About Us
Tour
FAQ
Signup
Login
  
Home
Forums
Pages
Issues
Laws
Elections
Arguments
Events
Government
U.S.
World
Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.
Conservatives > Media > Jonah Goldberg > Forum > ThreadAdd Conservative Content
  • Jonah Goldberg
  • Forum
  • Updates
Displaying all 8 Forum Posts for the Thread:

Revisionist Fascism of the right wing media

You must be logged in to reply to a post.
2010-07-21 06:27 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 854

Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and others at Fox News plus Rush Limbaugh throw around the terms fascism, Nazism, socialism and communism interchangeably in making false accusations against liberals, Democrats, and especially the Obama administration.  Their outrageously false and revisionist mutterings of course make little sense, except to their ignorant right wing audiences. Well how do they explain Obama simultaneously being far left and far right? Simple, just redefine and recast the anti-liberal fascism and Nazism, a form of fascism, as being extreme left liberal political philosophies. 

Of course this ridiculous maneuver would expect to be challenged by recognized historians and political scientists, but no matter.  Create your own "expert" on fascism to promote it as a far left political ideology. That so-called expert is Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large for the right wing National Review whose 2008 book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning grossly misrepresents and redefines fascism  as a left wing liberal philosophy.  But it provides the needed cover for the right wing media pundits like Beck and the Tea Party to slam Barack Obama and other liberal politicians as fascists and Nazis. 

Robert Paxton, noted historian and author of the highly acclaimed book, The Anatomy of Fascism, provides an opinion on Goldberg's book in Crooks and Liars: 

"But it's obvious that, despite the cold reality that Goldberg's thesis is profoundly dishonest and the most odious kind of historical fraud, right-wingers like Beck not only believe it but have embarked on avidly promoting it -- especially among the Tea Party set, where the signs calling Obama a fascist are almost as common as those decrying his tax increases."

David Neiwert, noted author of The Eliminationists, How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, provides his perspective on Goldberg's book in the American Prospect: 

 "Goldberg, who has no credentials  beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. ..The title alone is enough to indicate its thorough going incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism. One might as well write about anti-Semitic neo-conservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak."

It is beyond me how Goldberg, Beck and others at Fox News can so blatantly revise history to suit their own political agendas.  But they do it regularly and they get away with it. 

One of the traits of fascism is a controlled media that feeds the public information that they need to hear or what they want to hear.  If one day America abandons democracy for a fascist state, it will come from the far right of the Tea Party with Glenn Beck leading the way, waving the flag.  And like the Germans and Italians before them, very few will recognize what had happened to them. 

Comments are invited.    

 

2010-07-22 04:57 AM
Square Main Photo
EL PREZIDENTE KABOOM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 701
Mahalo.....cheers....

eh....some scrambled thoughts on the Nazis and Mussolini, hopefully cleaned up enough to be readable....

A common definition of fascism that I've heard a lot, is the cloaking of rightwing ideology with the language of the left...

The National Socialist German Worker Party founded a thirdway between capitalism and communism....both of which were deemed to be incongruent  with what was in the national interests of Germany...capitalism and free-markets left the state weak and dependent or beholden to others, while communism betrays German soverignty and was 'inspired by Jews'..

In Europe, the socialists were viewed as the good guys, socialism was a good thing.....they promoted individual rights, unions, democracy....all of which Hitler said he was going to do too.....
he would have not gotten far in elected office with the campaign slogan 'A DICTATOR WHO WILL KILL THE JEWS'

The Key word in National Socialist German Worker Party is the first one, NATIONAL...
and notice the word GERMAN....
In other words, they were saying that other political parties were insufficiently pro-German , that only the Nazis represented the 'real Germany'......everybody else was a traitor to Germany..
but really, what kind of worker pledges to put the country first, before himself in all things, isn't this a step backwards for  the worker's condition? confusing, eh?
clearly there is nothing about power to the people in the full name of their party..notice DEMOCRATS is missing from their name.
National socialism implies two things, state-capitalism....and state-socialism,....neither purports to immediately divest power to the people but to engross more of it in the central government just in different ways.   
the anarchro-libertarian-socialist perspective repudiates the socialism of governments by refering to their systems as state-socialism or state capitalism...
So, a German Workers 'national socialism' would seem to suggest a middle way between autocratic central governance and decentralized  self-rule, but in reality, and maybe plain as day when reading the name of their party is that they saw themselves as being Germany itself, hence differences between centralization and decentralization, or  between the state and the people, simply do not apply.  They are all one and the same as Germans, duty bound to one another, and seemlessly on the same page with one another, providing a fait accompli to the probelms which true republican arrangements of power seek to overcome.... amongst the Nazis, solutions  would arise organically and would be considered according to merit.  Even if this worked according to plan,  the only way to institute such discipline and unity is through a dictatorship.  National Socialist German Worker Party?  It practically spells dictatorship!

