Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

As a capitalist, I can say with authority that George Bush and his buddies are not capitalists. They are looters, plain and simple. When they can’t make a dollar the good old fashioned way, they’re content to steal it at the end of a gun-barrel. Need the word Halliburton be said once again?

When government and business are in collusion to defraud the public, that is the definition of fascism.

I’ll give you a running start on reality… YOU try running a services company that works for the U.S. government and see how long it takes before you have to resort to bribes and lobbying to break even.

Drop the slavery bit and replace it with cheap labor and military strategic occupation and strike positioning, and the criticism of Bush is pretty accurate for about half the Americans in this country (hopefully more by November). What is amazing is that Bush BOTH believes he is doing the right thing and and intends to put the rest of the world into a submissive position for the sake of his oil and corporate buddies. He rationalizes of course saying that what is good for corporate and oil America is good for all American citizens including our troops dying and maimed in the name of his cause. But, yeah, essentially, his critics have it about right.

What makes fascism so lethal is patriotism - Fascism of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Hussein, Mao, etc. is these leaders ability to convince enough of their people that what the leaders are doing is in their own best interest. Bush has been successful in this regard with about half of American voters. Fascism bends the law to its leader’s own will and desire. That seems pretty obviously the case for Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and their GOP with regard to the Patriot Act, the Geneva Convention, and illegal immigration tolerance in the millions each year (cheap labor).

Now of course Bush and his cabinet and their GOP followers don’t see the potential for fascism in their actions, - in fact they are expending huge amounts of energy and money to defend their actions and rationale. But that is true of all the fascist or dictator leaders mentioned above. None of them believed they were bad people and they should give up power in the interest of the people. Quite the contrary. They all believed that their actions were in the best interest of the people in the long run through establishment of a fearsome enemy, order through police laws, security through intimidation and a strong military presence, and majority support through propaganda, secrecy, and control of information. All hallmarks of the Bush administration.

And folks who buy into the fear promulgated by these leaders are motivated by their fear to accept as patriotic all that such leaders have to say. But, like Lincoln said, you can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but not all the people all of the time, and hopefully November will prove Lincoln right, yet again.

In light of the Bush campaign ad that we have been discussing in the center column, I have to ask a similar question: How desperate is Bush that he feels compelled to compare Democrats like Kerry and Gephardt to Hitler?

Oh, come on. You quote the worst of the left and ignore the worst of the right? Pot, meet kettle.

People like Coulter have said we lefties are terrorists, communist spies, baby killers, etc. for years. Absurdists hyperbole has been part of our political system - on both sides - for a long time.

What is amazing is that Bush BOTH believes he is doing the right thing and and intends to put the rest of the world into a submissive position for the sake of his oil and corporate buddies.

David, this is precisely what I am talking about. Those sentiments are at their base completely ignore the truth and are a substitute for critical thinking.

Fascism bends the law to its leader’s own will and desire. That seems pretty obviously the case for Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and their GOP with regard to the Patriot Act, the Geneva Convention, and illegal immigration tolerance in the millions each year (cheap labor).

I’ll put you down as a ‘Moore Democrat’ as well then. Obviously since Bush and Ashcroft et al don’t believe in liberal totalitarianism they are fascists.

And folks who buy into the fear promulgated by these leaders are motivated by their fear to accept as patriotic all that such leaders have to say.

And so you invalidate any opposing arguments as being motivated by fear and ‘patriotic fascism’. Rather than discussing anything of substance the left has descending into labeling the GOP fascists, and the argument ends there.

I have to ask a similar question: How desperate is Bush that he feels compelled to compare Democrats like Kerry and Gephardt to Hitler?

Again Woody, you are completely ignoring the fact that that commercial is exposing democrats comparing Bush to Hitler.

Again Woody, you are completely ignoring the fact that that commercial is exposing democrats comparing Bush to Hitler.

But it’s not. It’s comparing Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Gore, etc. to some random wingnut who entered one movie out of over a thousand on a PAC’s advertisement contest - which was then soundly voted down.

It’s like me comparing Bush to Fred Phelps’s “GodHatesFags.com” site and saying they’re working together.

Again Woody, you are completely ignoring the fact that that commercial is exposing democrats comparing Bush to Hitler.

Stop insulting my intelligence. The point of this ad is to juxtapose footage of Hitler with footage of Democrats.

Now that the Hitler footage has been in a Bush ad, I suppose it’s fair play for the Dems to use it against Bush? Actually, since the original ads were made by anonymous bozos on the Internet, I suppose anything the Dems can find on Free Republic is now “the face of the Republican Party”.

Look, the left is really fond of calling republicans fascists. Look at the comments already on this post basically saying, “Yeah, Republicans are fascists.”

MoveOn.org, like Michael Moore has been wholeheartedly embraced by the DNC and democratic leadership. I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways.

The Bush campaign has every right to point out how democrats and progressives paint his leadership. To expect anything less is censorship.

If I am called a fascist I have the right to rebutt it.

It seems pointless and ironically easy to argue with such a viewpoint. I, for one, hope the left keeps this up. Is this what they call uniting, not dividing?

O.K. Eric, since it is easy, why not argue it? I’m curious what you think facism is. It seems to me a disingenuos ploy to dismiss this point out of hand.

