Third Party & Independents: Archives

Rev Matt—

True, the current Bush Administration shenanigans fall a bit short of the traditional definition of “fascism,” their actions sure lead the reflective thinker down hat dark and evil road. What this Administration has done and is doing scares the hell out of me. Add to this The Federalist Society and it infiltration of American government and we have a recipe for 18th century puritanical law, dragging us back to the stone age of civil liberties. Am I rambling? Probably.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, rev matt. You are saying you don’t think this administration is facistic, but on the other hand, you acknowledge Weimar-like conditions and think we should fight the fascism in it’s ultimate quest for power.

I think there are many things we can point to that tell us we are indeed on the Totalitarian or Authoritarian road with these Neocon Republicans.
1. We no longer have a balance of political power in this country - only one party controls all three spheres of government.
2. We have had our constitutional rights abridged with the Patriot Acts, and they are still calling for yet more control over us.
3. We see them striving to pass constitutional amendments to suit their own personal agendas and beliefs.
4. We have a president who received a blank check to wage a pre-emptive war for the first time in our countries history, after lying and misleading congressional leaders to achieve his goals - and most tellingly he used Fear to do so (achieving unity through fear is always present in totalitarianism).
5. We have men in power who are confortable with breaking international law and using torture.
6. We see them making people sign loyalty oaths to attend their political rallies.
7. We see people who would voice protest far removed from their presence, and indeed, forcibly fenced off by the police into cages in order to do so.
8. We see them controlling the media, and hear that they are now refusing to allow certain “undesirable” people attend public events where the president is outlining policy (propaganda disseminated through the media and elimination of open criticism - both also always present with totalitarianism).

Honestly, I could go on and on here listing ways this administration is exerting far too much control over us. But instead of doing that, I’ll just ask you why you feel we haven’t yet approached that totalitarian road to ruin?

Hey now, E.M., I am president of the Georgetown Law Center Federalist Society!! I know the left wing would try to paint us otherwise, but we are simply a group of conservative/libertarian jurist types- nothing secret, evil or conspiratorial. Hate to disappoint you. But thanks for the plug anyway.

Misha,

Why am I not surprised? My eyes are open and watching, my ears are open and listening, and my mind is open and receptive; nothing sinister as far as you know.

There is chapter of the Federlist Society at my Law School as well, but I opted instead to join the ACLU.

Adrienne, I agree with your points. Weimar-like conditions preceded fascism. The point of the writers I reference, and one I agree with, is that there is an extremely high potential for a truly fascist movement to rise to power. Be it the Republicans, a newly energized Democratic Party, or a third party that emerges as Hitler’s Nazi Party did in opposition to those in power.

:) hey, EM, i am actually a fan of the ACLU- remember this article i wrote a little while back- http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000960.html.

Anyway, I can assume we wont be seeing you at the federalist society student symposium at Harvard Law School in a couple of weeks? Its too bad, we could have gone for some Italian food in the North End between the STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING PREEMPTIVE ACTION IN IRAQ AND BEYOND Panel featuring Alan M. Dershowitz and the THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND FEDERAL LAW IN THE INTERROGATION OF DETAINEES panel moderated by Judge Easterbrook (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/fedsoc/symposium/symschedule.shtml).

Anyway, sorry to get this topic a bit off track.

Misha,
If it quacks like a duck.

I have a rather pathetic knowledge of the Nazi movement but I don’t believe a comparison between the Bush Administration and Nazism to be fair. Lord knows I am not a fan of the Bush team but they have the most diverse cabinet in the history of the United States. I believe a lot of their “fascism” is derived from the Religious Right who spins it into islamofascism that has ran rampant since, I believe, 2000. I would like someone to shed some light on this.

Leon,

Diversity in this case doesn’t guarantee anything except difference of color. Ideologicly Mr. Bush has surrounded himself only with folks that agree with him.

That isn’t diversity.

Rocky,
For sure. Didn’t Bush say something to the extent that Colin Powell was not loyal enough to the team?

“Diversity in this case doesn’t guarantee anything except difference of color.”

