The Libertarians. I like to think of them as the “mind your own business and leave us alone party” - I mean that in a GOOD way. I would be tempted to add one line to Gore’s essay (he can’t, it’s not “polite”).
“How long would it take for Andrew Jackson to pop a cap on his ass”
I believe the pendulum will swing back to center. If Gore runs, I will vote for him. I suspect a lot of people will. With the farmers now angry about their subsidies being cut, AARP and other retirees up in arms about social security, statements from Supreme Court justices and various admirals/generals/colonels, Gitmo, AbuGraib, Iraq, backdoor draft, Ken Lay/ENRON, Cheney/Halliborton, cities angry about being shorted of any anti-terror help, well it goes on and on, I think the far right Republicans and the NeoCons are in the process of committing political suicide right now. I predict a huge backlash against them.
I would say that #12 is often be used interchangeably with #3.
And don’t forget the mustache. They all had mustaches and I see no indication of the American people willing to elect a man with a mustache. I know el Duce shaved his off before he was elected but I think it’s the exeption that proves the rule, as most Italians DO have mustaches.
Seriously, since this thread is about a new potential fascism forming in the US I don’t think it’s far fetched for a substitute “cult of personality” to form around devotion to the Office of POTUS.
Ya, and when oh so innocent threads like this one are allowed to dwell in GD rather than the Pit, don’t be all shocked when one day this place is indistinguishable from the DU forums.
Point taken. At least he would have the guts to show up for the duel. Our current leaders would run like scalded cats. Most fascist dictators are marked by their own cowardice, while being cavalier about everyone else’s lives. But, that’s already covered in other threads.
Your OP does not explain “why the Left should be worried about losing in Iraq.” If the Bush Admin’s ambitions in Iraq are defeated, that would be a good thing in some respects and a bad thing in other respects, but why would it bring us any closer to a fascist America?
You’re just jealous because the only people who quote you approvingly at the guys on street corners muttering about invisible pink elephants.
And considering the OP got kicked off from a quote in American Conservative magazine, dismissing it as a “lefty rant” seems rather odd – unless you’re simply admitting to us that your views are so far off the scale that we need to break out the scientific notation…
Well, that’s worthy of note. I think the modern American conservative coalition is beginning to show signs of breaking up. The isolationist paleocons, like Pat Buchanan (who founded The American Conservative magazine and the America First Party) no longer feel like supporting a party that is so heavily dominated by imperialist neocons. And libertarians like Liberal might not be such reliable Pub allies in the future. Now, if the religious right would also break away (which it shows no signs of doing – yet), the Pubs would be left with no solid power base but the neocons and the big-business interests. Try building fascism out of that!
Just because you have no factual or logical refutation for the actual points raised in the OP does not mean that they do not exist. There is much in the OP with which I do not agree, but there is enough substance presented that can be debated (by those so capable) that is hardly qualifis as a Pit rant.
There is nothing “innocent” about it. It profers a specific view of the current state of U.S. politics and society. It does so, however, by providing a thesis supported by (one interpretation of) facts. This hardly counts as a rant, and your attempt to belittle it as “so innocent” simply indicates that you seem unable to evaluate posts on their merits rather than whether they are more or less close to your own feelings.
It might be useful to return to the original definition of facism, as defined by Mussolini. The fasce (symbolic axe) was presented as a symbol of unity, rather like the parable of the unbreakable bunch of arrows. His “vision” was of all classes of society unified in the State, subsuming their differences in obeisance to nationalism and militarism. Facism has little, if any, real ideology, it was simply militant nationalism writ large.
Without the militaristic aspect, fascism is little more than national pride and boosterism, with rather more acceptance of authority than is healthy. It is the militaristic aspect that is most darkly threatening, as can be witnessed by the farcical comic-opera of Italy setting out to become a conquering nation.
But what is comic-opera for Italy can be a grave threat if the nation in question happens to be the richest and most powerful nation in human history, which is to say: us.
I fear fascism less as a political movement than as a mood, a national entusiasm for military power and a willingness to stifle dissent as unpatriotic. Once the baboons begin pounding the drums and screeching the anthems, calm reason is pissed on.
I think in some ways it does. The people have comfort zones. Any time someone holds a lot of power for too long, they lose sight of that zone and begin to move outside of it. Then, the voters smack them down. We oscillate between isolationism and internationalism. We oscillate between left and right. We are “noodling around” inside some undefined boundaries, and when the boundary is crossed, someone gets the boot. I think we are going to see a “correction” soon. The cut in farm subsidies, changes in rules per Canadian drugs, the overhaul of social security, etc affect comfort zones. Any change or policy will affect comfort zones in one direction or another. The bigger the affect, the bigger the backlash. People can be selfish twits. You have to convince them that they will be impacted on a personal level. If Bush or any other leader talks about things in an abstract conceptual way, the response will be “That’s nice but it won’t effect me.” But If he says “It’s a Crash. Head for the breadlines” then it’s very concrete and personal, it affects ME.
Frankly, if I was Howard Dean I’d immediately begin positioning the Democratic Party as the party of fiscal responsibility. There’s plenty of ammo there and it would take a while to get traction…but I’d be on it. There’s real gains to be made there.
Splitting the conservative coalition along economic/defense/religious fault lines should be job one.
Well, as the reaction by the righties here so far shows, there is no realization of the line that has been crossed by this Administration - in terms not just of habeas corpus and absolute executive power, as pointed out by Gore in that cite by Liberal above, but of torture - by most of the right. Still, there is the occasional beam of light, such as this: Exhortation
Well worth reading. I have yet to figure out how citizens of a republic, regardless of their political orientation, can support an Administration that is so at ease with the use of torture. That is what concerns me most, by a wide margin.
Can we have some examples of “totalitarian” statist nationalism? This sees to be the crux of the argument, but it is offered with no supporting evidence.
As for a certain “bomb them ay-rabs” mentality, that’s nothing new. There has always been a vocal minority holding this type of view for as long as I can remember.
Don’t knock it. It’s clear that the current democratic positions aren’t getting them enough leverage. They need to introduce some new concepts into the public mind to get some traction.