To refine this a bit and remove the red herring, I have made this point a few times, but I have not called Bush a facist, but pointed to the beginnings of facist like tactics in this country.

We can argue about facism abroad, if you like or find it easy, as you say.

MoveOn.org, like Michael Moore has been wholeheartedly embraced by the DNC and democratic leadership.

Ah yes, but MoveOn did not embrace the ad. They soundly rejected it.

Let’s have one standard. Now that the Hitler footage has been in a Bush ad, the Dems can use it anyway they want.

Well, Eric, if you can rebutt claims that you are fascists, Liberals have the right to contend that they are not traitors or apologists for totalitarian regimes.

Why don’t we all admit the truth: We all participate in these debates because we love our country and want what’s right for it. All the rest of that stuff is just immature name-calling.

Woody, Moveon rejected it so wholeheartedly that they put it on their website. Only after Democrats asked them to take it down (proving that they’re coordinating illegally) did they finally do it. Then Kerry hired Zack Exley, the one responsible, to work on his campaign. Somebody—either Kerry or Exley—is due for a perp walk.

As I hear more about those objecting to Bush’s ad, which even minimum congitative ability reveals is not “comparing Kerry to Hilter,” I become increasingly concerned.

Remember the title of that book about Democrats by Donald Luskin—The Conspiracy to Keep you Poor and Stupid? Why is it so hard for so many Americans to process and contextualize even simple information? I can’t help but ask: is our children learning?

Woody, Moveon rejected it so wholeheartedly that they put it on their website.

They put every submission up.

Only after Democrats asked them to take it down (proving that they’re coordinating illegally) did they finally do it.

I’m failing to see how the Democrats openly asking them to remove it would constitute coordinating their activities. The Democrats are asking Bush to remove this ad from his website, does that constitute illegal cooperation betwen the two parties? Come on, let’s have a little logic in your arguments.

Then Kerry hired Zack Exley, the one responsible, to work on his campaign.

Responsible for what? The ad? No.

Eric maybe you should have read some definitions of fascism before you started protesting so loudly. The Cambridge definition seems to fit Bush the best.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Fascism,/fashiz’m/ , • noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: Definition
Fascism, noun [U], a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed.

On another note I never liked Clinton, but I fear bush. Which is why I post under a pseudonym.

Evidently the pope agrees with me:

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880

The Democratic party controlling or influencing—in any fashion—the message put out by Moveon is illegal. Period.

Asking Moveon to take down an ad that tarnishes the Democrats by association, and then Moveon complying, is a clear violation of the rule that forbids coordination between a soft-money group and a political party.

The only way they could avoid being in violation is if they similarly took down ads and changed their message at the request of Republicans, which is not going to happen. And why? Because Moveon is engaged in an illegal liason with Democrats. They’re waging a shadow campaign, along with Soros, Moore and others to violate the law.

This isn’t going to change, of course, until Republicans begin to do the same thing to the same degree. Then the media will scream and howl and something will be done. Until then, the left gets a pass. As usual.

Hey, maybe the Democrats should ask Moveon to stop attacking and beating people up outside of movie theaters if they don’t give the old stiff-armed salute to Michael Moore.

I’m curious what you think facism is. It seems to me a disingenuos ploy to dismiss this point out of hand.

Greg, If the left were looking for real fascism you couldn’t do better than the Saddam Hussein regime. But the left isn’t really interested in protesting or getting rid of fascist regimes now are they? Regime change begins and ends at home, right?

To refine this a bit and remove the red herring, I have made this point a few times, but I have not called Bush a facist, but pointed to the beginnings of facist like tactics in this country.

We can argue about facism abroad, if you like or find it easy, as you say.

Of course you’re not calling Bush a fascist, just pointing out all the fascist similarities. I got it. See how easy it is?

Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Bob, I’d accept that as a good definition. Obviously it doesn’t come close to describing the Bush Administration in any way, shape, or form. Fascism is a totalitarian movement historically tied to Hitler and Mussolini. Fascism in both countries started out as Socialist movements and went down to their inevitable conclusion. During that time period central planning and soviet style total government economic control was in vogue. Luckily, freedom and capitalism won out.

In 1919 Anton Drexler, Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart formed the German Worker’s Party (GPW) in Munich. The German Army was worried that it was a left-wing revolutionary group and sent Adolf Hitler, one of its education officers, to spy on the organization. Hitler discovered that the party’s political ideas were similar to his own. He approved of Drexler’s German nationalism and anti-Semitism but was unimpressed with the way the party was organized. Although there as a spy, Hitler could not restrain himself when a member made a point he disagreed with, and he stood up and made a passionate speech on the subject. -spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

When Saddam came to power he embarked on a massive socialist program to modernize Iraq. This is in line with the Baathist platform of total government control.

Ba’ath party, Arab political party, in Syria and in Iraq. Its main ideological objectives are secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unionism.

…In 1963 a military coup restored the Ba’ath to power in Syria, and it embarked on a course of large-scale nationalization.

…Subsequently the main line of division was drawn between the so-called progressive faction, led by Nureddin Atassi, which gave priority to the firm establishment of a one-party state and to neo-Marxist economic reform, and the so-called nationalist group, led by Gen. Hafez al-Assad.

