Fascism in Perspective; 10 Most Underrated Dictators

When Lefties call us Righties '"fascists," I don't get upset, defensive, angry. I do not blame "the left" for the assassinations.   First, "sticks and stones can break your bones but names can never hurt you." Also, they have freedom of speech; as do we. I can, if I want (but I don't want to) call them Pinkos or Commies. But more important, fascism is not such a bad insult. Fascists are bad, but not THAT bad! Yes, they are authoritarian, but at least they are not totalitarian, like communists, Jihadists, Cultural Marxists!

Fascism is not Nazism.  Fascism gets a bad wrap because we think of Mussolini's alliance with Hitler. But Nazism is itself far worse than fascism. Fascism has more benign forms: particularly Spain's Franco and even more Portugal's Salazar. Nazism is fascism transformed into a different, far darker reality. It became a religion of the race, a genocidal force. And it targeted, not by accident, God's own chosen people. For a Christian, it may not be possible to imagine a worse ideology. 

Violent Language.  Language can be violent: an assault upon the dignity of the person. There are lines that cannot be crossed: crying fire in a movie theatre, insults to ones masculinity, disparaging the body or appearance, cursing one's mother, threatening real harm, racial/ethnic slurs, slander, public humiliation. Calling, for example, ICE agents (who are enforcing our laws) "Nazis" or "gestapo" is verbal violence. But calling a person, party or policy "fascist" is not violent because fascism is not THAT bad.

Catholic Social Teaching Does Not Baptize any Ideology.  No, not even Western, liberal, constitutional, rule-of-law, human-rights-respecting, free market Democracy. In World War II the Allies opposed the imperialistic, fascist Axis so we American Catholics were coherently defending our nation, our political ideology and our faith. Even more so during the Cold War. After 1989, with the alleged "end of history" we enjoyed the illusion that the "right system," ours, had prevailed over all competitors. We live in a different world today. Democracy is not looking so good: in our recent election it offered us crypto-fascist Trump and softly-totalitarian Harris. It is widely accepted that we are now "post-liberal," whatever that means. With Vatican II's statement on religious liberty, we widely assumed that the Church effectively baptized the American experiment in liberty and pluralism. That honeymoon period of our Church and state is now over. In fact, the Catholic Church has a long history of working well within a wide range of political systems. Coming out of medieval Europe, and until recently in Latin America, the ideal system was to be a polity in which the state deferred to the teachings of the Church. And so the Church has done well with many monarchies and dictators. Catholic social teaching is fluid, flexible, prudential as it can be applied to all systems, appreciatively and critically. And so, in the new emerging global order another look at "fascism" from a Catholic perspective is warranted.

Authoritarian vs. Totalitarian.  The former just wants his political power, all of it. He tolerates no opposition, no free speech, no open elections. But if you do not resist him, he will leave you alone to run schools, do works of mercy, worship freely, spread the faith, teach your children, start businesses or nonprofits, create cultural and entertainment events. The later is not satisfied with political power. It is itself a religion which must infuse and control every aspect of life. The major forms in our world are: classic communism (China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.), Sharia Law (in various forms), and Cultural Progressivism or Marxism, what Benedict called the "totalitarianism of relativism." All three are essentially forms of heretical Christianity. Each draws from basic elements of our faith, ignoring some, inflating others, to create a faux-Christianity posing as the real thing. Mohammed mixed Arianism (Christianity with a low Christology) with misogynist polygamy and violence into a potent cocktail. Marxism takes Jesus's love for the poor and makes a new ideology out of it. Cultural Progressivism mixes sexual liberation and identity politics to inflate the "individual" into a God in itself.

What is Fascism?  A form of authoritarianism or dictatorship which revolves around the cult of the "Leader," is highly nationalistic, probably militaristic and imperialistic, often populist in its appeal to the working and lower classes. It can be efficient in modernizing, industrializing, and technologizing society as it can use its monopoly on power to effect social change, for the good and the bad. It breeds corruption in the lust for money and power. It leaves much of society in place: social classes, free markets, activities of the Church and other religions.

