Friday, July 10, 2009

Fascism, Neither Pure Nor Simple - part I


(Fascism is)"the most misused, and

over-used word of our times"

"An Intelligent Person's Guide to Fascism"
Professor Roger Griffin,
Prominent author and lecturer on Nazi history
Oxford Brookes University, UK


In researching this topic, I tried to cover a variety of serious authorities in order not to let myself be suckered into too narrow or biased an understanding. It was important to me to use my existing knowledge as a beginning, but to make a serious effort to be certain I had a balanced, complete overview for a fair and evenhanded piece of writing. I lead this piece with a quotation from Professor Griffin, because so much of what I encountered came back to his work in the field, and the quote so succinctly summarizes what I found. The big three in the field consistently regarded by historians and political scientists as the defining experts are Griffin, along with Robert Paxton and Stanley Payne.

If I could distill what I researched, building on my previous understanding, into a single observation it would be this: that the word Fascism is used interchangeably with Authoritarianism, sometimes correctly, but most of the time incorrectly. Authoritarianism would be a more correct word than Fascism as it is used more than 90% of the time, a figure that is my own rough estimation from researching so far. That 90% usage reflects either an incomplete, or significantly erroneous understanding of one or more aspects of Fascism. The error in usage distributes fairly evenly across the spectrum of political ideology, from left to right; it is NOT the purview of one side alone. And it is THAT aspect, the distribution of the wrong usage, that seems to be at the heart of why the word is so misused. Nearly EVERYBODY uses it improperly, to some degree, and MOST use it improperly to a large degree.

The correct, well researched, well accepted definitions are not particularly hard to find or understand. What seems to be consistently underlying the misuse is applying it not as identifying an actual historic or contemporary fascist political movement, but using it derogatorily as an epithet or pejorative term against another political group or position than one's own to discredit it.

This broadly derogatory use of the term is not new, by any stretch. The consistency with which the term has been kept in use pejoratively is unparalleled by any other word I can think of, with the possible exception of "Nazi". The following quotation from George Orwell, author of "1984" and "Animal Farm" hit on this back in 1944, when he wrote "What is Fascism".

Orwell said:
"The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’."

Obviously, it doesn't require familiarity with every single reference in the quote to understand that the term was being used all over the place, by every political point of view against nearly every kind of possible target, until any coherent meaning other than 'bad' is completely gone from common usage. That dates back to World War II, and the association with Fascism and atrocities. Prior to the close association with atrocities, there were some who were critical of Fascism as a movement, for different specific aspects of it, but there was not the quality of such broad condemnation in the name. Pre-atrocity criticism was specific. There was a definite sort of 'tipping point' in the usage.

While the Orwell quote can be taken as an attempt to be funny or sarcastic, it was less an exaggeration than you might think. Right now, I can do a web search or a search at my local library and turn up an overwhelming pile of data detailing references to fascism, nearly all of it incorrect. The right calls the left fascist, the left calls the right fascist. And some - although fewer - people in the middle are equal opportunity misusers of the word, calling those on the further edges of BOTH sides fascist for not being in the middle. Incorrectly. All, or very nearly all of them.

Obviously, I cannot end a piece on fascism here; that would be useless. Simply claiming it is used poorly but often, VERY often, is not enough. I asked for constructive criticism from the owners of both of the blogs that I write for, and it was consistently that I write 'long'. Well...but LONG. (You can stop laughing any minute now - I know it's true.) So to do justice to the topic, I'm going to try a new way to shorten up but still cover the content. I'm going to write in 'parts'; this is only part I.

I haven't determined exactly how many parts there will be; but only a few. My goals in writing, given my research to this point, is to present what fascism is correctly and accurately. Part II will be a brief (yes, brief!) history of the movement, its early roots and the 'inter-war' era developments; 'Italian' fascism and the related European movements (like the Spanish 'Falange') circa WWII; and post-WWII developments.

Next will be a brief description of what the central, core tenets of fascism are; what you need to have present in a political or social movement to BE fascist. Why not just present that information? Because without connecting it to the actual, historic fascist movements that CREATED the term, it remains ill defined. In making the effort to write this, to do it well and fairly, objectively, it is my intention to lessen, if only by those few who read this, the use of the term incorrectly. When I am done, whoever reads these words WILL know the difference between correct and incorrect use of 'fascism', small or capital F, and I hope will choose to use it correctly afterwards, and ONLY correctly, and may even choose to correct others using it wrongly.

66 comments:

  1. I suppose it is very silly to be commenting on my OWN posting, but I had to add a small footnote to it. Unfortunately, there is a restriction prohibiting quotations from this work by Griffin, but having read it, I had to share at least the title, because it is so very promising of more interesting reading to look forward to:
    Notes towards an intellectual history of the palingenetic right’s revolt against the disembedding processes of Western modernity

    another couple of cups of coffee, and I may just try to contact Griffin for quotation permission....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now you've done it! I'm going to have to go pull out my old Political Theory textbooks, look up some of my old notes, and start sifting through them. While I suspect your research will be more thorough and accurate than mine, perhaps I will be able to comment more intelligently upon a discussion of the term fascism after I've taken myself back through some of the material and read some of your writings. It appears this will be fascinating, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is indeed an increadibly misused word.

    When I have used it in the past, I have meant to imply the symboisis of Government and business, with business leading the way. I have learned subsequently, that usage is in error. I certainly ALSO meant authoritarianism/totalitariansism, but again, I was in error.

    I wait for your write-up - and will comment further upon seeing it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ToE wrote:
    "I'm going to have to go pull out my old Political Theory textbooks, look up some of my old notes, and start sifting through them. While I suspect your research will be more thorough and accurate than mine, "

    Penigma wrote:
    "I wait for your write-up - and will comment further upon seeing it."

    SURE - NO pressure, LOL? ToE, I am in awe of your qualifications and credentials, and of so much of your writing on your web site.

    On the one hand, I am now contemplating every word for parts II, III as possible crash-and-burn nail-biting territory unusually rich with opportunities to embarrass myself.

    I am going to try to take your kind words as encouragement, an occasion to try harder.... but you can bet that I will be re-reading every word a number of times before I hit 'publish', ooooooooooh yeah. NO Pressure....LOL.

    Good thing I can now turn my full attention to the task. I am the "fairly godmother" to five puppies (3 boys, 2 girls) who survived a somewhat hazardous entry into the world, but are coming around and look as if they will all survive their initial challenges. Mom-dog was touch and go until around 4 a.m., but she is improving rapidly. First time breeders are learning about tube feeding and bottle feeding on a very nice learning curve; neither of them has accidentally drowned a puppy by flooding it's lungs with my formula for milk supplement. Yet, fingers crossed. They are a bit giddy from puppy-breath euphoria and serious lack of sleep....but that goes with the job.

    So, now I can turn my full attention to the task at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  5. K-Rod, this is growing wearisome.

    Would you please provide a source for your quotations? I would like the date Mr. Holden allegedly said these things, the speech or writing in which they were said, and a link or other way to independently verify the statements.

    It's against US law for women to be forced to abort a pregnancy. In most states, a forced abortion can be (and should be) prosecuted as murder. Even if Mr. Holden advocated such a preposterous idea, it would not be possible under US law, and would never be advocated by either the Obama administration nor would Congress ever approve it.

    The rest of your allegations against Mr. Holden need to be proven in order to have any credibility. Frankly, they sound so bizarre that I'm amazed that even you are willing to put them forth without some proof behind them.

    Peer review doesn't mean that the scientific community has a consensus. As you probably know, peer review of any theory (scientific or otherwise) simply means that others in the field have examined the theory and commented on the theory. This is one of the reasons, for example, that Jonah Goldberg's use of the term "liberal fascism" is so discredited. The political science community has reviewed his book, looked at his theory, and found it utterly without merit. Peer review can cut both ways.

    Even on areas in which the scientific community has a consensus, the debate isn't necessarily over, at least not within the community. There are a number of scientific theories which have gone against the consensus of the scientific community, and when solid evidence appeared to back up those theories, the scientific community has then changed its mind. Informed, rational debate has not been suppressed by a consensus.

    The rest of your writing I find insulting and doesn't bear comment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. K-Rod,

    It appears I may have misread your post. It now appears, (upon closer examination) that you may have been referring to a post by someone else, H/T Mitch. I apologize in attributing that post to you. I would still like to see the sources for those comments, because if true they are deeply troubling. However, I won't ask that you provide them.

    The rest of my comments about peer review, however, still apply.

    ReplyDelete
  7. K-rod says:
    "Here is a list of some ideas put forth by Holdren:
    • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
    • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
    • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
    • People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
    • A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

    I will add a phrase from the left when they speak of scientific hypothises they support:
    "It's been peer reviewed. We have a consensus so the science is settled! The debate is over!"
    and
    "Never let a crisis go to waste."

    Liberal Fascism; Obama Oligarchy style?"

    I tracked this accusation back to a book he co-authored back in 1977, "Ecoscience". (OK, so,I dig for information like a terrier after a rat in a hole.) These accusations are circulating all over the more extreme right blogs, etc. and appear to have significant inaccuracies.