The Baathist ideology is very much tied to a collectivist, anti-individualistic view. Where’s the sighs of relief that Saddam’s fascist regime is gone?

Modeling himself after Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, Hussein soon became the real power figure in the Iraqi government, particularly through his role as head of the secret police. By 1979 he was ready to take over, so he muscled his cousin into resigning. Finally, and officially, Saddam Hussein was ruling Iraq. tlc.discovery.com

The pope or CounterPunch writer Madsen agrees with you?

According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, “George W Bush’s blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to ‘evil doers,’ in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations—the anti-Christ.”

Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim…

Madsen contends that “Bush is a dangerous right-wing ideologue who couples his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult.” -findarticles.com

Martin, Can you imagine what kind of furor would have happened if there was even one incident like this after a screening of Mel Gibson’s The Passion?

But the horror kept on growing for Streeter as he walked to his car on the phone with police, “This guy turns, and totally by surprise takes his hand and bam! It was a big guy. Shoved me onto the ground, I hit my head.” A police report has been filed. Moore violence

It can be small step, unfortunately, from hate-filled propaganda which dehumanizes your opponents to actual violence in the streets.

Apparently it took Democrats all of one day to make that leap. After all, if Michael Moore is right about conservatives, then physical violence is perfectly justified. This is the gutter that Moveon and Michael Moore are prepared to crawl in.

Eric and Martin,

I think I’ve pretty much figured out your little ethical system:

1) Democrats are collectively responsible for every wackjob who supports their party, or just hates Bush.

2) Once “the Democrats” do something unethical, the Republicans are entitled to give them a taste of “their” own medicine.

In short, the Democratic Party is accountable for everything, and the GOP is accountable for nothing. It’s not worth arguing the specifics, because it’s all variations on this theme.

Woody, I think you’re missing the point. I’d rather argue about policy specifics. Instead all I hear is that Republicans are fascists or proto-fascists, and Bush is a diabolical genius who is also a complete moron, who’s every policy is designed to enrich evil corporate interests at the expense of every American citizen - hopefully by killing them.

I’m not making this stuff up and Democrats are hardly repudiating it. In fact they are embracing it. The democratic party seems to be careening into ‘wackjob’-land all by itself. Part of me hopes they keep it up.

As for the GOP, I haven’t criticized Bush enough it seems. We would definately disagree about what to critizise him for anyway.

My personal opinion is that the Bush administration has tried too hard to ‘triangulate’ on the issues domestically, rather than pushing Republican principles. The federal budget desperately needs housecleaning. There are programs that need to be cut.

> I’d rather argue about policy specifics.
> Instead all I hear is that Republicans are
> fascists or proto-fascists

That’s the pot callig the kettle black! Eric, you are a champion of the straw-man rhetorical technique. Half of your words on WatchBlog are designed exclusively to discredit “the left”, citing examples of extremist left-wing weirdos to represent all Democrats and liberals, sometimes without citing examples at all. The other half of your WatchBlog words consists of sound policy discussion, but that too is usually accompanied by a scathing attack on “the left”. You need a little perspective before you start hurling accusations like the above.

-Cf

Eric,

It is true that I was primarily referring to silly “scandals” rather than policy issues. On other hand, Bush has gotten away with a lot of policy failures that a Democratic president(especially one named Clinton) would have been crucified for.

…you are a champion of the straw-man rhetorical technique. Half of your words on WatchBlog are designed exclusively to discredit “the left”, citing examples of extremist left-wing weirdos to represent all Democrats and liberals, sometimes without citing examples at all.

Well, when the left-wing weirdo shoe fits… Is Michael Moore not a left-wing wierdo? Because he is on par with any other extremist I have ever cited. He’s no further left than the links in my above post.

When David Duke ran for whatever office it was he ran for in whatever state it was did Republicans embrace him or repudiate him? That is the test. I hear you protesting but never repudiating.

Honestly, what you label straw man is pretty ubiquitious around here Christopher. Besides that, ALL of my words on WatchBlog are meant to discredit the left.

The other half of your WatchBlog words consists of sound policy discussion, but that too is usually accompanied by a scathing attack on “the left”. You need a little perspective before you start hurling accusations like the above.

I have you to keep me in perspective, Christopher.

> Here’s a representative sample of GOP/Bush/Neo-cons
> are Nazi’s/evil/fascists links. Enjoy.

Gosh, I am so ashamed that all Democrats and liberals are so darn crazy and hateful! From now on I will only follow the wisdom of those level-headed and compassionate Republicans:

• Such as Republican Congressman Tom Cole, who says that a vote against Bush is like a vote for Adolph Hitler.
• Thank God we have patriots like that right-wing domestic terrorist group who built a humongous CYANIDE GAS (!) bomb. (The plot was thwarted by federal agents, but John Ashcroft buried the story because it made right-wingers look bad.)
• Maybe the cyanide bomb was intended for those Communist Saddam-loving anti-war protesters!
• Or maybe the cyanide bomb was intended for those jackbooted Democrat thugs who are trying to disarm average Americans - just like the Nazis!
• People who oppose the invasion of Iraq must be Satanists: Republican darling/Bush chum Pat Robertson said “Ladies and gentlemen, we just took over Babylon” because, in his words, Iraq is the first step towards the final battle of good versus evil, which will be fought in Jerusalem around 2040.
• Another Republican favorite, Randall Terry, has disowned his gay son.
• But I guess that’s okay, since as we know God hates Terry’s son too.