If only liberals would recognize this simple point when it comes to justifying affirmative action programs based on “diversity.”

Misha,
I see your point in this regard but I want to point out that Affirmitive Action is a good thing. Minorities and the poor communities, including Whites, should have AA. I remember reading Clinton’s book when he spoke about teaching law at the University of Arkansas. A Black kid knew what he was talking about but his grammar and writing skills were atrocious. He didn’t have the chance like most priviledged kids to hire tutors in order to enhance their abilities. Clinton gave that kid a “B.” I approve of AA for those reasons. I also approve of first-trimester abortions because kids at times, due to environment; do not have a fighting chance in life. We don’t even have a national healthcare system. Parents are working all the time and raising kids as a single parent is a tough thing. Factors that should also be considered when applying for admissions are economics, backgrounds for mental health, environment, ect. including race. It is not easy growing up as a minority. The amount of racists still in this country is insane. It makes me wonder if this country will ever get past the Civil War. I approve of Affirmitive Action as Colin Powell used it and still approves of it. The typical Republican-in-Power attitude of the likes of Condeleeza Rice is that they used AA but now they are spitting on the program. The common ground is that people of all sorts have breaks in life. The rich kid will have his breaks in life and will always have it as long as that person has money. The poor kid will not have breaks in life so why not give them a break if they are trying to get into college or law school in order to better their lives and their families? I don’t understand this. Conservatives, in general, are so against AA but are also against welfare. Maybe I am generalizing too much but campaigning for Kerry, that is their mentality for the most part. If we continue to push for AA, that would help get rid of social programs like welfare, one step at a time. Why are they so against this program when it would counter the next program being welfare? It speaks volumes of how unorganized the thinking of modern day conservatism really is. I believe it reflects cognitive dissonance and a lack of strategy.

Leon, there are several major problems with your post:

21. As the Supreme court has recently awknowledged, affirmative action when done by the government is ONLY constitutional because diversity (not fairness, in your conception of it), is a compelling state interest. As the point above about color illustrates, diversity of skin-shade is silly and pointless, and not true diversity in the important sense.

2. I oppose affirmative action, abortion and welfare, but this is not a result of undisiplined thinking, but rather as a result of a rigious approach that believes in freedom and individual rights (if you want, I can lay out my reason for any of these three positions, but I have done so many many times on these pages, so i dont want to bore people). Where your disconnect lies is you think only in terms of CONSEQUENCES, not in terms of principles. You see, affirmative action is wrong because it discriminates based upon race- regardless of the “beneficial” consequences. Similarly, welfare is wrong, because it takes from one citizen to give to another, withotu any finding of fault- a complete violation of individual rights and liberty.

3. I know you didnt come out and say this, but it runs through your entire post- you believe that poor minorties are better off dead than alive. There is no other way for you to explain your statement abotu first trimester abortions. Instead of trying to deny that this is what you were saying, please think hard if you REALLY believe this. The overwhelming majority of people in the world (including my entire extended family still in Russia and he Ukraine) have living standards and chances in life way way bellow those of poor minorities in America. Do you mean, then, that they are also better off dead than alive? I mean i guess its possible that someone can view this country and human existence in this way, but it boggles my mind.

4. Your implication about Condeleeza Rice shows another reason affirmative action is terrible- those who make it on their own merits cannot prove they did because of racist preferences liberals set up out of “compassion” and faux “diversity”.

Misty,

“As the Supreme court has recently awknowledged, affirmative action when done by the government is ONLY constitutional because diversity (not fairness, in your conception of it), is a compelling state interest. As the point above about color illustrates, diversity of skin-shade is silly and pointless, and not true diversity in the important sense.”

Diversity as a result of skin color is pointless as I can’t really find a good argument against that point.

“I oppose affirmative action, abortion and welfare, but this is not a result of undisiplined thinking, but rather as a result of a rigious approach that believes in freedom and individual rights (if you want, I can lay out my reason for any of these three positions, but I have done so many many times on these pages, so i dont want to bore people). Where your disconnect lies is you think only in terms of CONSEQUENCES, not in terms of principles. You see, affirmative action is wrong because it discriminates based upon race- regardless of the “beneficial” consequences. Similarly, welfare is wrong, because it takes from one citizen to give to another, withotu any finding of fault- a complete violation of individual rights and liberty.”

