New Fascists: The powerful democrats

[Wild Cobra]

Modern Fascism (democrat party):



Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, or racial. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: economic planning, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to economic liberalism.

Many fascist leaders were initially appointed as head of government. However, as heads of government, the fascist leaders typically wielded significant political powers.

Although the broadest descriptions of fascism may include every authoritarian state that has ever existed, most theorists see important distinctions to be made. Fascism in Italy arose in the 1920s as a mixture of syndicalist notions with an anti-materialist theory of the state; the latter had already been linked to an extreme nationalism. Fascists accused parliamentary democracy of producing division and decline, and wished to renew the nation from decadence. They viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect individual rights, or as one that should be held in check.

Fascism attempts to impose state control over aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting law.

Fascists opposed what they believe to be laissez-faire or quasi-laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression. People of many different political stripes blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism. Their policies manifested as a radical extension of government control over the economy without wholesale expropriation of the means of production. Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic planning measures. Fascist governments instituted state-regulated allocation of resources, especially in the financial and raw materials sectors.

[boutons_]

Excellent description, point by point, of what the Repugs, neo-c*nts, conservatives and "Chistian" scumbags have been doing since taking power Jan 2001.

I assume you mean this Wikipedia article describes what YOU think the Obama and his overwhelming majorities in Congress will do?

The essence of Fascism is the overwhelming primacy of the state and organizations, above the rights of citizens. If the rights of citizens get in the way, fascism crushes the citizens.

aka, the dubya/Repug SCOTUS and all the other judges he has or tried to appoint.

[RandomGuy]

Meh.

More pablum for the converted.

[RandomGuy]

Coming of age in the 1960s, I heard the word “fascist” all the time. College presidents were fascists, Vietnam War supporters were fascists, policemen who tangled with protesters were fascists, on and on. To some, the word smacked of Hitler and genocide. To others, it meant the oppression of the masses by the privileged few. But one point was crystal clear: the word belonged to those on the political left. It was their verbal weapon, and they used it every chance they got.

LIBERAL FASCISM

The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

By Jonah Goldberg.

487 pp. Doubleday. $27.95.

Related
Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the WebForty years have passed and not much has changed, complains Jonah Goldberg, a conservative columnist and contributing editor for National Review. Leftists still drop the “f word” to taint their opponents, be they global warming skeptics or members of the Moral Majority. The sad result, Goldberg says, is that Americans have come to equate fascism with right-wing political movements in the United States when, in fact, the reverse is true. To his mind, it is liberalism, not conservatism, that embraces what he claims is the fascist ideal of perfecting society through a powerful state run by omniscient leaders. And it is liberals, not conservatives, who see government coercion as the key to getting things done.

“Liberal Fascism” is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults — no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.

According to Goldberg, fascism in America predated the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. He believes that Woodrow Wilson turned the United States into a “fascist country, albeit temporarily” during World War I. Americans in 1917 were reluctant to join the slaughter in Europe. Their nation hadn’t been attacked; there was no defining event — a Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor — to rally public support. So Wilson formed the country’s first propaganda ministry, the Committee on Public Information, to teach people what they were up against. The devil became German militarism — the merciless Hun — and Americans were encouraged to lash out at those of German ancestry inside the United States. Vigilante groups arose to mete out justice and spy on fellow citizens. Congress passed draconian laws banning “abusive” and “disloyal” language against the government and its officials. The Post Office revoked the mailing privileges of hundreds of antiwar publications, effectively shutting them down. Rarely if ever in American history has dissent been so effectively stifled.

At the same time, Wilson formed numerous boards to regulate everything from the production of artillery pieces to the price of a lamb chop. The result, Goldberg argues, was the birth of a socialist dictatorship that “whipped, cajoled and seduced American industry into the loving embrace of the state.” Though partly dismantled after the war, this model, we are told, became the blueprint for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Goldberg is less convincing here because he can’t get a handle on Roosevelt’s admittedly elusive personality. He treats Wilson as a serious thinker, rigidly focused on his goals, but portrays Roosevelt as a classic dilettante, shallow and detached. For Goldberg, even the president’s greatest skill — his ability to communicate with the masses — was negated by his failure to chart a steady course and stick to it. One is left to ponder how the outlines of America’s modern welfare state emerged from such a lazy, superficial mind.

