Placating Deaniacs

[Polycarp]

How about Sir Oswald Mosley, New Iskander, who did indeed advocate “some of these things” and considered himself on the right wing of British politics?

I am having some difficulty finding a good online cite, but in the early days of the NDSAP, it did include people who were sincerely socialist in their political thinking. They were ruthlessly purged as the party came to power. The two names I can recall are Gregor Strasser and Ernst Rohm, the latter the head of the SA Brownshirts and an intriguing figure in his own right. So NI is not completely out to lunch on this, though the Nazi Party that came to power was by no means leftist. Very statist, to be sure, but that’s not the same thing.

[New_Iskander]

@Polycarp

How about Sir Oswald Mosley, New Iskander, who did indeed advocate “some of these things” and considered himself on the right wing of British politics?

…Mosley was at this time falling out with the Conservatives over the issue of Irish policy, and the use of the Black and Tans to suppress the Irish population. Eventually he ‘crossed the floor’ and sat as an Independent MP on the opposition side of the House of Commons. Having built up a following in his constituency, he retained it against a Conservative challenge in the general elections of 1922 and 1923. By 1924 he was growing increasingly attracted to the Labour Party, which had just formed a government, and in March he joined. He immediately joined the Independent Labour Party (ILP) as well and allied himself with the left…

Cite

[tomndebb]

@New Iskander

Prove it.

Show me a cite for any Right wing party advocating such things.

I’m not sure that it is worth the effort. The mantra of the Left has generally been the appeal to the “universal brotherhood” of humanity across nationalist lines. (Actual Leftist governments, of course, tend to be as jealous of their borders as anyone else, but the rhetoric of the Left plays down nationalism (and ethnic identity) while the rhetoric of the Right calls upon it, explicitly.)

We see this in the Fascist parties of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and, by general association, Japan prior to WWII.

Now, if you are going to wander back here with a looking-glass declaration that all of those governemnts were “really” Left wing, then I will be forced to conclude that you have invented a new political language that no one but you speaks, as I have never seen any mainstream historical or political analyst refer to any of those countries as Left leaning.

[Marley23]

@New Iskander

Cite

I KNOW there was already a link in here that explained the way political terms have changed. This thread is a Mobius strip!

@New Iskander

I opened this thread because to placate people. Particularly, Dean supporting people. Look at the thread title; it states, 'Placating Deaniacs.’

And your title had nothing to do with the content of the thread. Just like the Nazis had nothing to do with socialism despite their title.

[BrainGlutton]

@New Iskander

Cite

Mosley, at one point, made an alliance with the Left? Well, Stalin, during the same period, made an alliance with Hitler. That says nothing about the content of either’s politics.

[GIGObuster]

@Polycarp

How about Sir Oswald Mosley, New Iskander, who did indeed advocate “some of these things” and considered himself on the right wing of British politics?

I am having some difficulty finding a good online cite, but in the early days of the NDSAP, it did include people who were sincerely socialist in their political thinking. They were ruthlessly purged as the party came to power. The two names I can recall are Gregor Strasser and Ernst Rohm, the latter the head of the SA Brownshirts and an intriguing figure in his own right. So NI is not completely out to lunch on this, though the Nazi Party that came to power was by no means leftist. Very statist, to be sure, but that’s not the same thing.

Not replying to NI but I have to reply to this.

That was mostly talk and propaganda, the real nature of the Nazi Party was obvious for what they fought for and against in Spain:

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/franco.html

1933 - Conservative parties led by the **Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right ** (Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas - CEDA) win control of the republic in the general elections held in November and begin to dismantle the reforms initiated by their predecessors, sparking political unrest in urban and industrial centres, Catalonia and the Basque provinces - areas where support for the reform agenda is strongest.

**The far right ** is spearheaded by a newly formed party called ‘Falange’ (phalanx). Falange advocates the fascist ideals of Germany’s Adolf Hitler and Italy’s Benito Mussolini.

1934 - Franco is promoted to major-general and placed in a position in the Ministry of War. When he suppresses an uprising by miners in the northern province of Asturias in October, he once again comes into prominence. In May 1935 he is appointed as the army’s chief-of-staff.

1936 - The conservative government is dissolved. At elections held in February the ‘Popular Front’ coalition of the left wins a narrow victory over the rightist ‘National Bloc’ and begins to restart the social reform program.

Spanish conservatives become concerned that the Popular Front, which has ties with the Soviet Union, will turn the country into a communist state. The tension soon boils over into open violence between rival groups on the left and right.

When the new government is unable to prevent the accelerating collapse of Spain’s social and economic structure Franco calls on it to declare a state of emergency. His appeal is refused.

Suspected by the leftist government of being an antirepublic conspirator, Franco is removed from the general staff and demoted to military governor of the Canary Islands.

Meanwhile, rebels within the military conspire with civilian nationalists in a plot to overthrow the Popular Front. Franco decides to join the rebellion just days before it is scheduled to begin.

