Why are so many libs closet fascists?

[BWV 1080]

“It would be good … if he [Barack Obama] could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.” - Woody Allen

can anyone think of an actual example of a benevolent dictator?

I can come up with one - Park Chung-hee the general who took over the gov of South Korea in a 1963 coup and ruled until his assassination in 1979. At the time Park took office, the average annual per capita income of South Korea was $60 - less than Haiti at that time. He was directly responsible for the policies that fostered the export-driven growth that took incomes to over $3000 by the time of his death.

[MarkC]

Yeah right.

Ever heard of frustration? Hyperbole?
Or do you take everything literally and run with it?

Unless you didn't intend your post as anything but frustration and hyperbole, and didn't really mean it......

[John F]

Woody (the fascist) Allen? Sounds like one of his own weird juxtapositions, like the mobster Albert (the Logical Positivist) Corillo in "A Look at Organized Crime," or "If the Impressionists Had Been Dentists." It is to laff.

Anyway, there are no fascists today, closet or otherwise. The word is now used only by left-wingers to insult right-wingers, which at least once had some historical basis, and now here it's being used against a life-long left-winger. Politically and socially meaningless, its sole purpose is to get people angry without really saying what about. Which I guess means it's made to order for the Corner Pub.

[piston]

He presided over the rise of Argentina as the Latin American nation with the highest living standard.
The Argentinian economy grew by over forty percent, real wages by over a third, along with new benefits such as pensions, health care, paid vacations.... But he also repressed all opposition, fired some 1500 university faculty and ensured that Argentina would become a haven for ... Nazi war criminals and Croatian Ustases:

The populist leader was intolerant of both left-wing and conservative opposition. Though violence was also employed, Perón preferred to deprive the opposition of their access to media. Interior Minister Borlenghi personally administered El Laborista, the leading official news daily. A personal friend of Evita's, Carlos Aloé, oversaw an array of leisure magazines published by Editorial Haynes, which the Peronist Party bought a majority stake in. Through the Secretary of the Media, Raúl Apold, socialist dailies such as La Vanguardia or Democracia and conservative ones like La Prensa or La Razón were simply closed or expropriated in favor of the CGT or ALEA, the regime's new state media company.[6] Intimidation of the press, long an obstacle to the Argentine media, increased: 110 publications were closed down between 1943 and 1946, while others such as La Nación and Roberto Noble's Clarín became more cautious and self-censoring.[34] Perón appeared more threatened by dissident artists than by opposition political figures (though UCR leader Ricardo Balbín spent most of 1950 in jail). Numerous prominent cultural and intellectual figures were imprisoned (publisher and critic Victoria Ocampo, for one) or forced into exile, among them comedienne Niní Marshall, film maker Luis Saslavsky, pianist Osvaldo Pugliese and actress Libertad Lamarque, victim of a personal rivalry with Eva Perón.[35]

[jbuck919]

can anyone think of an actual example of a benevolent dictator?

Every pope since the Lateran Accords.

[Brendan]

Think Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. All totalitarians (and folk who call themselves socialists, like the National Socialist Party of Germany) end up with a cult of personality, especially for folks for whom the State has replaced the Church, Fearless Leader becomes pseudo-God and the secular is pseudo-sacred. If religion is forbidden to be expressed in traditional forms (ala commies), it will find new ones to emerge into, albeit in distorted and corrupt fashion as with PC fundamentalism.

No surprise that applies to the Chosen One as well. Obama doesn't seem to have anything other than a cult of personality and symbol, bereft of real achievement and realistic vision of the future in favour of the vile PC ideal.

That the PC fundies cannot perceive their own totalitarian tendencies is a constant and futile refrain, as they never get the point or think it applies to them.

As to beneveolent dictators, I think the models were Solon, Pericles, Cincinnaticus &c.

Do old fashioned Kings, Queens, Emperors and the like qualify as Dictators? There were a few kings and emperors that history rates pretty highly - and for the Romans, the term Dictator did not have the negative connotations that "King" did. Hence Augustus calling himself Emperor.

[piston]

can anyone think of an actual example of a benevolent dictator?

Every pope since the Lateran Accords.

The recent excommunication of the nun who headed St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix has struck several commentators as something equivalent to dictatorship. She was excommunicated for authorizing an abortion on a woman whose heart condition is so bad that she was given a virtual death sentence by her doctor (100 percent chance of death upon giving birth). The local bishop was not impressed and the nun was formally excommunicated. Local Catholic commentators did not take long to draw a pointed comparison with priest pedophiles who seldom if ever receive such a damning condemnation....

