possible crossovers or compromises between the two? And, importantly, should there be?

Postscript

Many of the ideas in this post were inspired by two excellent books on the subject, “The Origins of Totalitarianism” by Hannah Arendt and “Fascism: A Warning” by Madeleine Albright.

Don’t Forget Climate Change

By John Turley

On March 18, 2025

In Commentary, Politics

It Affects Us All

Climate change, one of the most critical challenges facing humanity in the 21st century, seems to be forgotten in all the controversy surrounding DOGE. Regardless of everything else going on, we can’t ignore climate change because it affects global temperatures, weather patterns, ecosystems, and economies. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activities—primarily the burning of fossil fuels—are driving climate change.

The existence of climate change and the impact of human activity, like any other field of science, includes areas of disagreement among researchers. One of the principal areas of disagreement is about the sensitivity of the climate to the increase in CO2 production and the rate at which global warming will occur. There’s also discussion about how effective climate models may be with some arguing that the models may either overestimate or underestimate certain effects. A significant area of disagreement is over what is known as the “tipping points”. This is a debate about when or if certain events such as ice sheet collapse, permafrost thaw or ocean circulation changes might occur. Some argue these events could trigger rapid self-reinforcing climate shifts while others believe changes will be more gradual. Even with this disagreement there is broad acceptance that climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of heat waves, heavy rain and extreme weather.

As intense as some of these scientific debates maybe, they pale in significance beside the political debates being generated around climate change.

When the possibility of climate change was first recognized in the 1970s and 1980s there was bipartisan support to address possible remediation of long-term impacts. Republican President Richard Nixon signed landmark environmental laws including the Clean Air Act.

During the 1990s climate change became more polarized. President George H. W. Bush begin to frame climate change policy as an economic threat. George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol to avoid “economic hindrance”.

By 2008 the partisan divide had significantly increased. Republicans increasingly dismissed climate risks while Democrats amplified the urgency of taking action. By 2023, 78% of Democrats prioritized climate policy, but only 21% of Republicans viewed climate action as urgent despite increasing climate risks in some GOP dominated states such as Florida and Texas.

The partisan gap expanded as conservative science skeptics continued to raise issues about rates of change, economic impacts and potential solutions. These conservatives tend to view climate policies as government overreach, while progressives hold the position that the government led initiatives are essential to combat environmental threats.

As they have in many other issues, the media have lined up into conservative and progressive camps. The conservative leaning media downplays climate risks while the liberal leaning media emphasizes the danger and need for urgent action. As with many other things this leads to a “echo chamber” effect simply reinforcing political beliefs without adding anything new of significance to the debate.

The Trump administration has signaled its desire to undo many of the climate change initiatives put in place by Democratic administrations. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14162 directing the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreements and related international climate commitments. He has declared a “National Energy Emergency” to accelerate fossil fuel development and ease restrictions on the construction of new oil and gas projects. As part of this effort, he has weakened environmental reviews. This is expected to significantly increase fossil fuel consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration has begun the rollback of environmental regulations. Lobbyists for the oil, gas and chemical industries have been appointed to the Environmental Protection Agency to reverse climate regulations and pollution controls.

The administration is withdrawing funding for clean energy initiatives including those aimed at reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable energy resources. The administration has initiated a review of the “legality and continued applicability” of the EPA’s endangerment finding which is the basis of most federal regulations on greenhouse gas. The administration rolled back regulations limiting methane emissions from oil and gas operations. The definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act was narrowed, potentially allowing increased pollution in streams and wetlands.

We can expect increases in severe weather because of Trump’s environmental policies. These policy decisions collectively hinder efforts to mitigate climate change, potentially leading to increased greenhouse emissions and global warming. Reduction in funding for climate change research and the rollback of environmental regulations will have long term adverse effects on both domestic and global environmental health.

Significant budget cuts and layoffs within agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) could impair the ability to forecast and respond to severe weather events. For instance, the reduction of meteorologists and environmental scientists may hinder critical forecasting services, affecting public safety during events like hurricanes, tornados and floods.

The U.S. withdrawal from international climate initiatives, such as the Loss and Damage Fund, reduces financial support for developing countries dealing with climate-induced disasters. This could lead to inadequate infrastructure and preparedness in vulnerable regions, potentially increasing the severity of weather-related impacts.