I would like for you to lay out the reasons. Learning from each other and rigorous debate is the point of Watch Blog. I don’t think in terms of principle as it is a stubborn approach to everything. The result is what I care about as that is what moves everything forward and principle is what holds everything back. Your argument, I see, is faux and further explanation from you is necessary. Individual rights and liberties also is a right to live in a healthy manner. The general welfare of the public should be considered too. The poorer that people are, the more likely crimerate increases. Are we looking out for the public from that? Abortion is higher under Bush than Clinton. I wonder why? Your theory of people should keep their own money and let people fend for themselves is applied under principle rather then consequence. How are we making this country better? Again, principle implies stubborness rather than results.

“3. I know you didnt come out and say this, but it runs through your entire post- you believe that poor minorties are better off dead than alive. There is no other way for you to explain your statement abotu first trimester abortions. Instead of trying to deny that this is what you were saying, please think hard if you REALLY believe this. The overwhelming majority of people in the world (including my entire extended family still in Russia and he Ukraine) have living standards and chances in life way way bellow those of poor minorities in America. Do you mean, then, that they are also better off dead than alive? I mean i guess its possible that someone can view this country and human existence in this way, but it boggles my mind.”

I didn’t say that and I am glad you pointed it out. I view things in a complex way rather than a simple black and white argument. People who are poor deserve to be alive just like someone who is wealthy. It is the fact that if the option of abortion is clearly open, it is a viable reason to consider the chance at life. Is the government going to make sure that the kid is going to be insured for health, opportunity, a decent education, a protection against crime? The government is not doing enough to stop this necessary evil and that is where the problem lies. Poor people are not, per se, better off dead than alive but I too don’t believe abortion is killing anyone. Life begins at conception, in my opinion. It is what it says on the birth certificate. It is hard to explain but I hope that is comes across clearly. It is an option of choice and opportunity should be presented. It is easy to promote individual responsibility and rights, like you do; but the world just doesn’t work that way. People are going to be irresponsible, reckless, and they will pay for that. It is up to the government to make sure that they are taken care of due to their stupidity. I am not comparing the standard of living in the US to anyone else like your family in Russia. I see your point but abortion is not about standard of living rather than a person’s choice to know that their child will live in a secure world. It is that mother’s care to make that choice. My mother had to make that difficult choice with my would-be sister. I see her point because otherwise, I don’t know how myself and my brother would have made it.

“Your implication about Condeleeza Rice shows another reason affirmative action is terrible- those who make it on their own merits cannot prove they did because of racist preferences liberals set up out of “compassion” and faux “diversity”.

I hate Rice but my post on that was just to reflect her hypocrisy on the issue. The liberals in general believe in compassion for that reason. They are sick of bigotry which is why they are so hostile towards the Religious Right. As far as “faux diversity,” I disagree. Affirmitive Action would bring that diversity so I don’t see what you mean by that.

ok, ask and you shall recieve:

1. my opposition to abortion is spelled out in this post- and my responses to it- http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001939.html. I hope you find this sufficient. If you have any particular questions about it or my other responses, please let me know and I am glad to answer. My further thoughts on abortion can be found here- http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001069.html.

2. On affirmative action- my reasons are opposing it are simple. I think racism, that is, treating people differently because of skin color, is wrong in principle. I think this principle is wrong no matter whom the discrimination harms or helps. In fact, that is how principles operate- they explain the moral basis for something, and let the consequences be what they may. For anyone who disagrees with me, i ask them to explain WHY they think racism is so bad. I think the first justification you will give is because racism treates people differently based on an unimportant factor like skin color. Only after being shown the affirmative action example will most liberals retreate to the “harmings the minority” limitation to when racism is wrong. I think racism is wrong for all people, for all reasons, at all times.