The military rebellion is announced on the Canary Islands on 17 July, signalling the start of the Spanish Civil War. On 19 July Franco flies to Morocco, taking control of the territory and the crack Spanish troops garrisoned there. He secures the use of Germany and Italian aircraft to transport himself and the troops to Spain to join the nationalist forces marching on Madrid. However, the capital is successfully defended, depriving the nationalists (nacionales) of a quick victory.

A junta of generals forms a nationalist government. **Backed in Spain by the Catholic Church, the Falange, and monarchists, the rebel government is promptly recognised by Germany and Italy. Franco is declared ‘generalisimo’, (commander-in-chief), and ‘jefe de estado’ (head of state) of the nationalist regime on 29 September. He appeals to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini for help in the war effort. Both fascist leaders provide personnel, aircraft, tanks and artillery. **

[New_Iskander]

@tomndebb

…the rhetoric of the Left plays down nationalism (and ethnic identity) while the rhetoric of the Right calls upon it, explicitly.

Which Right party explicitly calls for nationalism and ethnic identity?

Can you provide a cite?

[BrainGlutton]

@New Iskander

Which Right party explicitly calls for nationalism and ethnic identity?

Can you provide a cite?

Nowadays? Well, there’s Pat Buchanan’s paleoconservative America First Party. http://www.americafirstparty.org/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_(2002) Although the “ethnic identity” part is played down – they talk more about “cultural” identity. But in practical terms it comes to the same thing: Restrictive immigration policy. (And protective tariff barriers.)

The Republican Party is generally perceived as more “nationalistic” than the Dems but I don’t know if you could point to anything in either party’s platform that really expresses the difference.

[New_Iskander]

@Fear Itself

Actually, I quite like John McCain. Name one Democratic politician you can say the same about.

Both Clintons, Kerry, Lieberman to name but a few.

[New_Iskander]

@BrainGlutton

Nowadays? Well, there’s Pat Buchanan’s paleoconservative America First Party.

Not just nowadays, but at any time.

Honestly, I can’t understand how you trace from

‘Strengthen our borders and promote rational immigration policies’
‘Protect English as our common language’
‘Seek friendship with all nations, but avoid entangling alliances’

to Nazism.

‘Rebuild our manufacturing base and protect American workers’
‘End taxpayer bailouts of corporations and foreign governments’

are not Right wing tenets.

Give me real the Right wing, with social cuts, privatization and favors to the rich.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@New Iskander

Honestly, I can’t understand how you trace from

‘Strengthen our borders and promote rational immigration policies’
‘Protect English as our common language’
‘Seek friendship with all nations, but avoid entangling alliances’

to Nazism.

Is that what you asked for? Let’s see:

@You

Which Right party explicitly calls for nationalism and ethnic identity?

You’re moving teh goalposts. THat’s a strong indication that your position is groundless.

‘Rebuild our manufacturing base and protect American workers’
‘End taxpayer bailouts of corporations and foreign governments’

are not Right wing tenets.

Give me real the Right wing, with social cuts, privatization and favors to the rich.

Yes, actually, they have been right wing tenets before. You’re confusing neoliberal policies with the right wing in general.

Daniel

[BrainGlutton]

@New Iskander

Honestly, I can’t understand how you trace from

‘Strengthen our borders and promote rational immigration policies’
‘Protect English as our common language’
‘Seek friendship with all nations, but avoid entangling alliances’

to Nazism.

For my part, I don’t, I call it nationalism. Which is what tomndebb was talking about.

@New Iskander

‘Rebuild our manufacturing base and protect American workers’
‘End taxpayer bailouts of corporations and foreign governments’

are not Right wing tenets.

Give me real the Right wing, with social cuts, privatization and favors to the rich.

:dubious: What makes you think you get to define what’s “real Right wing”?

Call Buchanan a “leftist” and he’ll probably punch your teeth out.

I repeat: Review this page, very thoroughly, if you haven’t already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

[Marley23]

@New Iskander

Not just nowadays, but at any time.

Then he just gave you one.

Honestly, I can’t understand how you trace from

‘Strengthen our borders and promote rational immigration policies’
‘Protect English as our common language’
‘Seek friendship with all nations, but avoid entangling alliances’

Perhaps he just knows more about Pat Buchanan than you do. This is the guy who proposed building a wall against Mexican immigrants. Also, take note of the fact that it says “protect English as our common language.” It’s right there, kiddo. It says that our language is under assault by foreigners and needs to be protected.

[RTFirefly]

Just to help distinguish left from right in a more specific manner than Orwell did, I’ve listed a number of traits where, in my observation, “left” has been consistently on one side, and “right” consistently on the other. I’m trying to restrict my list to traits whose span is global rather than national, and reaches across several decades at a minimum.