While it is challenging to attribute specific future weather events to current policy changes directly, the administration’s environmental policies will likely contribute to conditions that favor more frequent and intense extreme weather events. The combination of increased greenhouse gas emissions together with weakened environmental regulations, reduced climate research capabilities, and diminished global climate cooperation collectively enhance the likelihood and impact of severe weather phenomena. This damage to our environment needs to be prevented! Once it occurs it will be difficult to ever reverse and our children and grandchildren will suffer as a result.

Don’t Cut and Run on Ukraine

By John Turley

On March 5, 2025

In Commentary, Politics

Like many Americans, my wife and I were both embarrassed and disgusted by the Oval Office ambush of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by Donald Trump and JD Vance. We were so upset by this disgraceful treatment of the visiting president of a sovereign nation, that we followed the lead of a friend and immediately ordered “I Stand With Ukraine” T-shirts.

The oval office meeting held on February 28, 2025, was ostensibly intended to finalize a mineral rights agreement between the United States and Ukraine. The deal was seen as a strategic move to reduce US dependence on Chinese rare earth minerals and to support Ukraine’s economy amidst its ongoing conflict with Russia.

In what appeared to be a planned attack, Vice President Vance berated President Zelenskyy, making false claims of ingratitude on the part of Ukraine. President Trump quickly escalated the situation by criticizing Zelenskyy’s approach to the war and asserting that the Ukraine was “gambling with World War III.” He then demanded that President Zelenskyy admit that he was responsible for the war and could end it at any time by making a deal. Trump further demanded that Zelenskyy admit that it was Ukraine that was responsible both for initiating and prolonging the war.

If there is any doubt this was a planned and likely scripted meeting on the part of the Trump administration, you only have to look at Donald Trump’s closing statement for the meeting. “I think we’ve seen enough. This is going to be great television.”

The fallout from this event has significant implications for international diplomacy and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe. The suspension of U.S. military aid to Ukraine following the meeting has raised concerns about Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian advances. Ukrainian officials expressed disappointment but remained defiant with one military official stating, “we will fight with or without their help.”

President Trump has labeled Zelenskyy a dictator who is unwilling to negotiate peace. He claims that the Ukraine initiated hostilities against the Russian speaking population, requiring Russia to intervene. These claims have long since been debunked, yet Donald Trump continues to repeat them. It has been interesting this past week to watch Trump nominees try to avoid saying whether they believed Russia has invaded Ukraine. They evaded questions by saying they didn’t have all the facts, or it wasn’t appropriate for them to respond, when obviously they did not want to lie under oath and claim that Russia had not invaded Ukraine.

Russian officials and state media reacted with approval to the Oval Office clash. China, Syria, North Korea and Iran also supported the Trump administration’s approach.

The French President and the British Prime Minister both reaffirmed their commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and condemned the manner in which the meeting was conducted.

Decide with whom you prefer to have the United States aligned, our long-standing allies and other democratic governments, or with autocrats and dictators.

We invite you to join us and proudly proclaim “I STAND WITH UKRAINE.”

Oppression in Politics: Totalitarian and Authoritarian Systems

By John Turley

On February 20, 2025

In Commentary, Politics, Uncategorized

Since January 20th there has been extensive use of the terms authoritarian and totalitarian to refer to the actions of the current administration. While totalitarian and authoritarian are often used interchangeably, they represent similar but distinct forms of governance with critical differences. If we’re going to hold rational discussions about these theories, we should be using the same terminology.

A totalitarian government seeks to control every aspect of public and private life, including political, economic, social, and cultural domains. The government uses a specific ideology to unify and dominate society. The government strives to regulate all aspects of life, leaving no room for personal freedoms or independent thought. A guiding ideology is central, often enforced by propaganda, indoctrination, and censorship. The government frequently relies on widespread surveillance, police state tactics, and brutal suppression of dissent. All institutions, media, education, economy, and religion are state-controlled.

Examples include Nazi Germany, unified under an ideology of racial purity and Stalin’s Soviet Union, ostensibly organized under a Marxist ideology. Both governments maintained control of their population through propaganda, brutal police actions, terror and murder.