In attempting to link Roosevelt to the fascism that enveloped Europe in these years, Goldberg highlights examples like the Civilian Conservation Corps, which offered a paycheck and military discipline to unemployed young men from the cities, and the National Recovery Administration, which was intended to spur industrial production through centralized planning. But it’s absurd to view the C.C.C. as the American version of Hitler Youth, and the N.R.A. — heavy on slogans, light on coercion — was so ineffective that Roosevelt heaved a sigh of relief when it was declared unconstitutional in 1935. Oddly, Goldberg has less to say about issues more likely to bolster his case, like the enormous growth of executive power under Roosevelt and his ill-fated attempt to “pack” the United States Supreme Court.

Goldberg acknowledges that Wilson and Roosevelt faced legitimate national emergencies — a world war and an economic collapse. But subsequent presidents have invented false crises to roil the masses, he claims, and John F. Kennedy did it best. “It is not a joyful thing to impugn an American hero and icon with the label fascist,” Goldberg writes, but how else does one explain his popularity? The answer lies not in Kennedy’s record, which Goldberg assures us was slim, but rather in his cold-war brinkmanship, his “adrenaline-soaked” appeals to national service and martial values, and, of course, the Nazi-like cult of personality that he buffed to gleaming perfection.

Is something missing here? Goldberg races from Wilson to Roosevelt to Kennedy and on to Bill Clinton with barely a glance at what happened in between. The reason is simple: for Goldberg, fascism is strictly a Democratic disease. This allows him to dispose of the politics of the 1920s in a single sentence. “After the Great War,” he writes, “the country slowly regained its sanity.” What Goldberg may not know — or is afraid to tell us — is that the 1920s were anything but sane. This was the decade, after all, that contained the largest state-sponsored social experiment in the nation’s history — Prohibition — and it lasted through three Republican administrations before Franklin Roosevelt ended it in 1933. The 1920s also saw the explosive spread of the Ku Klux Klan in the Republican Midwest, a virtual halt to legal immigration under the repressive National Origins Act and an angry grass-roots backlash against the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Goldberg briefly enters the Eisenhower 1950s to tease liberals for whining about the supposedly trivial impact of McCarthyism. “A few Hollywood writers who’d supported Stalin and then lied about it lost their jobs,” he says. What’s the big deal? For the Reagan 1980s there is near-silence — hardly a word. I had entertained the slim hope that Goldberg might consider the “fascist” cult of personality surrounding Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” hokum (“Prouder, Stronger, Better”). But, alas, such scrutiny is reserved only for the Clinton presidential campaign of 1992, with its “Riefenstahlesque film of a teenage Bill Clinton shaking hands with President Kennedy.” Indeed, even George W. Bush’s spectacularly staged landing on an aircraft carrier in full battle regalia to declare “mission accomplished” in Iraq escapes notice here. It doesn’t take a village for Goldberg to play the fascist card; a single Democrat will do.

The final chapters of “Liberal Fascism” are a rant, often deliciously amusing, against America’s numerous liberal-fascist elites. In unexciting times, when there are no calamities to be addressed, liberals push a more robust social agenda, Goldberg claims, using the state and the friendly news media to tar opponents of, say, affirmative action or same-sex marriage as bigots, fanatics and fools. The task facing conservatives, he adds, is to hold liberals accountable for these jackboot tactics. “For at some point,” Goldberg writes, “it is necessary to throw down the gauntlet, to draw a line in the sand, to set a boundary, to cry at long last, ‘Enough is enough.’”

These are familiar words, eerily reminiscent of the “adrelaline-soaked” clichés of John F. Kennedy as he railed against Soviet expansion around the globe. But I dare not call them fascist. That would be unfair.

David Oshinsky, who holds the Jack S. Blanton chair in history at the University of Texas, is the author of “A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.”

[Extra Stout]

I did a little bit of study into how fascism comes about and what it looks like in particular countries.

Partisan knee-jerk poo-flinging aside, in the United States it would be a right-wing populist movement wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. It would not be the Republican Party, but it could be a reaction to it.