Note: I used Google exclusively to come up with this. I didn’t just go to some Liberal (or Conservative) blog elsewhere and cut-n-paste my post from there. Unlike certain recent WB posters.

-Cf

Eric: I constantly wonder about your motivations and thought processes. Are your arguments truly from the heart? Do you really believe them? Or are you simply acting as an operative of your party?

I also wonder about want was going through the minds of the ordinary Germany and German Jew prior to WWII. They seemed too simply be incapable of extrapolating current events into the future. They did not seem to understand the progression of what was occurring around them, until they could do nothing to stop it.

As the destruction of democracy and rule of law was slowly removed the majority did not object. They were told “this is for you security” and they believed.

At what point will you put love of country above love of party?

Do you not see that the extreme pride in country and race, and the intolerance of political opposition is the first step to the destruction of our democracy? That Bush vs. Kerry is not even an important question?

Can you not see that the patriot acts are the same “security verses freedom” arguments used by fascist states from Hitler to Stalin?

Personally I would rather have a terrorist fly a plane into my house or office rather that give up the rights guaranteed to me in the “Bill of Rights”.

I fear Bush more that I have feared anything else in my life. I fear him because he cannot conceive that he will ever be wrong and because he doesn’t seem to understand that absolute power corrupts.

God help us all.

Our enemies are beheading captives right and left.

They killed 3000 of our civilians on our own soil, and are seeking the means to kill more.

But you fear Bush more than anything you have in your entire life.

Typical.

Note: I used Google exclusively to come up with this. I didn’t just go to some Liberal (or Conservative) blog elsewhere and cut-n-paste my post from there. Unlike certain recent WB posters.

Christopher, I’d be more impressed if you googled quotes proving that Republicans are proto-fascists.

Recent WB posters?

Eric: I constantly wonder about your motivations and thought processes. Are your arguments truly from the heart? Do you really believe them? Or are you simply acting as an operative of your party?

Bob, I do believe everything I write, although I do sometimes write things to be sarcastic, funny, or get a rise.

There are aspects of the Republican Party I don’t care for and elected officials seldom make me completely happy all the time. You can’t expect everyone to be the same or to always be right. On balance I think the Republican Party is going in the right direction (when they are moving at all).

So no, I don’t consider myself a party shill, but I will defend my ideology and the party line when that is the argument at hand.

I also wonder about want was going through the minds of the ordinary Germany and German Jew prior to WWII. They seemed too simply be incapable of extrapolating current events into the future. They did not seem to understand the progression of what was occurring around them, until they could do nothing to stop it.

As the destruction of democracy and rule of law was slowly removed the majority did not object. They were told “this is for you security” and they believed.

I have read some interesting things about the times preceding the rise of the Nazi’s. The zeitgeist if you will, was condusive to Hitler’s rise. We look back and say, “What were they thinking?” but that’s the benefit of hindsight. Margaret Sanger who founded planned parenthood embraced the idea of sterilizing the poor and ‘unfit’ here in America. I think it still bleeds through in the abortion debate.

I don’t think it was a bait and switch, “this is for your security” ploy so much as it was a prevalent philosophy that government should have more power and individuals less power. The good of the people over the individual.

At what point will you put love of country above love of party?

What are you talking about? I would in turn ask you the same thing. The Republican values I value are those that devolve government control to the individual.

Do you not see that the extreme pride in country and race, and the intolerance of political opposition is the first step to the destruction of our democracy? That Bush vs. Kerry is not even an important question?

If extreme pride in country is what makes one a fascist then I guess I’m guilty. Race doesn’t enter into the equation here does it? Are Republicans rascist too? Where does this come from?

As for intolerance, I see a lot less tolerance on the democratic side, Bob.

Can you not see that the patriot acts are the same “security verses freedom” arguments used by fascist states from Hitler to Stalin?

No, I don’t. Are gun control laws a security versus freedom argument? The Nazi’s favored gun confiscation you know. Campaign finance reform and the myriad of proposals for campaign finance reform are a much more serious danger to democracy than keeping tabs on terrorists.

Exactly how does the patriot act resemble fascist oppressive control?

Personally I would rather have a terrorist fly a plane into my house or office rather that give up the rights guaranteed to me in the “Bill of Rights”.

I fear Bush more that I have feared anything else in my life. I fear him because he cannot conceive that he will ever be wrong and because he doesn’t seem to understand that absolute power corrupts.

God help us all.

I think your wrong about Bush personally. I don’t see this characteristic in him.

Excellent post, Eric.

You didn’t mention this, so I will: the idea that Bush holds “absolute power” is absurd on its face. I can’t believe that such overheated fear-mongering rhetoric has moved into the mainstream of Democratic thinking. I think we have Howard Dean to thank for this—it’s he who taught them that unleashing the id, playing with no rules whatsover, could gain short term political advantage.