The Cult of Personality and the Appeal of the Father Figure.  We saw in the 1930s the emergence of strong fascist leaders; we are seeing the same today across our globe. Psychologically, there seems to be a popular attraction to a strong "father figure," a need that is not satisfied by the impersonality, bureaucracy, and bare protocols of constitutional democracy. In the Catholic Church we recognize this: we are united under the Pope, our father; under the bishop; and the pastor. Some years ago (1970s?) experiments were done in the USA with co-pastors, in which two priests shared the roles and missions. That disappeared almost immediately. Consider: every family needs one and only one father. Do gay couples who adopt share paternity? rotate? How about a transgender couple of two transmen? two transwomen? one of each? No, the Sexual Progressive does away paternity/paternity in favor of androgynous co-parenting. But the communal, personal, interior longing is for a person, a father, who in himself represents the family/community/nation; as he defends and defines it. In our own recent history we have looked to JFK and his family; Ronald Reagan; the Bushes; the Cuomos and others. And so, in a post-monarchy/post-liberal era, we feel the draw to the strong man.

What is Good About Fascism?  Granting that the monopoly of power, the corruption that follows, the suppression of freedom of speech and assembly are evil in themselves, what could be good?

1. Realistically, it may be in some situations the only alternative to totalitarianism in the three forms mentioned. Democracy is preferable, but it can be weak, for many reasons. It requires a deep, broad cultural infrastructure of education, political engagement, civil discourse, rule of law, protocols of decency, etc. It also requires a moral, and I would say religious, basis. A decadent, immoral, secular population will be weak, without resistance to some form of totalitarianism or authoritarianism. Throughout the Cold War we restrained the Soviet Union through a network of dictatorships, some more and some less benevolent.

2. It allows large arenas of freedom within civil society: education, culture, religion, entertainment, and art free from intervention.

3. With the cult of the leader and his monopoly on power, the quality of the dictatorship depends upon  his personal integrity. The norm is that he is corrupted by power and surrounded by sycophants of his ilk: Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Samosa, Battista, etc. But we also find admirable, and even saintly dictators who monopolize power and repress dissent in order to serve the common good and protect basic human rights and values. Here we see that personal and public morality are not separate; they are distinct but mutually infuse each other.

Ten Best Dictators

The following ten were all dictators or "fascists" in that they repressed opposition and free speech in service of pronounced nationalism even as they admirably enhanced basic human values and the common good and renounced totalitarianism.  We will build to the very best:

10. Shah of Iran.  He was overthrown due to his corruption but in retrospect was better than the Ayatollahs.

9. Mustafa Ataturk. He secularized the state and thereby inhibited Sharia Law as he industrialized.

8. Ngo Diem. Devout Catholic and apparently of fine moral character, his regime was ruined by corruption. Again, he is better than communism, even of the heralded Ho Chi Minh. 

 7. Franco, of Spain, was clearly a fascist. He is a hero for defeating the Leftist forces that were martyring our Catholic priests, religious and laity. He did not share power. We know from Picasso's Guernaca that he had German bombers target civilians in that Civil War event. He is perhaps your essential fascist in his moral ambiguity: So good in his defeat of totalitarianism, but so bad in other things.

6. Haile Sellassie, Emperor of Ethiopia for four decades, far from being a fascist, himself battled the invasion of his country by Fascist Italy. He was a practicing Ethiopian Orthodox who later became revered as a messianic figure by Restafarians. Criticized for treatment of some groups, he succeeded to a large extent in uniting the country, including granting rights to Muslims. He was religiously ecumenical, uniting with other Coptic and Orthodox groups and even participating in a Billy Graham rally. He was pan-African even as he maintained connections with the West in the Cold War.  

5. Juan and Eva Peron of Argentina were strongly populist in their concern for the poor and working class. Again, not without moral ambiguity in the wielding of power.

4. King Abdullah of Jordan is perhaps the greatest living dictator: he rules Jordan with a firm hand but is generally the unusual steadying hand in the volatile area. 

3. Anwar Sadat of Egypt was a vast improvement over his mentor Nasser. He detached from the USSR; made peace with Israel, receiving the Nobel Prize; ruled with a gentler touch; and was assassinated. He is a moral figure of a high caliber. 

