My own opinion is that the writer has many valid points. I have seen some of the attitudes he speaks of (some of these attutudes are displayed by the far right, as well, but they don’t have nearly as many representatives in office). I also recall when each party viewed the other not as an evil force to be opposed at every turn, but as a group that shared the same objectives, but disagreed about how to best serve the nation’s best interests.
Whether you agree or disagree, please take the time to comment. If you disagree, keep in mind that a reactionary reply will tend to support the author’s position.
I messed up the first time. I’ll ask the mods to remove the first post.
Of course. Spitting on honor gaurd by a few people=party is going to destroy America. How could I have not seen it before? I was so fucking blind.
Ok. I was following him till then. Anyone that can seriously put forth that hatred and corruption are the roots of fascism can’t be taken seriously. This man has no understanding of what fascism means.
As if this hasn’t been done in “democracies” countless times before. This man also suffers from politcal naive.
He states that totalitarians are willing to use dirty tricks. Democrats are willing to use dirty tricks. He then leaps to the conclusion that democrats are totalitarian without any proof.
Again no evidence is given of fascist tactics. And the connection to the brown shirts isn’t even near being realistic.
How many times have democrats in the past toed the party line? How many times republicans? THIS leads to fascism. Equating these actions with people who would slaughter jews sickens me. This article is starting to sicken me. Let’s see if I can get through the rest of it.
MY GOD MAN!! Since when have the Democrats had integrity? HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING ON MARS?
I’m getting the feeling that this whole article is a joke. Either that or this man is seriously deluded. If it’s a joke, I’ll be pissed that I wasted my time on it.
What the fuck? I am literally in shock.
Again I’m sickened. He just called lieberman a “new fascist”. Hmmmm.
What is “traditional and decent” and why do the cororations and unions want to destroy it? Could you offer some further explanation please?
Does this mean that the King of France was Fascist? What does party loyalty have to do with fascism? Have the republicans never demanded party loyalty?
And this is news? When was the IRS “loyal” to the American people. Please tell me.
Again I ask. So what?
And there wasn’t rage during the American Civil War, during WW2, during the 60’s, during the American Revolution?
[He writes a bunch of crap about Al Gore inciting the emotions of voters here] not even worth commenting on.
The key to successfully confronting the New Fascist movement is, first, to see it for what it is.
Which you have not done. Fear mongering has a name. That name is Bob Just, not the Democrats.
Maybe because it’s not fascism. Has this man ever read anything on fascism. Does he know anything but soundbites? My intial impression is no.
Considering that Gandhi;s solution to the holocaust was to have the Jews let the Nazi’s slaughter them, I don’t think he’s the appropriate person to be quoting here.
He still hasn’t shown how hate is the driving influence of the democrats.
And finally the truth of the matter. We can fight fascism by…ending single parenting. How simple. Why didn’t someone think of this before? Simply give every chil a loving home and fascism will no longer be a problem. Let’s get some legislation on this right away.
Damn. If I had known that socialism preached sex, drugs, and rock and roll, I would have become one much sooner.
And this conflicts with fascism in a number of ways. Once again the writer proves his ignorance on general matters.
He has still failed to mention what exactly happened to the party, aside from the sweeping term “corruption”. The fact that the party is corrupt should surprise no one. Also he had previously mentioned evil unions as a force against whatever it is he stands for, I must admit I can’t quite figure it out. Now? Now, they will fight against these “new-fascists” of which they are a part. His mention of church-going leads me to believe that he wants more religous observance in our society. Does he know that many fascists were very religous? Again, he puts words together, but they make no sense.
Preaching loyalty to the country above all else will have little effect on fascism. What side is Bob Just on anyway?
and he ends with this
After reading through all this crap I can come to only one conclusion. The man is talking out his ass.
…which was the source of this ridiculous piece, and of many others cited by some of the more out-of-it elements on this board:
the WorldNetDaily isn’t exactly a source of unbiased journalism, folks. It’s about as one-sided as a Mobius strip. Citing commentary pieces on WorldNetDaily is a bit like citing Rush Limbaugh. (One can only hope they check their facts better than Rush and his staff.) Their ‘news,’ what little they have of it, is pretty slanted too.
Also, regardless of whose factual or opinion piece you’d like to link to, a precis of what we might find there is useful. And if it’s an opinion piece, a summary of the argument in your own words is good; this is Great Debates, not Links to Great (or not-so-great, or downright terrible) Opinion Pieces. If you can’t be bothered to outline your ‘own’ position, why should anyone else bother to rebut it? (But thanks, oldscratch, for taking the trouble to saw that preposterous column to bits anyway.)