    I haven't finished checking out Ecoscience, but it appears to describe an extremely hypothetical description, NOT of what Holdren advocates or would like to see, but rather what Holdren and his co-authors fear could happen, and are warning against, in a situation of unchecked overpopulation in a potential dystopian future; not our current situation. As far as I've gotten - and I'm not done yet by any stretch - Holdren was anticipating the kind of draconian responses by governments along the lines of those currently practiced in China. Expanded to a worldwide basis, as a desperate attempt, by consensus, of the human race for survival.

    Fearing that this could happen out of desperation, if we don't manage our population levels before we are at a desperate point, is a very far cry from advocating such decisions. Nor is it clear to me so far that this part of the book reflects Holdren's contribution; he was one of three authors.

    I don't consider that to meet any of the criteria for fascism, liberal or otherwise - nor should you.

    Who was that radio guy, who used to do short daily bits that ended with "and now you know the rest of the story"?

    K-rod, Pen is away from his computer this afternoon on business, and I'm just getting to moderating your other comments. I will deal with them promptly; sorry for the delay. Usually both of us are not gone at the same time (one of the small justifications for my contributing here).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Claiming Holdren is a fascist makes as much sense as claiming that Mel Gibson acting in the Mad Max movies is advocating a fascist world view.

    If I may presume to make another correction "The Ugly American", Burdick and Lederer, c. 1958, is the source of the phrase "ugly american". I read the book during one of my precocious phases, back when I was around 10 or 11. It addresses failures - and some successes - im US policy in Southeast Asia. The main character, reflected in the title, is an older man from the US who in small, hands on ways dramatically changes the lives of people in a village. Among other things, he learns their language, rather than expecting the villagers to learn his. The villagers coin the name the Ugly American, as an endearment, because he is so different from their aesthetic for physical beauty -- but the Ugly American is revered and loved, for his kindness, his gentleness, his resourcefulness and his considerable skills and accomplishments.

    He is NOT NOT NOT the offensive individual personified by loud, rude American tourists. The Ugly American was a very formative influence on me - Burdick and Lederer wrote some of my later history textbooks, btw - and the example of the character in this book has guided my personal conduct whenever I travel abroad. Which probably says more to explain the success of a few of my riskier adventures abroad -I've had a few doozies - than any personal qualities of character I possess. (That, dumb luck, and an industrial strength guardian angel.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I stand corrected on the use of the term Ugly American. As used, it was not correct. Although this isn't the same thread where I used the term, I'm at a loss for another term to describe the "ugly american" as I was using it. Regardless, you are correct, DG, and I thank you for the correction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. K-Rod said...
    "K-Rod, this is growing wearisome."
    Who said everything was easy, just try to keep up and don't give up so easily.
    "

    K- don't worry, ToE is far beyond anything I've seen you able to keep up with, that's not the issue, but what a wonderfully insulting quip.

    While DG's comments may not be the last word, no one would honestly beleive they COULD be such, by contrast, her word will be far better researched than anything I've seen from the right. Whether we're talking about Jonah Goldberg, or hysteria (such as yours) about Holden - this rather ludicrous cherry-picking of circumstances/authors doesn't prove very much at all.

    Holdren is ONE voice K, ONE, while he's likely not the ONLY voice, remember (for example) that forced sterilization in the US (and 26 other countries) extended from the late 1800's to the middle 1900's - these ideas were HARDLY liberal - they in fact started under William McKinnley in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Holdren wrote Ecoscience; it was published around 1977. He's around 64 - 65 years old now, so he researched and wrote it, in shall we say his late 20's - early 30's?

    Let's look at a few other contemporary items. Movies like Soylent Green, with Charlton Heston, in 1973. (Tell me you don't think that Heston is now a fascist too - for promoting a fascist world view?) While Soylent Green is - obviously - Science Fiction, it is sci-fi based on the work of a number of scientists who had similar concerns, including Holdren's Ecoscience co-author, Paul Ehrlich who wrote The Population Bomb in 1968.

    What receies much less press is that he modified his predictions in The Population Explosion, in the 1990s, to reflect further discoveries. The concerns he raised were not wrong; but many of his (and Holdren's) earlier conclusions were. In the 70's, these ideas were new, they were not fully refined or developed. They have changed, in some ways dramatically, over time.

    There is a large difference between seeing scientifically based trends that cause a sense of alarm (and I would encourage you to take a look at both Ehrlich's and Holdren's scientific credentials for further context)and being an advocate for fascist policies.

    In that context, I would also point out that not one - NOT ONE - of those draconian measures has become reality in this country. However, more or less realization of pressures caused by population HAVE become very real in other large-population locations such as India and China.

    There are many criticisms of Holdren, Ehrlich, and others that are logical, that are more valid, not in terms of raising concerns about trends and patterns, so much as over the accuracy of their projections.

    Fascism, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  12. K

    I looked, site AFTER site, points out that Reagan was NOT popular throughout much of Europe during his terms:

    http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue23/Vol3Issue23Eliason.html

    Once again, you've been shown to be in error,

    Fascism
    Reagan
    Oaths

    While I don't expect you to apologize, it would be nice if you'd cease with the insults.

    As for population "bomb", you're living it, you may not 'get' it, but you are.

    We are running out of fresh water, we have too little arable land, we have destroyed the rain forests of Brazil, we are polluting the world so fast that we're seeing the FASTEST rise in ambient global temperatures recordable.

    Cleary you don't get that, and as this talking point started on SiTD, clearly you're just spoutings something my friend Mitch never 'got' either.

    The key issue facing this world right now is explosive population in Africa - as well as much of Asia. It is the causal agent for many of the issues which we talk about daily

    1. HIV epidemic
    2. Global Climate change
    3. Destruction of ice flows/reserves
    4. Lack of fresh water

    You seem to need a refresher in the impacts of overpopulation, not overpopulation isn't an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  13. By the way, K, since when was the concern about population EVER that it would 'wipe out' the human race?

    It was scarce resources, pollution, destruction of species, etc..

    Again, you've leapt to the extreme.

    Also, since you've failed UTTERLY to define or justify the term "liberal fascism" or "Liberal Fascism" I'm afraid I have to ignore any question which contains it, because it is a white elephant, it doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fascism ain't so hard to define. The tricky part is keeping the bits of modernism you like outside of the definition.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Terry! Welcome!!!!

    It is apparently harder than you think, given how badly the term is generally used.

    I have no fears about modern elements in my definition. One of the things I look forward to delving into is the concepts of parafascism and semi fascism, where there is a single or secondary element, but significant divergence from true fascism

    ReplyDelete
  16. K-Rod said...
    Dog Gone, are you claiming Holdren is a fascist? You also seem to be defending his ideas, somewhat tooth and nail at that. "
    I'm claiming that Holdren's detractors don't seem to have actually read him, other than a few excerpts, and that positing a doomesday scenario of what will transpire WITHOUT VOLUNTARY actions to address plantet wide problems before they reach a tipping point is not the same as being a fascist. After Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote Ecoscience, there have been a number of changes which have altered Holdren's 1977 predictions. Unless you read the entire Ecoscience work, and the subsequent publications, of which there have been MANY, you don't have a fair understanding of who Holdren is, or his positions on anything. This guy is a brilliant scholar in a number of aspects of nuclear energy, and soooo much more. I haven't finished reading up on Holdren yet myself, but I have read enough to lead me to believe that the cherrypicking of certain comments has been pretty rotten sensationalism, rather than a fair portrait of Holdren.

    How much of what you know about Holdren is second or third hand, highly filtered, instead of a solid, broad based, first-hand examination of this man's writings and academic work?

    All of it, I'm guessing. NOT a good way to make up your mind about someone or something.

    THAT, more than just Holdren himself, is what I am arguing against so intently. Not for the first time, I have strongly advocated against taking information out of context, and fairly looking at works in their entirety before excerpting them to criticize a person or point of view.

    I am just checking in on Penigma this evening after wining and dining to celebrate my birthday. Seeing you comment here has been like a last present of the day; you, like K Rod are one of the people I have missed in not getting over to comment at SitD as often as I would like lately. Pen and I were just chatting recently about wishing for more dissenting views here, because they add so much to discussions.

    Yes, really!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Penigma says:
    "I looked, site AFTER site, points out that Reagan was NOT popular throughout much of Europe during his terms"

    The statement is about Reagan, DURING his terms, and it says much of Europe. Most of Europe. WIDELY unpopular. I expanded that to pretty much EVERYONE except Thatcher and a few voices in the UK.

    Once Reagan made it all the way through both terms without actually blowing up anyone in Europe with a missile, ESPECIALLY not blowing up anyone anywhere with a Nuke, Reagan was somewhat more poplar AFTER than during his terms but still a LOT less so than you claim.

    The challenge was an easy one IF your statement is true.

    Find a source DURING one, EITHER TERM, that is FROM Europe, where they talk about how much they like Reagan. NOT an American saying they like Reagan, a country in Europe, other than Thatcher, saying they like Reagan.

    You're now backing off your first statement, stating, as I understand it, that ...maye HALF liked him.

    No, rare, few, nearly none liked Reagan during his term. And Yes, more like Obama, but it's early days, and that could change drastically.

    And as the reason for the dislike of Reagan was militarism, it DOES fit into this discussion squarely.

    All of their news services, like Reuters, had English language coverage. Most of the major papers had English language editions. No one is asking you to sit down and translate any articles into English for us.

    Just find one, or two, a few of those statements about liking Reagan during his terms that are not US saying he is liked but THEM saying he is liked.