....
What happened in Germany post ww1 is a sped up version of what happened to France during its tumultous revolutionary period that ended up leading to the Napolean dicatorship and the Empire of the French...
 
Now the German Workers Party (DAP) was clearly a mystically influenced vangard style nationalistic party, plotting a massive takeover of the state and of society....they were clearly not about power to the people....and they were deliberately trying to confuse people...by giving themselves a more attractive name, instead of 'crazy fu#4%ers gathered in beer halls.'
then came along Hitler with his Mussolini influenced 'National Socialism' and the rest was evil history......

so what did Mussolini do, well he eventually nationalized most  industry and ran the economy like one big corporation, dispersing the wealth amongst allies and the faithful, and those who helped him  keep control of the masses.....

But intially Fascism started in italy with tax cuts for the wealthy, union skull cracking, deregulation, privatization,  corrupt monopolization, tax payer risk susbsidization....everything wall street rightwingers are for today......and it was a disaster.  Then they started telling the private sector what to do more and issuing protective tariffs left and right...that didn't work so  the propped up banks started buying all the failing buisnesses to keep them afloat, leading to more monopoly.  When the sh#t hit the fan in the 30s....the banks  crashed....only then did we see massive nationalization of industry and private enterprise,  with Mussolini's cronies leading the way....a corrupt elite running the state totaly to their benefit at the expense of everyone else. 

Obviously, Plato was a big influence on these pricks....

I would desribe Nazism as a 20th century imperial form of dark ages-conservatism, dedicated to the creation of a new kallipolis... where every tenet of classical liberalism (Individual liberties, free markets) is trampled on inorder to produce and develop 'pure' republican organs....via the breeding, training, and testing of philsopher-kings to rule.  The 3rd Reich was really one big mad, Plato's Republic super-state, completely involuntary and pyramid structured....with slaves at the bottom and scientific rulers at the top.  Key here is the rejection of the idea that human beings are, in and of themselves, the important part of humanity..... what's important is the health of the state, everything else comes second to that end.  What some saw as evidence of civic virtue was really sycophancy and cult-like behavior, an extreme take on e pluribus unum, that could not  possibly go as planned, given all that it naively assumes about human nature.  In the end,  e pluribus unum is a bad thing when its attempted literally.  Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?  

So when we are talking about right wing vs left wing...what are we really talking about?  It's really powerful minority rule vs.democratic self-rule, or in Marxist language the haves vs the have nots.   what the Nazis, represent, are the have nots, rising up to put a few of their own, up on a pedalstool in society, in the hopes that they would rule as self-less philosopher-kings, but with no checks and bounds on the unlimited power they were given, they immediately helped themselves to the wealth of the state....


 








2010-07-22 07:03 PM
Square Main Photo
EL PREZIDENTE KABOOM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 701
Some thoughts on American liberalism and the state of the modern free enterprise system.

What makes modern American liberalism different from classical liberalism is that we embrace the concept of social justice, which to some, violates the tenets of classical liberalism's free markets and laissez-faire ...however laissez-faire was not meant to prevent the government from instituting laws to protect citizens from harm....it was meant to support decentralized decision making in legal and lawful economic exchanges amongst individuals...
and it would seem by extension of the need to protect consumers from harm, price supports and subsidies could be justified, but in the end, what matters is that the effect of a governments attempts at providing a HELPING HAND are fundamentally still decided in a decentralized manner by consumers who enjoy individual liberties.  If the government itself  is competing in the free market, and laws truly protect liberty instead of the profits of corrupt buisnesses, then the principles of laissez-faire remain in tact..the governments hands are not on the economy, the government is truly apart of the economy, and as such its actions are directed more so by it, than the other way around. 
in fact...our government pays a fair price for the goods it uses and deals with its investors fairly....when it does not, the people tell the government to go to hell and they don't deal with it.  ladies and gentleman, private equity runs the show in the United States of America....if the bond market doesn't like government policy, it will cost the government more to do whatever it wants to do, severly narrowing its options. 
What matters in terms of laissez-faire is that the government is genuinely justified in doing whatever it is doing, for the sake of liberty...when the free-market infringes upon people's liberty it ceases from being free...the market is not a free-market on its own, it takes government protection.   The government's role in protecting liberty is hands on, and where it does so, it is not a violation of laissez-faire, and the need to protect liberty justifies the government to act as a market entity, in order to pay for the costs of government, and to influence, but not force, private investment in things deemed neccessary to the national interests to develop. 

