The American Spectator

Liberal Reader| 9.11.09 @ 3:36PM

A good liberal should ignore nonsense like this.

The word "liberal" was turned into a dirty word by an awesome, almost unbelievably smart public relations campaign undertaken during the Reagan years. Anyone who thinks Obama's administration or campaign has a "smooth" public relations capability needs to think about just how much in this country changed during the 80s.

Having said all this, in the end, none of this matters.

The fact that many people don't associate -- say -- a relatively safe food and water supply or social programs they support like Social Security with "liberalism" is ignorance on their part, but it's not a reason for liberals to give up or stop fighting for what is right.

To quote Hopkins:

Not, I'll not, carrion comfort, Despair, feast on thee:

Not untwist -- slack they may be -- these last strands of man in me or, most weary, cry I can no more!

JP| 9.11.09 @ 3:52PM

LR,

Are you saying that everyone had dirty water, unsafe food, and no "social relief" before FDR and LBJ?

Please, update your talking points. The Democratic Party moved beyond things like the New Deal and Civil Rights a long long time ago. The "Young Turks" have been running the party since the 1972 Democratic Convention. Of course these Young Turks are now grey. And the Democratic Party now has about as much in common with FDR as they do with Williams Jennings Bryan.

BTW, Social Security and Medicare are $80 trillion unfunded liabilities. I seriously doubt they will survive the next decade in thier current form.

Ellis Wyatt| 9.11.09 @ 4:43PM

Did someone just try to imply that social security has been a success? I think that anyone could make a better argument that the change that occured in the 80's brought about greater economic and social changes that benefitted the whole of society far more than failed government programs of the past as witnessed by the last 25 years of economic growth and prosperity. There is a reason Reagan is held in such high regard and the facts cannot be disputed which really drives liberals mad.

Like Reagan said, the worse thing you can ever hear is "I'm from the government and I am here to help." The same liberals that cried about how poorly the government responded to a class 5 hurricane that struck a city under sea level after days of forewarning would now lead us to believe that same government can run the greatest healthcare system in the world more efficiently.

rrpjr| 9.11.09 @ 5:12PM

Nicely said, Ellis Wyatt.

I'll add that the only reason something as ludicrous as a "Barack Obama" event exists and can contemplate his schemes of spending is because of Reagan's legacy of liberty and faith in the individual and the marketplace.

lacylucy| 9.11.09 @ 5:43PM

I am so very, very proud to be a liberal. And I am only one of so very many, but you guys keep kidding yourselves. We're loving every moment and are very thankful for the laughs you give us every day. Thank goodness this is a country of differences. How boring it would be without you.

Nick| 9.11.09 @ 6:05PM

Is there ever a "good" time to be a liberal?

I don't think so. Unless you like lobotomies.

rrpjr| 9.11.09 @ 6:16PM

lacylucy: glad to hear you're so very, very proud. Yes, it's quite a track record you've got there. Also good to hear there is a sense of humor among liberals after all. I was beginning to doubt it, given the last eight years, and the sour faces and shrill voices from the left over the spectacle of all those "differences" asserting themselves in townhalls and on talk radio over the past few months. But keep up the condescension! The world wouldn't be the same without it.

Liberal Reader| 9.11.09 @ 6:43PM

JP and Ellis --

If Social Security and Medicare are so horrible, why don't Republicans run against them?

Let's see your next presidential candidate campaign on a platform of eradicating that evil program, Social Security.

The reason it won't happen is because these are the two most popular social programs in our history.

Now, I did NOT claim that "everyone" had dirty water before FDR. It is simply a fact, however, that "liberalism" supports a basic regime of food and water regulation that has some very good results. It's definitely not perfect, and it needs improvement, but it's pretty good.

Government can be good, although its successes are rarely acknowledged. Every time I get on a airplane, I'm grateful that the free market does not determine the security and safety procedures that make flying the safest way to travel.

My larger point, however, is that I simply don't care if a bunch of tea-party types would prefer if there were no government.

Or if a handful of Texans want to secede from the union.