3. I oppose welfare because the foundational principle of government and interperesonal relationships is individual rights. Each person owns their own body, and can do with their body what they want to the extent they do not harm another person. If they choose to use their body to labor and earn money, they should nto be forced to give up that money simply because someone else “needs” it. To say that another person has a claim to the products of my labor simply because they “need” it, is to make every man a slave to the need of others (literally). As a result, welfare is wrong.

There cannot be a right to “live in a healthy manner” if by that you mean a rigth to have others provide you with the objects of living in a healthy manner. Because, logically, this would mean you have a right to someone else’s labor (because nothing gets produced withotu someone’s labor). You cant possibly mean, that, so I would ask you to check your premises.

I believe that you will respond that my three above arguments are not dynamic enough and ignore social consequences. Perhaps you are correct. But i believe that refusign to law out the full philosophical justification for one’s views- refusing to boil them downt ot provable principles, and then avoiding this by appealing to broad notions of “social good” is lazy/hazy thinking. It is no coincedence that liberals/leftists who really take up the task I just laid out end up at form of socialism or radical nihilism (this is also why more authoritarian conservatives can end up as facists- to bring it back to the topic of this post). I have worked out the logic of my beleifs and it leads me to libertarianism (freedom from government interference unless you are harming another person). I would be surprized if any consistent logical system can lead someone to the “nuansed” positions of social welfare combined with a grudging respect for individual rights that is the hallmark of BOTH Republicans and Democrats today….

Rev Matt,
Good idea bringing up ‘Godwin’s law’ early in the posting. ‘Fascism’ is generally used as a perjorative term, but some aspects of its traditional definition seem to apply to our current government. Other aspects do not apply.

The following is from the definition of fascism in wikipedia.org

Fascism:
1) exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
2) uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
3) engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
4) engages in corporatism.

In general, fascism is a totalitarian form of government characterized by militarism and belligerent nationalism. The state is all, the individual nothing.

We live in a time where leaders regularly exhort the nation to engage in an almost narcissistic patriotism. The opinions of leaders from other nations, particularly non-english speaking ones, are ignored. ‘You’re either with us or against us.’ The sentiment ‘they hate us for our freedom’ exemplifies this narcissistic attitude. We glorify our freedom, even as we pass “The Patriot Act,” establish a concentration camp, and torture enemy combatants.

Propaganda occurs regularly. The run-up to the invasion of Iraq is a textbook example of propaganda. Censorship in the form of secrecy and classification are accepted without question. However, violent repression of the opposition is not occurring. There are no ‘blackshirts’ or ‘brownshirts.’

Segmentation into a class structure occurs in most societies, and while Americans generally dislike acknowledging it, few would deny a class structure exists in the US. The gap between rich and poor is very large. Movement between classes occurs, but despite popularized examples such as Bill Gates & Paul Allen, most of the richest Americans inherit their wealth. The political and business leaders live in enclaves separated from rest, with separate schools.

‘Corporatism’ is a term which can certainly be applied to this government. In short, this is a fossil fuel administration. Would anyone disagree? Let’s move on…

I don’t believe the US can be described as totalitarian. Period. I also don’t believe the fascist philosophy glorifying the State at the expense of the Individual applies. In this regard, using the term ‘fascism’ in reference to the US simply fails.

However, militarism and belligerent nationalsim are hallmarks of the Bush administration. It’s not exactly militarism, but think about it; how many ‘support your troops’ bumper stickers have you seen? Consider the huge increases in defense spending. Belligerent nationalism is exhibited almost daily.

Many aspects of the Weimar Republic simply don’t match the current situation in the US. But if we keep piling on the debt…

Misha,

Here’s a principle for you: the principle of pragmatism. This is not an ideology, per se. Rather, it is a process for determining ideology. The fundamental tenet of pragmatism is this: That action is best, which gives the best possible outcome to the greatest number of people.

Thus, making abortion illegal provides the benefit of life to some infants, at the cost of death and disease to an unknowable number of poor mothers who get illegal abortions, not to mention the costs of incarcerating evil abortionists.

Similarly, the war in Iraq provides the benefit of a tenuous democracy (we hope) at the cost of thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, an increased risk of terrorism, the inability of America to carry out any future threats of violence, the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure, shattered transAtlantic alliances, looted museums, broken trust between the American public and its government, and about a hundred million tax dollars per day.