[RebLem]

I don't see how Woody Allen is a liberal. A self-indulgent libertine, yes, but a liberal? The central liberal concern of my whole politically conscious lifetime has been race and ethnicity and the racial and ethnic identifiability of the American underclass. Where are the blacks, the hispanics, the American Indians or the Appalachian whites in Woody Allen movies? They're virtually non-existent. Maybe he needs a dictator. Maybe he feels the need to be sent to a reeducation camp. It might do him some good, as removal from his old life did the central character in The Incredible Lightness of Being. But the social and political changes that would be necessary for that to happen are just not worth the saving of this one lost soul. Allen's thinking that he is worth it is perhaps his ultimate self-indulgence.

But lets also face the fact that the flimsy case BWV 1080 has attributed to liberals is the same case made much more strongly, explicity, and shamelessly by the right wing Chicago School economists for the Pinochet regime in Chile. And the Chicago School is a group of folk who have been centrally important in developing the post-Keynsian theoretical paradigm and the follow-on domestic and international economic policies, and they have infinitely more intellectual heft and faux respectability than wanky ole Woody Allen.

As for benign dictators, that case has also been made for Kemal Ataturk. Unfortunately, his refusal to reject or even acknowledge the prosecution of the Armenian Genocide by the dying Ottoman Empire, the predecessor regime, led Hitler to think he could get away with the Holocaust without anyone really noticing.

[jbuck919]

I don't see how Woody Allen is a liberal. A self-indulgent libertine, yes, but a liberal? The central liberal concern of my whole politically conscious lifetime has been race and ethnicity and the racial and ethnic identifiability of the American underclass. Where are the blacks, the hispanics, the American Indians or the Appalachian whites in Woody Allen movies? They're virtually non-existent. Maybe he needs a dictator. Maybe he feels the need to be sent to a reeducation camp. It might do him some good, as removal from his old life did the central character in The Incredible Lightness of Being. But the social and political changes that would be necessary for that to happen are just not worth the saving of this one lost soul. Allen's thinking that he is worth it is perhaps his ultimate self-indulgence.

In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, I have always read Tomas' continuing happiness following his (totalitarian-government-caused) change of status as a commentary on the indomitability of the human spirit rather than the superiority of window washing and farm-handing over brain surgery as a career. Of course his wife was happier because at the same time (and without explanation) he gave up womanizing and became a faithful husband.

As for Woody Allen, haven't you seen Deconstructing Harry, which has a prominent role for a black woman? OK, she's a hooker, but still.... Besides, as the dwarf says in Ship of Fools, Allen has his own minority group, several actually.

[John F]

I've read that the story this snippet came from was printed in a Spanish-language newspaper, and I haven't found the whole context (and couldn't read it if I did). But Allen is also quoted as saying, in the same story, "I am pleased with Obama. I think he’s brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him." This flap only arose because Allen thinks the President's objectives are "good things" and he wants them done more quickly, overriding Republican obstructionism. Left-wing enough for you? I rest my case.

Woody Allen is an ironist through and through, and if you're only into his writings and movies, you might get confused about what he personally believes. But it's clear enough which side of the Great Divide he's on, at least to me and my liberal friends, some of whom are New York City Jews like him - we understand where he's coming from.

Oh, and "dictator for a few years" means, in effect, temporarily governing by decree ("dictat") rather than in conjunction with the legislature and the courts. We had that for a number of years before Pres. Obama took office, didn't we? Sauce for the goose, etc. This is not the same as a dictatorship, which is essentially forever unless overthrown by violence or the threat of it - in effect, nonhereditary absolute monarchy. Allen wasn't endorsing that.

[keaggy220]

I think libertarians and conservatives thrive in a free environment and many liberals are scared of a free environment. Many liberals somehow think the messiness of freedom is somehow put in order by the government. Of course that couldn't be farther from the truth or any semblance of logic.

[Barry]

Is it surprising that Woody has been one of the more vocal supporters for Roman Polanski?

Yes. That's a loaded question.

[jbuck919]

I think libertarians and conservatives thrive in a free environment and many liberals are scared of a free environment. Many liberals somehow think the messiness of freedom is somehow put in order by the government. Of course that couldn't be farther from the truth or any semblance of logic.

Libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and and the principled apathetic all thrive in free environment. You know, like the one we have in the US.

[keaggy220]

I think libertarians and conservatives thrive in a free environment and many liberals are scared of a free environment. Many liberals somehow think the messiness of freedom is somehow put in order by the government. Of course that couldn't be farther from the truth or any semblance of logic.

Libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and and the principled apathetic all thrive in free environment. You know, like the one we have in the US.

I think liberals are more comfortable with the "free" environment the US has now than the free environment we had during our accession.

[MarkC]

.....Woody Allen is an ironist through and through......

......but of course people sometimes see fit to take something literally, if they feel it suits them, even if they know it's baloney.

I'm surprised that the subject of this thread is being taken a bit seriously. IMO the original post didn't deserve more than for us to say "bull."