[RandomGuy]

Seems to be an interesting and amusing book. I might skim it at somepoint, but wouldn't bother spending money on it.

Saw the author on the Daily Show. He was a weasel, if memory serves. If someone can't handle Jon's fairly softball questions with straight answers, then I can't take that person very seriously.

[boutons_]

"It would not be the Republican Party"

easier said than done.

Since Nixon, maybe even Goldwater, Repugs have been successfully courting the southern/rural/ignorant/racist/NASCAR/bubba/NRA/militia/paranoid/lapel-pin/flag-wrapped/Bible-thumping/God-fearing vote. aka, the rabble and sheeple as prime targets for Repug fascist demagoguery and propanganda.

dickhead's "unitary executive" above all checks and balances is pure fascism.

dickhead's war in Iraq is pure imperialistic fascism (killing brown people, killing non-Christian people) to grab their oil, behind the 100% lie of national defense.

Jonah Goldberg is fucking fool, gives Jewish intellectual traditions a kick in the balls.

[Nbadan]

I wish Goldberg would make up his little mind, are Democrats Socialists or Fascists?

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

I wish Goldberg would make up his little mind, are Democrats Socialists or Fascists?

:lol

Goldberg had nothing to do with my posting.

[RandomGuy]

Goldberg had nothing to do with my posting.

Uh-huh, sure. Whatever you say.


(I don't believe it for a second, the guy's book and idea has been farting around in the right-wing blather-sphere for a while now. You might not remember that you heard it somewhere else, but chances are the thought isn't an original one.)

[RandomGuy]

(oops. repost deleted)

[Wild Cobra]

Uh-huh, sure. Whatever you say.


(I don't believe it for a second, the guy's book and idea has been farting around in the right-wing blather-sphere for a while now. You might not remember that you heard it somewhere else, but chances are the thought isn't an original one.)
I have the book. My posting has to do with counter arguments that the 14 ideals of fascism are republican ideals that were common in the past to see posted. It also has to do with our modern democrat candidates wanting to use corporatism. Taking control of major industries. There are other aspects as well. Corporatism stands out in my mind because the lemming liberals confuse corporations with corporatism. Corporatism is clearly a liberal desire in America. They want the government to control such aspects.


In all truth, I took a wiki posting and chopped it up. It appears the dim-witted Boutons managed to pick that up. Each of the areas I placed in bold can directly be attributed to what democrats do, or want to do.

Yes, I engaged in propaganda. But I didn't inhale.

I was ready to stop, but I will continue. Another thing that got me started on this rant was noticing the Fasces Lictoriae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces_lictoriae
) being incorporated in every wiki posting with fascism in the name. This is not a fascist symbol, but an ancient Greek one. We all know wiki is prone to hidden agendas and misconceptions inserted. This is a symbol used quite a bit in the USA government as it means power and jurisdiction. Some editors attempt to embed in history that America is a fascist government in my opinion.

Fasces Lictoriae:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Fasces_lictoriae.svg/240px-Fasces_lictoriae.svg.png

Seen in the USA (from wiki listing):

The following cases all involve the adoption of the fasces as a visual image or icon; no actual physical re-introduction has occurred.

