I think you misspelled “idiot.”
It’s a very minor point, but if Welch called the Clinton adminstration “communist” it was from beyond the grave, since he died in 1985.
tomndebb:
It seems to me that your argument against fascists elements influencing American policy is that, essentially, fascism is a very specific thing that applied to Nazi Germany and a few other notables through history, but that it can’t be applied in this instance because of its specificity. I see a bit of a problem with that:
Per your understanding of fascism, it couldn’t possibly rise its head in modern western culture, if only for one reason alone: You indicated that if a ruling methodology does not include race as a central motive for aggression and policy, then they are disqualified as fascist. In western culture this could never happen because of the multi-cultural nature of the culture and the abhorrence of the fresh memory that is Hitler. Using such tight defining characteristics that rules out the possibility of a rise of fascism in the west is a good way to cultivate complacence, whereby people can say, “No, they’re not preaching that we wipe out the Jews (or whatever), so we don’t have to worry about anything.” I think it would be more wise to recognize the more fundamental undertones that represent the dangerous mentality behind fascism rather than argue over minute details that obscure the more important lessons of history.
If on the other hand, you take a look at the essential nature of the –ism and recognize what ignited it in the past, you can more readily see it manifesting in the present. If dangerous fundamental tendencies in governments are given separate and precise terms based on nuances, quirks, and cultural characteristics, crucial lessons stand to be lost in a mire of pedantic babble. As I see it, the essential drive of fascism is the use of force to assert economic gain. It is dangerous and the average Joe should be able to see and have a word to refer to it and be vocal in his opposition to it. Yes, Nazi Germany used the race supremacy as an excuse for their fascism. Hitler also used the threat of terrorism as an excuse as has the current US administration, along with the excuses of WMD, liberating Iraqis and other similar babble.
If you stopped fretting over LaRouches opinions about Queen Lizzy, and actually read some of his very astute economic analyses, you might notice that America’s economy is sliding around the s-bend. And I’m not talking about the media’s “economic trouble,” I’m talking about serious dire straights for American economic viability. When you juxtapose that fact with America’s economic invasion of Iraq, you begin to see what is so dangerous about the current administration’s mentality. The current administration is between a rock and a hard place. They have to save the economy, but they can’t because making the fundamental changes needed will step on some wealthy toes (a serious no-no). Therefore, the military becomes an economic implement. Many have called this imperialism because it can be validly compared to such historical events. However, people can say, “Oh, no, its not imperialism because Bush wants the Iraqis to govern themselves, bla, bla, bla.” The folks behind Bush know the –isms and know how to characterize their actions to steer around the lessons of history. I’ve chosen the term “fascism” because it, to me, represents the use of the military for economic reasons.
I noticed you try to characterize my argument as, “The fascists are coming, the fascists are coming!” Sorry, weak. It may appeal to anyone wishing to believe you in giving them a vehicle
…of ridicule but it carries no basis. I haven’t made any frantic, desperate efforts to raise alarm; only simple observations that I feel are worth looking at.
(Sorry, accidentally submitted before completing the last couple of sentences.)
I’m always considering the accuracy or validity of what I have to say and this thread has definitely aided that, but the fact that I have (apparently) not convinced anyone to agree with me has nothing to do with it. I question my ideas as a matter of course, not because anyone else does. Do you?
Needing to have agreement on a point of view to confirm its validity simply illustrates a weak integrity. To the degree that someone needs agreement to validate their ideas is proportionate to the degree to which they can formulate their own ideas. You follow? How crucial is gaining agreement to your point of view, John Mace?
No. I responded to OliverH’s comment about “It can’t happen hear” with that remark, (matching Sinclair with a parody of Longfellow).
However, if you force the issue, I will agree with your characterization.
You appear to simply use the word “fascist” to mean “political stuff I don’t like.” Fascism has a meaning, whether it is your dictionary definition or OliverH’s “complex phenomenon,” the word still has a meaning. I agree that we should not roll over and let Ashcroft and Bush destroy the Constitution. I agree that we should not let Wolfowitz and Bush turn the U.S. into an utterly unethical bully stomping across the world.
My objection is that by insisting that the U.S. is sliding toward fascism (which the U.S. is clearly not), you marginalize your own warnings, because you focus the argument on your sloppy history instead of the actual threats that concern you.
However, since you appear to prefer that approach, have at it.
Could you give some examples of people supporting Nixon rather than the troops during the Vietnam Era? I was in college then, and was reasonably in support of the war (though understanding it was being incompetently handled) and I don’t remember anyone making it a personal issue either with Nixon or with Johnson. The gist of pro-war rallies and rhetoric was that anti-war protesters were helping the Commies, not attacking the President.
In my local paper (and I live in a liberal area) I see letter after letter associating any disagreement with Bush with anti-Americanism. In the minds of many of his supporters Bush is being associated with the state, and that is dangerous. During the Vietnam era it was “love it (the USA) or leave it.” Now it is love him or leave it.