....the violations of laissez-faire principles in our current government  have more to do with the highjacking of our government by private interests than things like social security....indeed if a social saftey net is required for the sake of national security, than social security is indeed necessary to maintain a free-market....as its a requirement of maintaining liberty.   But where public-private partnerships act to secure gains for an elite, at the expense of the majority, where the national interest is not served, but only the wants and desires of private greed, a crime is taking place...

this is what inspired laissez-faire principles, not that the government could not manage the economy, but that it was too dangerous for it to try and do more, than just protect liberty....what matters in terms of laiseez-faire is that genuine liberty, that freedom to pursue our individual wants and desires up to the point of infringing upon others to do the same, is the driving force in the economy, not the forces of anarchy, propped up by a captured state...or a government that goes around telling who to build what and how much and so forth...

the minimum wage is not a laissez-faire violation, unless paying someone less, does not infringe on their genuine liberty..
if it is a violation of the worker's liberty, it would seem they are being taken advantage of, by accepting less; that the employer is using the leverage it has to exploit  workers and steal their labor..the contract might be voluntary but it is ultimately based on coercion...and on the employer benefiting from the fact that human beings are hostages to the elements.....all in all it assumes no social responsibility on the behalf of the employer to the economy of which it is apart of....

so by extension of the social saftey net-national security argument...a mininum wage is necessary to protect liberty....what would be a violation of laissez-faire would be the government ordering how private buisness organizes pay structure...who is entitled to raises and how much...
Obama's pay rules for TARP involved executives is an obvious acception, given they are the result of conditions set forth, based on the insolvency of these entities and their continued dependence on market oriented actions by government designed to stave off the complete financial collapse of the country..
but I think its pretty obvious that a lot of fascist economic backroom deals went down, admidst the onset of the meltdown, before TARP, with a lot of the discretionary funds available to the Treasury and the FED, but TARP itself, I believe was a good thing...and is proving to be self-financing and deficit reducing...
2010-07-22 11:08 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 854

El Prezidente Kaboom,

All good points about the history of fascism and its traits. The topic is worthy of discussion, not that we have anything to fear from Barack Obama, but rather the opposite.  The Tea Party antics exhibit many fascist traits, but I would certainly not call them fascist...not yet.  Many of the grass roots members are manipulated by "hidden masters" with their own agendas. 

We do need to worry, however, about the longer term trend to the right in American politics. History has a tendency to repeat itself, and in my mind a new form a fascism could emerge if economic conditions don't improve for the middle class or worsens with a double dip recession. Key points on fascism that are not understood by the populace:

Fascism is a collection of characteristics that taken together define a specific form of fascism, but individually might relate to fascism, socialism or even capitalism.

Fascism is a form of totalitarianism, but not all totalitarian governments are fascists (e.g. North Korea). David Neiwert in his book, The Eliminationists, is critical of Joanah Goldberg's description of fascism that fits totalitarianism generally, but not fascism specifically.

The form of government/economic system that might emerge in a fascist USA would likely not mirror that of old Europe.  Rather I believe it would have a much heavier corporate influence with the government doing the bidding of the corporations.  Yes this is strictly not fascism as we know it, but it seems to be the trend that if left unchecked could lead us into the same kind of predicament of pre World War II Europe.

Fascism emphasizes national unity and "passionate nationalism."  Hyper-patriotism, excessive flag waving, and "country first" slogans are traits that would fit well with fascism, but of course are not unique to fascism. 

The Nazi form of fascism especially emphasized the superiority of the white race and went so far as to use eugenics to ensure the purity of the Aryan race. This fascist trait of white supremacy manifests itself today in the hyperbole around proposed anti-immigration laws and racial slurs cast at Barack Obama, but of course not to that extreme. 

Fascists movements are anti-intellectual and are suspicious of academia.  They attack the educated with such terms as "elitists." Why would some Tea Partiers advocate abolishing the Department of Education? 