    If your statement is correct, it should be easy. EASY. A fair request.

    ReplyDelete
  18. DG - as always, wonderful replies :).

    K- is that the sound of laughing I hear? You posted a HIGHLY inflamatory comment, insulting people in the process, were rebuked by facts, and backed off - I think it's time for that apology (once again). But once again, we won't hold our breath waiting for you to do the principled thing.

    Terry - good to see you. You are ALWAYS welcome here. I very much feel you are one of only a few of the folks over on SiTD who conducted themselves with relative civility. Thank you for the comment. I will disagree, however. Basic definitions of fascism are pretty easy - in fact, I posted one from Webster's which was reasonably complete. I will note the high points here:
    1. Hyper-militarism
    2. Totalitarian
    3. Notable for persecuting a race or ethnic class
    4. Defined by a single (meaning only one allowed) party system

    While some, very few, elements of 'modernism' of an administration like Obama's, can be seen as being totalitarian, in no way does his administration meet anything like the other four. Bush usurped the Constitution time and again (by contrast), advocated/abided (silently if nothing else) the persecution of Muslims, and obviously was hyper-militaristic. In addition, of course, he acted, through Karl Rove, to essentially obviate the Democratic party (which I'll understand if you say Obama is acting similarly, but there are at this point no facts pointing to things like what Rove/Bush did with DoJ).

    However, that said, I would not say Bush was desiring fascism, he merely had aspects of fascism. I don't call conservatives "Conservative Fascists," certainly not seriously. However, a detailed, and comprehensive definition of the term is hardly simple.

    ReplyDelete
  19. K-Rod,

    Actually you need to read what I was saying I was incorrect about. You need to read more carefully, which is pretty ironic since you just tried to chastise me for needing to read more carefully.

    I provided a definition in which was very similar to this one from Websters:

    fascism: (often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control - early instances of army fascism and brutality

    I then went on to say that I ALSO felt it spoke to the symbiosis of government and corporate control of it. I admitted THAT portion was not correct when applied to the classic definition. That's ALL I said, I'm quite certain that Liberal Fascism ALSO is incorrect in application when compared to the classical definition - so I'd suggest you may want to 'slap' yourself here first, imho. Your correction (or rather misquote of me which you then shoe-string into a failed attempt at correction) seems more appropriate for yourself - you misuse the term fascism and you seem to know it.

    Also, you 'snipped' my comments and left off what I was talking about. Creating a disengenious, dishonest representation of fact. That's not civil, in fact, it's kissing cousins to lying. I'd like you to be more careful in the future.

    With respect to most of your other points, thanks for taking the time to comment. Generally, if you could put aside your knee-jerk need to sling mud, your comments are fair, even if I disagree with them - I appreciate the civility you otherwise show as well, and I think you'll find that ToE, DG, and I are very interested in meaninful, substantive discussion. This is also why I find your usage of terms like BDS or Liberal Fascism so disappointing. I think you're capable of good discussion, but you need to let go of those kinds of knee-jerk, meaningless and petty comments or the discussions are going to devolve into drivel. I assume you'd be offended if I started saying you were a "Freper" or a right-wing 'truther', so let's stay above that kind of silliness, please?

    ToE - I don't know where your 800 ship comment was, but wanted to provide support/substantiation.

    Reagan advocated a 600 ship navy, and pursued it. The reasoning behind it was that we did not have a sufficient navy to cover the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans at the same time when we had effectively 10 carrier groups. The feeling was we could cover about 2.5. As I was in Naval ROTC from 1982 to 1984 in college, I remember very well the discussions around WHY that was considered desirable. So, your comment about 800 ships was, unfortunately, off the mark, but was accurate in the context of a large naval build up which occured during and after Reagan's Presidency, and was slowed down due to the 'peace dividend' in the later Bush and early Clinton years. So, while your point to K-Rod was essentially right, the numbers were different.

    ReplyDelete
  20. K, worrying about Holdren, or saying we "ought" to react to him, simply because we react to OTHER facts is pretty silly stuff.

    First, there are people who say the earth is flat. Shall we now throw out ALL research because we throw out THEIR research?

    Second, there are MANY voices in this world, Holdren's among them, but the root still is, what does the vast preponderence of evidence show?

    Righties denied global warming was even happening for 20 years. Then they denied human causation. The first was NEVER really a question, but righties were wrong about it. The second is not definatively proven, but seems likely. If I appply your logic, because some righties were wrong on the first part, ipso facto, NOEN of them can NEVER be considered again. In short, you're pointing out Holdren was hyperventilating, ok, agreed, but you then make the implication that therefore EVERY liberal is both hyperventilating and seeking totalitarian control and action.

    This kind of 'leaping to extreme' does not make for meaningful, effective argument.

    If you chose to argue that human causation of global climate change is still in question, that the modelling involved has serious prediction gaps/tolerance windows - I'd agree - but I doubt you even knew that or you'd have brought it up. Instead it seems you're just regurgitating right-wing ill-informed talking points about which you seem to only have a veneer of information. It is the height of hubris to think you can engage serious, scholarly people in real discussion with that level of research. I am glad you comment here, it makes things lively, but you are not making it challenging - and I think you want to.

    However, there is NO dispute about the impacts of over population - whether Holdren or others were right about a "bomb" wiping out humanity is hardly relevant - what he WAS right about was that overpopulation was going to be a world-wide calamity. Are you suggesting it isn't? Please answer that question. I'll ask you to consider the impacts of explosive population growth on our own labor markets, on the ability for US companies to offshore work to the teaming masses of India and Chian (and Africa if they get their way). If the populations of those countries were not so vast, do you think we'd be able to employ tens of millions at near slave wages?

    So, while Holdren may have used hyperbole, he was still essentially correct about catastrophic impact. How is he different than you, and your usage of terms like Liberal Fascism? Isn't it effectively the same thing, you use hyperbole, invective and exageration to try to make a point, so did he.

    ReplyDelete
  21. K-

    You misuse the term 'fascism' by linking it to Liberal Fascism when the definition of fascism clearly exempts it from such a link. Fascism (little f) doesn't have liberal elements in it which sufficiently differentiate liberalism from conservatism in a way which makes your link relevant or accurate. Moreover, since you feel compelled to use terms like 'slap' - you have a pretty high standard of accuracy to achieve.

    My comment about 600 ship navies was MERELY that ToE was correct that a MUCH larger navy was pursued, but incorrect about numbers.

    Whether such pursuit was disasterous is for you to debate with him, but you commented/demanded proof of the characterization that Reagan pursued such an idea. Clearly he did, and clearly, your demand implies a belief that ToE was incorrect, or needed to prove his case. I helped him prove his case. It showed you to be in error about the nature of Reagan's activities, much as you have been in error about claiming Reagan was wildly popular in Europe, much as you were in error about your hyperbole of laughing at others, much as you were in error about telling ToE to 'try to keep up', etc.. etc.. etc..

    Changing the subject to whether it was a disaster now that you've been shown to have been wrong about the FACT of the buildup may be convenient for you, and frankly, it's a more interesting debate, but you need to do the right thing and acknowledge your error and ToE's superior knowledge of the history here.

    ReplyDelete
  22. KRod says:
    " K-Rod said...
    I never said there weren't some Europeans that hated Reagan and always will. But to discount half of Europe's opinion is just plain wrong. By your same measures, ALL of Europe LOVES the Obamassiah and always will, for ever and ever!!!!!" and "I guess I was wrong and you were wright, ALL* of Europe hated and despised Reagan and does to this day.

    *Don't count the UK, eastern Europe...
    How many countries comprise eastern Europe today? "

    1. The UK chose to be considered separate from Europe; it wasn't my bright idea. 2. Thatcher liked Reagan; the rest of the UK, distinctly less so, but more than continental Europe. 3. I absolutely agree that eastern European countries should be included in consideration for pro or anti Reagan sentiment. I think you will fnd a surprising amount of antiReagan feeling there as well. 4.Turkey is asia minor, and should NOT be included with europe for opinions about Reagan, despite their connections to NATO and wanting to be in the EU.

    I don't believe for a heartbeat that you sincerely believe that Reagan was anything but loved by Europeans. Restating my comments in a derogatory and ridiculous extreme format is not argumentation of any kind. It is fair and reasonable to ask you to support your original statement. Terry claims on SitD to be an excellent researcher; I'm not so much good as persistent. Perhaps he can find something for you to support Reagan's popularity during his terms of office?

    If I can locate a budget office report from 1982, well, asking for pro Reagan press is not out of the question.

    ReplyDelete
  23. K - actually, the person who leapt to extremes was you.

    We made the comment Reagan was unpopular, you twisted that into mocking commentary about how we said "EVERYONE IN EUROPE HATES REAGAN." We didn't suggest that for a moment, yet, if only half of Europeans even NOW like Reagan, then he can hardly be considered popular, yet you claimed he was loved in Europe (if memory serves). So, unfortunately, and yet again, you are leaping to extremes, are mischaractarizing our comments, and are making wildly innacurate comments yourself. You didn't know the history of Reagan's actions/popularity in Europe during his terms, and now you're mistating what we said while hyping your own position.

    Let's discuss whether what Reagan did was good or not, rather than continue this silliness.

