Those words don't mean what you think they do, at least when used by most people in the rest of the world. How many other countries in the world right now would you consider "not only authoritarian but even fascistic" based on the policy criteria that you use to judge President Obama?
Interesting question. Let's look at it point by point. And bear in mind as we do that
most countries in the world see American in a very different way than you or most people on this forum do. It's almost standard for foreign people to see American as either a bully, a bloated decadent place, and quite often the most dangerous country in the world. I don't agree that this is a fair assessment of the U.S. absent other attributes it has that at least outweigh these and make it a great place,
however that should not be taken to discount these criticisms. And they aren't outliers; they're ubiquitous. The U.S. is hated in a lot of the world, and not just the Muslim world. Being blind to that doesn't help anyone, and the criticisms often come about because of some of these so-called 'fascistic' traits that I'll mention now:
EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM
Let's check this closely.
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
The U.S. is probably the most nationalist country in the world I can think of, excepting places like NK where I'm not exactly sure if "nationalism" is the right word for a dictatorship. I tend to think of nationalism as having to be a popular movement, or at least one affiliated with a larger party. And the proof is in the pudding: American exceptionalism, as it's sometimes called, is a non-controversial position that at this point both major parties and probably a majority of Americans subscribe to. It amounts to little more than stating that American
is and should be the most powerful country in the world, both economically and militarily, and that any actions that further this end are both strategically and ethically acceptable. This doesn't have to be seen as malevolent, and I think many people see it as a responsibility in the form of "we have the best set of freedoms and ethics and need to be in charge so as to protect the world." We can grant that fully and still have to call it a nationalist belief structure. This is the greatest mistake many Americans make now in calling out "white nationalists" from the alt-right, because it's a specious accusation coming from a largely nationalist consensus within the country. The irony is that these so-called "white nationalists" sound to me to be more like anarchists (in the formal sense), being accused by actual nationalists who would like to see central power used to suppress the anarchists.
2. Disdain for human rights
Drone attacks, and more specifically, Obama's famous "kill list". And in 2nd place, the continuation and likely expansion of the mass surveillance program. In theory a court ruled it illegal during Obama's tenure but I don't think anything actually changed. In 3rd place we might mention his admin's tendency to bring down the hammer hard on whistleblowers.
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
Doesn't apply to Obama as far as I can tell.
4. Rampant sexism
Same.
5. Controlled mass media
This is ubiquitous and is more a technological matter at this point than a matter of who is President. That said the emerging structure of "clearinghouse news" whereby an undisclosed governmental "source" feeds stories to news agencies that disseminate the stories is a classic propaganda technique, and has become the new normal, almost supplanting entirely investigative journalism. This began during W's Presidency and continued to get worse under Obama. Again, this isn't "his baby" but it did go on during his watch. This is one reason why it's important to distinguish between an autocratic government structure and an autocrat-toned President. The autocratic structure is going to behave in ways a dictator would even if the President personally doesn't, and if the President pushes for more centralized power he's directly or indirectly feeding into this beast.
6. Obsession with national security
I can't adequately diagnose this one because many foreign debacles that happened during his Presidency (Libya, Syria, Yemen) were not necessarily directly his doing. For instance I think he may have finally signed off on Libya but I doubt he was the actual one pushing for it. And to make myself clear, I consider hostile foreign adventures to fall under the rubric of "national security" even if making that connection can only be done on a case-by-case basis. Properly, I can say that the 'powers that be' were obsessed with national security (aka national power) during his Presidency, which is nothing new, and that while this may not have been a personal characteristic of his it did characterize the government while he was President.
7. Religion and government intertwined
I actually think American exceptionalism *is* a secular religion. But putting that aside I would agree that Obama didn't display this trait.
8. Corporate power protected
Nothing was done about Wall Street following 2008. Again, I would suggest this may have been because Obama was powerless to do anything so I won't comment on what his private wishes might have been.
9. Labor power suppressed
There is labor power in the U.S.?
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
I'd say there's been a growing movement of disdain for disagreement, which is not quite the same but is arguably worse. I don't think America is very friendly to the arts
at all, which has nothing to do with Obama in particular. However I'll also point out that this criterion is mostly uninteresting as I'm sure you can find plenty of tyrants, kings, and fascist parties that love the arts and the "correct" intellectual activities. The Nazis are an obvious example here, as well as tyrants like Julius Caesar in the distant past. That probably boils down to their individual personality as well as what their regime can benefit from arts and intellectual work. I think I'd agree that tyranny doesn't tolerate
dissenting intellectual work, which is a bit of a different proposition.
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
No, Obama wasn't like this.
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
I honestly don't know, but I'll give this one a pass as well.
In conclusion, many of these categories got a check mark under Obama. That doesn't mean that he, personally, instituted or created these conditions, but they were there and thrived under him and that speaks to the structure of government at the time. Ironically, though, it muddies the issue of whether the Executive was autocratic under Obama because some of these conditions are impossible to remedy if the Executive is too weak, while at the same time they could only come about as a result of an Executive that's too strong. It's a real problem.
