Is the Democratic party becoming fascist?

Great Debates
21

Ad Hominem? They are obviously devils and therefore we need not address any objections they raise.

Actually, I tend to agree with APB9999. Both parties have gravitated to partisanism, and I believe this is detrimental to the nation. At one time, each party promoted its agenda openly and promoted their objectives on merit.

Now I find that most political discussion hinges on which candidate is demon-possessed/insane/wants to starve the poor, homeless and children. “They’re all corrupt as hell, so I’m voting for the guys who will serve my best interests.”

At one time, and it wasn’t so long ago either, both parties viewed each other with a modicum of respect. The politicians generally recognized that no matter what else they did, the people they served were more important than the party they were affiliated with, and the parties understood and accepted that as well. Rather than demonizing all opponents to this or that plank in their platform, they had reasoned arguments why this or that policy would be implemented. They now simply decree that what they stand for is good, and all who oppose them are evil. This does not make for good political discourse. How can you possibly state your objection to one policy or another when you will not be heard? That is not democracy.

Both parties are guilty of this, and that is what I object to. Partisan politics devalues the very things that allow our participation as voters worth something. It undermines our ability to make sound political judgements by obscuring the facts of an issue behind a smoke screen. They don’t want or trust us to vote based on our own judgement. Rather, they seek to con us into following their lead like good little robots (republican and democrat) so they can have the power they seek.

It’s not always been that way, and I am sick of seeing the public treated as confused little children who can’t understand issues unless they are so simplified they become meaningless. I’m tired of politicians appealing to my greed, to regionalism, religion and racism. I’m tired of them trying to whip me into a frenzy of righteous indignation. I’d like to see them stop rabble-rousing and treat the electorate like rational beings who deserve to know the facts and opinions of the candidates without also being told what to think about them.

Don’t tell me how to vote. Just tell me what I need to know to make an informed decision.

~~Baloo

22

The Democratic Party is becoming centrist, not fascist. Tough call on which is worse.

23

Centrist? Libertarian, could you start a new thread and explain what that is? I’ve heard of centrist, but usually as a good thing. Never heard why it was, tho. The speaker assumed that centrism was obviously good, much the same way many folks assume their political suasion is obviously the best, and therefore anyone opposed to it must be acting from impure motives.

~~Baloo

24

I’m not sure a new thread is necessary. I think I can explain it cogently by stating that its ethic is expedience.

25

My mother’s family fled Nazi Germany in 1938. My uncle now lives in North Carolina, which has a centrist Democratic governor, and legislature.

I’d ask him if he saw similarities between the two political setups, except for the fact that I know he would call me an utter fool.

26

Hmm, you’re SO right. :rolleyes: Let’s see now…
Fascism= round up the Jews and kill them
Centrism= make a Jew the #2 man in the country
fascism= folks like Libertarian are executed
centrism= folks like Libertarian are ignored.

I don’t think you really are a Libertarian, Lib. I think you are an “elitist”. But I guess that last one really pisses you off, eh?

But in any case, I am sure that by saying that going for the will of the majority of the People is as bad or worse than Nazism, you are getting a lot of converts. :rolleyes:

27

So, oppressing only a few is better than oppressing millions, is it?

I am reminded of Malcom X’s observation that when a knife is in a man six inches deep, pulling it out to four inches deep is not progress.

28

I hadn’t noticed. Partisanship seems to me to have had its peak (at least its late 20th Century peak), in the early 1970s. From a longer-term perspective, the last seventy years or so have been much less partisan than earlier periods.

What party do your next door neighbors belong to? You don’t know? What, you mean you didn’t seem them flooding into the streets last election time, with the party banner above their heads? Have you not had dinner with them at at the house of your party’s ward boss? Who is your party’s ward boss, anyway?

It’s amazing the way the czar of the House of Representatives controls the vote of each and every member of his party. There are simply never any defections! And it all happens in the name of party unity - defeating the other party, and securing support for the President who controls patronage. Oops, wrong century.