    Reagan built up the military needlessly, the USSR was already failing. He HELPED bring down the USSR, but hardly was the majority cause (as you stated). The evidence I offer is that the USSR was bankrupt by 1984 - and was really destroyed by the Afghan war, a war which Reagan only got into because of a Texas Democrat named Charlie Wilson. THAT along with the Solidarity movement, is as much as anything what brought down the USSR at THAT SPECIFIC TIME - not any military build-up in reaction to Reagan, nor Reagan's sabre rattling, or even his words about supporting liberty movements in Eastern Europe. In fact, I contend that John Paul did more to help those movements than Reagan did.

    You can argue that, but please present actual facts rather than simply claims - there is substantial research behind some of the things i've just said, such as the fact that the Soviets started curtailing military expenditures EARLY in Reagan's years, rather than trying to compete, which is the assertion the right makes about how "Reagan bankrupted the Soviets leading to their downfall." That assertion is basely false. They were already bankrupt and didn't try to compete with Reagan's military buildup. The only military expenditure they really made was afghanistan, a war which Reagan never really intended to be in.

    ReplyDelete
  24. K-Rod,

    Your comments about the trend of the earth warming is short of germaine.

    "The Earth has been warming for basically the past 10,000 years" - Wow, no kidding? Gee, since the last ice age? Wow.

    The point is, and apparently you are one of the ones who denies Global Warming, is that even the righties (such as the Bush Administration) now accept that the Earth is warming MUCH MORE RAPIDLY in the past 50 (or so) years than in the preceeding thousands of years. Other than the warming period of the 1300's which occured much less rapidly - there is no similar time in recorded history. So K-Rod, don't be 'surprised' about things I know, rather, be mindful that you don't argue deeply enough or appear to engage deeply enough.

    Even Global Climate Change - human causation denyers - scientific community members - don't deny the fact of rapid warming.. lordy.

    Once again K, you are unfortunately wrong on facts that matter - bringing up rather meaningless, unrelated trivia doesn't make for a cogent argument. Obviously we're talking about rapid warming, not just the impacts of the end of the ice age.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Excuse me K- but 'slap' hardly qualifies as civil - so, heal thyself physiker.

    Frankly K, I've yet to see you make an argument of fact where your facts weren't subsequently destroyed.

    IF you were aware of the modelling issues, and I'll grant you that you knew since you claim you did, then you made a wasteful tangential argument about the reality of rapid warming itself.

    I don't accept as proven beyond all doubt MMGW, but I do accept the earth is warming VERY rapidly. Those are two very distinct points.

    However, if you want to take offense at my questioning what you knew, then you need to conduct yourself similarly. You've made MANY MANY similar comments and most of them much less civil. Let's keep things on the topic of discussion, ok?

    ReplyDelete
  26. In the Obama Administration? What was Barack thinking, putting a flat earther in a high technology position? Yikes! Obama is losing credibility as fast as you, Penigma

    So, is that the 'civil' part of your commentary? Is that the non-name calling part, or just the fact based part?

    K-Rod - you appear unable to behave in a manner you demand of other people. More's the pity, but it makes you look very foolish, unfortunately, especially when your points are being shredded left and right.

    For example, you claim I lack credibility, yet you attempted to imply Reagan was LOVED in Europe, he isn't. You attempted to claim/imply Reagan didn't engage in a massive military build-up, he did... etc.. and then you attempt to act like the wounded man, after making commments like the one above.

    Move on - really.

    BTW, making comments about BDS, and in the next breath using a term Obamamessiah, make you ALSO look like a hypocrite - not trying to name call, but anyone who'd use the term "Obamamessiah" whilst complaining about obsessive hatred, is pretty blind to their own conduct imho.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, Penigma, good luck on your definitive fascism project. You'll need it.
    I am not certain you'll like what Griffin has to say about the meaning of fascism. I've read his stuff. He is very much in the camp of those historians who believe that fascism is a revolutionary movement rooted in modernism. Not a whole lot of conservatism there.
    In a reply to K-rod re 'liberal fascism' you wrote Fascism (little f) doesn't have liberal elements in it which sufficiently differentiate liberalism from conservatism in a way which makes your link relevant or accurate.
    If I am reading you correctly you are saying that liberalism cannot be fascistic because it draws lines around certain rights which cannot be transgressed. This is a common defense of liberals against the charge that their love of government action to improve society is not fascism because fascism can be identified by totalitarianism.
    Jonah Goldberg wrote in Liberal Fascism that fascism is not uniform from nation to nation. Italians have Italian fascism that is shaped by their particular history, Germans have their fascism shaped by their history, etc. All forms of fascism, however, share a belief in the primacy of the state in determining acceptable social behavior. If true this means that American fascism is shaped both by its peculiar history (a creation of European colonists in a savage land) and a lack of national identity that is locked to territory. Americans have a long tradition of pragmatism, or political expediency, that many Europeans nations lack. Also our history is not very long, just a few centuries.
    In any case the greater individual liberties offered by American liberalism are contingent. Liberals threw free political speech overboard with CFR when the power of the political state was seen to conflict with the liberal goal of creating a more powerful nation state.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Terry wrote:
    "All forms of fascism, however, share a belief in the primacy of the state in determining acceptable social behavior. "

    It's me, Dog Gone, that is writing about fascism, not Penigma. Pen is commenting. In sharing a belief in the state determining acceptable social behavior, can you elaborate on how this is different from any form of government essentially deciding and regulating acceptable social behavior, both public and private, trivial and important? Everything from medieval sumptuary laws to defining marriage, to murder and property rights.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Terry,

    First, thanky you for the thoughtful comment in counter-point. It is refreshing.

    Second, with respect to your question, no, that was not the point I was making (meaning, no, I was not saying that liberalism differs from fascism in that it offers liberties). I HAVE made that point in the past, but that was not the point here.

    I was making the point that certain liberal regimes may become authoritarian - which I believe was (in part) your point as well. I was making the point that so do Conservative governments, and so neither can be distinguished in that regard from the other as either more or less 'fascistic' if we're going to use fascistic as a synonym for authoritarian.

    Yet, the term fascist means a LOT more than authoritarian - it means authoritarian AND militaristic AND noted for persecuting a racial or cultural group AND hyper-nationalism.

    I also disagree with your contention that liberalism somehow equates to fascism because liberalism would rely on the government to instill certain social norms or mores. Frankly, DG's point was dead on, that conduct is the pattern of ALL governments. I certainly understand that conservatives feel that liberals prefer to use governmental power as the solution to many of the social ills - and that is not an unfair belief at all.

    Yet I would counter that many forms of government, at the behest of it's backers, use the power of the state to instill behavior, limit liberties, squelch dissent, and intimidate the miniority groups within the nation itself. This conduct HARDLY makes the government fascistic, it does have the potential, if carried too far, to make it authoritarian.

    I'll provide an example - during Bush's early years, it was impolitic at best to question the actions of Bush in prosecuting the war. The press was cowed, and simply cheerlead our rush into a war that there was little investigation of the reasoning, little questioning of the administration, and little justification for action. I know you think otherwise, but this is the opinion of a LOT of people who evalautated the press, and of people within the administration about its own conduct. The administration used its power to quash unflattering stories, to squelch scientific research which undermined its political position, etc..

    All of these were improper (at best), but still done. Conservatives spent Trillions more than the government had on wars which the public had little real understanding of - yet was told questioning the conduct was 'treasonous', 'unpatriotic', and politcians who did were 'cowards', 'wimps' or worse.

    How exactly ISN'T that instilling an approach to society, government, and policy which isn't intimidating, isn't using it's stregth to establish authority and authoritarian attitudes about the minority view and party?

    Did that make Bush a fascist? NO. The only way he was appproaching fascism was because he did all that AND he also persecuted or allowed the persecution of Muslims AND he was hypernationalistic AND he was hypermilitaristic.

    So the point is, authoriatarian tactic isn't the equivilant to fascism.

    Finally, Jonah Goldberg's book was roundly panned as horridly researched and supported, he left out massive gaps in history and glossed over facts which made his theories unsound. His comments are hardly worth discussion, and his assertion that fascism is the use of government to establish social programs in through government is a decidedly dwarfed view of the true conduct of fascism - it looks only at one rather minor element of it, and even in that element, it is looking at something which was done to FOOL the populace into backing militarism, a means to an end, not as a end itself.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Terry,

    I just noted this paragraph:

    "In any case the greater individual liberties offered by American liberalism are contingent. Liberals threw free political speech overboard with CFR when the power of the political state was seen to conflict with the liberal goal of creating a more powerful nation state."

    I'm not quite sure what CFR means in this context - however, as Lincoln was probably the greatest expander of 'nation state'=federalism in this context in our history, I don't agree that it's exactly simply liberals who've sought to move forward with usurping liberty. However, I'd actually also say Lincoln was closer to a liberal than he was a conservative, so maybe you're right. Yet, you weren't speaking about that federalism movement - but rather free speech - which I'll assume you mean Political Correctness - to a classic liberal - PC is an anethma. Most liberals I know eschew the more extreme elements of it reflexively. It's not wrong to say to someonoe the usage of words like "N--ger" is obviously laced with import and probably offense - but many other words, like having to change from strawman to strawdog or other silliness, is against the idea of open and free speech. However, it's a HUGE stretch to claim that was done to increase the power of the state - it was done to presumably protect vulnerable classes from offhand offense.