The nationalist and militaristic character of the Bush administration and their supporters is absolutely a worrying trend. The fact that we now have an amorphous “evil” to fight doesn’t help.

Who is the enemy? A state? A group of people? Individuals? A religion? An ideology? Foreign? Domestic? There are a lot of targets for pushing a diverse bunch of wacky agendas. Has Bush said Social Security is vital to the security of the United States yet? If he hasn’t, he will.

Josh- the problem with your “principle” is that it is not principle whatsoever. For example, how does your principle weigh the 1.3 million lives lost to abortion every year vs. the “cost of death and disease to an unknowable number of poor mothers who get illegal abortions.” How does your “principle” explain that kind of calculus. More fundamentally, your principle cannot give any content to the term “best” in your defining statement. For example, if torturing another person makes someone happy, should that preference for torture be taken into account when we decide what is “best”. Or, say, it would give the overwhelming majority great pleasure of civil liberties were withdrawn from accused terrorists, would that be justified as “best” under your pragmatism, or do individual rights count?

You see, you can try to dance around the issue, but in the end you need to define what is “best” and that involves a valuation of true principles- a decision that some preferences (like wanting to see your fellow man suffer) are not to be honored, while other preferences (like wanting to speak your mind about the issues of the day) are to be honored. You cant get around being rigorous about this- sorry.

Misha,
I am wondering…how can a true Libretarian be against abortion? You are attemtping at having a dictating policy while preaching “true freedom.” It sounds a lot like the USA Patriot Act.

I also took note of how you like to draw conclusions in debates. Here are some examples:
“You see, you can try to dance around the issue, but in the end you need to define what is “best”
That was to Josh
To me
“3. I know you didnt come out and say this, but it runs through your entire post- you believe that poor minorties are better off dead than alive. There is no other way for you to explain your statement abotu first trimester abortions.”
Well there was a way to explain that assumption.
This post doesn’t seem to have a point but am I spotting some hypocrisy with your Libretarian politics. In your politics, one thing is clear. You do not consider the reprecussions of policies, be it social, economic, psychological, physical, financial, whatever; while you claim it off for true freedom. I would rather be under a dictatorship than that version of freedom. Where is the security here? There is a version why the Libretarian Party does not get a lot of votes. Most of their platforms are absolutely insane. Josh is correct, in that pragmatism is the key. That is the word I have been looking for all along.

There is no contradiction between being a libetertarian and being pro-life. If you actually read the poxts I linked to, I explain fully why I believe unborn children are human being. Libertarians believe in equal protection of the laws, and think laws against the taking of human life should apply to ALL people, no matter how small or politically unpopular. I believe in laws against murder of all people, and i would not draw an arbitrary distinction just because one class of people is inconvinient to another class of people.

As for the Patriot Act, i should be shocked that you dont support it, as it is the very hallmark of pragmatic legislation that ignores individual rights. But of course, the lack of any coherent philosophical justification for your views allows you to take any position on any issue, and since the patriot act seems to be unpopular with the left these days, of course you can oppose it Its like a fun house!

(note, I oppose the Patriot act, but i have a reasoned, philosophical basis for that opposition- i seriously doubt your approach would provide a similar basis for your opposition)

Misha,

“You see, affirmative action is wrong because it discriminates based upon race- regardless of the “beneficial” consequences.”

Racism cannot be fully understood unless we take into account human psychology and how the brain works. The human mind uses categorization as a basic tool for interpreting perceptions, upon which both conscious and subconscious decisions are based. We are continually using cognitive shortcuts such as exaggerations, oversimplifications, generalizations, to allow us to make sense of the overload of incoming information. Racial stereotyping is a by-product of these shortcuts (the down side if you will). This is why, I believe, racism is so hard to overcome: it comes out of something so fundamental as the way in which our brain processes information. To me, this means we can’t simply rely on our own best intentions to not be racist. It just doesn’t happen without constant vigilance and an extraordinary amount of awareness, or failing that, regulation of some sort. I think it’s unfortunate we have to resort to affirmative action, but unless we all get enlightened real quick, racial equality will not just magically happen.