My only caveat is that in totalitarian leftist states (USSR, PRC, NK, Cuba, etc.), some of this goes out the window: the leftist bias towards free speech and protest gets crunched, as does (for less clear reasons) the leftist tendency towards freer sexual expression, and militarism is part of the package. There’s not just a difference of scale, but rather a discontinuity, between Swedish socialism and Soviet or Cuban communism. But aside from left totalitarianism, the list below seems to be widely valid.

OTOH, there seems to be no such discontinuity between the right in a democracy and rightist totalitarianism, AFAICT, but merely a difference of degree. Make of that what you will.

Economic Inequality: the left wants systems in place to limit economic inequality. The right opposes such constraints.

Discrimination: the left has been on the side of using the law to widen the inclusiveness of society, and to outlaw discrimination on the basis of an increasingly wide array of criteria: race, religion, sex, physical handicap, sexual orientation, etc.

God and country: the left is more for keeping the two unentangled, and the right is more for combining the two.

Speech and Protest: the left is more strongly for free speech and the right to protest; the right is more willing to tolerate or initiate impositions on those rights.
**
Militarism: **the left is less interested in maintaining a military for purposes beyond defense of the nation; the right is more interested in a military capable of foreign intervention and conquest.

Sex: the left is for freer sexual expression; the right is more for keeping restrictions on it.

Business: the left is more for regulating business to protect consumers, workers, and society in general; the right is more anti-regulatory.
**
Labor issues:** the left is more pro-worker; the right is more pro-employer.

Crime and Punishment: the left tends to be more concerned with protecting the rights of the potentially innocent, and opposing the more extreme forms of punishment; the right is more of the lock-'em-up school.

[BrainGlutton]

@RTFirefly

**
Militarism: **the left is less interested in maintaining a military for purposes beyond defense of the nation; the right is more interested in a military capable of foreign intervention and conquest.

That’s true, but it points up the fact that we can’t automatically equate the left with the Democratic Party or the right with the Republican Party. It was Dem administrations (Kennedy, LBJ) who got us into Vietnam.

[RTFirefly]

@BrainGlutton

That’s true, but it points up the fact that we can’t automatically equate the left with the Democratic Party or the right with the Republican Party. It was Dem administrations (Kennedy, LBJ) who got us into Vietnam.

True. And accordingly, when LBJ escalated, it was an antiwar movement of the left, rather than of the right, that opposed him.

[BrainGlutton]

@New Iskander

I opened this thread because to placate people. Particularly, Dean supporting people. Look at the thread title; it states, 'Placating Deaniacs.’

I was prepared to sit back, educate myself about Dr. Dean and let the bygones go. But nobody wants to talk about Dr. Dean (except you). All people want to talk about is ME!

Actually, you started this thread to “debate” your characterization of Dean as a “little Lenin.”

And I’m still waiting for you to bring anything to the table to support that premise.

[New_Iskander]

@BrainGlutton

Actually, you started this thread to “debate” your characterization of Dean as a “little Lenin.”

You are not really saying what you are saying and I know it.

Stop sending me subliminal messages.

You can’t have my Brain.

[tomndebb]

@New Iskander

Give me real the Right wing, with social cuts, privatization and favors to the rich.

Sorry. Your definition of the Right appears to be so far away from the way the word has historically been used as to make it impossible to discuss the point. (Not to mention the way that you deceptively cut and paste the phrases you want to highlight while ignoring the rest of the text.) I make no association between Fascists and Nazis and the current administration, the neo-cons, or the Republican party. I simply note that Fascists and Nazis were right-leaning, rather than left-leaning. Read the post by GIGObuster that demonstrates the relationships.

You can’t have my Brain.

This sort of straight line should be reserved for the Pit where we can respond to it.

[SteveG1]

@New Iskander

I’m not frightened of anybody.

I repeat one more time:

I opened this thread because to placate people. Particularly, Dean supporting people. Look at the thread title; it states, 'Placating Deaniacs.’

I was prepared to sit back, educate myself about Dr. Dean and let the bygones go. But nobody wants to talk about Dr. Dean (except you). All people want to talk about is ME!

Remeber this?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6878951&postcount=1

@New Iskander

However, I am not ready to remove my ‘little Lenin’ comparison just yet. Personally, I think Lenin was one of the greatest scumbags in history: power obsessed maniac, lying about everybody and everything, wreaking havoc and destruction everywhere he went with the only goal of obtaining power. He was always on the sidelines, always divisive, inflammatory, trying to pit social groups against each other; he never accomplished anything positive and grabbed undeserved credit for actions of other decent people. … Yet Lenin enjoyed faithful following of narrow-minded, angry and credulous people, willing to do his bidding. That’s my take on Lenin and I think Mr. Dean bears a small resemblance. … So, whether it’s the former or the latter, my comparison remains appropriate.

You were not placating any “Deaniacs”. You were doing your best to inflame them and bring them all swarming from their hive. At least, if you are going to throw general insults, do so. But don’t try to back out or deny you did it.