In 1975, in a sit down interview with Mike Wallace, Ronald Reagan said:
In subsequent years, this notion has become a talking point for conservatives. A base line argument added since has been the inclusion of Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin (almost always the Italian is mentioned first, it seems) as examples of fascism being a left wing construct.
Yesterday, a conservative friend of mine posted a video clip of the Reagan interview, to which I replied that the very idea had little basis in reality. I said that fervent nationalism and the building up of the military at the expense of education and the arts were hallmarks of fascism, to me.
His reply:
While I disagree with my friend’s belief of fascism as leftist, I appreciate that he’s someone with whom I can have an honest debate (mostly), without it devolving into name calling, as would happen if I tried to discuss this on social media.
The greatest flaw as I see it is the glossing over of authoritarianism with regards to law and order, and of course the discrediting of the media - that it is only those in power that can be trusted.
I am curious to hear from our board’s right wing why they believe (if they do) that fascism is liberal.
Fascism and Liberalism both share roots in german romanticism. Today there is a tendency to equate nazism with fascism which are not the same things. Each nation had its own version of fascism which was distinct to the nation. America’s version was called progressivism.
Liberalism is descended from progressivism but they are not the same things. Liberalism rejected nationalism after WW2 and is internationalist. It has also mostly rejected eugenics and racial hierarchies.
What remains of progressivism is what Reagan talked about government direction of the economy for the purpose what the government thinks is good for the country.
Building up of the military was definitely the hallmark of fascism but not at the expense of education and arts. The fascists were very involved in education as a way of shaping the youth and they took art very seriously as a way of manipulating public opinion. State funded and controlled art was a huge deal to the fascists especially the nazis.
It seems to me that the flaw in Reagan’s argument is that “total government control and regulation” ISN’T “the liberal philosophy” at all. Liberals support expanded government control and regulation on SOME issues, under some circumstances, but it’s a tool rather than a philosophy. For example, liberals might support more government regulation of factories because they believe it will lead to less pollution, or higher safety standards for workers, or some other positive benefit, but they don’t support it because they believe as a matter of principle that government control and regulation are inherently good.
Conservatives, OTOH, sometimes do view “small government” as good in itself, but they’re not always consistent in applying this principle, or they wouldn’t support policies like TRAP laws for abortion clinics.
Well, no. Fascists nationalized plenty of industries, and heavily directed the private companies that were left. It wasn’t a question of simply regulating industries.
If anything, fascism is the opposite of both kinds of liberalism, the social liberalism and it’s fight for the rights of the individual, and the economic liberalism, which is based around the private sector.
It’s hard to imagine that anyone - fascist or otherwise - believed "as a matter of principle that government control and regulation are inherently good", and I imagine that what you’re defining as liberal principles was also the basis for everyone else who supports government control of anything, including fascists, communists, etc.
One simple historical fact disproves this assertion. The major fascist movements in Italy and Germany both allied with the conservatives and the ruling classes (despite their initial revolutionary rhetoric) while their primary foes were always the socialists and the communists. For example, Hitler allied with the monarchist German National People’s Party while banning the Communist and Social Democratic parties.
The terms “conservative” and “liberal” have meant different things at different times. You need to look at the issue in terms of today’s meanings, not in terms of what the terms meant in the 1930s.
In the way the individual relates to the state. Liberalism sees the state as a way to uplift individuals and society. That is grounded in Hegel and german romanticism. Locke was antithetical to that notion and why he is one of the forerunners of conservative thought.
The OP seems to be arguing that state funded and controlled art equals support for the arts as he asserted that a hallmark of fascism is taking away government support for the arts.
Huh? I never said that fascists or communists believe that government control and regulation are inherently good; I only said that liberals don’t believe this, and therefore, Reagan’s statement that “total government control and regulation” is a liberal philosophy is incorrect. What claim, specifically, are you disagreeing with?
The Bolsheviks fought the Mensheviks does that mean that one of those factions were on the right?
The fascists were politicians and as such fought with anyone who was a threat to their power and allied with anyone who could help them gain power. In Germany the principal political threat were the socialists. Since the german army was relatively conservative and the nazis needed army support they compromised to get that support. It had nothing to do with ideology.
Here you are attacking the fundamental bedrock of conservatism: the false (as you point out) claim that the Liberal belief is that “government control and regulation are inherently good.”
Liberals (and/or progressives) believe that most humans will exploit each other when they can, and that government is in a position to be the referee to ensure a level playing field. With good regulations, the entrepreneur who want to do business in a way that doesn’t pollute and exploit has the same chance of success as does the entrepreneur who is willing to pollute and exploit. This makes for an economy that is healthier (in every sense) and more productive. That’s the liberal view.
The liberal view includes the recognition that just as many private-sector actors will break the social compact while pursuing self-interest, so, too, will public-sector actors. The government must always be overseen: a free press (reporting on that government) as well as protections for whistle-blowers are essential. Liberals see government action and regulation as something that must always be revisited, re-assessed, and revamped as needed.
But of course these realities do not serve the propaganda requirements of conservatives. A falsified characterization of what liberalism actually is, is a necessity if conservatives are to gain and/or keep power.
Thus, conservatives created a fabrication, in order to sell the idea that liberalism is a bad, bad thing. They would be lost without their beloved straw man: the ‘liberals who wants the government to control everything’. It is the entire basis of their argumentation; it is the sole rationale of their appeals to the electorate. Put us in power so that we can stop those Librulls from putting the government in charge of your life!
Like the thread’s topic–the dimwitted attempt to equate liberalism with the random pejorative “fascism”–the ‘liberals seek government control of everything’ straw man is profoundly disingenuous where it isn’t merely obtuse.