[Proton]

Woody (the fascist) Allen? Sounds like one of his own weird juxtapositions, like the mobster Albert (the Logical Positivist) Corillo in "A Look at Organized Crime," or "If the Impressionists Had Been Dentists." It is to laff.

Anyway, there are no fascists today, closet or otherwise. The word is now used only by left-wingers to insult right-wingers, which at least once had some historical basis, and now here it's being used against a life-long left-winger.

With all due respect, that’s not an accurate statement.
Case in point would be Jonah Goldberg’s magisterial work: Liberal Fascism, in
which Goldberg oxymoronically manages to choke out all meaning whatsoever
from the word.


Politically and socially meaningless, its sole purpose is to get people angry without really saying what about. Which I guess means it's made to order for the Corner Pub.

In his book, The Anatomy of Fascism, while Robert O. Paxton acknowledges that fascism doesn't lend itself to simple bumper sticker definitions, however
he offers a set of distinguishing features that are pretty helpful in defining the thing.

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraint goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." {Paxton, p.218}

[Barry]

Woody (the fascist) Allen? Sounds like one of his own weird juxtapositions, like the mobster Albert (the Logical Positivist) Corillo in "A Look at Organized Crime," or "If the Impressionists Had Been Dentists." It is to laff.

Anyway, there are no fascists today, closet or otherwise. The word is now used only by left-wingers to insult right-wingers, which at least once had some historical basis, and now here it's being used against a life-long left-winger.

With all due respect, that’s not an accurate statement.
Case in point would be Jonah Goldberg’s magisterial work: Liberal Fascism, in
which Goldberg oxymoronically manages to choke out all meaning whatsoever
from the word.


Politically and socially meaningless, its sole purpose is to get people angry without really saying what about. Which I guess means it's made to order for the Corner Pub.

In his book, The Anatomy of Fascism, while Robert O. Paxton acknowledges that fascism doesn't lend itself to simple bumper sticker definitions, however
he offers a set of distinguishing features that are pretty helpful in defining the thing.

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraint goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." {Paxton, p.218}

It may not be entirely accurate, but it's a fact that liberals have abused the term to death when discussing conservatives (and especially, but by no means only, Bush). It hasn't been much of a problem on this board, but it happens routinely on another one I frequent; not to mention numerous other settings.

And I'm guessing some of those on the left who have used the term inappropriately are among the first to scream "unfair" when someone on the right describes the president as a socialist.

[Proton]

Think Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. All totalitarians (and folk who call themselves socialists, like the National Socialist Party of Germany) end up with a cult of personality, especially for folks for whom the State has replaced the Church, Fearless Leader becomes pseudo-God and the secular is pseudo-sacred. If religion is forbidden to be expressed in traditional forms (ala commies), it will find new ones to emerge into, albeit in distorted and corrupt fashion as with PC fundamentalism.

No surprise that applies to the Chosen One as well. Obama doesn't seem to have anything other than a cult of personality and symbol, bereft of real achievement and realistic vision of the future in favour of the vile PC ideal.

Why, yes, of course, that's it! Obama is Stalin and the Teabaggers™
are the Kulaks of the 21st century. While the PC propagandists would love
to have us believe that the Teabaggers™ are a fringe group, as evidenced
by the sparse attendance at their rallies, we know better!
One thing you can depend on is that the MSM will never report on how
the Teabaggers™ have been systematically rounded up by the millions
and swallowed up by Obama's PC Gulag.

That the PC fundies cannot perceive their own totalitarian tendencies is a constant and futile refrain, as they never get the point or think it applies to them.

Right you are! Obama's totalitarian grip on the nation
is so powerful and so absolute that He actually grants His ideological
enemies free and unfettered access to the airwaves, at the same time
allowing them to amass great fortunes, while they voice their loud but
principled opposition to His Regime.

Precisely the way Stalin did!!

As to beneveolent dictators, I think the models were Solon, Pericles, Cincinnaticus &c.

Do old fashioned Kings, Queens, Emperors and the like qualify as Dictators? There were a few kings and emperors that history rates pretty highly - and for the Romans, the term Dictator did not have the negative connotations that "King" did. Hence Augustus calling himself Emperor.

[Proton]

I don't see how Woody Allen is a liberal. A self-indulgent libertine, yes, but a liberal? The central liberal concern of my whole politically conscious lifetime has been race and ethnicity and the racial and ethnic identifiability of the American underclass. Where are the blacks, the hispanics, the American Indians or the Appalachian whites in Woody Allen movies? They're virtually non-existent.

"Broadway Danny Rose" (some funny Italian-American bits
as i recall) was the last Woody Allen movie that I really liked, and
that was >25 years ago. These days I doubt I'd
last more than 5 minutes watching any of his recent stuff without a
cringe and a shudder or two. Just my opinion, is all...