“Similarly, welfare is wrong, because it takes from one citizen to give to another.”

I assume then you are also against corporate welfare. The taking of tax revenues from individuals and transferring it to corporations (to the tune of about $125 billion per year), which takes various forms, such as special corporate tax breaks and direct government subsidies. This doesn’t include the cost of externalizations. For example, if a polluting corporation can get the rest of society to pay for the health consequences of its pollution, it has externalized those costs onto the rest of us.

Ingrid- of course i am against corporate welfare. I also do support environmental laws that at aimed at protecting human health (so I support the clean air act, but not the endanger species act).

As for affirmative action, what you are missing you cant cure racism by racism. In fact, you wont even get “good” results because all of those who are advanced by racism will know it, and so will the ones who are stopped by those policies. In any case, I think our constitution adopts a requirement of colorblindness from all government actors- so at least the government shouldnt be able to do affirmative action (private parties is a different story).

Leon:
“I have a rather pathetic knowledge of the Nazi movement but I don’t believe a comparison between the Bush Administration and Nazism to be fair.”

I wouldn’t say we should compare the Neocons with the Nazi’s either. The Nazi’s can be compared with only a few diabolical regimes in the history of the world.
But the Neocons Corporatism, their Militarism, their level of confort with breaking international law and use of torture, their building of an enormous propaganda machine that serves the double purpose of widely broadcasting their fear mongering, their abridging of freedoms, and their inability to face open criticism are all consistent with totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
I guess what rev matt was getting at with his referrence to the Weimar Republic was the fact that they had one of the worst economic crisis’ ever suffered by a democracy - and that lead directly to the Nazi’s gaining power in Germany. Also, in the last years of that Republic, their constitution added a provision that allowed their president to “take all necessary steps when public order and security are seriously disturbed or endangered” (sounds similar to the Patriot Act, to me). It was supposed to be only used in an emergency, but then ended up being used to issue all kinds of decrees without the support of Parliament - and this occurred even before 1933.

phx8:
“I don’t believe the US can be described as totalitarian. Period. I also don’t believe the fascist philosophy glorifying the State at the expense of the Individual applies. In this regard, using the term ‘fascism’ in reference to the US simply fails.”

Right now I would say that the Neocon Republicans can be best described as Authoritarian. Here are the most important bits from the Wikipedia definition that apply:

“The term authoritarian is used to describe an organization or a state which enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population. Authoritarianism is distinguished from totalitarianism both in degree and scope, authoritarian administration or governance being less intrusive and, in the case of groups, not necessarily backed by the use of force.”
(snip)
“In an authoritarian state, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many that other political philosophies would see as matters of personal choice. Authoritarianism generally presumes to know Truth, with a capital “T”, and has almost no tolerance of disagreement. It is characterised by moral and philosophical certainty coupled with a taste for the use of force by the State. These systems suppress “heretical” ideas. Totalitarian governments feel that the interests of the State are more important than anything else — it is the totality of all that is worthwhile.”
“Typically, the leadership (government) of an authoritarian regime is ruled by an elite group that uses repressive means to stay in power. However, unlike totalitarian regimes, there is no desire or ideological justification for the state to control all aspects of a person’s life, and the state will generally ignore the actions of an individual unless it is perceived to be a directly challenge the state. Totalitarian governments tend to be revolutionary, intent on changing the basic structure of society, while authoritarian ones tend to be conservative.”

In some ways however, the Neocons are being revolutionary. Waging pre-emptive war was totally revolutionary for this country. Abridging our constitutional rights was too. And their unprecedented and insane level of deficit spending might also be considered unique, as well.

Misha,

I did read your article prior to my last response. Now, I did not want to argue with it as it is seemingly pointless. The argument between life as a fetus and life at conception has more to do with perception than anything else. However, it deserves debate.

“This march is especially ill-named because its goal is not to protect the lives of women, but rather to maintain the freedom of one group of women (older women who can get pregnant) to kill another group of women (and men) (that is, unborn children), without offering the slightest justification.”

