Yeah, I was asking you to be objective. I know it’s hard, but worth trying just for the novelty. 
Fair enough.
It is most certainly not a traditional value, nor is it a tenet of conservatism. I would expect that the vast majority of conservatives consider racism to be wrong.
Britons were killed because of Tony Blair’s decision to go to war, not George Bush’s.
Fascism? If I do something you don’t like and as a result, you choose not to buy my product, that’s fascism? On what planet?
Fascism is coming up again… something that definitely causes anger!
It is a good topic with which to make my point about the anti-intellectualism of the right, as expressed by their reliance on appeals to Ethos and Pathos instead of facts and reasons. The accusation, ‘You’re a liberal’ these days doesn’t amount to a delineation of a political position, but rather has become merely a smear and an excuse for the accuser to not reply to factual points. After all, the good citizens of Christendom don’t respond to liberals! (or something like that). Or, on this thread, the accusation has become, ‘x is impolite’, a little ethical point that functions as another excuse to avoid responding to facts and reasons in kind.
Allow me to demonstrate my point. I say that the Bush Administration was rather fascist. Why? Not because I’m a partisan looking to say as many nasty things about the R’s as possible, but because their behavior fits the definition! What definition is that? Check out this link:
A scholar named Lawrence Britt did some research comparing several past fascist regimes, and identified 14 points they have in common (note that Dictatorship isn’t one of them). Google him if you want more information. I’ll paste the 14 points below. Read #3 if you have time for only one:
- Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
>From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
*->3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the peoples attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choicerelentless propaganda and disinformationwere usually effective. Often the regimes would incite spontaneous acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, andterrorists. Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism.
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media.
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes excesses.
7. Obsession with national security.
Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting national security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elites behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug.
Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected.
Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of have-not citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal.
Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections.
Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
I can think of Bush Administration examples that fit each of these points, and more importantly, people with more credibility than me have noticed the same thing, in extensive detail.
So, you see what I’ve done here? I’m not just calling people names. While none of this is Gospel, I have a clear definition of the terms I’m using, and then to make my accusation, I map the behavior of the accused to the definition. It’s not the end of the debate, but it qualifies as ‘rational’ for sure.
I’d challenge any of the people who throw the word ‘liberal’ around to 1)produce a specific definition of the term as I’ve done with the term ‘fascist’, and 2) in at lease one single instance, map the behavior of one of your accusation targets to the definition.
In relation to the thread topic, in politics today I feel like there are a lot of accusations thrown around for their emotional impact that have little or no factual basis. The credulous and uninformed are swayed or confused, society becomes ever more divided, and yes, this makes me a little angry.
There is a religious aspect to racism in that it’s beleived that God separated the races, and a classist aspect in that of colored people should “know their place”.
And conservatism is not just a set of tenets, it’s also a knee-jerk reaction social change. And yet, “segregtion today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” is both.
That’s because they’ve liberaled-up on that issue. I’ll even go so far as to say that conservatives may be more liberal than liberals on matters of race, since while color-blindness is liberal, affirmative-action is leftist.
So it was just a coincidence that Blair ordered British troops into Iraq at the same that Bush ordered Americans in? Or was it Bush’s leadership that persuaded Blair to join the coalition as junior partner? The bottom line is that the Iraq war is Bush’s baby and yet it’s other peoples’ business besides just Americans’
How many time do we have to go through this? The Dixie Chicks were subject to an organized mass movement to punish them for criticizing a politician. There were CD crushing (read: book burning) rallies, death threats, accusations of treason (the #1 characteristic of fascism IMO), and powerful media empire Clear Channel attempted to–as John McCain put it–“restrain their trade”. It wasn’t just one consumer quietly not buying their CD. (And how did Americans even find out about the remark in question when they said it to a live audience on the other side of the ocean, rather than to the media?)
Now you’re trying to say that conservative = religious? No. There are a lot of religious liberals in the U.S. And for all the bluster, liberals can be at least as classist as conservatives.
And since this is GD, do you have a citation for this assertion about God separating the races? Is it Bible, Quran, Torah, Book of Mormon? Where does it come from?
Which, of course, is why the term “knee-jerk” is always prepended to “conservative” and never to “liberal.”
Bush was never in charge of British policies or British soldiers. Blair’s decision was certainly influenced by Bush, but in the end, it was Blair’s call.
They were subjected to a boycott. Boycotts are a free-market phenomenon that is not fascist by any definition I’ve ever seen.
All in the Family?