Or if you really, really, really believe the President of the United States shouldn't address school children because he might mysteriously indoctrinate them with his evil socialistic ideas.

I just don't care that you people hold these ideas or have these desires, and I don't care that you think "liberalism" is a dirty word.

Pete| 9.11.09 @ 7:02PM

The reason big govenment successes are so seldom mentioned is because there is such a paucity of them. Oh, I forgot the Cash for Clunkers program, the Big Bang Bailout, and the Porkulus Bill. My bad.

Nick| 9.11.09 @ 7:15PM

Marxist Reader,

"[...] 'liberalism' supports a basic regime of food and water regulation [...]".

Is this in the "official" liberal handbook? Or can I find it in "Liberalism for Dummies"? What page would that be on?

Or maybe it's in the "Communist Manifesto"?

For someone who doesn't "care" what we think, you sure do spend a lot of time here reading our thoughts.

In the words of Joe Wilson, "You LIE!!"

Victoria| 9.11.09 @ 7:36PM

Re: running against Medicare and Social Security.

Dismantling the status quo takes a long time. Reagan said he was going to get rid of the Department of Education and he wasn't able to accomplish that. At this point people probably see it as less effort to just let them run out instead of running against them. No need to chip away at a bomb that is self-destructing, right?

Re: BHO's socialist indoctrination.

I was homeschooled. I have no qualms with saying to parents up in arms over this "Well, it's sorta too bad your children are already part of the socialist system known as public schools." I can't respect the complaints of those who intentionally choose to let the so-called dangerous socialist system educate their children and then whine about socialism. Shame on them.

Liberal Reader| 9.11.09 @ 7:59PM

Nick,

Actually, I do care a great deal about thoughtful conservative commentary. At Am. Spec. I read and appreciate three of four writers, especially Tyrrell, of course. I read a number elsewhere. I even enjoy some posters -- although I suppose I could live happily if I were never accused of being a Nazi again, I suppose.

What I don't care about is the shrill politics of paranoia that is being cultured on the right.

The notion that -- to take Victoria's effusions as an example -- public schools are somehow inherently socialist is just plain weird. It's certainly not anything Jefferson or Franklin -- the two smartest of the founders -- would have countenanced.

Or the notion that government is somehow inherently evil. This is just bizarre.

So -- yes, I do continue to read, hoping against hope to find thoughtful, interesting arguments.

I WANT to read good critiques of Democrats and Democratic policy. I am interested; I enjoy learning and thinking about opposing points of view.

I know these are all traits of that most dangerous kind of socialist, homo academus, but there you have it. I am interested in hearing good arguments against my own position.

I'd be shocked to find anyone here like that, but then again, you're all so CONVINCED that Obama is Satan, Hitler, Stalin, and Houdini all rolled up into one fascists dictator.

It's pathetic. But I still hope. I still read.

warcraft gold| 9.11.09 @ 8:57PM

Do you want to play wow game?Welcome to our website for wow gold,
and buy wow gold service.You can come and have a look!

Liberal Reader| 9.11.09 @ 9:25PM

But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

Luke 10:29

Dave| 9.11.09 @ 10:06PM

Liberal Reader - "good" critiques of Democrats and the Democratic party? Well, let's see - Obama-Pelosi and Reid rushed through a pork laden stimulus bill that the Congress never read. They allowed ACORN et al to draft it. It contains thousands of earmarks to political cronies. Obama has hired "radicals" with bizarre beliefs - Van Jones to start. Only creative accounting will let Obama keep his promise not to increase the deficit with his health care bill. I'd go on. . .but this probably isn't "good enough."

Liberal Reader| 9.11.09 @ 10:41PM

OK, Dave. But your good critique was available on Glenn Beck's show this week. Anything new?

And rather than these kinds of complaints, what about bigger questions about the proper role of government?

Maybe there was "pork" spending. But does this mean there should have been no spending?

There are interesting and good debates to be had. I don't think we get to them repeating what we heard on the radio or from the more vociferous and assinine of Fox News commentators.

tonypal| 9.11.09 @ 11:08PM

The only thing that can give liberalism a bad name is liberals and liberalism. There was a time when being a liberal meant standing up for freedom and liberty, two words you never hear crossing the lips of Obama, Pelosi, etc.