There’s nothing wrong with linking in support of an argument - we’re big on that around here - or linking to a more in-depth treatment of an argument. But linking instead of making an argument…well, there’s nothing to stop you from doing it, but there’s nothing that says anyone should have to take that approach seriously enough to respond to it.
Actually, if you are talking about the doctrines of the Nationalised Socialist Party (a.k.a Nazis) – their idea of nationalizing everything (like health care) falls much more inline with the democrats.
The idea that the Nazis were right-wing while the commies were left-wing is mythical. They were both left wing.
The problem with the Democratic party is this: They presume guilt. They want to restrict personal liberties, from freedom of speech to the right to bear arms, because they assume people use those liberties to abuse others. When I see a gun, I see a target-shooting piece and, possibly, a fun afternoon. When a Democrat sees a gun, they would have you believe they saw a homicide waiting to happen. That, in addition to tax issues, is why I am not a Democrat.
I remember on an Elian Gonzalez message board, there was this one idiot who insisted that to the Left was everyone who was bad-Hitler, Stalin, fascism, communism, etc. THEN, he insisted that to the far RIGHT was everything GOOD. And that the middle ground was wrong, because it was half evil.
Of course, this was the same idiot who worshipped William F. Buckley Jr. and Senator Joseph McCarthy.
I’m sure these characterizations would have come as a surprise to the founders of the national socialist party. They always tried to portray themselves as opponents of communism and on the other side of the political spectrum.
One of the main justifications for doing so, from an ideological point of view, was their emphasis on nationalism. The National Socialist party argued that the strong should rule over the weak, and that the german people (the “Herrenvolk”) should rule over its neighbours (and ultimately the rest of the world.) The communist party, on the other hand (remember that its anthem is the “International”) proposed a union of the workers of all countries, regardless of nationality, to combat the ruling classes (which is one reason that the USSR used to justify its pulling out of World War I.)
jmullaney: you seem to be emphasizing the “socialist” part of “national socialism”, but in practice, the german government under Hitler was more concerned with the “national” part (patriotism, strong military, etc…) which is the part totally opposed to communism (and more similar to the views of the Republican Party as opposed to the Democratic Party).
Well, heck. I don’t really buy into the whole two-dimensional view of politics. (I had a view at one point that if you go far enough right you end up on the far left – that it really is a continuum, but I don’t think about politics much these days.) The Soviet Union was patriot, had a big military, etc. too, so maybe they are all “right wing.” But I’ll bow out of this debate and concede your point.
Just throwing in my two cents, even though you did concede a point to Arnold. Correct, calling far right wingers Nazi’s would be innapropriate. However, calling Fascists and by extension Nazi’s far right-wingers is entirely apropriate.
The way I see it, the farther you go to either extreme of the spectrum, the more similar their methods become; but the philosophies in service of which the methods converge remain entirely divergent. Not that the methods don’t eventually render the philosophies moot (what’s the difference, really, between a Socialist totalitarian and a Fascist totalitarian?), but Naziism is by no means a leftist philosophy.
As far as the “democrats assume guilt” argument, personally I think that’s naive bunk. The Republicans assume that some people are expendable, and the Democrats legislate to protect these people. And by what stretch of the most bizarre (not to mention hypocritical, flag-burning-amendment-proposing) imagination have Democrats legislated against free speech?
I will agree that Communism and Fascism were definitely similar in methods used…a professor of mine who spent time in a gulag in the early 80s told me that they are very much alike.
It is their philosophies that differ.
(Nazism is to Bolshevism, as Fascism is to Communism, if you want to use those terms…)
Don’t sling invectives. The lyrics are there, but not the music. Besides, I’m vehemently against flag-desecration amendments.
Democrats go against free speech in political correctness. They try to be ‘fair’ by treating us like children, meaning we wind up with a bunch of politicians passing ‘nanny laws’. Not my idea of a good government. Why do they treat us like children? They assume we are all going to be just as irresponsible as they let us be. That’s the exact opposite of what history supports. In reality it is government with a history of corruption. Look at the unrestrained governments: Stalin, Hitler, King Louis XIV, King George. Every time the government usurps power from the state or the people, Conservatives have fits because most of them remember World War II. Our Constitution was written explicitly to prevent that from happening, but if people ignore it by trying to make things ‘fair’ it won’t work. Life is not fair. You can die a thousand ways, plenty of them extremely painful and degrading. Some people are self-destructive, others willfully ignorant, and the balance just apathetic. Bottom line: You can’t save those who don’t want to be saved. A good government lets people live their lives. After all, we are adults.