    Yet, contrast that against the actions to limit supposedly 'terroristic' commentary, to usurp due process rights, etc.. those were to enhance 'nation state' power without ANY question. WE began spying on our citizens, we began keeping track of who they call - all of it ostensibly to fight terrorism, but clearly was done under the guise of national security, a very slippery slope indeeed.

    Consequently, while it HAS happened that liberals have impaired free speech, I find your contention that it was done to enhance the nation state not really supported, but conversely, actions by conservatives WERE done to enhance the power at least of the pre-eminent Executive brach, if not the nation state itself.

    ReplyDelete
  31. CFR Council on Foreign Relations

    from the Urban dictionary so you don't have to take my word for it...
    "1. CFR 29 up, 2 down
    (Council on Foreign Relations)

    An independent, nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization; founded in 1921. It may be considered one of the most powerful forces of the U.S. foreign policy besides the U.S. department of state. The mission of the council is to promote understanding of America's role in the world, and foreign policy. Rumors and controversy have surrounded the group because of the high ranking officials in the group, and large number of aspects of U.S. foreign policy the group has been involved with.

    The two types of membership are a 5-year term, or life. Some corporate members include; ABC News, Coca-Cola, Nike, PepsiCo, NASDAQ, Google, Bank of America, Visa, and more. Other notable members include; Michael Bloomberg, Jimmy Carter, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, John McCain, Angelina Jolie, and many others.



    Hank: "The CFR plans a one-world government."
    Don: "haha"
    Sally: "What's the CFR?"
    Don: "Chicken fried rice!!1"
    Hank: "No.The Council on Foreign Relations."
    Sally: "So what makes you think it's a conspiracy?"
    Hank: "It's what the John Birch Society believes."
    Don: "..Hank doesn't believe in anything."
    Sally: "I guess I'll do some research..."
    Hank: "Just don't use google, they're in on it."
    Don: "What about dogpile?"

    ReplyDelete
  32. I believe that using Mr. Goldberg as a reference is unwise at best. Mr. Goldberg's credentials as a political scientist are non-existent. He has a degree in education, and he writes a syndicated column in which he advocates his political views. This does not in of itself make him a qualified reference for political science matters any more than using writings by moveon.org (often depanned as a liberal organization) as a qualified reference would be appropriate.

    Mr. Goldberg's book entitled "Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of the American Left" has been read in detail and declaimed by political scientists of liberal, conservative and moderate opinions. Its badly researched at best, and many of the justifications that he claims are taken out of context. For instance, Mr. Goldberg claims that HG Wells advocated fascism. While HG Wells did discuss fascism, he rejected the British Union of Fascists. Wells also ultimately rejected fascism when faced with the realities of fascism including its disregard for individual rights and its militaristic and authoritarian tendencies. (Philip Coupland, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 4, pp. 541-558 (2000)). This is just one of the more glaring examples of Mr. Goldberg's problems in his book.

    I, too am puzzled by your citation of CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or perhaps Code of Federal Regulations. If you mean the Council on Foreign Relations, what way has it been responsible for a curtailment of free speech? Please cite specific examples, with statute or case cites to back it up. The Council on Foreign Relations, as you are undoubtedly aware, has long been a lightning rod for conspiracy theorists, but despite repeated charges, I haven't ever seen any,and I mean any, evidence of a conspiracy of any sort.

    You also seem to imply that governments can't impose moral standards through law and regulation. That's complete nonsense. Our governments have, since long before the American Revolution, established laws which regulate civil affairs (the Hammurabic Code is one of the earliest examples of this) These legal codes have regulated business, marriage, property rights, etc. At the criminal level, laws regulate crimes against persons, crimes against the state, etc. One glaring difference in ancient and modern legal systems, however, is that a crime against a person is punished by the state, not by that person or their relatives. I think its pretty clear and agreed that the state can and does regulate morals and conduct. In the United States, however, those regulations must pass constitutional muster. I will continue with that discussion in another thread that I am planning soon.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Don't get excited.
    CFR = Campaign Finance Reform. Also known as control of political speech imposed by the government in order to influence the outcome of elections.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Terry said:
    "Don't get excited.
    CFR = Campaign Finance Reform. Also known as control of political speech imposed by the government in order to influence the outcome of elections."

    Thanks for elaborating on the acronym, although I'm not clear on who you think is excited by it.

    As a general request, much like the 'housekeeping' request I just made under danse macabre to direct fascism discussions here, may I also ask for full terminology instead of acronyms.

    I just recently read the 38 page non-classified report by the 5 Inspector Generals which is over on Scribd, under PSP for Presidential Surveillance Program. Apart from the information itself, enough acronyms to choke the proverbial horse, thank you. I don't want to tackle more of those at the moment, and unless we are all on the same page with references, it impedes discussion.

    Thank you all for your cooperation.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I am not sure what you mean, DG, by "It's me, Dog Gone, that is writing about fascism, not Penigma". Did you write "When I am done, whoever reads these words WILL know the difference between correct and incorrect use of 'fascism', small or capital F, and I hope will choose to use it correctly afterwards, and ONLY correctly, and may even choose to correct others using it wrongly"?
    Doesn't sound like you.

    In sharing a belief in the state determining acceptable social behavior, can you elaborate on how this is different from any form of government essentially deciding and regulating acceptable social behavior, both public and private, trivial and important?

    The state should never determine 'acceptable social behaviour', it should enforce already existing moral norms. The manner and extent to which it does this is matter of law and politics. If it does otherwise there is an epistemological problem: the State's purpose is to rule a collection of men. What is there in the makeup of the institution called "The State" that allows it to determine moral truth?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I note that John McCain, who could hardly be called a liberal (Maverick, absolutely, but liberal?) was one of the architects of the most recent effort at Campaign Finance Reform. Regardless, the Supreme Court of the US has ruled repeatedly that many of the campaign finance reforms attempted are a violation of the free speech clause of the 1st amendment. Its interesting how conservative commentators have reacted to this. Many conservatives seem to believe that the Supreme Court should take a completely hands off approach unless something is explicitly permitted (or not permitted) in the constitution. These are the people who find no right of privacy directly written into the Constitution, and therefore would have the government tell families how to raise their children, would allow the government to interfere with medical decisions, etc. There is a long line of Supreme Court decisions, beginning with Meyer vs. Nebraska 262 US 390 (1923) In that famous case, the US Supreme Court ruled that a state, under the 1st amendment and 14th amendment, could not forbid the teaching of German in public schools. (the prohibition against the teaching of German in public schools was common during World War I) Later decisions, including Griswold vs. Connecticut 381 US 479 (1965) expanded the right of privacy to health care by overturning state laws concerning contraception. Most conservatives, after being told that their children MUST attend public schools, or that their children MUST be vaccinated, etc, would promptly cry foul. Yet, without the right of privacy rulings of a "liberal" Supreme Court, they would have little if any legal recourse.

    The Supreme Court has struck down portions of campaign finance reform, and has diluted the remaining portions to the point were it is currently meaningless. Without a constitutional amendment on this topic, I honestly don't see any significant campaign finance reform in the near future, under any makeup of the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  37. ThoughtsOfEternity wrote:
    Mr. Goldberg's book entitled "Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of the American Left" has been read in detail and declaimed by political scientists of liberal, conservative and moderate opinions.
    You are using the word 'declaimed' incorrectly. Are you a credentialed public school teacher?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Terry wrote:
    "Terry said...
    I am not sure what you mean, DG, by "It's me, Dog Gone, that is writing about fascism, not Penigma". Did you write "When I am done, whoever reads these words WILL know the difference between correct and incorrect use of 'fascism', small or capital F, and I hope will choose to use it correctly afterwards, and ONLY correctly, and may even choose to correct others using it wrongly"?

    Ummm, yes, that WAS me Terry. If you look at the end of "Fascism part I", you will see 'posted by dog gone'; and if you read the body of the post, you will find me making a humorous comment about writing too lengthily, so yup, that's me all right.

    By way of explanation, there had been what seemed to me a descent into pointless bickering at cross purposes for lack of any remotely common definition of concept and terminology. You are reading a little bit of exasperation on my part, as context.

    My intent is to present a reasonably well researched post about what fascism is, so that a baseline consensus on the meaning can be achieved. By 'achieved' I don't so much mean that I am the only one who gets to define the subject, to the exclusion of everyone else, so much as presenting a basis from which we can all go forward in further discussion, arriving at some sort of consensus of what we are talking about. What I do NOT want to do with this series of pieces is to insult anyone, or to cram the opinion of either side down the throat of the other.

    Running this up the flagpole as a project, the response as I understand this, is that it IS accepted by both sides of the discussion that I will do my best to research thoroughly and will present as fairly, objectively, and accurately as possible the pertinent aspects of fascism for discussion.

    I hope you find THAT explanation more...well, more like the me that you expect. To the extent that I fail in any way, that is on my shoulders, not Pen's, and it would be unfair of me to let him take any blame for my words.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Many conservatives... blah blah blah..."

    Try not to confuse true conservatives with Republicans, TOE.

    Heck I guess that blathering was better than you saying something like.. 'Many conservatives are just like... Timothy McVeigh...'



