The only violence I see is coming from the left. Beatings at town halls, blowing up radio towers, $50,000 in property damage last week at the G20. I mean, really.... Pelosi's crocodile tears about the same thing is ridiculous, particularly considering the violence she was citing in the late 70's came from the left as well. The man who killed Harvey Milk was a Democrat, and Jim Jones was a Communist. You don't get more left than that.
On Sep 30, 7:54 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > The Anatomy of Blue-State Fascismby Anthony Gregory > "To compare the president to Hitler is not free speech. It is inciting > violence." This is a very common talking point these days on the left. Google > the terms and you will see the theme repeatedly. > It is considered a hate crime to compare Obama to the Nazi leader, or even to > describe more generally his agenda as fascist. Although I recall every > president I’ve lived under being characterized in this manner, suddenly it is > a danger to American democracy for the comparison to be uttered. When Bush > was compared to Hitler, of course the establishment right was hysterical, > too, but the left seems even more willing than the neocons to propose > outright prohibiting such political speech. > Toward the end of the Bush years, conservative Jonah Goldberg came out > withLiberal Fascism, a book attacking the left for their authoritarian > leanings, which was only ironic given that we were living under his favored > Republican administration, a government thatLew Rockwellastutely criticized > for being a real-life example of red-state fascism. Could it be that both > sides have a point, even if they miss the irony? > In fact, the differences between modern liberalism and conservatism are > usually overstated. There are ways in which each side is more fascist than > the other – the right’s seemingly greater devotion to aggressive war and > certain police-state measures, the left’s greater attachment to the economics > of extreme interventionism. > So when Rush Limbaugh lists off the ways in which the left is fascist – > nationalization of banks and industry, mandatory health care, severe > regulation and welfare statism, top-down control of the economy, petty > crusades against smoking and unbalanced diets, the general elevation of the > president to god-like status – he is not far off the mark, even if he ignores > the other elements of fascism, such as executive detention, torture and war, > which he himself embraces. > The truth is, we’ve had something resembling fascism under both parties going > back to at least the Second World War. Those who voted for whoever happens to > be in the White House do not like to hear this, but interestingly become more > receptive to the critique when someone they despise is in office, even if the > policies haven’t much changed. > But the ideological apparatus constructed by the modern American state relies > on a false dichotomy of left and right, and so have the fascist impulses of > the American people been channeled into both parties, with different > rationales underlying each statist program. Now that the red-state fascists > have been out of power for a while, we must work to understand the dynamics > and nuances of a resurgent blue-state fascism. > First, of course, is the managerial "liberalism" that came to dominate > America in the last century. Charlotte Twight has called this system > "participatory fascism" – corporate statism with a democratic veneer. > Egalitarian with a façade of universalism, "participatory fascism" is favored > by both Republicans and Democrats, but the left seems to cherish it more > fully. > Liberals love and take pride in the 20th century, and tend to despise the > 19th century. There is much to love and regret in most eras, but the left > takes ownership in what they see as the great advancements in political and > national affairs that unfolded since the Progressive Era. > The early Progressives managed to hijack both parties, starting with the > Republicans, but today they are more vigorously championed by the left. The > 20th century is seen as the stage of American progress, from a laissez-faire, > backwards republic, to the world’s greatest and ever improving democracy. > First America adopted controls on industry, food and drugs, > telecommunications, communications and transportation. Then the country > advanced by adopting a fledgling welfare state and nationalizing employment, > civil rights and education. With Reagan, so goes the narrative, the process > was reversed, and American society as well as American dependence on federal > power – remember, these are one and the same for some people – began a > decline that was only reversed with the election of Barack Obama. > Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and LBJ, > while unfortunately popular for much of what they did on the right as well, > are the true heroes of the modern fascist left. Consider how many on the left > hated George W. Bush but admired the far worse Harry Truman. By treating Bush > as a unique evil other than a very bad but somewhat predictable