* In the Oval Office, above the door leading to the exterior walkway, and above the corresponding door on the opposite wall, which leads to the President's private office. (Note: the fasces depicted have no axes, possibly because in Ancient Rome only the lictors, who guarded Roman dictators, had the right to carry fasces with the axe attached within the Pomerium (see above).)
* The National Guard uses the fasces as its symbol, and it appears in the insignia of Regular Army officers assigned to National Guard liaison and in the insignia and unit symbols of National Guard units themselves. For instance, the regimental crest of the U.S. 71st Infantry Regiment of the New York National Guard consisted of a gold fasces set on a blue background.
* The reverse of the United States "Mercury" dime (minted from 1916 to 1945) bears the design of a fasces and an olive branch.
* Two fasces appear on either side of the flag of the United States in the United States House of Representatives, representing the power of the House and the country.
* The Mace of the United States House of Representatives, designed to resemble fasces, consists of thirteen ebony rods bound together in the same fashion as the fasces, topped by a silver eagle on a globe.
* The official seal of the United States Senate has as one component a pair of crossed fasces.
* Fasces ring the base of the Statue of Freedom atop the United States Capitol building.
* A frieze on the facade of the Supreme Court building depicts the figure of a Roman centurion holding a fasces, to represent "order". [1]
* At the Lincoln Memorial, Lincoln's seat of state bears the fasces on the fronts of its arms. (Fasces also appear on the pylons flanking the main staircase leading into the memorial.)
* Four fasces flank the two bronze plaques on either side of the bust of Lincoln memorializing his Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
* The fasces appears on the state seal of Colorado, USA, beneath the "All-seeing eye" (or Eye of Providence) and above the mountains and mines.
* On the seal of the New York City borough of Brooklyn, a figure carries a fasces; the seal appears on the borough flag.
* Used as part of the Knights of Columbus emblem (designed in 1883).
* Many local police departments use the fasces as part of their badges and other symbols. For instance, the top border of the Los Angeles Police Department badge features a fasces. (1940)
* Commercially, a small fasces appeared at the top of one of the insignia of the Hupmobile car.
* A fasces appears on the statue of George Washington, made by Jean-Antoine Houdon which is now in the Virginia State Capital

[PixelPusher]

^It's a prominent symbol of the Roman Republic that predates Benito Mussolini. The many appearances you site simply reflect the sympatico the founding fathers and the establishment had with Greco-Roman history and tradition.

[boutons_]

"our modern democrat candidates wanting to use corporatism. Taking control of major industries"

Where and who said that?

It's clear to anybody who looked at it that the corporations, business/capital interest CONTRL and have compromised govt, not the the other way around.

[Wild Cobra]

^It's a prominent symbol of the Roman Republic that predates Benito Mussolini. The many appearances you site simply reflect the sympatico the founding fathers and the establishment had with Greco-Roman history and tradition.

Yes. I'm not saying it's a bad symbol. I'm saying that applying it in nearly all the wiki entries that apply to fascism suggest it is a fascist symbol. I don't like what I see.

[Wild Cobra]

"our modern democrat candidates wanting to use corporatism. Taking control of major industries"

Where and who said that?

They say it all the time. They want to control the corporations!

Hillary: "I want to take their profits"

Someone recently in congress said they wanted to take control of the oil comanies.

As a whole, they want to take control of the health care industry.

When the government controls corporate entities, that's corporatism. A common trait of fascism.



It's clear to anybody who looked at it that the corporations, business/capital interest CONTRL and have compromised govt, not the the other way around.

Sorry, I don't see that. Have any sold examples rather than the liberal lemming montra?

[ElNono]

I've lived in a fascist country. You don't want to know what it's like. But if you lived in one, you'll notice right away.
The very first clue you're not in one, is the fact you're going to vote later on this year.

[Wild Cobra]

I've lived in a fascist country. You don't want to know what it's like. But if you lived in one, you'll notice right away.
The very first clue you're not in one, is the fact you're going to vote later on this year.
Where do you live?

Now I never claimed we are a fascist nation. My point is the democrats are taking us that direction.

[ElNono]

I grew up in Argentina. Back when there was a fascist military junta governing the country.
(people being abducted and killed, kids couldn't have long hair, etc etc etc).
We eventually moved to democracy in '82, after the Falklands war.

I live in Jersey now.

And BTW, I lived in Oregon for a year, and it was a pleasure. Probably the most clean and nice looking city I've lived in (and I've lived many places).

[RandomGuy]

right-wing blather-sphere

Man, now that I have had a chance to sleep on it, this is an excellent turn of phrase, if I do say so myself.

I need to trademark/copyright it quick.

... and now back to our regularly scheduled stupidity.

[RandomGuy]

Where do you live?
Now I never claimed we are a fascist nation. My point is the democrats are taking us that direction.

This whole thread reminds me of the saying about grand jury indictments.

"You can indict a ham sandsandwich if you really wanted to."

Meaning that a some indictments don't really carry a lot of weight.

Kinda like this argument.

My point is that ham sandwiches are taking us in the direction of fascism.

[RandomGuy]

Yes. I'm not saying it's a bad symbol. I'm saying that applying it in nearly all the wiki entries that apply to fascism suggest it is a fascist symbol. I don't like what I see.