I think folks like Just would just die if they saw the party struggles of the 19th Century. Character assassination, bribery, graft, all sorts of nasty stuff. And guess what … none of it was caused by fascism. I don’t even think the term had been coined at the time (althought the parent word, the Latin fasces had been around for centuries). Our standards for morality have risen faster than our morality … a break-in to opposition party headquarters can oust a President. Compare that to the Teapot Dome scandal. There’s just no way to compare.

We live in a relatively just, fair, and clean political environment, and if people would quit comparing the current situation to their fondly-remembered bedtime stories, and start comparing it to actual history, they would see that.

29

Exactly daniel. The more i read that godawful excuse for wsted bandwith, the more I realised he wasn’t a Democrat. If that man is a democrat you’re the Membership secratary for the local Socialist Party branch.

30

Sorry, Daniel, but I know many Democrats whose opinions of some of their party’s antics are not that far removed from those of the author. You know these Dems, too, they are kind of conservative and they helped put Reagan in the White House in 1980 and 1984.

31

Part of the confusion between parties comes from our antiquated use of ‘left’ and ‘right’, when at the extremes there ceases to be much difference between them. Stalin’s Soviet Union, at the far left, shared a lot of similarities with Fascism on the far right.

A decade or so ago, Jerry Pournelle came up with “Pournelle’s Political Spectrum”, which was a 2-axis graph used to chart political ideology (Pournelle has a Ph.D in political science). The horizontal axis was labelled ‘individualism’ at one end, and ‘statism’ at the other. The vertical axis has ‘irrational’ at the bottom, and ‘rational’ at the top. Here’s how it works:

A Fascist is an irrational statist. So he’d be in the bottom right quadrant of the graph. Irrational because Fascism isn’t meant to be a means towards a better society, it just exists for itself. It’s not a logical outgrowth of a political philosophy, and usually is driven by a charismatic leader who has personal power over the people.

A Communist is a rational statist. So he’d be in the top right quadrant of the graph. Rational because he believes that communism is simply a better system of government and will lead to better lives for all.

A Libertarian is a rational individualist. Upper left quadrant. Rational because he believes that maximizing personal freedom will lead to a better society, more efficient economics, etc.

An Anarchist is an irrational individualist. He just wants to destroy the system and do whatever the hell he wants. There is no logic to it - he doesn’t care what the results are. Bottom left quadrant.
Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader would both be on the statist side, Nader in the upper quadrant, Buchanan in the lower. Al Gore is in the middle, on the upper side, and George W. Bush is in the middle on the lower side. But both are so close together the difference is trifling.

I think this is much more accurate. Certainly Ralph Nader has a lot more in common with Pat Buchanan than with, say, Ronald Reagan. On the old left-right spectrum, Reagan would be between the two of them, which doesn’t make any sense.

32

Sure, “Dogbrother”, I agree that some demos will support SOME of that stuff. Reagan was not so bad, nor is Bush*. And you do not have to be a Republican to be disappointed in some of the Clinton antics. But anti-abortion? Violently and radically? Anti-evolution? Calling his “own” party fascists & racists? The last is pure and simply name calling, which only extremists can do with a straight face. This guy is radical even for the religous Right Republicans.
Now, click on the bottom of the page, and read the rest of the column titles. Yep, Democrats, all. :rolleyes:

  • If the Demos were running a McGovern or a Dukakis, I’d vote Bush without a moments hesitation.
33

I think this whole communist-fascist mixup come from a basic misunderstanding: politics aren’t linear, they’re circular. Instead of the political spectrum starting at the center and extending indefinately to the Right or Left, it curves upward until at some point (probably that of Hitler and Pol Pot) it meets, forming a circle. So you see, if you cut the pie one way, sure - you get a conflict between Right and Left. However, if you cut it the other way, you get a conflict between Moderates and Extremists.

34

I’d worry more about the Reform party, if I were you.