Bush is the head of one branch of government, and he can’t even get his way in congress even though it’s controlled by his own party.

The idea that Bush, a very moderate president on the left-right axis (he is, for example, several degrees to the left of John F. Kendedy by any objective standard), is some kind of genocidal dictator cheapens the experience of those who have suffered under real tyrannies.

Bush is no tyrant. He has, however, driven two tryants from office now. He has also caused one other to give up his WMD programs (without a shot fired), and has many others nervously looking over their shoulders. If only Mount Rushmore were larger.

Our enemies are beheading captives right and left.

They killed 3000 of our civilians on our own soil, and are seeking the means to kill more.

But you fear Bush more than anything you have in your entire life.

Typical.

Yes, we’re more worried about Bush than we are about Al Qaeda. He’s got a lot more ability to do lasting damage to this nation than Al Qaeda does.

Isn’t it telling, Martin, that so many do fear what Bush might do? That we fear that more than we have any Republican? Doesn’t that tell you that there’s something different this time around?

It is telling about something, but I doubt we’d agree on what that is.

Isn’t it telling, Martin, that so many do fear what Bush might do? That we fear that more than we have any Republican? Doesn’t that tell you that there’s something different this time around?

ceejayoz, Is it fear for your own safety? Or is it ideological fear? Fear of your issues being overturned etc.

I understand the fear, actually. It’s the fear of the utter and permanent destruction of the left as a political entity which anyone takes seriously. For a brilliant analysis of why so many feel this way, and why not even a victory by Kerry could change the inevitable obselescence of the left, a process well under way, you should
really read this.

As I said, it’s brilliant.

Oops, I think I just gave you a link to nowhere. Let me try again.

Here it is.

Eric, while you have offered a definiton of fascism and links to several sites…and proposed that Bush has no resemblance to anything “protofascist” which I assume means fascist-like, I have seen no defense of the nationalism,terror, control of the press, totalinarianism,racism and socioeconomic control that Bush promotes.

Bush has used nationalism through out his career to promote his political rise. He used it to justify his invasion of Iraq. He has used it to erode the Bill of Rights and to steam roll the congress into the worst deficit spending spree in US history.

Isn’t there a totalinarian regime in Iraq right now? Isn’t Paul Bremer running the show there?

totalinarianism

martial law

Isn’t there a terror alert every other day here?
Last one I remember is to watch out for beer cooler bombs. Do you think the Iraqi’s felt terrorized during the invasion and since?

terror

Do you think that the condoned abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan,and Guantanimo has sent a message that it’s O.K. to hate those evil Arabs?

racism

As to socioeconomic controls, what do you think deregulation of the electric industry did to help individual Americans, except of course Ken “Kenny-boy” Lay ? Does selling medicare programs to major contributors help inividual Americans or the clients of corporate pacs more? Why is the distortion of the economy producing a squeezed middle class, impoverished underclass, and soaring elite class?

class in America

corporatism

Bill Clinton is as guilty of promoting corporatism as Bush is and had his stupid imperialistic moment in Somalia.

Neither party can honestly claim to be reducing the size or influence of government.

Eric,you seem very intelligent but your rabid defense of the Republican Party seems more based on emotion than anything else.

Again, I am not saying Bush is a Fascist. Both parties are diminishing our democracy. Bush is guilty of using 9/11 to promote his imperialistic tendencies and diminsh our Bill of Rights. My main concern is the rise of corporatism in America, much of it well below the headlines. That is what I think most looks like Facism. I really don’t worry about Facists in Iraq, or Sudan or Pakistan or wherever as much as I do here. I resent American soldiers dying in a war that does not appear to have a clear purpose or rational.

Oh and I forgot one more…suppression of the press

suppression of the press

Greg says: “I have seen no defense of the nationalism, terror, control of the press, totalinarianism, racism and socioeconomic control that Bush promotes.”

Please explain why anyone should mount a defense against things don’t exist? That are only “out there” for our appraisal because some have found them convenient ploys for promoting their own candidates?

I’ve seen no defense of John Kerry’s proclivity for cannabalism either. Or for the multiple car-jackings, arsons, and kidnappings perpetrated by Michael Moore. Do you see my point?

Micheal Moore, Howard Dean, the New York Times, etc. exemplify the maxim that one fool can cast a stone into a pool that twenty wise men can not fish out.

The things you are accusing Bush of would require a great more support before they could be taken seriously. Simply throwing out accusations has proven very successful at energizing the leftist base—misconceptions, unsupported innuendos and deliberate misreadings of events have indeed proven to be the ground floor for a lot of even more tall tales and smears, but it would be a tragedy if a majority of Americans went along for this particurlary sordid ride.

Unfortunately, Democrats control the majority of the media, the education establishment and entertainment industry. The stones they’ve thrown have sunk in pretty deeply, and the first casualty, as always, has been the truth.

Eric: I agree with the part about gun control. It is one of the many reasons I am not a member of the Democratic Party.

(Interesting thing is that on another thread Bush’s action are causing some democrats to realize the that gun ownership IS a safety valve against tyranny.)