This is obviously not fascism in the White House, but it could be a precursor to a very dangerous situation. Though Bush is not directly supporting it, neither is he speaking against it. Compare this to his very clear disassociation of Islam with terrorism after Sept. 11. Anyhow, he doesn’t have to speak for it - his allies in the right wing media are doing a fine job without him. Don’t you think it would be very patriotic of someone in the government to mention that it is unAmerican to burn or boycott the works of artists with whom you don’t agree?
If we drift into fascism (or something similar) it will be because the government, in a time of perceived crisis, finds it easier not to deal with pesky rights and liberties. I think it will happen for very patriotic reasons. It seems that a lot of Americans will go right along with it.
No we don’t have a man on horseback - we have a man in a jet fighter, clearly staged to show all those things you say aren’t happening. It is very ironic that with Bush’s spotty record in the Guard he does the pilot bit, it is frightening that almost no one in the media called him on it.
“It is very ironic that with Bush’s spotty record in the Guard he does the pilot bit, it is frightening that almost no one in the media called him on it.”
I heard about it quite a bit-- even on FOX. I also heard about the many Congressmen (Dems) who also were on the carrier, none of whom caught any flack for grandstanding. Are you aware of any of the troops on the carrier who thought poorly of Bush for his “stunt”?
By that logic, shouldn’t you be giving Joe McCarthy credit for preventing a communist takeover in the U.S.?
Exactly. If the left points the finger at the White House and yells “Facists” every time they lose an election, nobody is going to listen when a real facist comes to power. The boy and the wolf and all that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lander2k2 *
It may appeal to anyone wishing to believe you in giving them a vehicle
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lander2k2 *
…of ridicule but it carries no basis. I haven’t made any frantic, desperate efforts to raise alarm; only simple observations that I feel are worth looking at.
lander2k2 if you make intelligent points people here will listen to you for the most part, regardless of your post count. You don’t need to pad.
First of all, whether or not Bush missed some part of Guard training, there is no question that he qualified as a fighter jet pilot.
I once took a flying lesson. After the plane took off, the instructor surprised me by saying, “You fly it now.” I piloted the plane for about a half hour. It was dead easy (as long as we weren’t taking off or landing or experiencing any problems or unusual conditions.) All I had to do was line up the horizon with a line in the front window and keep the plane pointed at a far-off target. Of course, the instructor had the other control. He was ready to take over at a moment’s notice.
For Bush, a trained pilot, to fly a plane under similar conditions was no big deal.
The police-state mentality that McCarthyism represented was itself a characteristic of Stalin-style communism. “Tailgunner Joe” wasn’t trying to prevent anything bad, or protect anything good.
Did you have a real point?
Yes, Elvis, I did have a point. I’ll use small words this time, so you can’t miss it:
YOU think that paranoid fruitcakes who run around screaming “the fascists are taking over” are performing a useful service.
I say they’re idiots who do little more than discredit their own cause, much as Joe McCarthy discredited serious anti-communists.
In general, I do agree with you on this point. Certainly when applied to the “average guy in the street”. However, there are a lot of intelligent and thoughtful people on this board, and if I threw out an idea here that got no agreement, I’d seriously think I should go back and “check my premises”. Perhaps it’s as simple as you having a different definition of fascism than most people.
Did the Democratic (or Republican) congressmen come on a fighter? Emerge in a flight suit? If Bush had come on a helicopter, no one would have thought anything about this, I’m sure. The Commander in Chief greeting troops coming home is not anything that hasn’t been done before.
I don’t watch Fox, or much TV news. Did they report the Guard controversy at some point, or did they mention it in the context of the carrier incident?
-
What “cause” do you think they’re defending? How could someone whose cause is anti-fascism be discrediting it by warning about its dangers? You can laugh it off as premature or overblown if you like, but that doesn’t make them “idiots” - that attitude you show, dismissing or even demonizing those who don’t have the same worldview as yours instead of considering what they say, is dangerous to a democratic republic all by itself.
-
“Serious” anti-communists? Like who, f’rinstance? They were all part of the McCarthyist movement, to varying degrees.
Don’t post if you haven’t thought it through, or you’re going to get that fact pointed out to you, my friend.
Yeah, and the troops would’ve been bored. Why do you begrudge him “arriving in a flight suit”? The troops loved it.
FOX and most other networks mentioned the Guard deal wrt to the carrier landing.
I’m not sure of your point. Sure Bush knew how to fly (and still might) and the flying he did was no big deal. The irony is that he and his handlers structured the landing to make him look like a big tough fighter pilot, when what he did during the war was to keep Texas safe from Mexican WMDs, and couldn’t even be bothered to show up half the time. He made sure he didn’t fight in the real war, against real enemies. I don’t remember Bush Sr. pulling this type of stunt, and he was a real pilot in a real war in real danger. I suppose since he was the real thing he didn’t need to put on a show.
Why am I not surprised that this minor point is the only thing people responded to?