2. Antonio Salazar of Portugal ruled with an iron fist from 1932-68, an extraordinary tenure. He distanced himself from contemporary fascists Hitler and Mussolini whom he considered neo-pagans. He kept the military separate from government and so downplayed the military unlike more stereotypical fascists. He assisted Franco in the Civil War; kept his nation neutral in WWII but assisted the Allies; based his "corporalist" ideology largely on papal teaching; presided over the civil war within the Portuguese global empire. A devout, conservative Catholic, he had been a seminarian; never married. Apparently had a series of tender, passionate love affairs with women, some of them married. 

1. Julius Nyrerere of Tanzania is hands down the best dictator ever! A devout Catholic, he is designated a "Servant of God" by the Church and on the path to canonization. He was nationalist but also a pan-Africanist. He pioneered a third way, during the Cold War, between the Soviets and the West; but he had an affinity for Mao and the Chinese way. His was a one-party rule, and therefore a dictatorship; no real opposition. He advocated an African Socialism as alternative to Communism and Capitalism. He was much admired, in the 1960s, by many Maryknoller African missionaries during the time I was in Maryknoll College Seminary. That explains some of my preference for him. 

The best six (Nyrere, Salazar, Sadat, Abdulla, Peron, Sallassie)  here are substantially good in themselves. The last four (Franco, Diem,Ataturk, Shah) have grave deficiencies but are good in contrast to their alternatives, Communism and Sharia Law.

Honor Roll of Non-Fascist Dictators

General Douglas MacArthur. He was certainly NOT a fascist. But he did rule Japan, temporarily, on behalf of the USA, after WWII, as a dictator. He facilitated economic development, unions, women's rights, freedoms and democracy. His was a pure benevolent dictatorship. He was, obviously, an extraordinary and aggressive military man, a conservative Republican, a flaming patriot. No, not a fascist.

Irish Catholic Mayors, (Curley of Boston, Hague of Jersey City, Daily of Chicago) were certainly not fascists but were dictators with their political machines in their big cities. As such, they tolerated no opposition. But they were benevolent in many ways: they "took care of their own," were very good to the Church, "got the job done" in picking up the garbage and running the cities. Some were generous in personal ways and practicing Catholics. We can do worse...for sure!

Most Paradoxical Dictators:

 Donald Trump.  In this his second term, he astonishes with the ferocity of his dictatorial impulses and the vigor and strength with which he pursues them. At the same time, he is our champion in the war against Cultural Progressivism. He has singlehandedly stopped, or at least paused, the "arc of (totalitarian) history," Personally, in his style, speech and behavior he is a moral catastrophe, deeply depraved. He is a force for evil; he is a force against a greater evil.

 Viktor Orban of Hungary presents all the ambiguities and paradoxes of fascism: he defends traditional Christian values as he seems to undermine democracy, run a kleptocracy, and accommodate China and Russia. 

Thought Experiment

Imagine: we live in a country with five distinct political populations, each about 20%: Muslims for Sharia law, Communists for state control of everything, Cultural Marxists, fascists, and a Catholic-Evangelical friendly party supportive of traditional values but also solidarity with the poor, rule of law, and all the freedoms of speech/religion/etc.  (Does this, dear Reader, resemble the world we inhabit.?)

Assume you are, with me, in the last group. With only 20%, how do we safeguard our interests and advance our ideals? Obvi...our best friend is the fascist. He will leave us alone to pursue our way of life. We need to work together to restrain the overreach of the three totalitarianisms. 

We do well, however, to retain some detachment. Sometimes we might ally ourselves with the Muslims in the defense of the unborn, for religious rights, the nature of the family. We might work with Communists at times to improve the conditions of the poor. We might work with Cultural Progressives against the tyrannical impulses of the fascists. This is the famous "Christian Strategy" of Adrian Vermulle.

We live in interesting times! Perhaps liberal Democracy is not as good as we thought through the Cold War. Perhaps dictators aren't always as bad as we thought! Things are complicated! Interesting times!