Dude, the Nazi swastika was a Hindu and native American symbol before the Nazis adopted it, but you would be hard pressed to find many people who would primarily identify the symbol with the more ancient forebears.

(shrugs)

Since, unlike you, I am capable of seeing past my confirmation bias to see and honestly consider things that might not agree with my worldview, I will briefly treat this thread seriously.

I am fairly confident that your case is a *wee* bit spurious, and after I spend some amount of time treating it seriously, I will mock it and you unmercilessly.

Make your weak-ass case, and expect to have to answer some very pointed questions. The more you attempt to evade the sooner the mocking will begin.

Given your past history of not answering honest, straight questions with honest, straight answers, I don't expect much from you, but am willing to give you yet another chance to prove you aren't a hack.

[RandomGuy]

First off, we need to agree on a good solid working definition of fascism.

Wild Cobra, I think your original post provides a solid definition of what fascism is. Do you concur that we can use it as a good definition?

[Extra Stout]

Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, or racial. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: economic planning, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to economic liberalism.

Many fascist leaders were initially appointed as head of government. However, as heads of government, the fascist leaders typically wielded significant political powers.

Although the broadest descriptions of fascism may include every authoritarian state that has ever existed, most theorists see important distinctions to be made. Fascism in Italy arose in the 1920s as a mixture of syndicalist notions with an anti-materialist theory of the state; the latter had already been linked to an extreme nationalism. Fascists accused parliamentary democracy of producing division and decline, and wished to renew the nation from decadence. They viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect individual rights, or as one that should be held in check.

Fascism attempts to impose state control over aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting law.

Fascists opposed what they believe to be laissez-faire or quasi-laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression. People of many different political stripes blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism. Their policies manifested as a radical extension of government control over the economy without wholesale expropriation of the means of production. Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic planning measures. Fascist governments instituted state-regulated allocation of resources, especially in the financial and raw materials sectors.

[101A]

Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, or racial. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: economic planning, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to economic liberalism.

Many fascist leaders were initially appointed as head of government. However, as heads of government, the fascist leaders typically wielded significant political powers.

Although the broadest descriptions of fascism may include every authoritarian state that has ever existed, most theorists see important distinctions to be made. Fascism in Italy arose in the 1920s as a mixture of syndicalist notions with an anti-materialist theory of the state; the latter had already been linked to an extreme nationalism. Fascists accused parliamentary democracy of producing division and decline, and wished to renew the nation from decadence. They viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect individual rights, or as one that should be held in check.

Fascism attempts to impose state control over aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting law.

Fascists opposed what they believe to be laissez-faire or quasi-laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression. People of many different political stripes blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism. Their policies manifested as a radical extension of government control over the economy without wholesale expropriation of the means of production. Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic planning measures. Fascist governments instituted state-regulated allocation of resources, especially in the financial and raw materials sectors.

Very nice work.

[Wild Cobra]

First off, we need to agree on a good solid working definition of fascism.

Wild Cobra, I think your original post provides a solid definition of what fascism is. Do you concur that we can use it as a good definition?
Well, my quoted definition was chopped up. I think it's hard to actually pin down a solid definition. It's a series of attributes and by what means they are applied. Here is the start of the wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism):


Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.

Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, Führerprinzip, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

Some authors reject broad usage of the term or exclude certain parties and regimes. Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals. In contemporary political discourse, the term fascist is often used by adherents of some ideologies as a pejorative description of their opponents.

It isn't really right for me to claim the democrats are fascists, but it's fun to do. They do exhibit some of the attributes, but not enough. I primarily started this thread to make people think. The democrats want to control more and more of our lives all the time, growing government larger and larger. Call it what you like. Socialism, Marxism, Communism... Attributes of each exist. The democrats are destroying the America I know and love, and I am getting more and more bitter over it. Besides, I did say ” Yes, I engaged in propaganda. But I didn't inhale."

[RandomGuy]

The democrats are destroying the America I know and love, and I am getting more and more bitter over it.

The Republicans are destroying the America I know and love, and I am getting more and more bitter over it.

We're even, but I could and have, made a better case. The last 8 years give me all the ammunition I need, and you know it.