An authoritarian government is characterized by strong central power with limited political freedoms, but it does not seek to control all aspects of life. Unlike totalitarian regimes, authoritarian states often allow some degree of personal freedom in areas like culture, business, or religion, as long as these do not challenge political authority. Typically, these regimes are pragmatic and focused on maintaining power, not enforcing an all-encompassing ideology. They are more likely to be organized around the personality of the dictatorial leader. While repression is common, it is often less pervasive and targeted primarily at political opponents.

Franco’s Spain had limited political freedoms but allowed religious and cultural autonomy. Putin’s Russia allows limited economic freedom for members of the Russian oligarchy.

The main distinction lies in the scope of control. Totalitarian regimes seek to control all aspects of life and demand ideological conformity. Authoritarian regimes primarily focus on political power and allow some personal autonomy as long as it does not threaten the regime.

In summary, all totalitarian governments are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian governments are totalitarian.

Waiting For The Reichstag Fire

By John Turley

On February 16, 2025

In Commentary, History, Politics

On the evening of February 27th, 1933 the German Reichstag burst into flames. This attack on the German national parliament building was viewed by many as an attack on Germany itself.

A Dutchman named Marinus van der Lubbe was found and arrested at the scene almost immediately after the fire erupted. The Nazis quickly claimed that the fire was part of a broader communist uprising and used this claim to push for emergency powers.

Van der Lubbe confessed to setting the fire alone, but the Nazi Party quickly claimed that it was part of a widespread communist conspiracy. Many people believe that the Nazis may have set the fire themselves and used it as a pretext to declare emergency rule.

Adolf Hitler persuaded German President Paul von Hindenburg to issue the “Decree for the Protection of the People and the State” which suspended civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press and assembly. It allowed for the arrest and detention of political opponents without due process. Thousands of communists and socialists were arrested.

Within a month new elections were held. While the Nazis did not win an outright majority, they used the fire to create fear that led to passage of the “Enabling Act” on March 23, 1933. The act gave Hitler dictatorial powers, effectively ending democracy in Germany.

The Reichstag Fire was a crucial point in world history. Whether it was a Nazi engineered false flag operation or the act of a alone arsonist, it provided Hitler with the excuse he needed to dismantle democracy and establish a totalitarian dictatorship. This is a chilling example of how fear and propaganda can be weaponized to erase freedom; a lesson that remains relevant today.

Hijacked Healthcare- A System In Crisis

By John Turley

On February 8, 2025

In Commentary, Medicine, Politics

For more than 30 years I have watched our health care system become increasingly more politicized. As a physician I have become concerned with the direction it has recently taken.

Until the early 20th century healthcare was mostly private, and medical expenses were out of pocket. Early calls for national health insurance began with labor organizations and were quickly joined by progressive politicians. President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to include health insurance in the Social Security Act of 1935 but was unable to get it passed. President Harry Truman also proposed a National Health Insurance program in 1945, but it was denounced as socialized medicine. All these efforts were opposed by business interests, conservative politicians — particularly southern— and surprisingly, the American Medical Association.

Finally in the 1960s as part of his “Great Society” programs President Lyndon Johnson pushed for the passage of both Medicare and Medicaid. Rising costs of health care under President Richard Nixon led to the introduction of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) as an attempt to encourage cost efficiency. President Ronald Reagan reduced federal health care spending and pushed for more privatization. In the 1990s President Bill Clinton attempted to introduce universal health coverage but it was met by fierce opposition from the insurance industry, business, and the Republican Party who labeled it as government “overreach”. Finally in 2010 President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) also called “Obamacare” became the most significant health care reform since Medicare and Medicaid. It also faced legal challenges and political resistance with the Republicans consistently attempting to repeal it. During his first term, President Donald Trump reduced ACA funding and repealed the individual mandate penalty that had required people who did not maintain health insurance to pay a fee. The elimination of the penalty weakened the law and reduced the number of people who sought coverage. We can expect further efforts to weaken the provisions of the ACA but given that it is well entrenched in the US healthcare system now is unlikely that it will be completely repealed.