Maybe he needs a dictator. Maybe he feels the need to be sent to a reeducation camp. It might do him some good, as removal from his old life did the central character in The Incredible Lightness of Being. But the social and political changes that would be necessary for that to happen are just not worth the saving of this one lost soul. Allen's thinking that he is worth it is perhaps his ultimate self-indulgence.

But lets also face the fact that the flimsy case BWV 1080 has attributed to liberals is the same case made much more strongly, explicity, and shamelessly by the right wing Chicago School economists for the Pinochet regime in Chile. And the Chicago School is a group of folk who have been centrally important in developing the post-Keynsian theoretical paradigm and the follow-on domestic and international economic policies, and they have infinitely more intellectual heft and faux respectability than wanky ole Woody Allen.

As for benign dictators, that case has also been made for Kemal Ataturk. Unfortunately, his refusal to reject or even acknowledge the prosecution of the Armenian Genocide by the dying Ottoman Empire, the predecessor regime, led Hitler to think he could get away with the Holocaust without anyone really noticing.

[Proton]

I think libertarians and conservatives thrive in a free environment and many liberals are scared of a free environment. Many liberals somehow think the messiness of freedom is somehow put in order by the government. Of course that couldn't be farther from the truth or any semblance of logic.

Yes sir! The liberals that exist inside your head
are certainly a gaggle of craven authoritarian fools who hate,
I say hate, freedom. Incapable of independent thought, they
march in lock-step, plotting all the while to contaminate
our precious bodily fluids.

Now, if you put your mind to it, I'm sure that you could deport
every last one of them without having to fire a single shot.

It would serve them right.

Then you would be free to focus your attention on the actual living, breathing
liberals who inhabit the real world.

[Proton]

Woody (the fascist) Allen? Sounds like one of his own weird juxtapositions, like the mobster Albert (the Logical Positivist) Corillo in "A Look at Organized Crime," or "If the Impressionists Had Been Dentists." It is to laff.

Anyway, there are no fascists today, closet or otherwise. The word is now used only by left-wingers to insult right-wingers, which at least once had some historical basis, and now here it's being used against a life-long left-winger.

With all due respect, that’s not an accurate statement.
Case in point would be Jonah Goldberg’s magisterial work: Liberal Fascism, in
which Goldberg oxymoronically manages to choke out all meaning whatsoever
from the word.


Politically and socially meaningless, its sole purpose is to get people angry without really saying what about. Which I guess means it's made to order for the Corner Pub.

In his book, The Anatomy of Fascism, while Robert O. Paxton acknowledges that fascism doesn't lend itself to simple bumper sticker definitions, however
he offers a set of distinguishing features that are pretty helpful in defining the thing.

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraint goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." {Paxton, p.218}

It may not be entirely accurate, but it's a fact that liberals have abused the term to death when discussing conservatives (and especially, but by no means only, Bush). It hasn't been much of a problem on this board, but it happens routinely on another one I frequent; not to mention numerous other settings.

And I'm guessing some of those on the left who have used the term inappropriately are among the first to scream "unfair" when someone on the right describes the president as a socialist.

Barry, I would agree with you only insofar as someliberals have abused
the term when describing some conservatives. I can’t speak for
any other boards you frequent, but I can tell you without reservation
that if you tune into Mark Levin, or Savage Weiner, you will hear them routinely
bash liberals as Nazis, Stalinists and fascists.

Does the term “fascist” apply to some conservatives? Absolutely. Ann Coulter has
made explicit public statements calling for liberals to be physically
intimidated and killed. These statements fall under the rubric of eliminationist
rhetoric, one of the defining hallmarks of fascism. You probably find that unpalatable.
So do I.

I would also remind you that for 8 long years, we liberals were told in
time and again in no uncertain terms that to criticize bush
was disloyal, unpatriotic and treasonous. The ever popular trope, "BDS",
was routinely deployed from dismiss criticism out of hand and shut down
any discussion.

Whenever we exercised our right to demonstrate peacefully, we were
relegated as a matter of policy to so-called “First Amendment Zones”,
safely out of view. In several instances, people were actually arrested
for having shown up at a Bush event, simply for wearing the wrong T-shirt.
Good times!!

So that raises what I have observed on this board to be one of the
more pernicious distortions of the liberal stance, namely that for having
engaged in criticizing GWB—with more than ample justification, I would add—that
somehow we cannot abide any criticism of Obama.

Yes, we can.

You want to criticize Obama? Have at it, by all means. To tell you otherwise
would be rank hypocrisy. But, it’s not a matter of “fair” or “unfair.”
What matters is the substance of the criticism. More often that not, many of the
critiques voiced on this board turn out to be utterly bogus--we can discuss those on
a case by case basis--and you should not be surprised to be called on them.

Peace out!