I just find this so funny. As soon as the article begins, like you do with other people’s post; you like to jump to outlandish conclusions as I stated above and you did not provide any retort whatsoever. How can you imply that these women love to see their unborn baby sucked into a vacuum? It is absurd. The debate was intense and I am definately a David Remer disciple. He knows his stuff. If you want me to give you a bit of unpopular history in regards to history, I will do just that. You didn’t prove your point and when you were backed up in a corner by someone; you had to kill off your previous point and start up a new one. Your arguments were full of contradictions. Like someone said in the debate, a Libretarian should know better. What about the morning after pills? How about regulating a woman during pregnancy for every little thing? Population control? When does life begin? What is morality? Is this a religious issue? I don’t want you to answer these questions as I already heard the answers from you and both sides of the issue in that debate. Granted, it is a cruel practice but like wrestling legend Stu Hart used to say, “eh, what can you do?”
I don’t see how you are so surprised that I am against the USA Patriot Act. It is not pragmatic nor practical. It is borderline autocratic. From the studies of the CIA in the 1990’s about psychological torture in the Abu Gharib scandal, it was proven that the person who applies these tortures would end up with a feeling that is borderline drunk on power. Now, 20 year old kids have to take a punishment that our own puke of a government had sanctioned back in 2002 and researched in the 1990’s. What is my point? The USA Patriot Act will only make the crooks and the police who enforces it even more drunk on power. You shouldn’t be surprised that I am against it and it is not a matter of being a Liberal, rather it is so retardedly unconstitutional that it makes me shake my head at the notion that both sides are not completely riotting right now and tossing a fat tomato at the White House.

“so retardedly unconstitutional”

the bill of rights isnt about practicality- it is about individual rights- a concept you completely reject in favor of some undefinned, undiciplined concept you label “pragmatism.”

Misha,
What are you talking about?

“the bill of rights isnt about practicality- it is about individual rights- a concept you completely reject in favor of some undefinned, undiciplined concept you label “pragmatism.”

You are sort of correct, but half way there which is why, again, Libretarianism fails. The Bill of Rights is supposed to be practical, if need be. Think about this. If everyone started using guns at random and shooting people and I use that term: everyone for a reason as it proves my point; should there not be a reform? The Founding Fathers knew a reform for certain rights would be necessary. Unfortunately, the USA Patriot Act is not even intended to do any good but be autocratic. I can’t see it in any other way. How are we going to let the Bu$h Administrtion treat our own people like a bunch of terrorists when we leave the border wide open? The USA Patriot Act doesn’t apply common sense to protecting the people. Knowing the propaganda behind this issue, I don’t even believe that terror cells are in the US. Knowing the rampant paranoia going on, I don’t think a terrorist could get away with it; particularly when islamofascism seems to be the trend in the Red States. Sure, people fund Al-Qaeda but that is a whole other avenue. The USA Patriot Act just doesn’t make sense. When you allow the government to arrest people and they can’t even have an attorney to represent them, travesties such as an innocent person held in Guantanamo Bay for two years happens.
In my opinion, I don’t think you can see the difference between pragmatic approaches and autocratic approaches. I can see the difference and the USA Patriot Act is autocratic. The sad thing is…the Supreme Court is not standing up to it while the Bu$h Leaguers continue to turn their eye to a, so to speak, person who desperately has a drug problem.

You have got to be kidding me.

Rev, perhaps you should explain what Mussolini meant by ‘corporatism’. And explain how much closer it is to what liberals advocate regarding corporations than what conservatives advocate.

For instance, why don’t you explain how the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1932 was fascist in nature? In fact it is a perfect example of corporatism in action.

There seems to be a lot of selective ignorance about what fascism and corporatism is.

Eric,
You make a good point. In Mussolini’s Italy, corporations literally took seats in a legislature.

Today, corporatism takes a number of forms. For example, many small European countries openly practice corporatism as a way of effectively competing with the effects of globalization. This could be construed as ‘liberal’ corporatism.

Corporatism takes a somewhat different form in the US. It could be considered ‘conservative’ in that businesses act in close cooperation with the current administration and legislatures (both Rep & Dem). Halliburton & Cheney would be the obvious example, but of course there are many others.