While early health care programs faced significant controversy and strong debate, progress in providing expanded coverage and improved care was continuous. I’m concerned that we’re about to enter an era where many of our gains in public health are going to be reversed. The United States remains unique among wealthy nations as the only one without universal health care and I fear that we will begin to lose what gains we have made over the past several decades.

I’ve written previously about my concerns with vaccine resistance and the elimination of vaccination requirements for school children. I believe that this is an impending public health disaster and I’m afraid there are even greater disasters on the horizon.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr has been nominated by President Trump to be the secretary of Health and Human Services and by the time you read this he may well have been confirmed. During his confirmation hearings Kennedy has made a few positive statements. He’s expressed an intent to increase focus on chronic diseases such as diabetes and obesity. He has indicated support for rural hospitals. He would like to increase training for physicians in addiction care and increase access to treatment programs. He is also indicated plans to improve American diet by targeting ultra processed foods, contaminants in food, and placing restrictions on food additives. He also has proposed reforms to include stricter FDA oversight of the food supply.

However, there are several very troubling aspects to his nomination. He has a history as a vaccine denier although he is currently denying that denial. He said he is not anti vaccine but is pro safety. He has stated he will support polio and measles vaccines and that all his children have been vaccinated. (In 2020, while speaking on the podcast of his nonprofit organization Children’s Health Defense, Kennedy said that he would do anything, pay anything to be able to go back in time to avoid giving his children the vaccines that he gave them.) Given his history of anti vaccine statements and the fact that he profits from anti vaccine litigation it’s likely he will return to previous anti vaccine positions once confirmed.

He has proposed significant changes to both the CDC and the NIH including significant staff changes. He has proposed redirecting funding to preventative/alternative medicine.

Most troubling is his poor understanding of Medicare and Medicaid programs. During questioning he showed a lack of understanding of the funding sources and statutory requirements of the two programs.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) faces considerable threat. House Republicans have proposed a $1.8 billion cut (22%) to CDC’s budget. These budget cuts target programs that address opioid overdoses, firearm injuries and food safety monitoring. This budget conflicts with Kennedy’s statements about his priorities and it remains to be seen how this will be resolved. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has advocated splitting the CDC into two separate entities: one for data collection and another for limited public health guidance. The intent is to reduce its influence on social policies. The administration has already imposed communications restrictions, requiring that CDC announcements, social media posts and scientific reports undergo political review. There is currently a proposal to reduce the in-house reviews of medical research; there is even a proposal to “deputize the public” to challenge scientific findings used in regulations. This would leave medical research open to review by the least qualified. Unfortunately, he current nominee for CDC director, David Weldon, a physician and former republican congressman, has signaled his intent to narrow the agency’s scope and his support for administration policies.

Highly contentious issues such as gender affirming care and reproductive health have already been severely restricted. It is likely that these areas will come under continued attack by the current administration.

This administration also poses a threat to global health. By executive order the US was withdrawn from the World Health Organization. Additionally, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been significantly reduced with all major programs placed on hold. Not only does USAID support foreign aid programs, but it is also a major player in global health.

USAID sponsored programs identify and monitor disease outbreaks, provide treatment and preventive measures for local populations and provide global disease alerts that help protect United States citizens. We are already seeing the beginnings of a worldwide humanitarian healthcare emergency. Not only will this affect healthcare systems but eventually the economic systems in countries who have lost their access to modern medical assistance. We will lose the advanced notice about disease outbreak and spread. Without this remote surveillance, it is possible that we may be caught unaware by the next pandemic until it is ravaging our population.

This administration claims to support “the average American” yet it seems to be intent on destroying all our health.

Ignorance Redux

By John Turley

On January 16, 2025

In Commentary, Medicine, Politics

On his first day in office, the new far right governor of West Virginia issued an executive order allowing for extensive exemptions from the school vaccination mandate. When taken with the nomination of a virulent anti vaxxer for Secretary of Health and Human Services, I am concerned that we are in a rush to allow our children to die of easily preventable diseases. With this in mind, I’m reposting my article The Triumph of Ignorance from last April. At that time—as you will see in the first paragraph—I had some hope. Those hopes have since been dashed.