As for how race enters into the current picture I propose that we substitute the word “religion” for the word “race” in the definition of fascism. After all isn’t Islamic fascism a favorite catch word on this web site. The rise of fascism just needs someone to play the part of “them” in the struggle against “us”. The problem with fascism is that in the struggle to defeat “them” we destroy everything of value to “us”

As for the patriot act and its use to destroy the bill of rights I will simple refer you to another thread on this web site

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001197.html

I missed out on that discussion since I was on a business trip.

” If extreme pride in country is what makes one a fascist then I guess I’m guilty.”

I’m going to assume you are kidding about that. All by itself extreme pride in country is called jingoism. I think you have to favor suppressing the bill of rights and advocate hating “them” to be a fascist.

JINGOISM: [n] fanatical patriotism

Good defense Martin,

The See no Evil Defense. Or perhaps the Ostrich head in the sand defense. Good Job.

There are plenty of nut cases and extremists on both sides; these people are not representative but are noticed because of the nature of their rhetoric. Perhaps, extremes help maintain the center.

Martin, when are you going to admit that the Bush administration is even capable of a mistake concerning Iraq? When are you going to admit that they raised expectations they haven’t fulfilled, concerning weapons, terrorists, and the threat that was posed by Iraq? When are you going to quit fighting entrenched battles of rhetoric to defend against charges backed by facts?

I have seen no defense of the nationalism, terror, control of the press, totalinarianism,racism and socioeconomic control that Bush promotes.

Nice try, Greg. I’ll go through these one by one for you.

Nationalism
Like waving the flag? Appealing to voters pride in America? Believing in America, and believing the best of Americans?

What’s the liberal view of patriotism? Patriotism is suspect. Dissent is patriotism. If I criticize America, don’t question ‘my patriotism’.

“Our democracy is a farce; it is not the best in the world.” — John Kerry in a 1971 speech at West Virginia’s Bethany College —wahingtontimes.com

I’m really not sure what you’re referring to as nationalism on the part Bush. What exactly is ‘using nationalism’? Can you give me specific example?

Terror
We had a war and people died? I thought we were past that. Our wars are supposed to be bloodless now.

Totalitarianism, Control of the press
I believe Bremer shut down a couple of newspapers. Al Sadr’s newspaper for one. I guess freedom of the press in the US includes inciting violence, printing lies, and encouraging people to kill.

Of course Al Sadr is very much akin to Ben Franklin isn’t he? Perhaps if Kerry ran the occupation instead of soldiers we could send ACLU lawyers to Iraq.

“What is happening now is what used to happen during the days of Saddam. No freedom of opinion. It is like the days of the Baath,” said Hussam Abdel-Kadhim, 25, a vendor who took part in the demonstration, referring to the Baath Party that ruled Iraq for 35 years until Saddam Hussein was ousted a year ago.

Many newspapers and television stations have cropped up since the fall of the Hussein regime. However, a law passed by occupation authorities in June states that a news organization must be licensed to operate in Iraq and that license can be revoked if the outlet publishes or broadcasts content that foments civil disorder, violence, or “advocates alterations to Iraq’s borders by violent means.”

In July, the coalition closed another Baghdad newspaper, Al-Mustaqila, and arrested its office manager for publishing an article July 13 calling for “death to all spies and those who cooperate with the U.S.” -pbs,org

Where is Bremer now by the way? Where is the glorious fascist dictator now on June 28th, 2004? Doesn’t seem like a very traditional totalitarian regime.

Martial Law

Falah Hassan al-Naqib, the interior minister, said the new interim government would have no qualms about imposing martial law if the violence threatened to undermine its authority.

“If we need to do it, yes, we’ll do it, we won’t hesitate,” he said. “This is the security of our country, the security and the life of our people.” -antiwar.com

Seems sensible to me. Are all these calls from Democrats for a draft, more troops, and a crack down on looting just putting us all on?

I thought the Iraqi’s didn’t want democracy in the first place, right? Democrats should be happy for them to choose their totalitarian form of government.

Racism
This link must be the wrong one, Greg it’s about

Socioeconomic controls

…deregulation of the electric industry did to help individual Americans, except of course Ken “Kenny-boy” Lay ? Does selling medicare programs to major contributors help inividual Americans or the clients of corporate pacs more? Why is the distortion of the economy producing a squeezed middle class, impoverished underclass, and soaring elite class?

1. Deregulation hasn’t been tried in California, Greg. Besides which, Democrats put that together. The main aspect of California’s ‘deregulation’ was price controls. That’s your culprit, Greg.

2. I need clarification on selling medicare programs to major contributors. But I agree that programs like Medicare distort the market for medicine and generally drive up the cost of medical care. Think about it… Why do we have agricultural subsidies? Do subsidies make costs lower or higher?

3. What is the ‘distortion of the economy’? How does something so vague produce squeezing, impoverishing, and soaring all at the same time?

Class in America
Class is such an overrated and overused Marxist doctrine, especially in America. The place where class matters less than anywhere else in the world. Honestly, Greg, I can’t think of a more off target charge about how bad America is than class. The article you cite has a paragraph at the end which is a breath of honesty, from a former socialist no less.

