Pelosi's crocodile tears --- may they rain on her face forever On Sep 30, 2:07 pm, LadybugsTX <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