The wikipedia.org article on corporatism ended with an interesting quote:

” Critics of capitalism often argue that any form of capitalism would eventually devolve into corporatism, due to the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.”

“Eric,
You make a good point. In Mussolini’s Italy, corporations literally took seats in a legislature.”

phx8,

How far from that are we here?

Rocky,
We’re not nearly far enough away from that! The influence of corporate money on politicians is something we all understand.

It’s not a great solution, but the only one I can see is public financing of elections. It would be a start. A flat tax assessed on corporations would also be a good idea, along with a refusal to recognize tax havens for coroporations, such as the Caymen Islands. In 1945 corporations paid 45% of the tax revenues. Today they pay 5%.

But with labor unions slipping in power (another trend toward fascism), and the media in thrall to corporations… I don’t know if the movement towards corporatism.

It’s the strangest thing. Intelligent people will debate whether the media is biased towards liberals or conservatives; yet no one notices the prevalence of commercials and advertising, the repetitive drumbeat encouraging citizens to be materialists, and buy from corporations.

Our society, our western culture, is utterly dominated by corporations. American corporatism has been here for some time, and it’s growing stronger.

phx8,

Having traveled a bit I can tell you that Pepsi, Coke, Col Sanders, MacDonalds, 7/11, etc. All these brand names are all over Asia. GM, Ford, these are not.
America is known for the crap it sells.

In “Corporate America” you get what the corporation gives you, they make the rules.

It’s the strangest thing. Intelligent people will debate whether the media is biased towards liberals or conservatives; yet no one notices the prevalence of commercials and advertising, the repetitive drumbeat encouraging citizens to be materialists, and buy from corporations.

I think more likely, is that everyone notices it, but has no idea how to stop it or even what life would be like any other way.

I was referring to the fascism of the Roosevelt regime.

I am enjoying the comments posted here. Misha, in particular, is amusing. He supports individual liberties, but opposes choice. He opposes welfare, but supports taxation. He tauts freedom, but advocates fascism. No doubt He opposes big government, as well, but as with most on the right wing, He really only opposes left wing big government.

He is correct that AA is a form of discrimination, however he ignores another aspect of the problem: how do you compensate people who were systematically excluded from participating in the system. Jim Crow still ain’t dead. He lives on across this land. How do we balance the scales of justice? Reparations? If a man steals from another, he is required to make restitution. How do we make restitution to millions of disadvantaged people? I for one do not believe in reparations to long-dead slaves (unlike that paid to living displaced Americans of Japanese descent), but how do we level the playing field for those living today? Even Clarence Thomas acknowledged that but for AA he would not be sitting on the Supreme Court. So, Misha, what’s the answer?

As for welfare, again he misses the point. We live in a community. It provides services to all of us. Some of the services I would not agree with. Nevertheless, I am forced to pay taxes to support those services whether I like it or not. I pay to support the Patriots (sic)Act against my will. We all pay for things we do not like or disagree with. Even welfare. On the other hand, we could these poor folk just die and decrease the surplus population (where are you Ebenezer?, then Misha would not have to worry about a little charity.

My blood runs cold when the right speaks of civil liberties. The right has turned “civil liberties” into dirty words. The right is absolutely clueless as to the origins of the nation. It was on civil liberties. Read the bill of rights. The founders envisioned a relatively weak central with power to the people. Power that would trump the government in most cases. The constitution was designed to protect the people from the government, not vice versa. Neocons don’t get it. Rather than taking their cues from our founders, they imitate the Islamsists who seek to impose religion on the people. Of course, people achieving power, often seek to exclude others from their ranks by the changing the rules. Can you say: Pat Buchanan? No more immigrants. I’m here, close the door. By the Misha, where ya’ll from? Maybe Pat would send you back. I bet you’d embrace the ACLU in a heart beat if the Buchanan school of immigration were to take hold. Don’t gore my ox. We live in a society with competing interests. Our goal should be to balance those interests, not to exault some at the expense of others (corporatism?). It’s called “justice,” Misha. I am sure you can a book on two on it in Hoyaland.