    BTW, TOE, I am more of a Classical Liberal or a conservative libertarian... or maybe even a libertarian conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I understand declaim to mean speaking formally or in a theatrical manner. The nearest similar word that comes to mind is proclaim, which also means to speak publicly or formally, and also to reveal information about something.

    I don't have a problem with the use of 'declaim' in that sense of speaking out in a public or formal manner... perhaps you would elaborate on why it is a misuse of the word or a poorly chosen word?

    ToE is an adjunct professor, as well as a practicing attorney as a point of information.

    ReplyDelete
  41. ToE is an adjunct professor, as well as a practicing attorney as a point of information.
    Good God. perhaps you could ask him to define the word 'depanned'? It doesn't seem to be in the dictionary.

    ReplyDelete
  42. These sentences don't work together:

    When I am done, whoever reads these words WILL know the difference between correct and incorrect use of 'fascism', small or capital F, and I hope will choose to use it correctly afterwards, and ONLY correctly, and may even choose to correct others using it wrongly.


    By 'achieved' I don't so much mean that I am the only one who gets to define the subject, to the exclusion of everyone else, so much as presenting a basis from which we can all go forward in further discussion, arriving at some sort of consensus of what we are talking about. What I do NOT want to do with this series of pieces is to insult anyone, or to cram the opinion of either side down the throat of the other.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Declaim (or declaimed) is an English verb. Its etymology is from the Latin declamare. It means rail against or argue vociferously against.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ring Ring..

    "Uh, yeah"

    "Goerge?"

    "uh huh"

    "So, how do you feel about requiring unions to get expressed consent to spend union dues on campaigns?"

    "Uh, unions?"

    "Yeah, you know, those commie libs that try to get better pay and stuff.."

    "Well, I think them jerks arta git their grubby hands offa politiks, man. I mean, ya' know, it gives politiks a bad bad name an' all."

    "Yeah, so you favor the bill preventing an organization from contributing to politicians who more actively vote/participate in crafting law that favors labor, right?"

    "Yep"

    "So what do you think of Campain Finance Reform"

    "I'm agin it, o' course"

    "Phew, great - because we have some companies that want to use their profits to participate in campaigns, and they HATE the current restrictions."

    "As they dang well shud, if a company wants to do with it's own dang money whatever it wants, those dang commie libs shouldn't be stikin' their noses into it, no how."

    "By the way, George?"

    "Yeah"

    "Where did you go to school"

    "Got my undergraduate degree from Yale, Masters from Harvard"

    "How do you feel about 527's?"

    "Uh"

    "You know, the unlimited contribution issue adds vehicles?"

    "oh, Love em, absolutely love em"

    "Yeah, we sure do need CFR so that we can get companies to buy 527 time"

    "Yep, but not them damn unions"

    "Yep"

    "How do you spell Hypocrite, George?"

    "uh, c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e."

    "Right on brutha"

    ReplyDelete
  45. Terry,

    Word to the wise (or unwise for certain people) - pedantic behavior is less welcome here, less the focus of discussion here, than on other more petty blogs.

    Further, while any of us clearly will make mistakes with phraseology, construction and (certanly for me) spelling, taking the time to worry about them isn't really a beneficial to moving a conversation forward.

    Finally, given the CV of some of the participants, it probably also will make those who DO engage in such triviality as a focus of discourse look rather silly.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Once again, Penigma just can't understand the difference between Republican and conservative. Do you do that on purpose or are you just that... ...nevermind.

    I wouldn't want my union dues to go to a candidate I opposed, would you?

    Unions were a very important force years ago. but then we watched overinflated wages and lost productivity lead to lost jobs on the Iron Range and else where...
    You don't have to agree, but I think it was wrong for an 18 year old just out of high school to make plenty more than a 23 year old with a college degree, thanks to the union.

    How's that card check thang workin our for ya, Democrats?
    Secret ballot, you don't need no stinkin secret ballot.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Terry said...
    These sentences don't work together:"

    While I can see where you might not see the two statements as consistent, perhaps this will reconcile them for you.

    I HOPE, perhaps overoptimistically, to present a picture of the various aspects of fascism, and document what I present sufficiently, that everyone currently commenting on the topic(s) of fascism (cap or small f) will agree to a fundamental understanding. My intent is not to insult anyone or brow beat anyone with a narrow, preconceived notion on my part of fascism.

    I expect that while there will still be some differences in the interpretation or application of that understanding, that there will still be considerably fewer, lesser differences if we start out with a common understanding.

    Can I pull that off? Well, THAT is the $64,000 question. It may be an overly ambitious project, but I am going to try. It is a bit disconcerting that I am imagining I can hear the sharpening of 'long knives' in anticipation of what I write.... LOL.

    But where is that maximum of satisfaction that only comes with tackling hard challenges otherwise?

    Beyond that explanation, if I still seem inconsistent to you.... then I am afraid I have been inconsistent.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I can't speak for Penigma directly, although from multiple discussions both on the telephone and via email, I think he grasps quite well the differences between Republicans and conservatives.

    While most conservatives are Republicans, not all are by any means. There are a number of moderate to conservative Democrats. In fact, at one time in our not to distant past, the Democratic party had at least as many conservative members as they did moderate or liberal.

    Liberal vs. Conservative has already been adequately defined elsewhere in this blog. I don't go into it again unless it becomes necessary. Looking at the platforms of both the Republican and Democratic parties, however, I find that they are more alike than they are different. Both intend to achieve further greatness for the US, but approach it in different ways. One interesting difference that I noted was that the Republican platform seems to place a great more importance on "values". While some of these values are important, many of them are self-contradictory and out right hypocritical. (i.e. free speech and anti-flag desecration, as an example).

    BTW, K-Rod: I'm glad to know that you're not a fish.

    ReplyDelete
  49. K,

    You seem to want to be able to tell us what is a liberal, yet we don't get to say who is a Conservaive.

    Ok K, here's a question, did you vote for Bush?

    Past that, do you, for a moment, think that trying to restrain unions is any different from trying to restrain OTHER non-profits from using their funds to lobby? If so, why?

    This wasn't about the strength or uses of unions, it was about hypocrisy.

    Further, you need to look at what has happened to average wages since 1975 and the concurrent destruction of unions- I think you're knowledge on the subject is probably about the same as your knowledge of Reagans naval buildup, Reagan's popularity in Europe during his terms, and so on.

    While you may want to claim they've outlived their usefulness, the fact on the table right now is whether 527s, 501s etc.. are somehow proper to restrain when you WANT - yet you despise CFR in the main.

    I see a paradox, but I also see the corrosive effect of allowing the wealthy to control public airwaves. I know you probably will disagree, but we see absolutely the effects of massive adverstising on campaigns. What is your solution (if you have one) to having corporations or the wealthy or both simply dominate the airwaves with their views (as is virtually true now with respect to corporate donations and lobbying efforts anyway)? What do you suppose will happen if we have no limits, no requirement that actors in elections need to be persons or at worst organizations operating with the benefit of it's members in mind, rather than simply the ownership in mind, what do you suppose will occur?

    Let me try to help you with this, it's called Mexico. If you want to see what fascism's face looks like, go there. If you want to see what unrestrained greed looks like, what uncontrolled money looks like. You CAN swamp elections with money, you CAN make one person's vote essentially less meaningful because you CAN dominate the decision making process with money. While I have no solution to the implications of free speech - but this is an enormous problem. It has gotten MUCH MUCH worse since 1980, not better, even with CFR - so clearly CFR isn't working. Yet, there are obviously massive, systemic problems facing our government due to the highly disparate levels of influence the powerful and wealthy have in government.

    While I grasp you don't like CFR, what is your solution?

    Beyond that, how exactly can CFR be called anything akin to fascism, how is it hyper nationalistic, how is it violently repressive, how does it persecute a race, how is it hyper militaristic. You can CLAIM that it limits the power of the powerful, and so is authoritarian, but shall we instead simply allow the powerful to rule? If so, let's it seems you just would advocate tacitly disolving democracy. You'd have to be profoundly naive' to think that money doesn't corrupt the current process, or wilfully uncaring about it - so what can be done?

    ReplyDelete
  50. K-Rod-
    There ain't no percentage in being a union stooge. The money is in organizing labor. Fellow Minnesotan Gus Hall figured this out right quick. At fifteen he went to work in the lumber mills, at 17 he joined the communist party and started organizing the steel workers.
    He was a communist apparatchik under the control of Moscow. He never condemned Stalin, which put him somewhere to the left of Kruschev.
    It was an open secret that he was being bankrolled by Moscow, but hard evidence was lacking and Hall denied accepting Russian money. After he died & the Soviet archives were opened up it became clear why the money Moscow sent him to organize communists in the US was so hard to trace. He had used the money to buy race horses.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Terry,

    Thank you for your debate here. I appreciate your civil approach to the discussion.

    The term "depanned" was an error on my part, made in haste as I was trying to multitask. It should have been "defined". Thank you for calling it to my attention.

    ReplyDelete
  52. K- you've already established you don't give a damn about whether using oxymorons like Liberal Fascism offends anyone, NOW you want to find out if it offends Terry?

    Tell me, would you think it approrpaite for me to ask DG if calling Bush a neo-nazi hitlerite offended her, would the opinion be germane, especially if I'd spent 400 posts defending the term as entirely logical?

    Lord, you surely do live in your own plane of existence.