[Barry]

It may not be entirely accurate, but it's a fact that liberals have abused the term to death when discussing conservatives (and especially, but by no means only, Bush). It hasn't been much of a problem on this board, but it happens routinely on another one I frequent; not to mention numerous other settings.

And I'm guessing some of those on the left who have used the term inappropriately are among the first to scream "unfair" when someone on the right describes the president as a socialist.

Barry, I would agree with you only insofar as someliberals have abused
the term when describing some conservatives. I can’t speak for
any other boards you frequent, but I can tell you without reservation
that if you tune into Mark Levin, or Savage Weiner, you will hear them routinely
bash liberals as Nazis, Stalinists and fascists.

I don't listen to talk radio, but I don't doubt you. There are haters and whack jobs on both sides of the aisle. I won't bore the others on here with the photos I've posted many times of things like left wing anti-war protesters swinging a Bush doll dressed in a Nazi uniform from a noose.
But I will say that the use of the term "facist"to describe conservatives is way too routine for my taste, and I would hope it would be for yours too.

Does the term “fascist” apply to some conservatives? Absolutely. Ann Coulter has
made explicit public statements calling for liberals to be physically
intimidated and killed. These statements fall under the rubric of eliminationist
rhetoric, one of the defining hallmarks of fascism. You probably find that unpalatable.
So do I.

I don't like people like Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. Even when I agree with them, they're too obnoxious in making their points to gain my respect (although I'm still not comfortable with calling them fascists ... if you want to take that tact, I can easily call any number of liberals "Marxists," because technically, they arguably fall into that category). However, for every one like the, I have no doubt that there is someone equally hateful lurking on moveon.org or the Daily Kos site. People who would label someone as honorable as General Petraeus as a traitor.

I would also remind you that for 8 long years, we liberals were told in
time and again in no uncertain terms that to criticize bush
was disloyal, unpatriotic and treasonous. The ever popular trope, "BDS",
was routinely deployed from dismiss criticism out of hand and shut down
any discussion.

Whenever we exercised our right to demonstrate peacefully, we were
relegated as a matter of policy to so-called “First Amendment Zones”,
safely out of view. In several instances, people were actually arrested
for having shown up at a Bush event, simply for wearing the wrong T-shirt.
Good times!!

So that raises what I have observed on this board to be one of the
more pernicious distortions of the liberal stance, namely that for having
engaged in criticizing GWB—with more than ample justification, I would add—that
somehow we cannot abide any criticism of Obama.

Yes, we can.

You want to criticize Obama? Have at it, by all means. To tell you otherwise
would be rank hypocrisy. But, it’s not a matter of “fair” or “unfair.”
What matters is the substance of the criticism. More often that not, many of the
critiques voiced on this board turn out to be utterly bogus--we can discuss those on
a case by case basis--and you should not be surprised to be called on them.

Peace out!

Again, same old line I always get from liberals. Criticism of Bush was justified because it was based on poor policy, while criticism of Obama is bogus because it's simply based on personal hatred of the man or flat out racism. I'm afraid I'm nowhere near buying that line. Are you actually going to tell me people who protest against Obama don't have valid reasons for doing so? Believe it or not, there are conservatives out there who are as smart as or smarter than you who have perfectly good policy-based reasons for opposing the president. Millions of people are unhappy with the direction he's taking the country in. You may have missed it, but a majority of Americans opposed the health care package and don't approve of a significant increase in the roll of government into things like owning auto companies. And to be honest, I'm getting sick and tired of Obama sticking it to long-time loyal allies (and no, I don't only mean Israel), while bending over backward (and forward, as the case may be) to dictatorial regimes.

But that aside, just as there are off-the-chart numbers of liberals who give knee-jerk, hateful reactions to anything that comes from Bush or other well-known conservatives (you know ... the same ones who called Reagan a war-monger while he was helping to win the Cold War with strength), there are those who do so on the right. That doesn't mean they have ulterior motives. They are ideologues, just like the ideologues on the left. My problem comes when liberals start blanketing large groups of conservatives as not having any basis for their protest. I'm afraid the right to peacefully gather and air grievances with the government is not limited to people you agree with, Proton.

The truth is, for every hateful incident you can produce from a tea party or some other conservative rally, I can provide one equally disrespectful and hateful from an anti-war rally. That's the great thing about the Internet. It unmasks the nuts on both sides.

Also, as I've pointed out on here many times, it wasn't disloyal or unpatriotic to criticize Bush per se. And I don't recall anyone saying it was inappropriate to criticize him in any way. What I did say, and still hold to, is that when we go beyond criticism of policy to the kind of rank hatred, personal disrespect and name-calling that was the norm when the left went after Bush, especially when the president being disrespected is attempting to deal with foreign enemies that want nothing more than to exploit our divisions, you're giving a gift to the enemy; whether it be unwittingly or not. And yes, the term "BDS" was most appropriate for that kind of behavior, just as I'd say some of the anti-Obama rants I've seen go beyond respectful policy-based dissent.

