End The First Amendment???

[PoliticalChic]

Relax, Beale....it was a joke.

Fahrenheit 451 is about book burning.....



BTW...Hitler and Stalin were both on the Left....totalitarians.


"Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred. A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right."
WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010

My apologies. I haven't read that one, WHOOSH, right over my head. I have only read a couple short stories and The Martian Chronicles.

------------------------

Well, there are as many ways to chart political affiliation as there are peoples politics, aren't there? No, Hitler was not on the left by many accounts, he was vehemently against state ownership of property, and State control of industries, this is what defines the "Left." It always says something about the person whose opinion should be used on which way they think we should chart political affiliation. Should we use the Nolan Chart? Or should we use the Pournelle chart? I think you knew I was just referring to the standard high school left/right dichotomy as far as communitarian/corporate-monarchic models are concerned.

There are totalitarians on the left and right, you are disingenuous if you think there aren't. Once a politician gets elected POTUS, he does everything he can to consolidate his power, and shifts it away from the other two branches of government in this country, I don't care what party he is. That makes them all authoritarian. It doesn't really matter any more for either party, both take orders from the financial elites that really run the country any how, let go of your partisan illusions. Both parties are corporatist now, that means they are ostensibly, both fascist in nature. This is the result of having so much private money dumped into the campaign, the result of the Iron Triangles in politics, and the result of revolving door politics.

1. Actually, I'd rather use Schivelbusch...Wolfgang Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals”

2. In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.

a. At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549)


3. The National Socialists hailed these ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:

a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”

b. And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’

c. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”

d. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”

4. In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: “Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…” cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2, p. 27.

So...I'll go with the definition of Right and Left that I gave earlier.

 

[MisterBeale]

"Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred. A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right."
WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010

1. Actually, I'd rather use Schivelbusch...Wolfgang Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals”

.
.
.
So...I'll go with the definition of Right and Left that I gave earlier.

I like you. You don't use personal attacks, you construct arguments that are well thought out, and you are reasonably easy to follow.

I don't really think that this disagreement of where Stalin falls on the political spectrum, or where Hitler falls is really a productive discussion as it regards to Free Speech, do you?

If you want, I will address your point of view though. In order for political scientists to engage constructively in any meaningful way, they must agree on some standards. Both of the men you have quoted for your sources, from what I have gathered, neither has posited a complete diagnostic, or analytical political spectrum for use in discerning where individuals and political leaders may lie.

The first article that you quoted was from an evangelical leader, who has had controversy dog him at his own institution because it appears more than likely he is an agent of the Jesuits. It is a quote out of context from a random article that has nothing to do with analyzing politicians or people along a political spectrum in any meaningful way, but rather an opinion piece about how people should be viewed based on morals and ethics. This is not how political science is done. The only thing that he does say, that most political scientists all can agree on, is that when we decide which chart we are going to use, we need to stick with consistency.

Olasky quotes, "A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right."

Why? Why get rid of age old, centuries used political theory to suit several individuals' purposes? Unless he has, or you have compelling reason why, I think we should stick with the old methods, b/c that is what the ENTIRE PLANET uses. What makes this one guy so special? Why is his logic so reasonable? Oh, he basis it on their behavior, not on their rational economic models, or on how they believe a State should operate.

The second author that you use as a reference is Wolfgang Schivelbusch in “Three New Deals?”

His piece has nothing to do with the political spectrum. It is a piece that argues that FDR's government reforms were national socialist in nature and that he, FDR, admired the Fascists of Europe. Big deal, no news there. So did Churchill. They both knew what a bear the fascists were going to be, after all, their economies were essentially fascist in nature as well. The continental fascists were making corporatist reforms that were far more effective at dealing with the global depression than the liberal democracies. The big difference is that instead of a Cartel running the banking in Germany, like it was in the Anglo-American empires, the Nazi's decided to reserve this one sector of the economy for themselves, the State. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9477.pdfImagine that, the power of sound money. Creating only as much credit in the system as you have resources and production. Who would have thought the Germans would use Austrian Economic Policy? Gee, shocker. Scary. How many wars has the Anglo-American alliance started because nations have challenged their fiat money?

Wolfgang Schivelbusch's piece, although I am not able to get access to it, from everything I have read about it, say nothing about Stalin at all, nor about both Nazism and Communism being politics of the left. I didn't know which review of the piece was better, the CATO institute, or Mises, what do you think? Either way, neither supports your contention. Even your post fails to address or support those specious claims issued by this nefarious character. . . Olasky. (His bio reads like that of Oswald. Can you say Jesuit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Olasky)

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt

To compare is not to equate, as Schivelbusch says. It's sobering to note the real parallels among these systems. But it's even more important to remember that the U.S. did not succumb to dictatorship. Roosevelt may have stretched the Constitution beyond recognition, and he had a taste for planning and power previously unknown in the White House. But he was not a murderous thug. And despite a population that "literally waited for orders," as McCormick put it, American institutions did not collapse. The Supreme Court declared some New Deal measures unconstitutional. Some business leaders resisted it. Intellectuals on both the right and the left, some of whom ended up in the early libertarian movement, railed against Roosevelt. Republican politicians (those were the days!) tended to oppose both the flow of power to Washington and the shift to executive authority.

(Of course, the three "New Deals" that this essay is about, are those of Italy, Germany, and American, right? You were a little disingenuous in your post making us think it was about America, Germany, and the USSR)

Just because the actions of Hitler and Stalin in their authoritarian rule were similar? It does not make them on the same side of the political spectrum. If you want to make your own political spectrum up, for your own personal use, that is fine, but it won't be recognized by any serious student of political science. If you wrote down this rationale on an entry level political science test in college when asked, "Where on the political spectrum Hitler and Stalin fell?" You would fail. I don't care what school you go to, in what country. We need to speak in common terms. Scientists in the US started using metric ages ago, they don't go around insisting on using the English system because it suits them. Don't try to re-invent the wheel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Political spectrum

A political spectrum is a way of modeling different political positions by placing them upon one or more geometric axes symbolizing independent political dimensions.

Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the 18th century French parliament. According to the simplest left-right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right. There is politics that rejects the conventional left-right spectrum, this is known as syncretic politics.[1][2]

However, researchers have frequently noted that a single left-right axis is insufficient in describing the existing variation in political beliefs, and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between cultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the welfare of the community). In this context, the contemporary American left is often considered individualist (or libertarian) on social/cultural issues and communitarian (or populist) on economic issues, while the contemporary American right is often considered communitarian (or populist) on social/cultural issues and individualist (or libertarian) on economic issues.

This was the system used at both Universities where I studied Political Science. But then, I studied at State Universities, so that probably doesn't say much. It is safe to say, this is the standard in American mainstream politics today if you are going to go beyond the classically defined left-right paradigm to address issues of Authoritarianism and Liberty.

This chart proposed by the Political Compass Organisation, which extends from -10 to +10 on each axis, is one of several competing models. To take it and find out where you are, go here. . . http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

An example of a biaxial political spectrum chart; it is a variant of the Nolan chart. To take it and find out where you are, go here. . . http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

Hans Slomp projection of the European political spectrum.[3]

Lastly, this one is a rather neat political spectrum map, for if you have ever visited political forums with a lot of foreign participants, the helps you to really gain a cultural understanding of international political view points.

A recreation of the Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map of the World based on the World Values Survey.

. . . BTW, did you take debate in high school or college? Would you perchance happen to be a lawyer?