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”– Søren Kierkegaard

Saturday morning, I was reading in the newspaper about the resurgence of measles in West Virginia. I find it appalling that this disease should be returning, given that we have safe and effective vaccinations. What is next, polio, smallpox, or even plague? It is only through the unexpected veto by our governor that the ill-advised bill passed by our legislature to make all vaccinations virtually optional did not become law.

Some people may wonder why vaccinations are important. There are two principal reasons to ensure that a large portion of the population is vaccinated against communicable diseases. The first is that it reduces the individual vulnerability to disease. The person who is vaccinated is protected. But there is also a second, sometimes not well-understood, reason. That is herd immunity.

Communicable diseases require a large susceptible population to spread. When a significant portion of the population has been vaccinated the disease does not have the core of potential victims to allow spreading. This means that the vaccinated are protecting the non-vaccinated. However, it does require a large portion of the population to be vaccinated. The idea is that herd immunity will protect those who are unable to be vaccinated either due to age, allergies, or other medical conditions that would prohibit vaccination. It is never going to protect a large proportion of the population who just choose not to be vaccinated. For example, about 90-95% of the population needs to be vaccinated against measles to provide herd immunity.

So why do people who otherwise can be vaccinated choose not to be?

There are, of course, those who have true religious objections to vaccination. There are others who object to vaccination on the basis of personal autonomy. They believe their right to refuse vaccination outweighs any consideration of the health concerns of the frail members of our community.

There are many who mistrust the medical system. There were some cases in the past where unethical studies were conducted on unsuspecting populations. Given the rigorous oversight of medical research now, this no longer happens. Information about research into vaccinations and their safety and efficacy can be found on websites for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization among others. (Website references are provided at the end of this post.)

What concerns me most are those who refuse to believe reputable medical authorities, government agencies, and mainline news services. They prefer to get their information from anonymous websites or from conspiracy theory websites that still give credence to the now-discredited 1999 study linking the MMR vaccine to autism. They completely ignore the fact that 10 of the 11 reported co-authors disavowed any part in the conclusions of the study. They also ignore the fact that the principal author was found guilty of fraud for personal gain as he was employed by the manufacturer of rival drugs. They also ignore the fact that he lost his medical license over his falsifications in this study. Yet, he is still cited in anti-vaccine literature as an expert source.

Equally disturbing is the fact that vaccine resistance has become a part of political identification. Certain reactionary political groups have, for some unfathomable reason, decided that refusing vaccination is a badge of their political allegiance. They seem to care more about maintaining their political purity than they care about science, public health, or even the welfare of their family and friends. Politicizing public health is dangerous for all of us. I’m not sure how we overcome this. It is easy to find the truth and verify it through fact-based studies, yet people refuse to do it.

I encourage everyone to work hard to ensure that our political leaders do not remove vaccination mandates for school children. For those of us of my age, we already have immunity through vaccination or prior exposure to the disease. It is our grandchildren and their children and their children’s children who will suffer through the return of these deadly diseases.

SOURCES:

World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization#tab=tab_1

CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html

WV DHHR: https://oeps.wv.gov/immunizations/Pages/default.aspx

Immunise.org: https://www.vaccineinformation.org/

Reshaping Collective Memory

By John Turley

On January 5, 2025

In Commentary, History, Politics

How Governments and Organizations Influence History

The reshaping of societal memories by governments and powerful organizations is a complex, often subtle process driven by political, cultural, or economic goals. At its core, it involves shaping collective memory—the shared pool of knowledge and information within a society—so that certain narratives or interpretations of events are emphasized, while others are diminished or erased altogether. This process can occur overtly through official policies, education, or media, or covertly through subtle shifts in cultural emphasis. This post explores historical precedents, modern examples, the methods employed, the role of large organizations, and the ethical implications of manipulating collective memory.

Historical Precedents and Modern Examples

Governments have long engaged in the manipulation of collective memory, and history is filled with examples of this practice. In the Soviet Union, leaders who fell out of favor were frequently “erased” from photographs, history books, and public memory—a practice similar to the ancient concept of damnatio memoriae, the Roman practice of condemning those deemed enemies of the state by erasing their existence from public records. Similarly, in the aftermath of revolutions, new governments often attempt to rewrite history to legitimize their rule and justify their actions. Monuments, statues, and even place names can be altered or destroyed to erase the memory of a prior regime and reimagine the past in ways that support the new political narrative.