[piston]

Don't label anyone anything, engage the issue!

[Barry]

Don't label anyone anything, engage the issue!

I'm down with that.

[John F]

To Proton: just because somebody goes to the trouble to redefine a word for his own purposes, doesn't mean the word actually has that meaning.

"There's glory for you!" [said Humpty Dumpty.]
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

[keaggy220]

I think libertarians and conservatives thrive in a free environment and many liberals are scared of a free environment. Many liberals somehow think the messiness of freedom is somehow put in order by the government. Of course that couldn't be farther from the truth or any semblance of logic.

Yes sir! The liberals that exist inside your head
are certainly a gaggle of craven authoritarian fools who hate,
I say hate, freedom. Incapable of independent thought, they
march in lock-step, plotting all the while to contaminate
our precious bodily fluids.

Now, if you put your mind to it, I'm sure that you could deport
every last one of them without having to fire a single shot.

It would serve them right.

Then you would be free to focus your attention on the actual living, breathing
liberals who inhabit the real world.

I never said hate. I said liberals have a greater fear of freedom than conservatives or libertarians. Because of this liberals have a greater need to control people than libertarians or conservatives do and I believe that is driven by fear.

[dulcinea]

Regarding dictators who are still regarded favourably, Field Marshal Pilsudski is regarded as a national hero by the Poles because he is the one who freed Poland from Russia.

[NancyElla]

I think libertarians and conservatives thrive in a free environment and many liberals are scared of a free environment. Many liberals somehow think the messiness of freedom is somehow put in order by the government. Of course that couldn't be farther from the truth or any semblance of logic.

Yes sir! The liberals that exist inside your head
are certainly a gaggle of craven authoritarian fools who hate,
I say hate, freedom. Incapable of independent thought, they
march in lock-step, plotting all the while to contaminate
our precious bodily fluids.

Now, if you put your mind to it, I'm sure that you could deport
every last one of them without having to fire a single shot.

It would serve them right.

Then you would be free to focus your attention on the actual living, breathing
liberals who inhabit the real world.

I never said hate. I said liberals have a greater fear of freedom than conservatives or libertarians. Because of this liberals have a greater need to control people than libertarians or conservatives do and I believe that is driven by fear.

That is an interesting idea. I will grant that fear is a great motivator in human actions. Whether it motivates them in a useful direction or not seems to depend both on whether the fear itself is rational and whether the action that people take because of the fear is rational and addresses the actual danger in a useful way. Could you give me a specific example of a policy that you think is a liberal policy and show how you think it is driven by fear?

[BWV 1080]

In the summer of 1927, a group of future New Dealers, mostly junior professors or minor union officials, were received by Stalin for a full six hours when they traveled on a junket to the Soviet Union. Both Stalin's Russia and Mussolini's Italy influenced the New Deal enormously. The Brain Trusters were not, for the most part, fascists or communists. They were thoughtful people who wrote in the New Republic. But their ideas were wrong. Their intense romanticization of the concept of the economy of scale ignored the small man. One of the New Dealers from the old Soviet trip, Rex Tugwell, even created his very own version of Animal Farm in Casa Grande, Ariz. As in the Orwell book, the farmers revolted.

...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110010281

[Barry]

In the summer of 1927, a group of future New Dealers, mostly junior professors or minor union officials, were received by Stalin for a full six hours when they traveled on a junket to the Soviet Union. Both Stalin's Russia and Mussolini's Italy influenced the New Deal enormously. The Brain Trusters were not, for the most part, fascists or communists. They were thoughtful people who wrote in the New Republic. But their ideas were wrong. Their intense romanticization of the concept of the economy of scale ignored the small man. One of the New Dealers from the old Soviet trip, Rex Tugwell, even created his very own version of Animal Farm in Casa Grande, Ariz. As in the Orwell book, the farmers revolted.

...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110010281

Thanks for bringing that up. And of course, we can move to more recent times where during the Vietnam era, some of the anti-war movement leaders were taking directions directly from various totalitarian, Communist regimes. Now days, you have the Sean Penns and other liberal celebrities running around defending every autocrat in the western hemisphere.

[RebLem]

What continues to astonish is that FDR saved the sorry hides of the American upper crust, and yet many of their members have not the wit to understand that, the decency to be grateful, or the grace to accept the inevitable. They present the same sort of danger to our republic that the Vatican did in Italy after the unification of Italy and the paring down of the Papal States to Vatican City. They fought against a secular democratic state in Italy for 70 years until a Fascist government was established and they finally realized their error. If you think we are going to give up Social Security and all the advances we achieved during the New Deal era just to please a bunch of right wing political fundamentalist Luddites who dress up their self seeking with high sounding rhetoric, you have another think coming.