    Terry, could you point out the union manager who is in Forbes top 100 richest people, or perhaps the top 500 richest people? I mean, the REAL money surely isn't in managing BS hedge funds where if you are right you pocket $100M, but if you are wrong you close up the fund and walk away to just go start another, and the losses only matter to the investors, is it?

    I mean, in terms of unbridled capitalism, and using the government as a tool to help enforce social mores, I certainly DON'T think that the SEC backing Bernie Madoff time and again, that CERTAINLY didn't help Madoff scam anyone, but hey, I know, that's different.

    ReplyDelete
  53. K-Rod, they already are required to report every dime, and generally, they do.

    Yet, the list of donors is immense, and the impact is undocumented because how do you tie a. to b.?

    BTW, Yes, I absolutely think as a member of ANY organization, if I chose to be a member, I recognize they MIGHT take action I don't always agree with, or I may not be informed enough to know which person is acting in the organization's interest, or even why my organization MIGHT give to BOTH candidates. The point is the leadership of an organization may have to make decisions I"m not privy to, and if they need to, that's what I ahve them in place for. If I disagree, then I either quit or replace them.

    ReplyDelete
  54. K-Rod-
    I would not be offended if a commenter called certain acts of the Reagan or Bush administration 'liberal fascism'. Obama's actions are different in intent and magnitude, not in kind, from things like the Chrysler bailout of the 80's and the formation of a White House 'Office of Religious Affairs'.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Dog Gone-
    I would like to get back on topic by using one of Penigma's recent comments as spring board:

    Beyond that, how exactly can CFR be called anything akin to fascism, how is it hyper nationalistic, how is it violently repressive, how does it persecute a race, how is it hyper militaristic.

    This is a good description of the Wilson administration, and Woodrow Wilson is considered one of the founders of the progressive movement in the United States.
    This exposes one of the perils you will face as you attempt to come up with a 'universal' definition of fascism. It is not clearly separable from the pre-WW2 progressive movement, and today's progressives claim to be their successors.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Terry,

    I'm sorry, but I find your point to be hogwash.

    Progressives, or perhaps more accurately, populists, aspoused certain beliefs we'd probably all find offensive today. They were HARDLY alone.

    Eugenics was practiced during every administration from McKinnley's to Truman's. It was hardly unique to populist theory at all.

    However, I'm not quite sure how you can equate persecution of a culture, hypernationalism and hypermilitarism to Wilson? That's pretty baffling. Wilson certainly increased the military, but again, we were doubtless heading into WWI?

    Would you describe Roosevelt's prescient conduct getting us ready for WWII as fascism by that measure?

    The point is, if we use the term THAT broadly, it loses all meaning - it becomes whatever we want, and we then engage in historical revision - claiming that right is left, up is down. It allows for people to deny there IS anything such as a right wing - e.g. the pursuit of individual gain and liberty above the common gain or need. While that might be of comfort to those on the right - the counter claim can then be argued, the tyranny of the minority is akin to fascism - that the Constitutional protections aren't suicide pacts and the enforcement of individual liberty is FASCISM because it is totalitarian in application, unrelenting even in the face of dire need.

    If you'd like to quantify your point about Wilson, I'd be happy to discuss - but I don't see your corallary, not in the slightest, at this point.

    Moreover, to claim that populism, an avowedly middle-class movement, somehow was closer to fascism than is corporatism, I find to be wildly off the mark. Fascism, as practiced by Mousollini and Hitler favored the wealthy, destroyed unions, imprisoned protestors - eventually brutally murdering them, made discrimination against certain classes not only legal, but a state practice - and in Germany a state practice of extermination. It allowed for only ONE party, when did that become a key plank of populism?

    However, we DID see Republicans, conservatives in fact like Karl Rove and L. Paul Bremer, and Cheney and Rumsfeld do many things to enforce a system of only one party making decisions, of keeping dissent effectively voiceless - I think there is a cogent argument to make that they sought both totalitarian control and de facto one party rule, if not a one party state. I think the evidence is far stronger in that direction than trying to claim populism had vast similarity to fascism. I think that fascism tried to disguise itself as a form of populism to fool the masses long enough for the dictators to get in power, but the similarities ended there, and the similarities to corporatism and abuses of power began.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Woodrow Wilson was a democrat. He also pushed the Sedition Act of 1918. This act made it a crime to criticize the government either in speech, the press, etc. The act was declared constitutional in Debbs vs. United States 249 US 211 (1919), but Congress repealed the act in 1920. In my opinion, this is one of the darker moments of American legal history, and a review of the history at the time does not convince me that the Sedition Act was either necessary or constitutional. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that were a similar statute to be enacted today, it would be ruled unconstitutional, even with the make up of the current SCOTUS. While the Bush administration might have wished for a sedition act, in their defense, they never suggested one to Congress, which would have quite promptly rejected such a thought.

    I see no evidence in my reading to date that popularism is in any way related to fascism. Perhaps, Terry, you could point to some sources to back that up? Fortunately for the US, pre WWII fascism never took root in the US, nor do I think it could have survived long if it had. Although many of the traditional guarantees that we now take for granted had not been fully extended to individuals by operation of the 14th Amendment (it would take another 30 years for this to happen), the US was in the pre WWII years not a fertile place for fascism simply because of our overall embrace of individual liberties as a tradition.

    Mind you, as Penigma pointed out, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. There are instances where the government could find itsself forced to temporarily restrict individual liberties. For instance, (as a hypothetical example only), in the case of a massive epidemic, the government might restrict interstate travel to only foodstuffs and other necessities. Would this technically violate the Constitution? Indeed it would. However, the Supreme Court has said over and over that the government may in certain circumstances, abridge individual liberties, IF, and ONLY IF they can show a superior and compelling state interest. This is why, BTW, we have 3 brances of government, including a judiciary which can interpret the law and sometimes act as a check on the other two branches: To make sure someone doesn't go diving off the deep end, (or in the case of the Republican administration under George Bush goose-stepping off the spring board) into blatant constitutional violations without a dammed good reason to back them up.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Peev, you have really got to read more history.
    A good place to start would be Wilson. When he was elected in 1912 only a single non-southern state voted for him. He installed Jim Crow in Washington. When he was President of Princeton he turned away black applicants because he saw no reason that a black man needed an education. This was a reversal, not a continuation, of the race relations he inherited.
    Fer gosh sakes, he not only thought Birth of a Nation was great film, he arranged for it to be shown to congress & the Justices of the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Terry said:

    "Peev, "

    Terry, I hope you grasp that moniker was taken to mock someone - but if you desire to use it, whatever..

    "you have really got to read more history. "

    Right - by the way Terry, that kind of comment is pretty insulting. I'd stake my knowledge of history is far in excess of average - and I've not really seen much from most conservatives that said theirs was anything other than cherry-picked factoids and psuedo-factoids which allowed them to appear educated on a subject, while not actually being educated on a subject.

    "A good place to start would be Wilson. When he was elected in 1912 only a single non-southern state voted for him. He installed Jim Crow in Washington. When he was President of Princeton he turned away black applicants because he saw no reason that a black man needed an education. This was a reversal, not a continuation, of the race relations he inherited.
    Fer gosh sakes, he not only thought Birth of a Nation was great film, he arranged for it to be shown to congress & the Justices of the Supreme Court."

    Undoubtedly all of that is true, and the Presidencies of Grover Cleveland, Ulysses Grant, Herbert Hoover, William McKinnley and MANY others presided over the subjegation and in some cases purposeful extermination of native Americans, of armed aggression against protestors, of wilfull abetting of murderous union busters and worse. As compared to that, I think being a racist who showed an increadibly tasteless film (by today's standards) rises to a slightly lower level of offense.

    Furthermore, I'm sure you're quite aware that during his 1960 speech where he said it was perfectly appropriate for a land owner to discriminate against blacks? I don't think Reagan was a racist, but he certainly advocated positions which in their time weren't controversial but would be seen as such today. Contrastingly, Wilson WAS a bigot, but that was HARDLY unique.

    Conversely, Jerry Falwell was a dedicated racist throughout the 1960's, as was Strom Thurmond, as was George Wallace. It's hardly historically opaque to grasp that the solid, racist south, turned decidedly Republican after 1980.

    In short Terry, if you desire to try to lecture people on specific facets of knowledge you've gleened in looking for evidence of patterns of bias, you may find the reaction is that you're apparently cherry-picking precisely and only what you want. Jonah Goldberg's pitifully poorly researched treatise on supposed Liberal Fascism doesn't MEAN populism or progressivism was fascist, nor does the fact that there were racist democrats, just as the fact that Reagan backed racist southerners racist actions mean REAGAN himself was a racist nor does it mean that all Republicans are either.

    Wilson had some profoundly poor ideas, including the 1918 Sedition Act, he also had some startingly brilliant ones. Shall we condemn him with broad strokes merely because it suits our personal world view to do so? If so, then we'd best condemn Reagan with the same overreaching brush, the same soundbite driven dismissive conduct.

    In summary, to your point I'd say, find a bit more respect, I don't often lecture you to 'read more', nor do I personally think you are ill-educated. I've proven I think time and again to have more than a passingly good grasp of history - and I think you have too - let's keep the discussion about topics, and not about personal invective, shall we?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Also, Terry, is being black a culture, or is it a race, or is it both?