The former Socialist and editor of the Partisan Review William Barrett, looking back thirty years, concludes that “the Classless Society looks more and more like a Utopian illusion. The socialist countries develop a class structure of then own,” although there, he points out, the classes are very largely based on bureaucratic toadying. “Since we are bound… to have classes in any case, why not have them in the more organic, heterogeneous and variegated fashion” indigenous to the West? And since we have them, why not know as much as we can about them? The subject may be touchy, but it need not be murky forever.

Corporatism
Here’s where you and I part completely. Although there is a kernel of truth quoted in this link, this page tells me nothing about corporatism. It says very little of substance about anything except assertions that Hitler and Bush are the same. It doesn’t even try to make a case to prove it. If you find a better definition of corporatism I’d like to read it.

This part which was quoted in this article is instructive, and actually refutes what the article seems to be trying to say:

“Totalitarianism is a form of government in which all societal resources are monopolized by the state in an effort to penetrate and control all aspects of public and private life, through the state’s use of propaganda, terror, and technology. Totalitarian ideologies reject the existing society as corrupt, immoral, and beyond reform. They project an alternative society in which these wrongs are to be redressed, and provide plans and programs for realizing the alternative order.”

1. All resources monopolized by the state. Henry Hazlit explains the difference between Fascism and Communism, as two forms of totalitarianism. Communism confiscates all propoerty so that the state owns and controls it. Fascism allows you to own the property but the state dictates how those resources are to be used. Ala many aspects of the new deal were in fact fascist in nature.

Actually the one thing he did that was based on a very definite philosophy was the program that consisted of the NRA and the AAA. This was a plan to take the whole industrial and agricultural life of the country under the wing of the government, organize it into vast farm and industrial cartels, as they were called in Germany, corporatives as they were called in Italy, and operate business and the farms under plans made and carried out under the supervision of government. This is the complete negation of liberalism. It is, in fact, the essence of fascism. Fascism goes only one step further and insists, logically, that this cannot be done by a democratic government; that it can be done successfully only under a totalitarian regime. Of course, Roosevelt did not know that he was indulging in a fascist experiment because he did not know what fascism was. In those days fascism was not defined as anti­Semitism. It was a word used to describe the political system of Mussolini. Roosevelt merely did something which at the moment seemed politically expedient because it satisfied a vast mass of farmers and business men. He never examined the fundamentals of it because that was not the way his mind worked. The NRA did not fully satisfy the technocratic groups represented by the Tugwells and their disciples in spite of the many points of resemblance. The NRA left too much control in the hands of business whereas they would have preferred to see that control in the hands of the technicians ­ preferable the professors. As for the Reds, they did not move in heavily until the second term and not en masse until the third term, although the entering wedge was made in the first. And then the point of entry was the labor movement. hazlitt.org

2. Control all aspects of public and private life.

3. Reject the existing society as corrupt, immoral, and beyond reform. This is veritably a definition of the corporatist activists you seem to be endorsing.

4. Provide plans and programs for realizing the alternative order. Do you think that the people atAmerica Held Hostile don’t have a plan and program for putting ‘America right’? How radical a change could we expect to undergo if they had their way?

This anti-Corporatism is in fact a relabeling of marxist dogma. Money is evil. Corporations and the rich are oppressing and exploiting the poor and middle class. It’s class warfare at it’s best.

Neither party can honestly claim to be reducing the size or influence of government.

I can’t agree with you more there, Greg. This is the main tragedy of present day politics and my main beef with Bush. He has completely dropped the ball domestically. By half heartedly going along with and even attempting to co-opt so many Democratic issues.

Martin, when are you going to admit that the Bush administration is even capable of a mistake concerning Iraq? When are you going to admit that they raised expectations they haven’t fulfilled, concerning weapons, terrorists, and the threat that was posed by Iraq?

Stephen, Sorry to answer for Martin here, but, when are you going to admint that the Bush administration is even capable of doing anything right concerning Iraq? As I recall the administration sought to lower expectations going into the war, which was called a quagmire before it even started. According to some including yourself if I remember correctly the invasion itself was botched, even though it was swift, decisive, and exceeded expectations.

When are you going to quit fighting entrenched battles of rhetoric to defend against charges backed by facts?

Funny, I was going to ask you the same question.

Oh, I don’t know. It’s when the symbols of our nation overwhelm the principles we live by in importance. It’s when the patriotism of submission to the authorities in power becomes more important then the patriotism of speaking truth to power. That’s nationalism. The state and it’s mythos over all other interests. The patriotism of speaking truth to power sometimes means making statements that express disillusionment, depression, and other kinds of negativity. If one can’t say those things, if loyalty to this country means silence about its flaws, and submission to officials supposedly elected to serve the public, not themselves and their base, then our democracy is a farce. I don’t believe so at this point. In fact I’m proud that my party is willing to stand up and resist George Bush. For too long, they’ve been unwilling to fight the Republican party on things, and that is no recipe for moderation in our policy.

Except under Saddam you’d be dead, Hussam Abdel-Kadhim.

We should have had the friendly media outlets blast Al-Mustaqila, and point out Sadr’s Iranian connections. Then if one of their people actually did kill one of our soldiers then we could arrest that person and decry the violence that Al-Mustaqila was inciting. Better yet, catch his group killing Iraqis who oppose them, have whatever apparatuses that are in place for those organizations decry that. You don’t just go in and close down the paper, you degrade their image so badly that either you don’t have to close them down, or no one cares when you do. You don’t do this to them at the height of their popularity.