[keaggy220]

I think libertarians and conservatives thrive in a free environment and many liberals are scared of a free environment. Many liberals somehow think the messiness of freedom is somehow put in order by the government. Of course that couldn't be farther from the truth or any semblance of logic.

Yes sir! The liberals that exist inside your head
are certainly a gaggle of craven authoritarian fools who hate,
I say hate, freedom. Incapable of independent thought, they
march in lock-step, plotting all the while to contaminate
our precious bodily fluids.

Now, if you put your mind to it, I'm sure that you could deport
every last one of them without having to fire a single shot.

It would serve them right.

Then you would be free to focus your attention on the actual living, breathing
liberals who inhabit the real world.

I never said hate. I said liberals have a greater fear of freedom than conservatives or libertarians. Because of this liberals have a greater need to control people than libertarians or conservatives do and I believe that is driven by fear.

That is an interesting idea. I will grant that fear is a great motivator in human actions. Whether it motivates them in a useful direction or not seems to depend both on whether the fear itself is rational and whether the action that people take because of the fear is rational and addresses the actual danger in a useful way. Could you give me a specific example of a policy that you think is a liberal policy and show how you think it is driven by fear?

The federal Income tax.

[NancyElla]

Keaggy, your answer is far too cryptic to be the basis of a meaningful discussion. In what way is "the federal income tax" a liberal policy? Is there a serious conservative proposal to do away with the income tax altogether and find alternative funding for the federal government? How'd I miss it? I am aware of different opinions about how the federal income tax should be assessed and how it should be spent, but I don't see how you can consider the tax itself a liberal policy. Conservatives seem to be equally interested in spending the federal budget, albeit on a somewhat different mix of programs than liberals. And where does fear come into play? Fear of what? It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives fear particular outcomes, just different ones. I think fear motivates all of us to some extent (and that's not always a bad thing), but we have very different ideas of which fears are reasonable and which are irrational and different rankings of the "fear factor" of dangers we do agree exist. Please put down a few more of the dots in your argument and connect them for me.

[keaggy220]

Keaggy, your answer is far too cryptic to be the basis of a meaningful discussion. In what way is "the federal income tax" a liberal policy? Is there a serious conservative proposal to do away with the income tax altogether and find alternative funding for the federal government? How'd I miss it? I am aware of different opinions about how the federal income tax should be assessed and how it should be spent, but I don't see how you can consider the tax itself a liberal policy. Conservatives seem to be equally interested in spending the federal budget, albeit on a somewhat different mix of programs than liberals. And where does fear come into play? Fear of what? It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives fear particular outcomes, just different ones. I think fear motivates all of us to some extent (and that's not always a bad thing), but we have very different ideas of which fears are reasonable and which are irrational and different rankings of the "fear factor" of dangers we do agree exist. Please put down a few more of the dots in your argument and connect them for me.

The federal income tax, as we have it today, was undeniably a liberal brainchild. The federal income tax is alternative funding. The federal government, as envisioned by our founding fathers and practiced for many generations, received funding through voluntary contributions from states and through tariffs. This method of funding was a wonderful tool to keep centralized "one size fits all" government restricted to a very limited role - not intruding in peoples lives.

[John F]

The Federal Income Tax was established in the 16th amendment to the Constitution, proposed to Congress by Republican President William Howard Taft in 1908, passed in 1909 by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and ratified in 1913 by 42 of the existing 48 states (36 were needed).

[keaggy220]

The Federal Income Tax was established in the 16th amendment to the Constitution, proposed to Congress by Republican President William Howard Taft in 1908, passed in 1909 by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and ratified in 1913 by 42 of the existing 48 states (36 were needed).

I'll repeat for the deaf. The federal income tax, as we have it today, was undeniably a liberal brainchild.

No one said anything about republican or democrat.

[John F]

Are you saying that William Howard Taft, and the Republican-led congress, and the legislatures of 42 states, were all liberal in the sense that you use the word? Apart from the fact that federal income taxes were already an old story in 1908, and the 16th Amendment didn't invent them. It's history.

[keaggy220]

Are you saying that William Howard Taft, and the Republican-led congress of 1909, were liberals in the sense that you use the word? Come on, now.

You think the federal government confiscating money from people is a conservative idea? Come on now.

[John F]

Are you saying that William Howard Taft, and the Republican-led congress of 1909, were liberals in the sense that you use the word? Come on, now.

You think the federal government confiscating money from people is a conservative idea? Come on now.

Since the idea and the reality of the federal income tax has been supported by conservatives as well as liberals in the White House and the Congress for more than a century, any claim that it's a liberal idea is demonstrably untrue. It's just ideological huff and puff.