    I know there are blacks in America who claim it's a culture, but I find that more than a bit overstated. It's hardly the case that ALL blacks grow up in a specific cultural dynamic.

    Consequently, while you can point to Wilsonion racism, which is a facet of fascism, I hardly think being a black-bigot in 1918 equates to, in any meaningful degree, sending Jews to gas-houses, do you? If so, then I guess we can assume that Jefferson and Washington were fascists too.

    The issue Terry is that extending things like Wilson's bigottry to equate it to fascism leads to simliar kinds of nonsense about other Presidents. It's horribly off the mark to claim that the US, or even Wilson, was seeking to declare one-party rule - to advance the nation over the balance of nations through militarism, to squelch civil liberties as a measure of establishing a dictatorship and demolishing the middle class (as Hitler did). By your measure, any modicum of bigotry combined with some other modicum of infringement of rights makes the person a fascist.

    I hope you agree it takes quite a bit more than that. Wilson's stance on the League of Nations belies your assertion. No hyper nationalist would ever submit his/her nation to the whim and approval of the community of nations.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Gentlemen... if I may...

    In aid of common ground for this discussion, allow me to argue TO you that there is a useful criteria to follow.

    In reading up on fascism, first and foremost with the intent to enlarge on my own understanding, including correcting any erroneous assumptions, and then sharing those observations with you here, I was taken by this concept.

    While this comment is taking things slightly out of the order I had intended, it pertains; so...

    My reading and my understanding of Fascism (for purposes of this comment, take fascism to include BOTH cap and small f) is that it consistently intended to become the one and only party that would exist, replacing any and ALL other parties.


    Fascism typically is in opposition to BOTH conservative and liberal ideals, and to all conservative AND liberal parties. The ONLY requirement for fascist opposition is not being fascist. While a slight over simplification, it is only SLIGHT. This is why fascism is usually defined as a single party system; fascism is also in many respects defined not by what it IS as much as what fascism IS NOT, by what fascism opposes, to such a marked degree that it separates it from other political movements as a uniquely defining characteristic.

    While I will address this at greater length in the upcoming 'parts' of my fascism topic, for the purposes of further discussion, I propose that where there are serious conflicts with this aspect of fascism, it is inappropriate for a political ideology to be described as fascist.

    By this reasoning, both 'liberal' and 'conservative', in the broader sense of the usage, are not well described by the term 'fascism', because fascism opposes BOTH ideologies in the respective countries where it has occurred and where there is agreement - such as fascism in Italy under Mussolini as an example. Likewise fascism would not appropriately or correctly be linked with the term communism, which was one of many political movements opposed by fascism.

    What I am asking each of you to do, before asserting that "x" or "y" is fascist, is to ask this same question, are there aspects of 'fill in the blank' ideology which contradict fascism, as well as aspects that are consistent with fascism. IF there are ANY contradictions, either in the ideology theory or practice, then it is not a very good use of the term fascism.

    WAIT! Before you respond, indulge me a bit further!!!!

    To the extent that in discussions here we explore applying fascism to ideologies or political parties or political movements where there are strong similarities to some aspects of fascism, but neutrality rather than direct opposition or contradiction, may I further suggest that in those instances where there is a "some but not all" situation that we more correctly apply the terms "para-fascism" or "semi-fascism" to distinguish them from more classical, pure, consistent fascism. For purposes of clarity, and specificity, in discussion, I believe that this will significantly reduce arguing at cross purposes and will address both similarities and differences BETTER than our discussions have so far.

    You have brought up SOME, but not all of the appropriate defining characteristics of fascism in discussion. Partly because it has been such a distraction trying to keep up with comments, to make sure that there is not too much lag time in moderating them, and partly because I have been a bit put off the subject by the intensity verging on outright hostility of some of the viewpoints, I would ask that you hold back just a little until I can outline what my research shows to be the defining characteristics of fascism --- so that you can give me thumbs up or thumbs down, but once we agree on them, THEN apply the notion of fascist / not fascist, para or semi fascist, in going forward with discussion.

    to be continued in the next comment

    ReplyDelete
  62. continued

    Fascism, while 'against' communism, liberalism, AND conservative ideologies, has also borrowed from all three, and others. In any use of these terms, those aspects are important to address -- and I will. But first, please, please, let me first discuss the origins, because that too is in its own way essential to defining and using the term fascism.

    For example, in the pursuit of legitimacy and recruiting support for fascism, one of the consistent characteristics is for fascist movements to define themselves in the context of and as a continuation of a perceived 'golden age' of a country's national identity. In the instance of Italy's fascism, it was - among other things - to use an emblem, the 'fasces', rods tied around an axe, that originated as a political symbol of authority in ancient Rome, in what was arguably the greatest of Italy's 'glory days'. Palingenesis, (which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Governor Palin, and is a concept that predates her using that name through marriage by a considerable period of time) refers to the idea of an heroic origin where fascism represents a 'return to yesteryear' to borrow a phrase from the fictional Lone Ranger, in a manner that claims both continuity AND political rebirth.

    In the US, that can be anything from claiming inspiration from native american traditions, to the more common one of claiming connection to the 'founding fathers'. In fascism there seems to be a pattern of cherry picking some facts or symbols, and then re-mythologizing (I have NO idea if that is really a word, but I think my meaning is clear, so deal with it) the actual history to 'fit'. Let me emphasize clearly here, that this is in NO WAY intended as addressing anyone's personal ideals of our founding fathers that is commenting HERE.

    It IS about examining fascist and non-fascist movements in the context of how they legitimize themselves and what they claim as their origins. Personally, I find it a very interesting question to apply in examining in a critically thoughtful way a lot of political claims, mainstream and extreme. Perhaps more to the point, looking at the origins and basis for claiming legitimacy has NOT been part of the definitions used here in debate, and this - and others - SHOULD BE considered before applying the term fascist.

    Gentlemen, until I have had a chance to:

    1. propose defining characteristics to use as a criteria for using the term fascist; and until
    2. those definitions are given a thumbs up or a thumbs down, or
    3. we agree to ammend or modify them;

    may we please have a voluntary brief moratorium on telling each other how wrong you are?

    Lets start with discussing how right or wrong I AM, once I actually....am... Think of it as practice for discussion with each other, if you must.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "...consistently intended to become the one and only party that would exist, replacing any and ALL other parties..."
    The difference with Liberal Fascism is that it uses laws, taxes, entitlements, handouts, and the huge government bearcrapcrisy to continue those policies regardless of political party in power... the sheeple are controlled and it is very slow and very difficult to reverse those Liberal Fascist actions...
    (Remember the "temporary" Minnesota state sales tax? What was so temporary about it? The percentage, silly, it keeps getting larger."

    I am unclear that I understand you. First of all, there is big, important difference between exercising a significant majority and obliterating or making illegal any other political parties from participating in government, especially through violence, coercion and force. The fact that those majorities fluctuate counter that assertion.

    Secondly, "regardless of the political party in power"; does that mean that when you use the term liberal fascism that you are applying it equally to all current political parties? Are you stating that there ARE NO conservatives that are politically organized? I have a problem with how that tracks with what I see of conservatives in a current minority position.

    And lastly - yesterday the neighbors sheep got loose. Forgive me if that analogy to 'sheeple' is waaaay to close to real sheep right now. Let me assure you that loose sheep are damned hard to control, without a trained sheep dog or six (we had NONE) and even fenced in sheep are damned difficult to get going in a desired direction. The word sheep at the moment is reminding me of every ache and pain from that little round-up adventure. Whoever came up with that term must have had blessed little experience with the real thing when he or she coined the term.

    Baaaaaaaaa humbug, LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  64. K-Rod,

    I rejected your comment where all you did was insult someone and make ridiculous claims that the person hated Bush etc..

    If you want your comments published, they will need to be just a bit more on topic than that.

    ReplyDelete
  65. K-Rod,

    As well, I agree that Terry sees a difference in magnitude, as do we - but that won't make it fascism - or even "Liberal Fascism" - again, that term has no meaning other than what Jonah Goldberg claimed and was resoundlingly repudiated for.

    The difference of course is this, while you see Obama as a GREATER magnitude, I see Reagan as such - Reagan wasn't facing a crisis threatening to remove the US from a global economic position of dominance. He was facing a dying USSR threat and expanded military spending by 300%.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Krod wrote:
    ""I rejected your comment..."

    If the truth hurts, delete it and then claim it was offensive.

    Similar to a Liberal Fascist tactic of labeling it "hate speech". Hate speech vill not be tolerated! Vat you just said could be called hate speech! Debate is over! You shut up!!!"

    I received a copy of the rejected post by request from Penigma, after it had been deleted. I agreed with the decision he made; and I addressed you after that decision very precisely and politely about it.

    You have been asked to treat the other participants here courteously, and you deserve to be treated courteously as well. It is a decision which contributes to a full discussion of points of view here. There was nothing fascist about rejecting deliberate insults.

    You can be very articulate, and when you choose to be, thoroughly charming. Therefore, it is very clear that you are able to express your ideas here, without the offensive aspects.

    There was NO element of truth or factual content in what you wrote that was deleted. That is a specious argument, and an attempt to be provacative. I do not understand what it is you enjoy about trying to get an angry response, but it is in any case, not acceptable behavior.

    I made it clear that your dissent here is valued, and an important contribution. Gratuitous insults are not.

    ReplyDelete