Fascists are militants and believe in imperialism. The Bush Doctrine could be characterized as a fascist leaning trait. Fascists oppose pacifists as "un-masculine." 

Fascists have a Social Darwinist ideology...survival of the fittest. They have a disdain for the weak, and oppose most forms of welfare. The conservative movement of today likewise sees welfare as socialism, and the Social Security and Medicare programs as "Big Government" programs. 

Although religion was not a major issue with Mussolini and Hitler fascism, modern fascism would likely embody many of the characteristics of Christian fundamentalism. Chris Hedges in his book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, sees worrisome similarities between totalitarian, fascist governments and the rise of Dominionism in America. 

Fascists oppose homosexuality calling it degenerate and perverted, but curable through therapy. Where have we heard that in America? 

Well this list is not all inclusive and is certainly open to debate.  I'll leave it for now.  Your discussion of American liberalism and laissez-faire principles adds another dimension of complexity.  I'll give it some thought and respond later.  Hitting the road tomorrow for a short vacation.

 

2010-07-23 12:54 AM
Square Main Photo
EL PREZIDENTE KABOOM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 701
Mahalo....

Well...I think you're being diplomatic.  I don't think we are dealing with Neo-Nazis, but I do consider the Tea Party to be about fascist revanchism.  The problem is that they are not honest; that they are angry, but they cant confidentally explain why without resorting to lies.  This is not a conservative movement based on any sort of genuine academic tradition or study...its based completely on the one-size-fits-all solution peddaled by charlatans, that 'less government=more freedom.'  It frees them from having to really think about any issue...the answer should always be the same, 'less government=more freedom.'    This way, they are always fighting for freedom....

In The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky,  a book promoted by Pres. Bush, Jr., the Russian Jew emigree author  talks about how dictatorships need external enemies inorder to distract their own people from their misrule and  keep them huddled around the Flag... They abuse the patriotism of their own citizens...  promote boogeyman...and blame everyone else, but themselves.  As they only understand strength, they admit no weakness..and they're always careful to keep the truth wrapped and their version of it blaring in your ear.

Today, Democrats are too blame for 9/11, the federal deficit, and every recent failure of government that comes to mind..
Iraq was worth invading, the recession was caused by Democrats and their Community Redevelopment Act, Obama stole the election, ACORN does buisness with prostitutes, the climate scientists are all lying, Pelosi flies around in AIR FORCE THREE, and Al Gore likes to fondle old massage parlor whores.....yada yada yada and so on and so forth, I left out the part about the President being a Muslim/communist/socialist/murderer/African/Asian/Arab/NWO/ mason/devil worshipper/black panther/ White America hating n#gger

Look, I don't care what their shooting percentage is in terms of lies that stick.....they are getting off a hell of a lot of shots and very few of us are playing defense.

Enjoy your vacation....come fall, we may all be doomed. 

Kaboom
2010-08-02 08:41 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 854
Good thought provoking points made by Kaboom on the American form of liberalism embracing social justice and the government's role in ensuring that individual liberties are protected within an otherwise laissez faire economy. I'll add a few thoughts that build on Kaboom's post.

On price support and subsidies, these should be temporary measures to ensure that a particular segment of private business is not destroyed during a down cycle.  But these should not be forever.  For example, the tax subsidies in the form of royalty relief for drilling in deep water of the Gulf of Mexico were granted to oil companies in 1995 when oil was selling for $18/barrel. But despite the subsequent huge upturn in prices and record profits by the oil companies, Congress in 2005 voted to keep those subsidies. Farm subsidies are another example.  They are retained every year because it would be politically unacceptable to remove them.

It's hypocritical of those Republicans like Joe Barton that constantly argue for small government, at the same time embrace tax subsidies for big businesses that don't even need them.

On "highjacking of our government by private interests," this is the most worrisome trend that needs to be abated. The rich and powerful have enormous resources to "buy" corporate friendly politicians or to defeat those deemed unfriendly to their business interests. Thus good legislation is either defeated in a massive propaganda campaign of lies and distortions by elected politicians and media pundits, or a few business friendly carrots are inserted at the last moment, or it is stripped of its key provisions to ensure business as usual. The health care debate around the public option is a good example.  While a start, it is hardly the piece of legislation that it could have been if lobbyists hadn't ruled the day.