[Brendan]

It's origins were "Liberal", and like so much Left-wing garbage, it becomes entrenched and folk think it's the only way things can be done and have always been done, thanks to the constant PC propaganda.

It ain't necessarily so . . .

[piston]

Yes, its origins are rooted in the Progressive Era, a pretty ambiguous term in itself, and a period which followed decades of raw capitalism with countless instances of deaths and permanent injuries caused by the "industrial revolution." The deadly accidents in the railroad industry alone, forget about mining, scalping in various mills, etc., gave testimony to the fact that the system simply would not regulate itself. Even the Catholic Church was becoming radical!!!

Little wonder, then, that Democrats and Republicans alike jumped on that bandwagon. Remember Teddy Roosevelt? He was all for it! Bigger government and more discernment exercised between "good monopolies" and "bad" ones. Don't trust business robber barons! They'll take you to your grave!!!

[piston]

Oh, and for NYC, there was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire: little Jewish girls and boys jumping off the seventh and eighth floor, some of them landing on a cast iron fence below, impaled, some of them jumping holding hands, to their death, was part of that era too. Some power speeches were given in the aftermath, shaming New Yorkers for their lack of concern and attention to the "underclass" that supported them.

[MarkC]

I'll repeat for the deaf. The federal income tax, as we have it today, was undeniably a liberal brainchild.....

Saying it louder doesn't change it or make it better.
We heard you.

BTW.......the "Republican"/"Democrat" post was an appropriate reply, all things considered, including context and implicit aspects.

P.S. If you don't get that properly, I may be tempted to say it again, louder.

[NancyElla]

Keaggy, your answer is far too cryptic to be the basis of a meaningful discussion. In what way is "the federal income tax" a liberal policy? Is there a serious conservative proposal to do away with the income tax altogether and find alternative funding for the federal government? How'd I miss it? I am aware of different opinions about how the federal income tax should be assessed and how it should be spent, but I don't see how you can consider the tax itself a liberal policy. Conservatives seem to be equally interested in spending the federal budget, albeit on a somewhat different mix of programs than liberals. And where does fear come into play? Fear of what? It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives fear particular outcomes, just different ones. I think fear motivates all of us to some extent (and that's not always a bad thing), but we have very different ideas of which fears are reasonable and which are irrational and different rankings of the "fear factor" of dangers we do agree exist. Please put down a few more of the dots in your argument and connect them for me.

The federal income tax, as we have it today, was undeniably a liberal brainchild. The federal income tax is alternative funding. The federal government, as envisioned by our founding fathers and practiced for many generations, received funding through voluntary contributions from states and through tariffs. This method of funding was a wonderful tool to keep centralized "one size fits all" government restricted to a very limited role - not intruding in peoples lives.

Sorry to have abandoned the discussion in midstream--it's been a busy week. John F has already covered some of my responses to this curious statement--the income tax was initiated by a Republican president with the support of a Republican congress and ratified by the vast majority of the states. Are you saying that Taft was a liberal? Or that the whole country was more liberal at that time? (Perhaps it was.) If not, please name the liberal(s) you think of as the parents of the "brainchild" named "income tax".

Next, your reference to "voluntary contributions from states"--this must be something I missed in 9th grade civics class. Exactly when was the government funded by "voluntary" contributions from states? My understanding of the funding of the federal government prior to the introduction of the income tax was that the cost of the budget was divvied up between the states according to the populations, and the states were sent a bill and told to "pony up". And you surely can't be suggesting that we go to a "voluntary contributions by states" approach to support federal government functions now. Really. Imagine how that would work out.

Finally, where's the "fear factor" in this? What do you claim liberals were afraid of that motivated them to design this nefarious system of having individual citizens contribute money from their earnings to support the government whose leadership they elect and whose employees serve them? Were liberals terrified of what they would do with the extra cash if left to their own devices?

I must admit that I have never considered the concept of income tax to be a particularly partisan issue. I frequently have heartburn about particular things that are being done with my tax dollars, but I don't have any philosophical quibble with the concept that I should do my share in supporting the government. I have always thought it was just one of the duties of a citizen. Maybe it's the way I was raised. My mother used to talk about how proud her father was when he finally earned enough money in one year to "have to" pay federal income tax. Up until then, he had felt like a freeloader.

Income tax seems to be the method of choice to support governmental functions in the nations of the world. Sorry--what's the problem?

[John F]

It's a Libertarian thing, I believe. Think Ron Paul, who as a Congressman has actually introduced a Constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish the income tax. He's done it six times:

http://www.libertyamendment.com/

I get the impression that from the Libertarian point of view, nearly everybody is a liberal, if not a "fascist."

[jbuck919]

It's a Libertarian thing, I believe.

From Keaggy? No!

[John F]

You tell me.