THE LOOK OF A FASCIST REGIME: #1--Overt Expressions of Nationalism

I wrote that this month I'd be covering the Fourteen Characteristics of a Fascist Regime and how I see American behavior beginning to fit those characteristics. I won't get fancy, I'll just start with the first one:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

But because definitions matter (and for the heck of it) I would first like to know what are NOT Nationalistic expressions?

(UPDATE--PART DEUX--I know this post seems to wander but stay with me. I am on a mission of discovery...):

Glad I asked "What are NOT Nationalistic expressions?" as the answers surprised me. They were pretty far ranging for the tiny sample size of three respondents. Taken together I get this list (which I am sure is extremely incomplete, but makes an interesting starting point):

1. Every visual thing can be seen as symbolic hence context is meaningful (hairstyle and clothing choice).
2. Genetics (breast size) although other sexual organ's sizes were not mentioned (this is really the odd one out as it suggests something closer to eugenics and evolution--types of women who appeal to certain types of men, et al).
   
3. Philosophy (as exhibited in song lyrics that do not promote national pride).
4. Behavior (as in some activities like flag-burning).

Anything else, anything that is NOT an expression of Nationalism?

(UPDATE--PART TROIS)

Most fascinating is that it only took three people to find about four different examples to illustrate definitions they did not elucidate (and for which I did not ask). Given the answers, what are the definitions?

For example, a definition of nationalism includes NOT destroying certain national symbols in protest or put in the positive, nationalism IS protecting some national symbols--but not all. Why not all? Why (in this case) just the flag? Given the above list the definition would also include some choices of style (clothing) and some expressions of art (lyrics and stylistic body types that could be said to reflect mythical or heroic body types)...

So, what are other components in a definition of how nationalism looks--working from either a negative or positive starting point?

(UPDATE--PART QUATRE)

I decided to use the Wikipedia definition of nationalism which is broad, interesting, complex and available to everyone reading this blog. Just as a start, the definition begins:

Nationalism is an ideology which holds that the nation, ethnicity or national identity is a "fundamental unit" of human social life, and makes certain political claims based upon that belief; above all, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state", and that "each nation is entitled to its own state". In this form, nationalism is a universal ideology; but the term also refers to the specific ideology of nationalist movements, which make political claims on behalf of specific nations. Nationalism is also defined as a "specific conceptual perspective," born in 16th century England and eventually spread to other communities, that forms "the constitutive element of modernity." These movements may dispute each other's specific claims; nevertheless, they share the same general nationalist ideology.

For the purposes of this post I refer also to these segments: Post-2001 nationalism in the United States, Patriotism and extremism and Opposition and critique of nationalism. Considering these segments together I discover some interesting tidbits. First, nationalism in a country like ours is an everyday experience and ingrained in our identity, but not all countries identify themselves in nationalistic terms at all. Second, movements in our country to protect English as our national language and control immigration are manifestations of nationalism. Further, liberals appear to be traditionally skeptical of nationalism.

So where am I going with this? Toward this: if one uses the definitions of nationalism I am referencing it is true that nationalism in the US (which appears to already be more nationalistic than most) has definitely been advanced since the 9/11 attacks. Further, attacks on liberals fit the typical pro-nationalistic exercise regardless of country, as anti-militarism is viewed as being anti-nationalistic (and anti-patriotic). Finally, that the short list of examples we created as features of nationalism are in fact rather irrelevant, with the exception of the reverence for the flag--a nationalistic symbol.

Has America become so nationalistic it is fascistic? Frankly, I say given the definitions of Wikipedia, no--especially since the most fascist regimes, those of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia--are considered to actually be so fascistic as to require definitions unto themselves.

However there are two caveats. The first is that from the view of outside countries, who are not as nationalistic as the US, we could easily be viewed as extremists. Second, that in the liberal tradition of viewing nationalism with skepticism, what we naturally find overtly threatening those others who do not share our skepticism may largely view as patriotic. Both of those caveats go quite some distance in explaining the divide in perceptions that fuels the current divide in politics.

The US is adjusting to a past attack and trying to defend against another in the future. Some Americans are adjusting by increasing identification with national symbols and activities that for them give comfort, assurance and a sense of control. Others are equally seeking safety by advocating nationalism be turned down in hopes of creating a less threatening environment for cooler heads; better understanding, insight and opportunities for mutual problem solving. I honestly believe there is a place for both--now--together, but that place can NOT be reached without both sides making an effort to accomodate and respect the real differences in perception that fuel apparently divergent attitudes that are in fact identical in intent: safety.