The unitary executive theory as applied by certain administrations stirs thoughts of fascism. According to Robert Paxton, fascism refers to the feeling of deep crisis outside the boundaries of conventional solutions or the conviction that one’s group is being victimized, thus justifying any acts carried out without moral or legal limits. Fascism also refers to the need for some authority by natural rulers above the stated law, relying solely on instinctive superiority. It is the right of those chosen to dominate amongst themselves without paying attention to moral or legal restraint.The fear of alien ‘contamination’ is the last explanation offered by Paxton. Bush’s administration, along with Republican leadership in a variety of government branches created an environment that allowed a few of Paxton’s descriptions to take root. The constant reminder of the September 11 attacks, the identification of an ‘axis of evil’, color-qualification of the citizenry’s fears and Bush’s support for the construction of a wall separating Mexican and US borders are a few elements of fascism.In addition to that, Bush’s application of the unitary theory definitely advanced the powers of the Executive, in line with Paxton’s ‘need an authority by natural leader’s, outside the law of the land relying solely on instinctive superiority, as decider (Bensing n. d. ). . Versluis Arthur provides insight on how the struggle for greater Executive authority may bring the same results as fascism. He recounts the writings of Carl Schmitt, a legal theorist of German origin.He criticized Weimar Republic’s parliamentary system, one with that exhibits the morass of paralysis, ineptness and obvious corruption. Schmitt’s theory was the Third Reich’s absolute means of defence. Steve Douglas observes that Schmittian pressure for the ascription of all authority to unitary leadership, with respect to Bush and Hitler are in actual fact the same; a form of presidential dictatorship. The usurpation of Congress’s authority renders a whole arm of government irrelevant, strongly indicating the realization of a fascist state (Bensing n. d. ).The theory as Yoo et al. present it seems to be incongruous with the findings of historians. In supporting this theory, they discriminately pick elements of American history to form their account. Using administrations of past presidents as their only piece of evidence, they posit that the unitary executive theory is simply how things have always been done. It is therefore insidious in that it conditions the public to accept greater executive power as a consequence of the nation’s rich history.To experts like Eco, the unitary executive theory has barely a modicum of truth and is in fact a fable told to defend George W. Bush and his administration, giving them leeway to extend executive authority beyond the limits set by the constitution. The other thing this theory overlooks is that the US government us under protection by precedent, which sets a stable balance of power among three co-equal arms (Bensing n. d. ).