The problem with martial law is that we are only now getting around to imposing it. We invaded with so few troops that they had to stand by and watch as law and order collapsed around them. Nonetheless, you have my agreement that they should be willing to impose it. Question is, do we have enough troops to impose it well? Do the Iraqis?

As for Socioeconomic controls, Ken Lay and his people created false shortages of power, essentially stealing money from Californians in return for crippling lapses in power. This manufactured energy crisis most likely did our economy as a whole very little good. With many of our top notch electronics firms working out of that state, artificial irregularities in the electricity were likely very disruptive.

This is part of why you have regulations: So that people don’t pull crap that ruins other people’s day. When the infrastructure that supports our economy is disrupted for the sake of the profits of a few, then the deregulation argument falls apart. People should be able to pay a fair price for a reliable product, and not have to worry about being extorted by middlemen who serve no real function in that economy.

The new deal was socialist, but not fascist. the NRA was eventually dropped, and the rest of the programs at least gave people the sense that there was something to be done for the situation. The New Deal gave people the assurance that their government was seeking to help them, unlike Hoover’s administration, which basically told the people who weren’t rich that the problem wasn’t as bad as they thought and that things would soon turn around. Is it any wonder that no Republican would be elected president for another twenty years, and that the New Deal would dominate American politics for almost fifty years after that? Socialism, in a limited form (which is what the New Deal eventually became) can work.

True, Marxism is one philosophy that motivates opposition to corporate conduct, but it’s not necessarily the only one. One can take a market oriented perspective, a religious, and even a philosophical approach. We do not believe the system is beyond reform or that our democracy is incapable of working the problem. Instead, what we believe is that laws should be in place to create a force for moderation for behavior in the corporate world that while profitable to the few, is harmful to consumers, to the environment, and to the economy itself. do we control over everything? No. Just certain things. Things like having people who sell stock not turn around and finance the company they’re telling people to invest in. Things like keeping gas mileage high in cars so we neither suffer increased gas prices, nor increased CO2 emmissions. Things like maintain standards of transparency and honesty for a companies accounting.

All things where corporation might feel it in their interests to oppose, not out of some moral sense, but because many who run those companies feel entitled to gain wealth, regardless of the consequences to others. That includes cooking the books to hide weakness and losses the market might punish. That includes manipulating the markets for stocks to insure companies the bank is investing have their stock sold regardless of the character of their fundamentals. That includes selling gas guzzlers on the road who’s increase of consumption has resulted in higher gas prices, and the concomitant economic difficulties resulting from that.

There are other ways the market can be manipulated that the market itself is not very capable of defending itself against. I would say that we simply want to empower the government to safeguard the parts of our economy and our society that would be harmed by an unrestricted system.

As for your response on Martin’s behalf, did I not publish a article for all to see regarding the finding of a Chemical weapon? Have I not entertained the thought on multiple occasions that something good may come out of this, and that we should stick it out in this conflict?

I have acknowledged many good arguments for things, but what I cannot ignore is that I initially support this war on evidence that has since been proven wrong on many counts. I waited with baited breath for our soldiers to find that evidence which was supposed to show up.

I will acknowledge to you that the invasion was highly successful. But it has one major flaw: it did not prepare the country for the occupation. It did not allow us to quickly impose law and order. The light, quick, electronically wired army that proved an asset during the invasion proved a liability when it came to maintaining control over a nation the size of california with a population of 25 million, with low tech guerrillas inflicting more casualties on our forces after the end of “major combat”, than before.

It never has, not in any signficant way. That one shell seems, according to the evidence, to be an orphan of the Iran-Iraq war. This kind of mistake doesn’t go away, especially after you’ve invaded a country over it. To me, it makes me viscerally uneasy to know that in it’s first pre-emptive war, America has invaded on now-discredited information.

If Bush showed signs of repentance for this error, I would be less inclined to oppose him as fervently as I have. But since he continues to justify this mismanaged pre-emption of a non-existing threat, I cannot with good conscience let him go on that point. This war has left a permanent black mark on our history, and if rationalized, it could start us down a dark path of rationalization leading us to tyrrany and ruin.

We cannot go around trying to impose democracy on other countries. Not because democracy is bad, but because of democracy’s very nature. A dictator, an emperor or an oligarchy can be imposed on a nation, but a democracy must grow from within it. If it doesn’t, that nation will fall into tyranny, and only stay a democracy in name only, if at all.

I do not mind the notion of creating democracies where we have intervened militarily, and I hope to God that the Iraqi’s take up democracy and prosper under it. But we should not get into the business of conquering nations to change their political systems. we do that, and the resistance we meet will eventually encourage us not to leave the countries we conquer, and to use the methods of empire to maintain that power. And of course, that political sensibility will feed back into our republic, and eat at it too. You only have to look back in history to see these trends play out again and again, and the thing is, we don’t have to repeat history. We can make it. We can resist the call to empire, the call to power for its own sake, and keep the soul of this country intact. We don’t have to let fear lead us to the dark side of history.

All we have to do is learn the lesson of Iraq.