In a classical sense, Jefferson, Madison and the founders were liberals. But back then and for many years after, being liberal meant you had an abiding belief in the individual and a deep distrust of government and the concentration of power.

At some point, the term liberal was hijacked by statists who believe in an all powerful central government. Modern day liberals worship at the altar of multi-culturalism and group people by physical, ethnic and racial characteristics. Liberals do not celebrate the individual. They claim to support diversity, but only of the most superficial kind. Just try being a conservative black man or woman and you'll learn right away just how much liberals truly cherish diversity.

The idea that conservatives have destroyed the good name of liberals represents anti-intellectualism at its best, but is nonetheless wholly consistent with the way liberals view the world. The modern day liberal is never at fault for any of the messes they make because we are not to judge the results of liberals. We are only allowed to consider their intentions, which of course are pure and good. So when someone like Liberal Reader challenges us to go after Social Security and Medicare, even though anyone with cerebral cortex can tell you that these programs are leading us down a path of ruin, you must remind yourself that to the liberal, these programs are resounding successes precisely because they were well intended. The liberal can sleep well knowing that his intentions were good.

In sum, a mature adult or even a well reasoned child knows that regardless of what your enemies say about you, your reputation remains intact until you yourself do something to destroy it. The same can be said for an ideological movement. Conservatives can rip away day and night at the follies of liberalism, but ultimately it is the actions of liberals and the utter failure and moral emptiness of modern day liberalism that brings the term liberal into disrepute.

Phillip| 9.11.09 @ 11:24PM

Liberal reader - Something you said is quite revealing. You said, 'But your critique was available on Glenn Beck's show this week. Anything new?' Translation of Liberal reader's thought currents: 'I can't evaluate the content of your critique. I can't weigh the evidence for or against what you say. But I can try to distract people from these incapacities by pointing out that the 'source' of the critique is someone I and my friends make fun of. And, lastly, can't you say anything new? You are not as adept at adopting the latest trendy, but empty, slogan from leftwing websites of people who I think are more sophisticated intellectually than me.'

Liberal Reader| 9.11.09 @ 11:48PM

Honestly, Phillip, I'm not all that interested in Van Jones or ACORN. They're topic non-topics. This sort of thing goes on and on in Washington DC. Van Jones signed a foolish petition, and he's resigned.

Liberalism and ACORN are not the same thing.

Since you will probably disagree with this claim, there's really not much to argue about.

The fact is that by the time you've had your morning coffee, you've benefited from several governmental activities that liberals fought for and won against "conservative" resistance. You're preparing for a day in which you will on the job enjoy certain protections liberals fought for. You may scoff at them now, as you enjoy them, but that's just ingratitude and ignorance. When you buy a steak after work for dinner, a government agency has seen to it that that steak is almost certainly safe to eat -- a luxury in much of the world. You drive to work on streets that are relatively well cared for and well policed; your children may not have first rate schools (thanks to endless spending cuts) but they have schools, and they can attend them whether you are rich or poor. This is not the way things work in Somalia -- say -- a country that shares your distaste for governance.

SkipMacLure| 9.11.09 @ 11:49PM

As a Rose is a Rose is a Rose..a Liberal is a Progressive is a Marxist is a Greenie is a Liberal is....They can generally be found by turning over rocks....they don't like the sun it hurts their lies.
Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

Liberal Reader| 9.11.09 @ 11:52PM

Liberalism is why there is a Clean Air Act, a Clean Water Act. Liberalism is why there's a 40 hour work week (which has been steadily encroached upon since Ronald Reagan set us all free from the evils of Liberalism). Liberalism is why children go to school instead of working in factories. Liberalism is the belief that government can and should play an active role in managing the economy, and every time the country is turned over to the Republicans, we are reminded again of Liberalism's enduring value to our society.

Liberal Reader| 9.12.09 @ 12:01AM

Skip --

That thinking is the definition of irrationalism, the core tendency in fascist thought.

Collapsing categories into one another stifles thought and diminishes the heuristic value of the terms it demolishes.

Orwell satirized it as "newspeak" in his novel, which I strongly recommend you read.

Socialism (what you're calling Marxism) has as its goal MATERIAL equality.

Liberalism has as its goal an expansion of political and economic autonomy.

The two systems are very, very different.

The quote, by the way, from Gertrude Stein, is "Rose is a rose is a rose." Notice the copulas draw together identical units.

Phillip| 9.12.09 @ 12:10AM

Liberal reader, you've done a remarkable job of informing us of all the wonderful things that liberalism has done. You've left some things out, however, such as the enormous economic downturn we're experiencing now, and FDR's whizbang job at extending the depression several years. And I would agree that Obama is the newest version of FDR. Before you say something which will reveal how association of ideas has overwhelmed your ability to make distinctions, (because like all 'liberals' you can't understand that 'Republican' and 'conservative' (in other words, true liberal) aren't coextensive), let's remind the schoolroom that Hoover was an economic interventionist, and so was Bush. So let's put our hands together for 'liberal' economic whiz kids bringing about another steep downturn!
Indeed, liberalism is why we have the world as it is today.

Nick| 9.12.09 @ 12:13AM

Marxist Reader,

You influence no one here regurgitating and spewing the talking points you get from the New York Slimes, Scare America, Mother Jones, or The Area-51 Post Examiner.

I have a news-flash for you.
The people of Detroit loved what you liberals did for education over the past 40-50 years SO MUCH, that the population dropped by almost half.

I'm sure the kids that are still stuck there, thank their lucky stars everyday for what liberals have done to the Detroit public schools.

I'm sure that fact is missing from the "liberal handbook".

When people have the means, they run from liberalism.

Phillip| 9.12.09 @ 12:24AM

We have to give Liberal reader credit. As soon as he finishes perpetuating one liberal talking point, he is off to propound another error. He thinks fascism is right wing, without knowing that Mussolini's fascism has more in common with his liberalism than with we call conservatism in the US. Next, he is likely to rely on the point that fascism was associated with business interests and clerical institutions. But don't expect any acknowledgment of what fascism most evidently is, a statist program. I would guarantee Liberal Reader has not given the Nazi party platform even a glance, for if he did, he would see how much his ideas match up with those of that infamous party. And he hasn't even - though quite a reader - actually read any Marx. The goal of socialism, according to Marx, is not material equality. Does the Education Department have to force you to read 'Critique of the Gotha Program' for goodness sake? Now, if you are simply telling us your private definition of socialism, then we owe you thanks for trying to advance thought in America.

Liberal Reader| 9.12.09 @ 12:34AM

Phillip --

Socialism and Marxism aren't the same thing. Marx was a philosopher -- a rather traditional one at that -- in the line of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel.

Socialism was around before him and its general goal is material equality.

Fascism is a reaction against socialism. Fascism is ALWAYS nationalistic; socialism is not.

Fascism is ALWAYS militaristic; socialism can be, but often is not.

Fascism SCAPEGOATS minorities; totalitarian socialist countries do this, but democratic socialist countries do not, in general.

In Nazi Germany political platforms were not written as earnest proclamations of beliefs; they were tools of propaganda.

The Nazis recruited young men from trade union organizations who had dabbled with socialism; to gain their trust, they adopted socialistic sounding positions and used the language of socialism, but as soon as they gained power they purged all socialists from the leadership and drafted the rank and file into the army.

Hitler's insane hatred of Jews was intimately related to his insane hatred of socialism (Marx, after all, was a Jew).

There is just no meaningful connection between socialism and fascism. About all that can be said about them is that they are both governmental systems of some kind. Beyond that, there's only difference.

Socialism is NOT reactionary; fascism is the ultimate in reactionary politics. Socialism represents the far LEFT of the political spectrum; fascism the far RIGHT.

Like all virtues, Liberalism occupies the center, holding the dour monotony of socialism at bay on the one hand, and holding the fanatical and fascistic extremes of the right at bay on the other.

Phillip| 9.12.09 @ 12:39AM

Liberal reader, you tell me that before I've finished my coffee liberalism has benefitted my poor soul in manifold ways. The streets are paved and children can go to school. Great. You evidently think that along this line: If political system A has benefitted you with goods X, Y, and Z, then it is irrational to complain about system A. Also, you think that if political system A brought about X, Y, and Z, then there is no other way to do it. Both lines of thinking are foolish, and it's easy to show. According your way of thinking, one, since slaves benefitted by receiving food, shelter, and free time, then it would be irrational for them to complain about the slave system. Two, the way you are thinking would support telling the slaves that it is not possible that harvesting could be done mechanically because it was done by manual work previously. So I reject your erroneous reasoning that, simply because liberalism has benefitted me, there is no way such benefits could have come about otherwise, and that it is irrational for me to criticize liberalism.

Liberal Reader| 9.12.09 @ 12:48AM

Phillip --

Your critique of my thinking a) is incoherent; and b) represents what I said.

I did NOT say you have no right to criticize the government or liberalism just because you derive benefits from them.

I merely pointed out that each day you enjoy the benefits of government action on your behalf that you then claim to reject entirely on principle.

It's absolute foolishness.

The notion that this country would enjoy the security and wealth it has with a ineffectual federal government is just nonsense. The growth of our wealth and stature in the world was precisely accompanied by an expansion in the role of the federal government in managing the economy.

And it DOES manage the economy -- don't fool yourself.

The question is, does it manage it on behalf of the middle class, as Democrats want, or on behalf of the wealthiest 2%, as Republicans want.

You must choose. It's either YOU or the rich.

Phillip| 9.12.09 @ 1:00AM

Fascism scapegoats minorities. Democrats scapegoats...minorities. Calling tea party protesters Nazis, mobs, right wing extremists, asking people to report 'fishy' things that people say about the healthcare proposal. Beautiful fascistic tactics.

Thanks for the history lesson! I know about Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon, and all the rest. But if you were familiar with the history of socialism you would know by now that Marx put socialism on a scientific basis. Right? And you would know that there is no socialist figure who has supplanted Marx's thought in the minds of socialists. So to tell me that the goal of socialism is X, when the vast majority of socialists who ever wrote were working off of or supporting Marx's socialist ideas, and X differs from what everyone else has been doing, it's sensible to ignore your private definition of socialism. So, sorry to say, what the master thinks dictates what the disciples are bound by.

Yes, Hitler hated Jews. He also hated Bolsheviks, and those in Germany who acted with the USSR. Hitler was, however, a socialist. And I mean socialist in its essence, a system of nationalizing production and distribution of goods (Just like our federal government today wants to do). But Hitler was smart enough to see that class war didn't really bring people together, but that blood ties could give the nation the ideology which would hold his socialist state together. (Side note: interesting how it has become acceptable to say people are 'un-american' again. That is, when they disagree with attempts to socialize the economy).

There are three things which are connected. Socialism, fascism, and national socialism. All three are statist. All three are diametrically opposed to freedom, including freedom of the market. In short, they are all opposed to what in America we call conservatism. I earnestly implore you to inform your history teachers that when Hitler is ranting against liberalism, he is ranting against classical liberalism, or American conservatism (at least where economic policy is concerned).

Phillip| 9.12.09 @ 1:15AM

Liberal reader, please read what I wrote. Remember, you are a reader. I did not say that you said I have NO RIGHT to criticize liberalism because it benefits me. I did say that you said it is irrational to criticize it since it has benefitted me.

You were trying to teach me all those ways I was benefitted from liberalism. But let me tell you,
when I received my cap and gown for graduating from 6th grade, I knew about child labor laws, government programs to keep me from using drugs that might save my life until the FDA said they were harmless and efficacious, and so on.
So let's assume we have these facts in hand.

You have not argued well for the proposition that because a system of governance benefits me it is not rational for me to criticize it, even where it has benefitted me. And you have not even attempted to argue that there is no other way we could have had paved roads, safe drugs, than if the liberal guardians had been beneficently watching over us.

Give it a try this time.

I have never argued for inefficient government. Simply because many people in our population lack the historical understanding necessary, lack the imagination that we can get paved roads and other 'public goods' by alternative means, is not
evidence against efficient smaller government. It is, however, evidence for a failure of intellect that you apparently share with many others.

But thanks for revealing that you believe our federal government is efficient!

Nick| 9.12.09 @ 1:33AM

Marxist Reader,

Why do you embarrass yourself with your ignorance of history?

Mussolini was raised a socialist. His father was at the First International and read little Benito "Das Kapital". Duce was named after Benito Juarez, the revolutionary who executed Maxmillian.

He was a well-known socialist intellectual. Lenin praised him and his writtings and was sorry to have lost him. He hated the Catholic Church.

What minority did Mussolini "SCAPEGOAT"? How about Franco? Or Pinochet?

The one thing all these leftist philosophies have in common? Atheism.
They all reject the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and His only begotten Son.

Their followers supplant Him with the state or men. And then decide they have the power over life and death.

Nick| 9.12.09 @ 1:42AM

Not going to defend the Detroit public schools, Marxist Reader?

Didn't think so.
How about any inner-city school system?

Angel| 9.12.09 @ 1:48AM

Isn't there something else we can argue about? It's quite obvious to me that we're NEVER going to agree on political philosophy.

Tedious doesn't begin to describe you, LR/Jeremiah.

Just go away!

Angel| 9.12.09 @ 1:49AM

Nick, make him go away. Please.

Nick| 9.12.09 @ 2:03AM

Angel,

If only I had such powers!

The best I can do is expose their ignorance and foolishness for all to see.

Liberal Reader| 9.12.09 @ 11:45AM

Franco and Pinochet were leftists?

You guys don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You have this fantasy that political systems can be divided into two camps: Jeffersonian democracy on one side (whatever that is) and EVERYTHING ELSE on the other.

Of what value is such a system of analysis?

It leads to this claim: the perfect, pure system of government that I wish my country had (even though it has never nor never could have it) is just: everything else is EVIL: present day Sweden is socialist: THEREFORE, it is not essentially different from Nazi Germany, or North Korea, or South Africa, or Great Britain, since none of these countries possessed the ideal Jeffersonian democracy I claim to be able to discern in the founding documents of this country.

Cuba equals Haiti, Haiti equals California, California equals Red China, Red China equals Ancient Rome which itself equals the Land of Nod and Atlantis.

Political science makes DISTINCTIONS, folks. That's the essence of analysis.

Think of it this way:

If you're doctor saw no distinction between heart disease and liver disease because they were both diseases, you would be in some deep trouble. He can treat you only if he focuses intently on what makes heart disease UNIQUE.

Nazi Germany and its fair-weather ally, Italy, did in fact share some characteristics with some -- particularly totalitarian -- socialist systems. But to GENERALIZE from those comparisons to "statism" actually decreases your ability to understand and analyze those systems respectively. By collapsing categories on the basis of loose structural homologies, you lose opportunities for analytic insights.

But go on and do what you want. I wouldn't want to say anything that might cause you for even one second to stop parroting Mark Levin.

Liberal Reader| 9.12.09 @ 11:51AM

....Or think of it this way:

A hand grenade and a can of Campbell's Cream of Asparagus Soup have many structural and material similarities.

Both, for example, can be held in the palm of the hand and thrown with some considerable accuracy. Both are of similar size. Both are constituted by containers from some substance. Both have a shell made of metal.

But for every minute you spend pointing out the similarities, you'd have to spend an hour discussing their differences. No salient point can be made by dwelling long on how they're similar: it's the difference that counts.

Nick| 9.12.09 @ 3:29PM

Marxist Reader,

Boy! That is a lot of typing just to duck what I wrote and not address my points.

Try answering these simple questions:

1) Do you defend what you liberals did to inner-city school systems in this country?

2) Are you claiming Mussolini was not a left-wing socialist?

3) You stated: "Fascism SCAPEGOATS minorities[...]". What minorites did Mussolini, Franco, and Pinochet scapegoat?

4) Are you claiming that the political philosophies of socialism/marxism, communism/bolshevism, anarchism, fascism, and progressivism do not have a rejection of religion (particularly Christianity), in common? If not at their cores?

5) Mussolini developed his "fascism" form Sorel, who was combining James and Nietzsche. Do you know who these people are?

Nick| 9.12.09 @ 3:57PM

That should be: "fascism" FROM Sorel,

Liberal Reader| 9.12.09 @ 4:10PM

Nick --

Just because I discussed other topics does not mean I was dodging your questions. I'll give them a shot, however.

1. "You liberals" is rather imprecise a term, and "inner city schools" is actually referencing many complex and overlapping sociological issues. That schools have become institutions burdened with more and more responsibilities -- particularly in the inner cities -- is undeniable. How they've "failed" is actually not as clear cut an issue as you pretend. I do think conservatives have great ideas for improving education; I do think vouchers, for example, hold out some promise; I do think W had some good ideas about education.

2. Mussolini did have an early association with "socialism." He did not in fact become a "socialist" dictator; hence the term "fascist," which DIFFERENTIATES what he was from socialism.

3. Fascism does scapegoat minorities; under the regimes you mention, as in Iran under the Shah or El Salvador for many decades, the "minority" scapegoated is very often those called "socialists." Scapegoating minorities -- as in Nazi Germany -- is almost ALWAYS justified as fighting communism. Also, although Mussolini was not the anti-Semite Hitler was, of course, Jews were certainly persecuted and tens of thousands of Italian Jews perished in concentration camps.

4. I never said anything about anyone's rejection of religion, and I marvel that you look at anarchism and fascism as somehow similar. MODERNITY has in many ways seen a trend of rejecting religion; I don't think it has as much to do with political systems as you might think.

Saudi Arabia, a country that is deeply hostile to individual rights, is far, far more religious than the United States. What can be told from this?

5. Mussolini doubtless had many intellectual influences. I don't understand your point. No intellectual of the 20th century could escape being "influenced" by Nietzsche, one of the major philosophers of modern Europe. I guess it depends what you mean, which you certainly have no spelled out in very clear terms. Marx, for that matter, influenced many thinkers who are not Marxists. I guess I just don't see your point.

The political spectrum we use may be something you are misunderstanding.

When we talk about socialism as existing on the far left, and fascism on the far right, we are not saying that if you are "right of center" that you are somehow tending towards fascism. That would be precisely the kind of mistake I warned against above.

These spectrums or models are useful because they give different points of reference for analyzing any given system.

If you simply posit your ideal, perfect system, and then say every system that is not your ideal is simply "statism" or totalitarianism -- or whatever -- you've deprived yourself of important analytic tools for gaining insight into political systems.

Which is your right, of course.

Liberal Reader| 9.12.09 @ 4:18PM

I guess from now on I'm just going to ask you to begin looking up terms like "fascism" and "socialism" in books written by historians and political scientists.

They're not impressionistic labels: they have actual definitions, of which you should avail yourself. You'll be able to say more intelligent things if you increase your control of the terminology at work in contemporary political discourse. I've had done with trying to do this civics lesson.

Nick| 9.12.09 @ 5:25PM

Marxist Reader,

1) DUCK!! So you can claim liberalism brought us safe food and water and schools, but what it did to inner-city schools is "complex" and not "clear cut". quack-quack

2) Another example of your poor education in history. He did not have an "EARLY association with 'socialism'." He was a socialist until he advocated Italy's entry into WWI and was branded an apostate to socialism and a "right-winger". He was drummed out of the Italian socialist party.

3) DUCK!! I asked specifically about Mussolini, Franco, and Pinochet. These 3 prove your assertion that "Fascism SCAPEGOATS minorities[...]", is in fact FALSE. Franco fought a civil war with the socialists. Pinochet deposed the socialst Allende. How were these socialists the minority? The Jews in Italy were taken away by Hitler's nazis. Nice try. quack-quack

4) DUCK!! This was a simple question, not an accusation. They are all left-wing political philosophies with their roots going back to The Terror when the "Enlightened" Jacobins first tried to supplant God with man. Re: Saudi Arabia, so is it their hostility to individual rights or their religiousity that makes them "right-wing", as you are implying?

5) Just as I thought. Everyone knows Nietzsche; Sorel and James, not so much. My point was these were all men of the left. But you would have to know who they were, to know that.

You have a very simplistic view of the political spectrum.
A) Hitler hated communists/bolshevics.
B) Commies are definitely left-wing.
C) Ergo, Hitler was a right-winger.
Childish logic.

As I showed, Mussolini wasn't a right-winger until he was pro-war. Then he was an apostate.
Hitler wanted a "National Socialism" (nazi), not a "World Socialism" (communism). Stalin labeled them both right-wing apostates.

And you are still spewing Uncle Joe's propoganda 70+ years later. QUACK-QUACK!

Nick| 9.12.09 @ 5:38PM

Marxist Reader,

You need to start questioning the propoganda you were spoon-fed by your marxist poli-sci professor. You were lied to.

You have to know the origins of these terms and the concepts behing them. Not the modern day perversions of them.

I suggest you start with "The Drama of Atheist Humanism" by Henri De Lubic. Then try "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.

Nick| 9.12.09 @ 5:39PM

That should be: concepts BEHIND them.

Interested Conservative| 9.13.09 @ 12:10AM

LR - you're giving Reagan and conservatives too much credit for turning "liberal" into a negative label. Liberals had a lot to do with it - 40+ years of power will do that to most anything, particularly with some spectacular failures thrown in.

The POTUS seems intent on leading us to the same conclusion about "progressive". There's only so much value in referring to TR, and every day that passes adds to the century since he mattered.

What's really curious is the scattershot effort to refer to the "democrat" party. There's a worthwhile PR ploy.

Daisy| 9.13.09 @ 2:19AM

Just look at the jackboot thugs in Obama's administration! I say out with the lot of them. No wonder "liberal" is such a dirty word these days. Nazi Pelosi and Dirty Bird Harry Reid further sully the one vaunted term.

I guess dumbo LibReader didn't get the memo.

Daisy| 9.13.09 @ 2:22AM

Nick, watch the juxtaposition of liberal and fascism around LR/Jeremiah. His head will explode.

Perhaps that's what you wanted after all.

Richard Baker| 9.13.09 @ 7:42AM

Was there ever a good time to be called a liberal, in the last 50 years?

Tenn Slim| 9.13.09 @ 8:22AM

ALL
As one of the 1930s born crowd of infants, I recall the WW 2 days of "Liberalism". Elanor Roosevelt, the predominant Noblesse Oblige Liberal was detested by all. The Eastern Folks adored her, and the Midwest simply ignored her pleadings to "do good to the po folks". It was hilarious.
A "Liberal", in the good state of Michigan, meant that when tradegy struck, folks came with food, clothing, transportation and actually helped thier neighbors. Tradegy, in the form of sickness, poverty, fires, farm accidents, family squabbles, etal were dealt with primarily by family first, neighbors second and then the local Guvmnt. Local Guvmnt meant the local church, not the NGOs, nor the County Nurse. Basically, I guess, we were all "Liberal" in the sense that we liberally helped one another out.
Fast forward, today. Liberal = Leftist, Liberal = Progresseive, Liberal = OBNA and all the sordid rest of our current mess.
WHY? Cause we let slip the basic tenet of "Do onto others, what we would have done to ourselves", we watched while the USA Electorate simply passed on being Eternally Vigilant, to our Constitution, 4 Freedoms and Liberty.
We reap what sow, now is the harvest.
Semper Fi
end

asadas| 12.7.09 @ 8:06AM

But Hitler was smart enough to see that class war didn't really bring people together, but that blood ties could give the nation the ideology which would hold his socialist state together. (Side note: interesting how it has become acceptable to say people are 'un-american' again.

free driver scanner