In more recent times, authoritarian regimes have used similar tactics, from China’s control of information surrounding the Tiananmen Square protests to North Korea’s highly curated historical narrative that glorifies its leaders. Even in democratic societies, where manipulation of collective memory is often less overt, there are still examples of governments attempting to control public discourse and memory.

Methods of Restructuring Collective Memory

The restructuring of collective memory can occur in a variety of ways, ranging from subtle shifts in emphasis to overt censorship:

Education and Curriculum Control: By shaping school curricula, governments emphasize certain historical events or figures, creating narratives that align with political or ideological goals.
Media Control: State-influenced media outlets shape public memory by controlling the flow of information, ensuring that only certain versions of history or current events are disseminated.
Censorship and Information Suppression: Governments may restrict access to documents, films, or books, effectively controlling the narratives available to the public.
Commemorations and Public Symbols: Through monuments, statues, holidays, and public spaces, societies decide what to commemorate, reinforcing specific narratives.

Role of Large Organizations

While governments are often the primary actors in reshaping societal memories, large organizations such as multinational corporations, international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and global media companies also play a significant role. Corporations often use “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) initiatives to align their brands with social movements or values, subtly shaping public perceptions of historical and current events.

Media conglomerates, by controlling vast networks of information dissemination, influence which stories are told, retold, or forgotten. Social media platforms, through their algorithms and content moderation policies, significantly influence collective memory by determining which narratives remain visible and which fade into obscurity. As a result, collective memory becomes fragmented, influenced as much by corporate interests and technological algorithms as by government policies.

Ethical Concerns and the Struggle for Truth

The ethical implications of reshaping societal memories are vast. While some argue that reshaping collective memory is necessary for social progress, particularly when it comes to rectifying historical injustices or fostering reconciliation, others view it as a dangerous form of manipulation that can obscure truth and stifle dissent.

This tension reflects a broader debate about the nature of memory and history itself. Is there an objective “true” version of history, or is all history inherently subject to reinterpretation as societal values and perspectives evolve? This ongoing tension between interpretation and truth underscores the need for a careful and inclusive approach to shaping collective memory, with a responsibility to ensure that the process remains open, inclusive, and truthful, rather than driven solely by those in power.

Conclusion

Restructuring societal memories is a powerful tool that governments and large organizations can use to influence culture, politics, and identity. The methods they use, whether through education, media, censorship, or public symbols, can have profound impacts on how societies understand their past and imagine their future. While some reshaping of collective memory is inevitable, it is essential to approach this process with caution, prioritizing the public interest over the narrow objectives of the powerful. With the rise of digital platforms and globalized media, the struggle for control over collective memory is more relevant than ever, raising important ethical questions about who gets to shape the stories we live by.

Further Reading

For further reading, see: Items: Insights from the Social Sciences.

The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34357

Project 2025

By John Turley

On December 22, 2024

In Commentary, Politics

A Blueprint for Better Government or a Road Map to Authoritarian Rule?

Introduction

During the recently concluded presidential campaign, we heard much about the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. It was generally discussed as a plan for a conservative restructuring of the government. Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he knows nothing about the plan or its contents. Given his general lack of interest in policy details during his previous administration, I believe him.

I didn’t know much about it either. In what I now recognize as magical thinking on my part, I assumed there was no way the American people would return him to office, so I didn’t bother learning about it.

The day after the election, I went online to find a copy of the Project 2025 report. I started with the Heritage Foundation’s website, where they described different elements of the plan, but there was no way to order a copy. I checked other online sources, including Amazon, but still could not find the full report. I did discover that it is nearly 900 pages long, so even if I had obtained a copy, I doubt I would have read more than a small portion of it. Ultimately, I decided to purchase two summaries of the project, both claiming to be bipartisan. I believe they are generally balanced, as they present both positive and negative aspects of the program.

What is Project 2025?

The Heritage Foundation describes Project 2025 as a comprehensive initiative aimed at preparing for a conservative presidential administration beginning in January 2025. It is notable that the plan does not explicitly reference a Trump administration, but rather a generic “conservative” one. My interpretation is that this allows the Heritage Foundation to appear supportive of conservatism without explicitly endorsing Donald Trump, protecting their nonprofit status.