Archie Bunker: Now, no prejudice intended, but I always check with the Bible on these things. I think that, I mean, if God had meant us to be together he’d have put us together. But look what he done. He put you over in Africa, and put the rest of us in all the white countries.
Sammy Davis Jr.: Well, he must’ve told 'em where we were because somebody came and got us!
It’s not a question of how “liberals” behave as people (and I call BS on that last assertion), I’m arguing that racial segregation has been a traditional value, and is therefore by definition conservative. Liberals may be religious–or spiritual–enough so that accusations that they’re all anti-religious are unwarranted, but they’re less likely to be fundamentalists and to embrace a world-view based on Biblical (or Biblesque) mythology.
Obviously this sort of belief goes back a long way, and there’s no denying that BJU (I was expecting something rather different when I enrolled ;)) is a bastion of hard-core paleo-conservatism.
That’s not to say that “liberals” never behave in a knee-jerk fashion (and as I’ve maintained, political correctness is like a new kind of left-wing conservatism), liberalism by definition is more analytical, skeptical, reformist, experimental, permissive. Conservatism is more dogmatic.
Split hairs much? Like people in the UK have no business giving a shit about what the President of the United States, Leader of the Free World does on the international stage? Of course Bush’s bad presidencyness was going to spill over to the rest of the world for them to give him a right booing.
Again, the attacks on the Dixie Chicks were organized, there were rallies, powerful media entities were involved, they were subject to widespread public denunciations including accusations of treason. (Much of the criticism was disturbingly misogynistic, with the DCs being called sluts and whores and accused of being sexually available to Saddam Hussein.)
People withdrawing their support as individual consumers isn’t so acute, but even so it was motivated by a desire to punish fellow citizens for criticizing our leadership. That’s practically sacred. And it involved millions. How many Americans have had that happen to them?
powerful media
So, it’s because it was a particularly EFFECTIVE boycott that makes it problematic. You seem to use fascism the same way conservatives use socialist. It ain’t fascism, it’s freedom of speech and assembly. Those are liberal ideas, my friend. A law saying they couldn’t do those things would be fascist.
IMHO it is unfairness, manipulation and deception that invokes anger. That invoking of anger is intentional to try to get one to sin, which places that person in more bondage - and they then live less of a life of freedom, possibly even getting them thrown in jail, which is just a physical form of bondage, or just avoiding certain people which is a spiritual form of bondage.
Perhaps it was viewed as sin I don’t know, but as written anger in itself is not sin, but can lead to sin:
The assertion that liberals can be just as “classist” as conservatives? Like the contempt that the union members hold for management? Or the behavior of the wealthy liberals in Hollywood? Are we limiting this to economic classes, or do other social classes count? Look how many liberals treat hunters and fundamentalists. For that matter, I was treated pretty badly by many liberals at the height of the affirmative action movement just because I was a white male who believes that equality equals equality, not getting even with the offspring of whoever happened to be in charge last generation.
I find that disturbing. It doesn’t surprise me that there are some fundamentalist whackos that believe such a thing, but it surprises me that a mainstream religious university would openly take such a stand.
I still feel quite strongly that there is nothing racist at the core of the conservative belief system. It just seems that Americans are bound and determined to lump everyone into “box C” or “box L”, and if you are in one box, everything you don’t believe in must constitute the belief system of the other box.
Hence, many conservatives accuse all liberals of being anti-God, and many liberals accuse all conservatives of being racist.
I’ll agree with you there. Except possibly with the word “analytical.”
No, this isn’t hair-splitting. Other countries (I might mention France, for example) said, “No, we disagree with Bush, and we’re not supporting him with troops.” Blair could have stood up and said the same thing. He didn’t. It was his decision.
I will not disagree that some people overreacted, that some people became obnoxious about it. That’s certainly true. But it isn’t fascist. When a group of liberals make a coordinated attack on a research facility that does animal testing, is that fascist?
For some, perhaps. But I maintain that you’re missing the point entirely. There are hundreds of musicians that have criticized, satirized, lampooned, and insulted presidents of the United States. Why so many people angry at the Dixie Chicks? Because they did it overseas to a foreign crowd when many Americans were getting worried about our bad reputation around the world. They’d been insulting George Bush in U.S. concerts for years and this never happened.
Certainly their target audience made a difference, too. Nobody thinks twice about punk bands insulting or criticizing the government. That’s where punk rock came from. It was as much a political movement as a music style. But the Dixie Chicks presented themselves as country musicians, and that’s perhaps the strongest conservative fanbase outside of gospel. But even that isn’t as big a factor as, “say what you want here at home, but don’t criticize Daddy at the neighbor’s house.”