tral economic planning. In prerevolutionar)’ France, a belief inrneconomic controls held sway under the name “mercantilism.”rnAccording to Murray Rothbard, Louis XVTs Controller-Generalrnof Finance, Baron A. Robert Jacques Turgot, was a greater exponentrnof capitalism than Adam Smith. But when Turgot advocatedrnan end to certain important subsidies, he shocked therncourt and had to go. So critical was the Abbe Barruel of thisrnman that, in his 1798 work on The Anti-Monarchical Conspiracy,rnhe accused him of singlehandedly weakening the regime.rnEven American revolutionaries such as Thomas Paine advocatedrnold-age pensions, imemployment relief, family allowances,rnand the like, while the proclivities of Alexander Hamilton towardrnstatism are well known. And though laissez faire capitalismrnbecame dominant in the earh’ Victorian period, even thenrnthose who opposed government aid to combat the Irish potatornfamine were widely criticized. (The British Parliament eventuallvrnallocated ten million pounds to that task, quite a sum inrnthe f840’s.)rnAyn Rand alluded to Mussolini’s idea of the corporate state,rnwhich she correctly argued was an intellectual derivative of thernmedieval guild. But this idea was not invented by Mussolini,rnthe so-called founder of fascism. It was developed early in thern20th century by Roman Catholic theorists expanding on thernideas of Pope Leo XIII, who had condemned both socialismrnand capitalism.rnTo be sure, the New Deal had some features in commonrnwith fascism: Rooseveltian intellectuals admired the writingsrnof John Maynard Kevnes, and so did the fascists. Bothrnwere against laissez faire capitalism; if Mussolini had not firstrncalled it the “Night-Watchman State,” some Democrat phrasemakerrnmight have invented it. The New Deal had its CivilianrnConservation Corps boys; the Nazi state, its Hitler Youth.rnWashington was planning for war, as was Berlin.rnBut that is where the parallel ends. Fascism was largely a reactionrnon the part of the European right against the early 20thrncentury trend toward socialism and internationalism. It was ledrnby men who despised democracv and who believed thatrnmonarchy was finished as a viable alternati’e. At that time, centralrneconomic planning was intellectually respectable, and theyrnwanted to be the planners. It was to be autocracy b acclamation.rnThe New Deal, on the other hand, was a deliberate attemptrnto eliminate individualism and forge a different kind of nahon.rnIt placed its greatest hope in democracy, for its leaders knewrnthat the anti-intellectual masses would happily, in return for arnguaranteed bowl of porridge, turn aside the system devised byrnthe Framers. Economic individualism was not an importantrnpolitical alternative in Germany, Italy, or Spain at that time;rnover there, only a few businessmen and intellectuals still acceptedrnit. The fascists aimed at a dynamic replacement forrnmonarchy. This was certainly the case in Germany. In Italy,rnVictor Emmanuel III was kept in power as a puppet; the realrnpower remained with Mussolini. In Spain, the triumphantrnFranco was eventually able to bring monarchy back at the endrnof 40 years of maneuvering; there, fascism was less the replacementrnthan the stalking horse for monarchy.rnIn her essay on Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, Rand concentratedrnher attack on government by consensus, which shernsaw as an attempt to evade the responsibilit)’ of formulating anrnideology. Once more, there are some similarities to fascism.rnSince fascism was an attempt to combine certain features ofrnmonarchy with those of democracy, the result had to be somewhatrnpragmatic. (Mussolini had admired William James.)rnGentile did not publish a systematic ideology for fascism untilrnafter Italy had surrendered to the Allies. This lack of a definedrnideology was also a characteristic of the medieval regime of Colarndi Rienzi (the last of the Roman tribunes), which attemptedrnto restore the ancient greatness. And Rienzi has long been regardedrnas a prototype of fascism.rnThis lack of ideological focus, however, is not unique to fascismrnand its prototypes. Take the case of Abraham Lincoln,rnwho was bound and determined to sae the Union, regardlessrnof the cost. His reason for issuing the Emancipation Proclamationrnwas resoundingly ad hoc; he wanted, among other things,rnto encourage a slave revolt. If General McClellan had actedrnwith the ruthlessness which Lincoln desired, he might neverrnhave written that document. In his Second Inaugural, afterrnidentifying slavery as the cause of the war, Lincoln said: “Neitherrnparfy’ . . . anticipated that the cause of the conflict mightrncease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease.rnEach looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamentalrnand astounding.”rnWhat then are the true characteristics of fascism? First andrnforemost, fascism was a desire on the part of the post-WorldrnWar I right to find an alternative to democracy and socialismrnriiat could take the place of monarchy, which was then so obviouslyrnin decline. In Italy and Germany, fascism stemmed fromrnthe nonreligious right. In Spain, it was supported by the devout;rnbut there, as has been pointed out, monarch)’ was eventuallyrnrestored. Most fascists were historicists; they believed thatrnthe climate of the age —not some abstract ideology—shouldrnguide public affairs. This may not have been true of Francornand his entourage, but it certainly was the case with the twornmore aggressive regimes. Their primary opponents, the Marxists,rnwere also historicists, but the latter thought that the basicrnpatterns of history were already known and that every man wasrndetermined to be either a progressive or a reactionary. The fascists,rnby contrast, tended to be voluntarists; in their minds,rnwhile it is the human condition to be so enmeshed in contextrnthat truth cannot be grasped, the right kind of man can, by forcernof will, cut the Gordian knot and with the strands bind togetherrna stronger people. In this regard, America’s liberals are muchrncloser to the Marxists.rnThe second essential characteristic of fascism is the cult ofrnthe leader. Practically, this was the problem of finding a substituternfor the king. Intellectually, it was a 19th-centur}’ adaptationrnof Plato’s notion of the typical man. The t}’pical man is notrnaverage. Ever)’ regime — monarchy, aristocracy, polify, or whateverrn— corresponds to a certain kind of man, who embodies orrntypifies it. In fascism’s version, the dictator represents his people;rnin a pure and unsullied form, he exemplifies the basic characteristicsrnof the people. It would be legitimate for him to nullifi-rnan act of pariiament if it were found that selfish interests hadrnperverted the ‘ote. In Germany, race was emphasized; in Italy,rnculture; and in Spain, religion.rnThis is not the case with American liberalism. Liberals certainlyrnwant their President to appeal to the various factions inrnthe Democratic Party and to enough of those outside of the part}-rnto get him elected, but there is nothing grandly philosophicalrnin this desire. To be sure, liberals are liappy when one of theirrnpeople has charisma, like FDR and JFK. President Clintonrnmight brag that his Cabinet looks like America, but that is notrnreally the fascist idea. The thought of Martin Luther King, Jr.,rn22/CHRONICLESrnrnrn