The project is structured around four key pillars:

Policy Agenda: Developing a detailed conservative policy guide, titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, which outlines strategies for governing major federal agencies.
Personnel Recruitment: Establishing a database to identify and recommend qualified individuals for presidential appointments, ensuring alignment with conservative principles.
Training: Launching the Presidential Administration Academy, an online educational platform designed to equip prospective appointees with the necessary skills and knowledge for effective governance.
180-Day Playbook: Crafting a strategic plan to guide the initial actions of the administration during its first 180 days, focusing on implementing conservative policies and reforms.

At first glance, this seems straightforward and unalarming. However, delving into the details reveals a much broader scope. The plan includes discussions about eliminating certain government agencies, overhauling civil service, extending presidential control over independent agencies, and substantially revising (though not eliminating) the Affordable Care Act.

I believe that the ultimate intent of the plan is to fully implement the Unitary Executive Theory. Therefore, understanding Project 2025 requires a basic understanding of this theory.

Unitary Executive Theory

The Unitary Executive Theory is a legal and constitutional doctrine asserting that the President of the United States holds absolute control over the executive branch. Proponents argue that Article II of the Constitution, which vests “the executive power” solely in the President, provides a constitutional basis for this authority. Critics contend it undermines checks and balances and concentrates too much power in the executive.

Key Points of the Theory:

Presidential Control: Advocates claim the President should have direct control over all executive functions, including hiring, firing, and directing agency heads and officials.
Limits on Congressional Power: The theory asserts that Congress cannot infringe on the President’s control over executive agencies by creating independent regulatory bodies or restricting the President’s ability to remove officials.
Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court has addressed the concept in cases such as Myers v. United States (1926), Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), and Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020). These cases reflect an ongoing debate about the extent of presidential control over the executive branch.

While proponents emphasize the need for a strong, centralized executive, critics warn it could erode the system of checks and balances envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

Historical Perspective

The roots of the Unitary Executive Theory trace back to debates about the Constitution’s structure of executive power, particularly interpretations of Article II. Key historical examples include:

Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 70: Hamilton argued for a single, vigorous executive, emphasizing unity as essential for accountability and effective governance.
Abraham Lincoln: During the Civil War, Lincoln exercised expansive executive power by suspending habeas corpus and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: FDR used executive orders extensively to implement New Deal programs and manage the war effort during WWII.

The term Unitary Executive Theory gained prominence in the late 20th century, championed by conservative legal scholars and the Federalist Society.

Application to Project 2025

Project 2025 seeks to leverage the Unitary Executive Theory to expand presidential power through the following measures:

Consolidating Control: Bringing the entire federal bureaucracy, including traditionally independent agencies like the Department of Justice, under direct presidential control.
Streamlining Decision-Making: Allowing the President to directly implement policies without interference from career officials or Congress.
Personnel Changes: Proposing the removal of job protections for thousands of federal employees, enabling their replacement with political appointees loyal to the President.
Agency Overhauls: Restructuring agencies such as the FBI, which the plan criticizes as “bloated” and “lawless.”
Eliminating Departments: Proposing the elimination of the Department of Education and restructuring others like the Department of Justice and Homeland Security to increase presidential control.

Concerns Raised by Critics:

Concentration of Power: Critics warn of an unprecedented consolidation of power in the executive branch.
Politicization of Agencies: Traditionally nonpartisan agencies may become tools for advancing political agendas.
Erosion of Checks and Balances: The system designed to prevent excessive power in any one branch could be undermined.
Civil Service Protections: Removing job protections for career civil servants risks creating an unstable and politically driven workforce.

Supporters argue these changes are necessary to combat entrenched bureaucracy and improve efficiency. Critics, however, warn that this could push the U.S. toward authoritarian governance.

Conclusion

I have only touched on a few elements of Project 2025. Other aspects, such as policies on immigration, reproductive rights, and protections for minorities, are also deeply concerning but beyond the scope of this discussion.

Even just within the framework of the Unitary Executive Theory, I see significant risks. Will this plan lead to better government or pave the way to authoritarianism?