The trend for electing big business friendly candidates will be exasperated with the Supreme Court ruling on unlimited corporate campaign contributions. The unions hardly have the muscle and resources to get in a money spending war against big business every election cycle. The corporate media profit from all this big spending every election cycles and are not going to be a referee.  In fact, they stoke the fires by repeating outrageous political statements over and over again to enhance their ratings.  Even if we had more "Rachel Maddows," who in the Fox News world tunes into her? Should the government take on annexpanded role of a watchdog in the process?

On social justice, this is indeed a key attribute of liberals that differentiate us from conservatives.  Right wing conservatives don't give a damn about the poor, the unemployed, senior citizens, minorities, and the sick, although they may give lip service to them during campaigns.  Judge them by how they vote rather than what they say.  Extending unemployment benefits, raising the minimum wage, equal pay for women, and health care for all are just a few examples. The words "social justice" have even been attacked by Glenn Beck who has falsely asserted that they are a "code language for Marxism."   Just who is he trying to BS? Fox News viewers? It plays well with his audience and gets him ratings.

So yes, government has an important role in protecting the middle class and poor from a totally unregulated laissez faire economy. But the super wealthy and corporations will do their best to undermine every effort using such terms as socialism, communism, Nazism and fascism...or welfare for the lazy.  That's what Glenn Beck is noted for...that's his trademark...manufacturing rage and hate against the unfortuante with lies and distortions. He is also getting rich doing it...that's his brand of capitalism. It's also a dangerous kind of rhetoric that eventually led the populace into fascism in pre-World War II Europe.  American liberalism is under attack and must be defended.

Frank

2010-08-02 09:41 AM
Square Main Photo
EL PREZIDENTE KABOOM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 701

2010-08-03 03:33 PM
Square Main Photo
EL PREZIDENTE KABOOM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 701
Ahoy, Frank....

Back from vacation, I see.  Enjoy the heat? 

What I like to tell conservatives, and especially American libertarians, is that I'm not anti-laissez faire, they just don't understand French words. 

It doesn't literally mean "hands off."  It means "let be," or "let do"..  its incomplete....

"Laissez-nous faire," or "Leave us be" or "Let us do" makes more sense....

'Us' being the merchants of France during the reign of King Louis XIV, whose finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, may be the forefather of the fascist-corporate super-state.  In a meeting between Colbert and French merchantilists, over proposed tariffs and quality control reforms, a french buisnessmen, Le Gendre is said to have used the phrase,"Laissez-nous faire" in rejection of Colbert's proposals, which included all sorts of regulations pertaining to non-essential items, protective tarrifs, state-protected private monopolies, and guild reform.  Colbert wanted to regulate the guilds and physically punish those producing inferior products or not meeting capacity.  Instituting the original 3 strikes and your out, rule, he wanted to flog workers to death if they did not meet production standards.  It was tantamount to a heirarchical, state-sanctioned criminal-enterprise system for the bourgeoisie, who got on board with the governments program. Le Gendre basically argued that for all the time spent by the government in trying to rig the system to favor the government's agenda for economic growth, it was far more efficient to empower a broader merchant class and allow them to experiment with new ideas concerning the science of production.   

In the end, each group of the French merchant class wanted the government to leave them alone, and bother and exploit everyone else to their benefit, but they each ended up getting more than they bargained for with King Louis XIV. 

So Mr. "Let be" and Ms. "Let do" what yall got planned with all that freedom?  Because if it involves infringing on other peoples liberties, then we got a problem.  Ultimately, the enforcement of regulations cost money, national security requires direct government market intervention..remember, the government's role in protecting liberty in a free republic is hands on, and the defense of liberty for all requires extraordinary economic intervention.  Where the activities or choices we make don't hurt or pose a threat to other people's liberties, that is where we cut the governments role in our lives off.  But in this post-industrial consumer society, where virtually everyone is a ward of the state, with no chance of not getting fleeced by the capitalists pigs-that-be without an activist state, the role of government in our lives is admitedly large, but necessary, considering what the common man and woman is up against, in terms of genuine threats to our "life, liberty, and property."  Captured government, rogue anti-citizenship, and market-racketeering all poses a threat to essentail liberties. 

More soon....

Mahalo,
Kaboom
Displaying all 8 Forum Posts for the Thread:

Revisionist Fascism of the right wing media

You must be logged in to reply to a post.


 
About Us
Contact Us
FAQ
Advertise
Links
Login
Sign Up
  


� Copyright 2009-2011 Democratic Hub. All Rights Reserved.
Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy


OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES