This is an interesting article from Pat Buchanan's mag.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html
David K '47
- Join Date
- Jul 2001
- Location
- David Kaiser '47
- Posts
- 5,220
American Fascism?
This is an interesting article from Pat Buchanan's mag.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html
David K '47
Re: American Fascism?
Here's a quote from The Americana 1950 Annual:Originally Posted by The American Conservative
February 14, 2005
Hunger for Dictatorship
War to export democracy may wreck our own.
by Scott McConnell
Students of history inevitably think in terms of periods: the New Deal, McCarthyism, ?the Sixties? (1964-1973)Students of history inevitably think in terms of periods: the New Deal, then, WWII and the Cold War victory over Fascist and Soviet commie tyranny.
- "National Elections. -- the election to the first Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany took place on August 14, 1949, and resulted in a clear-cut victory for the parties of the center. The extremists of both right and left were without substantial support. It was the first free election to a German parliament since 1933, and brought out 23.7 million (78.56 per cent) of the eligible voters [Sound recently familar?] -- a fact which surprised many foreign observers who felt that the Germans were apathetic in their regard to such a democratic freedom as an election." (emphasis mine)
Rarely do these "Students of history" get a true glimpse of the truth.
Re: American Fascism?
There is an odd alliance between the libertarian right and the social (or reform) democrats. I recall that during the student demonstrations against IMF/World Bank policies in DC in 2000, the libertarians were part of our coalition. I think this is because there is a vacuum in American political discourse as Republicans now very much wish to tell you how to live your life. They have abandoned the mantle of Goldwater style individual liberty - the kind that libertarians fight so hard for - which means its there for the Dems to snatch up.
Re: From what direction have ye come?
Precisely. 8)Yes, Mike is in the middle. He's not the one being called a troll. It's who Mike is responding to that is being so identified.Troll? It's been awhile but isn't Mike pretty much smack dab in the middle? Hardly Troll worthy.Perfect example of why it's a waste of time to feed the troll. It could even be dangerous. :wink:No, that is what you are saying that I am saying. I never said any such thing.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
We few, we unhappy few
Demographics and the Culture War in Policy Review of February 2005
I don't give a crap about the MJ trial either, or anything else that has to do with so-called "celebrity justice."
Hi Max!I don't give a crap about the MJ trial either, or anything else that has to do with so-called "celebrity justice."
I guess your positin on the Left Coast makes celebrity more a constant. We on the Right Coast are ambivalent to bored by it.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Away down south in Dixieland!
Well, this probably goes along way toward explaining Democrats current bitterness and outright loathing of America. Think about it, ever since the New Deal in 1932, a Southern Party has in-effect ran this country! First it was via the Democrats, and then beginning with the rebellion of the "Blue dog" Dixiecrats swinging with Reagan (and culminating with the southerner Newt stealing away the Democrat's forty year hold on Congress), America has solidly remained in southern hands for nearly eighty years, now.So where it once was the liberal Democrats who got us into wars, now its going to be the conservative Republicans. Not because of conservative versus liberal ideology, but because of regional culture.
Not bad for a "region" that was utterly destroyed during the Civil War, eh? 8)
Re: We few, we unhappy few
The article you provided the link to could be seen as one more reason to suppose that Western Civilization has moved from Prof. Carroll Quigley's 'Stage 4' (Age of Conflict) straight to his 'Stage 6' (Decline), skipping over his 'Stage 5' (Universal Empire) in the process - and that 'Stage 7' (Invasion) will almost certainly arrive some time during this century.Demographics and the Culture War in Policy Review of February 2005
Rhetoric and the Fourth Turning
Rhetorically, I think, we have been in a fourth turning for several years. The following set of rules is posted to illustrate how this has happened. It also explains some of what one finds here. . .
Rules of Neconservative discourse
1. Speak authoritatively. The truth about any issue is obvious to true believers. Admit no room for doubt about anything.
2. Manipulate historical facts to give maximum credit to Republicans at all times. Give them credit for the Cold War (even though the Marshall Plan passed over substantial Republican opposition) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the work of two Democratic Presidents and Democratic Congressional leadership, which defeated the Southern Democrats? filibuster.) Blame the Democrats for losing Vietnam, even though the majority of the period of active American conflict took place under Republican leadership. Ignore that Democrats have always run lower budget deficits than Republicans.
3. When referring to Democrats, refer to their titles rather than their names whenever possible. This will imply that any claim to authority they have comes only from the position they have somehow managed to acquire, and not from the facts that they are able to marshal in support of their cause. It will also exploit the resentments of less educated Americans, upon whom we depend for victory.
4. Manipulate statistics. If, for instance, you announce you will cut the deficit in half in four years, take a baseline figure that represents an earlier overestimate of what the deficit was going to be, not the actual, smaller deficit the government ran over the last year. Then make over-optimistic economic predictions and specify a figure for the deficit in four years that will represent half of its supposed (but not actual) percentage of GNP. Since you are exaggerating how big the GNP will be four years out, you can more easily claim that you will achieve cutting the deficit in half, measured by its estimated percentage of GNP, even though in dollars it will still be more than half of today?s deficit.
4. (Most important.) Never miss an opportunity to refer contemptuously to an opponent. Our assets in this political struggle are hatred and resentment?and, more importantly, we know it. Liberals and Democrats are used to reining in their feelings and respecting the other side?s point of view, and they tend to rely on facts to make decisions. We must never engage them on their own ground. They cannot win a struggle based on hatred, because they believe hatred should have no place in politics. We cannot win a struggle based on facts, because we have no facts to support our case. Winning isn?t everything?it?s the only thing.
5. Post on every web site, listserve, etc. that you can find?even centrist or liberal ones. Victory depends on spreading the infection of our particular form of discourse as widely as possible. Don?t be deterred if you make opponents angry?be happy. Even this is another step towards victory.
6. Never worry about the consequences of any of our policies. The American people will pay for them.
Mr. Kaiser, is that your own list, or do you have a link?
Either way, I think it's spot-on.
Re: Away down south in Dixieland!
A good 2008 electoral strategy will align the West and the Blue States against the South. The South should be (electorally) isolated and conquered. Our winning strategy would have a presidential ticket with Western/Northern candidates, and when I say "South" I mean the Confederate core.Well, this probably goes along way toward explaining Democrats current bitterness and outright loathing of America. Think about it, ever since the New Deal in 1932, a Southern Party has in-effect ran this country! First it was via the Democrats, and then beginning with the rebellion of the "Blue dog" Dixiecrats swinging with Reagan (and culminating with the southerner Newt stealing away the Democrat's forty year hold on Congress), America has solidly remained in southern hands for nearly eighty years, now.So where it once was the liberal Democrats who got us into wars, now its going to be the conservative Republicans. Not because of conservative versus liberal ideology, but because of regional culture.
Not bad for a "region" that was utterly destroyed during the Civil War, eh? 8)
"Liberals and Democrats are used to reining in their feelings and respecting the other side?s point of view, and they tend to rely on facts to make decisions.
Brrrrrrt! I just spit hot coffee across the room. I can't believe how people on the 4T boards continually CONFIRM we are still in a 3T by taking sides in the culture wars. And it's getting worse on these boards, just like in the rest of society. Aren't we supposed to be above that because we recognize it?
I'm sick and tired of liberals demonizing conservatives and vice versa, so I'll demonize both of them. NEITHER the Democrats nor the Republicans in power bear a resemblance to the original ideals of the Founding Fathers. Both are proponents of big government and are trying to drink to unconsciousness at the keg of power.
Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?
Dear Nonpartisan:
Will two out of three do?
David K '47
Are you planning a government of a few hundred folks to run a country that's the economic and miltary giant of the world? If so, please elaborate.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
You'd better select the two you want.Dear Nonpartisan:
Will two out of three do?
David K '47
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
"Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?"
Sounds pretty partisan Democrat to me. I mean "small" relative to what? And aside from owning an SUV and a private social security account, you can have all the "personal liberty" you want.
The only thing worse, in my book, than a rabid partisan is a rabid partisan who claims to be "nonpartisan."
Will two out of three do?
David K '47
Not if one is a necessary condition for the others to exist.
Omigod, now the tenants of the Founding Fathers are partisan democratic. So DA, what does that make you?"Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?"
Sounds pretty partisan Democrat to me. I mean "small" relative to what? And aside from owning an SUV and a private social security account, you can have all the "personal liberty" you want.
The only thing worse, in my book, than a rabid partisan is a rabid partisan who claims to be "nonpartisan."
You are a libertarian, Mr. np. Just another rigid ideology like the two you are criticizing.
Right on, David K '47.
Your supposed "nonpartisan" terms are all pretty relative, in my book. And I don't recall seeing any of them listed in the U.S. Constitution, do you? Oh, yeah, Democrats do claim a woman's "right to choose" is in there, but a right for any American, save federal and state employees of course, to choose their own retirement account is not in there.Omigod, now the tenants of the Founding Fathers are partisan democratic. So DA, what does that make you?"Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?"
Sounds pretty partisan Democrat to me. I mean "small" relative to what? And aside from owning an SUV and a private social security account, you can have all the "personal liberty" you want.
The only thing worse, in my book, than a rabid partisan is a rabid partisan who claims to be "nonpartisan."
Go figure, huh? :wink:
Hah! I'm certainly not stopping anyone from opening or putting money into an IRA or Keough account!
BTW, Federal employees hired after 1984, which includes me, are covered under Social Security.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Something White, and Something Blue...
I believe the size and role of government changes as civilization evolves. The Founding Fathers set a good policy for their time, a time when the vast majority of the people lived on the land. Still, each crisis presented problems that needed to be addressed. Each crisis transformed society to address these problems, if not necessarily to solve them for all time.
The problem of slavery had to be addressed. Industrial governments must play a larger role in regulating the economy and developing industry. It was prudent and proper for fascism and communism to be destroyed and contained, respectively.
So, no, 18th Century platforms aren't necessarily perfect for all time.
The question is what major flaws have to be addressed in our time. We have the Red and Blue dogmas flailing at each other. Both groups seem more concerned with clinging to 3T perspectives on the world, than identifying problems which need radical transformation to solve. This may continue until the problems become so crucial they cannot be ignored.
I would agree with you that the modern major parties are more concerned with power and serving corporatism than I would prefer. I would agree that 18th Century values might have much to say to the present, though I believe we must address the future. I can find values in both the Red and Blue platforms that also constructively illuminate flaws in modern society.
Still, the Red, Blue and Founding Father's perspectives must all yield to the nature of the 21st Century. All three value sets are clinging to the past more than addressing the future.
My own intuitions? Not enough emphasis is being given to individual liberties. As ever, the ruling class controlling the means of production has too much influence on government policy. Government should be no larger than necessary, but some problems are global in scope, and will require answers global in scope. Ecology driven collapse of third world economies, corporatist misplaced priorities, and terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction are problems which need answers. The Founding Fathers advice on such problems is in my view not sufficient. They were great men. They created great solutions to the problems of their time, as well as flawed compromises that exploded four score and seven years later. They did not at all foresee our time.
We will all have to let go of old thought patterns, and desperately try pragmatic experiments. Come the high, the lessons learned from the desperate pragmatic experiments that worked during the crisis will be carved into stone. A new set of myths shall be written. Centuries hence, reactionaries stuck in the mud of the past will quote saints who today are yet awaiting their trials. The pragmatic and desperate people of our time will become anchors holding back the pragmatic and desperate people of the future. While there are many lessons to be learned from history, the first ought to be that one cannot cling to history. History, inevitably, moves on.
So if you cast distain on those living a turning or two in the past, I shall question your dwelling centuries in the past. I try to look to the future. It isn't easy. I can honor your values. I can agree that your values cast the problems of our time in an interesting light. I might even agree that the ultimate goal ought to be minimal government. Each region ought to police its own. No government or its corporate economic arms should try to exploit other areas. International use of military, political and economic force ought to be limited to prevention of grave human rights violations, rather than protecting and extending the influence of one culture over another.
But if the long term goal ought to be small government and international disengagement, the pragmatic solutions to real and immediate problems won't come from standing still and doing nothing. During the imperialistic age, great wrongs were done. The West created some vast inequalities. Our technological and thus economic, military and political power no longer protect us. As aircraft carriers rendered battleships obsolete, so too will terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction invalidate old ideas on military strength and projection of power. We shall need to create a 'soft landing.' Exactly how this is to be achieved, I do not know. I do know that no matter how many valuable answers may be found in the past, no matter how solid and applicable the positive values of the Red, Blue and Founding cultures might be, the answers to the test can't be found in the back of the book. We are going to have to create something new.
Two out of three
I think anyone who knows me will be able to guess my preferred two are personal liberty and avoiding foreign adventures. Since we have big industry and big finance, we need big government to give the people a chance, and to do necessary income redistribution. Just my opinion, of course.
David K '47
I actually think our government is rather small in some regards. Consider we have only 435 "representatives" in Congress, or 1 rep for every 666,667 people!
Compare that to the more egalitarian French National Assembly, which has 577 representatives in a nation of 63 million. That's one rep for every 108, 580 people. Sounds more "representative" to me.