While everyone will reach their own conclusions, I find myself deeply distressed by the implications. I am concerned that the restructuring of DOJ, DHS and the FBI may lead to creation of a “Department of Political Vengeance”.

If you share these concerns, I recommend reading my post from September 8th, which reviews On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder.

A Path to Recovery

By John Turley

On December 13, 2024

In Commentary, Politics

How Democrats Can Regain Momentum After the Election: Part 1

Following a disappointing election, the Democratic Party faces a familiar yet challenging task: rebuilding and re-energizing its coalition. Electoral setbacks, though disheartening, provide valuable opportunities for self-reflection and strategic recalibration. Drawing lessons from recent elections and historical precedents, I’ll be exploring how I believe Democrats might regain their footing and prepare for future success.

But first, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am not and have never been (except perhaps briefly in college) a registered Democrat. I was a Reagan Republican who progressively became disillusioned with the Republican Party beginning in the 1990s and finally in 2016 I reached the point where I switched to “no party affiliation.” While I can’t fully embrace the Democratic Party and some of its fringe elements, it more closely aligns with my beliefs than the current Republican Party. It may seem inappropriate for a non-Democrat to offer advice to the Party, but sometimes it takes an outsider to bring clarity.

There are several areas where I think the Democrats need to reassess and refine their programs. In subsequent posts I’ll mention ideas about a number of them. But first things first. If you want to win at the national level you’ve got to be organized and ready at the local and state level.

There needs to be an honest assessment of what went wrong. Ignoring electoral losses or solely blaming external factors without self-reflection won’t give insight into a winning program.

After their 2012 election loss, the Republican Party conducted a comprehensive analysis, resulting in the “Growth and Opportunity Project” report. This internal review highlighted areas for improvement, including outreach to minority communities and the need for a clearer economic message.

For Democrats, a similar post-mortem analysis will prove invaluable. By examining voter data, exit polls, and demographic shifts, the party can identify why key groups, such as working-class voters or suburbanites, have turned away. Addressing these issues directly and transparently can rebuild trust and demonstrate the party’s seriousness about listening to voters’ concerns.

State and local elections are critical in shaping a national party resurgence. The Republican Party’s “Red Map” project in 2010 targeted state legislatures to influence redistricting, giving them significant advantages in subsequent elections.

Democrats should adopt a similar strategy, investing in local and state races to build a pipeline of strong candidates for future national campaigns. By organizing at the local and state level and supporting local and state candidates, the National Party can develop a better understanding of what is necessary to develop a winning national campaign.

A winning national platform has to come from the bottom up reflecting the desires of the average voters. It cannot be imposed from the top down. The Democratic Party has unfortunately begun to develop a reputation as a party of intellectual elites trying to force their opinion on the common people. While it may be a misconception, failure to counter that misconception with a viable local and state presence allows the Republicans to frame the narrative. That is an approach that is bound to fail.

By focusing on local and state elections, the party will have a better understanding of the “bread and butter” issues that have driven voter turnout in recent elections. You can’t win local elections unless the local people know you and trust you and believe that you will work for them. That knowledge and trust has to be carried all the way from the local and state level to the national level.

Significantly, in 2024 the National Democratic Party failed to provide any meaningful support to state and local candidates in states they deemed to be “too red”, thus ensuring continued Republican dominance. There was a time, not that long ago, when many of these “too red” districts might have been considered “too blue”, but that didn’t stop the Republicans from doing a grassroots program designed to appeal to the concerns of the average voter.

Whether the Republicans accomplish anything for the average voter remains to be seen. But the important point is they convinced the voters that they were listening to them and cared about them. That’s a lesson that the Democrats should take to heart.

Next time, we’ll look at what else I believe can be done to rebuild support for the Democratic Party.

Key References:

NBC News: Five Democratic Assumptions Shattered by the 2024 Election.

Republican National Committee’s Growth and Opportunity Project (2013).

Pew Research Center: Voter Turnout Trends and Demographics.

New York Times: Bill Clinton’s 1992 Campaign Strategy.

The Atlantic: The Red Map Project.

The Nation: Democrats Need to Fundamentally Rethink Everything.