figure in an > uninterrupted series of despotic presidents, the left made the same error > committed by much of the anti-Clinton and anti-Obama right. > This relates to the question of whether Obama represents a dramatic shift > toward radical socialism or a further consolidation and solidification of > America’s fascist tendencies. The latter is clearly closer to the truth. > Obama does not seek to abolish private property entirely, nor is he a > consistent egalitarian. He is a Goldman-Sachs socialist, not a Marxist one. > While ACORN is part of the Obama repertoire, so too is the > military-industrial complex, and a much more important one at that. > Although some conservatives say this is the first time they’ve worried for > their country, the left in America is actually quite attached to the > traditions of an earlier time, the 20th century, which they want to restore > in fuller force today. Their trajectory is much sharper than that of the > conservatives, who seem to always want government to be as small as it was > about three years ago, but most on the left cannot be faulted for wanting to > throw out our nationalist traditions: they want to embrace the worst of the > ones that were well in place by the time of the "Greatest Generation": > technocracy, materialist ethics, utilitarianism, managerial corporate > statism, central administration, presidency worship, welfare and all the rest. > The major difference between the left and right in this regard is the right > sees such horrible traditions as tolerable even if somewhat regretful, while > the left absolutely adores them and takes them to their logical extreme. > Leftists also have much more curiosity and interest in every sector of > everyone’s life. If the right has a saving grace, it is that although it > embraces collectivism, it lacks the intellectual ambition to be consistent > about seeking a government solution to every conceivable human problem. The > right wants to keep illegal drugs banned; the left wants the state to keep > tabs on every legal drug you’re using. > A major complication to finding fascism on the left comes in analyzing their > view of war. At least in a superficial sense, leftists are still not quite as > bloodthirsty as rightists. The polls show that most Republicans favor Obama’s > wars while most Democrats are skeptical or opposed. There are even some areas > of policy where Obama is not quite as bad as Bush. > But the leftist position is hardly reliably anti-war. There are exceptions, > of course. The far left radicals and genuine classical-liberal leaning types > like Glenn Greenwald stay principled and will question a war regardless of > the president. But in general, at best, most left-liberals look the other way > while innocent foreigners are slaughtered by U.S. bombs, so long as the > president is advancing domestic socialism on schedule. Healthcare is their > issue right now, not mass murder. It is more a change in emphasis than a full > embrace of warmongering that characterizes the left during Democratic wars. > They might not wear flag pins and spend every day screaming for blood; they > simply ignore the issue. This is documented:the "netroots" progressives, for > example, have almost entirely abandoned the war issue in order to pursue > issues where they can side with the state and their beloved president. > Under Democratic rule, the left-liberal seems to make a calculation: how much > socialism makes it worth living under a lawless state? How many free > government goodies does it take for me to shut up about the Pakistanis and > Afghans being blown to bits? Aggressive war, for most of the left, is at best > one of many issues, and generally not one regarded as nearly as important as > health care or education financing. Their reasoning seems to go: "Killed ten > thousand people? That’s bad. Paid our UN dues? That’s good. Tortured and > spied? That’s bad. Toughened EPA emission standards? That’s good. A trillion > dollar bailout? That might be bad. But Obama also signed the tobacco > legislation. I guess it balances out." > Even under Republicans, leftists rarely go far enough on the war issue. They > believe in big government, the nation-state and its military, they believe in > collective security, the UN, and the founding myths of the post-WWII American > empire, and they believe that there is a stark moral difference between a > president killing in the name of government and private citizens committing > murder. Even under Republicans, most of the left is more opposed to the war > contractors and unilateralism than the war itself, more opposed to the > businesses involved in surveillance than the government ordering the spying, > more opposed to the partisan leader than the institutions he leads. If they > truly ever embraced the full antiwar position, they would see the state for > what it is, an engine of mass murder and totalitarian subjugation of foreign > peoples and the domestic population, and would thus not find it so > distasteful to imply that such an institution would ever have something > called ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