I’m assuming you’re referring to King George III-his government was hardly unrestrained…Britain has now, and had then, a constitutional monarchy. George’s problem was that he suffered from poryphoria, which caused his insanity.
Well, the Demos are Nazis because Robin Williams said “fuck”. Bring out your armbands, and let’s start goosestepping now- it is the end of Western Democracy! :rolleyes: Did he read or hear the Nixon tapes? “expletive deleted”! I could not find a single valid major point.
And at the top, the banner ad, the flag that all of the 'right thinkers" salute, “PROOF” that Darwin was wrong (and also evolution). 'nuff said.
Oe more point. This kind of thing shows how compltetly out of touch the “Religious right/Republicans” are with the mainstream of America. They actually think that somebody who is not already 100% convinced that Pres. Clinton is the Antichrist is going to be swayed by that rubbish. Well, in a way they are right. I think they just “swayed” me into voting for Gore. Thanks, Baloo, that was actually helpful, for a while I was undecided.
Actually, Daniel, the author was not a Republican or member of the religious right, he is a Democrat.
I think the article was longer than the point he had to make really justified, and it was quite hyperbolic. However, he had a central point, which a lot of the nitpicking here seems to overlook, IMO. That point was that the Democratic party has lost what it had thirty years ago: a concerted and constructive sense of moral purpose; the author feels that the mechanisms of political action employed by the Democrats have become fractious and destructive, and that our two-party system is dangerously debased by this trend.
He likens these techniques to those of the Nazis, but that is essentially a simile and debating the validity of the likeness says nothing really to the point.
I generally agree with him; my main objection is that I don’t think you can discuss these changes in the Democratic Party without looking at the exactly parallel changes that have occurred in the Republican Party at the same time. If anything, IMO, the Reps are even more guilty of the charges he levels than the Dems are (not that I mean this as any sort of absolution for the Democrats).
The traditional picture of twentieth century politics has generally put communism on the far left - a totalitarian government controlling all aspects of life for the good of the members of that society. Next to that (moving down the scale) is socialism, often characterized as a partial communism or a “transition state” on the way to communism. Considerably more toward the center is liberalism, which we usually associate with the Democratic Party in the U.S., in which the government takes an active role in structuring social change for the good and equality of everyone, but does not exert total control, particularly in the market. Passing the midpoint one arrives at conservatism, usually tied to the Republicans, in which the government is active in promoting traditional values, even at the occassional expense of marginal groups; moreover the market is only slightly regulated. Moving on, eventually we come to dictatorships and fascism on the far right, in which again the government is totalitarian, “for the good of the people” just like communism, but now “the people” is a much more exclusive grouping. This extreme right end is basically just the rule by whatever group is strong enough to take power, and that power is maintained by promoting hostility between the disenfranchised groups and flattering those in the elite. At least that’s how I understand the “left-right political spectrum” (vastly simplified, of course).
I think both parties have become overly partisan and inclined to use the sorts of political tactics (fanatical us-against-them thinking) associated with the fascists - granted, in a much milder fashion than Hitler’s and Mussolini’s boys did!. I don’t think any call for change can ignore the fact that these parties are in balance, and a large change of behavior in one party would be very disruptive for both parties. They have spiralled down together, and there is enormous inertia created by this “synergy”. Just’s call for a return to a higher tone will inevitably fail if it is a movement within only one party.
My personal response to the problems he points out has been to avoid both parties. I’d like to say I’m an enthusiastic Libertarian, but unfortunately I can’t respect the political manifestations I’ve seen of this philosophy. Like a lot of people, I feel SOL, failed by the pettiness of this nation’s political leaders.
Sure he is :rolleyes:, and we know that because… he says he is. Riiight. OK, the author is: Pro-Bush, Anti-Clinton, anti-evolution, anti-abortion, Pro-reagan, Anti-Gore, Pro establishment of religion, and calls the Demos “fascisst & racists”. And, he writes for the most right wing, pro-fundie site I have every seen. (go to the bottom, click on “page one”, scroll thru the litany of anti-Clinton, anti-abaortion, anti-evolution hate filled messages of the the far religous right). If Kaddafi said he was a Christian, would you beleive him?
LOOK at the rest of the freaking site folks! These folks are looney rightwing religous bigots of the 1st water. They probably don’t support Buchanen, as he is too liberal for them!