NeoConservatism vs Fascism

[AllieBaba]

The term liberal changes as political tides change.

Currently, the above definition fits right in with liberal ideology in this country.

 

[Shogun]

I don't disagree with you, though I'm not sure about Pelosi. I just don't think people that hold those views are actually liberals.

I promise you that the reason there is no more smoking on congressional grounds is because of the actions of the liberal congresspeople pushing their fascist fucking anti-tobacco agenda. Actually liberals? We can debate the nomenclature as dieuretic seems to want but the fact remains that it isn't conservatives looking to restrict options by banning smoking. It wasn't Nancy Reagan or Barb Bush that pounced on all that ebil debil music that invented suicide in the early 90s. Peta sure as hell isn't a right wing organization. speaking AS a liberal dude, they count.


A Smoking Tradition Snuffed Out By Pelosi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011002075.html


yes, FUCK nancy pelosi. She is exactly the kind of democrat that validates generalizations about the party.

 

[Diuretic]

I was being sarcastic.

I was being dense.

 

[Diuretic]

You are free to hold your opinion BUT i don't know many people who would confuse which side of the spectrum each reside. solid lefties every one. Fascists who think they know better than you regarding your own life. Somehow, this validates acting just like a fascist and limiting options and liberty "for your own good". It's one of the reasons why I hate the far end of my side of the spectrum more than the far side of the right.

I'm just about there myself. Frankly I have a gut-based revulsion to the authoritarians on the Left. I won't go on about it but the evidence is there. I'm not sure if you're familiar with how the Left treated one of its own, Orwell/Blair (there's an irony), when he stepped outside of the orthodoxy to denounce the Soviets after WWII because of Stalinism, but it was instructive as to how authoritarian the Left can be. Granted, that was the British Left which has always been much further to the left than even the socialists in the US, but it illustrates my point.

 

[Ravi]

I promise you that the reason there is no more smoking on congressional grounds is because of the actions of the liberal congresspeople pushing their fascist fucking anti-tobacco agenda. Actually liberals? We can debate the nomenclature as dieuretic seems to want but the fact remains that it isn't conservatives looking to restrict options by banning smoking. It wasn't Nancy Reagan or Barb Bush that pounced on all that ebil debil music that invented suicide in the early 90s. Peta sure as hell isn't a right wing organization. speaking AS a liberal dude, they count.


A Smoking Tradition Snuffed Out By Pelosi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011002075.html


yes, FUCK nancy pelosi. She is exactly the kind of democrat that validates generalizations about the party.

So, you support Obama because he smokes?

 

[Ravi]

I was being dense.

Hey, that's my job!

 

[manifold]

How about using a more appropriate term than "fascist" which has a particular meaning? What about "authoritarian"? Yes, there is a huge streak of authoritarianism in the Left, it has a tendency towards authoritarianism the further left it goes. And so on the right, exactly the same.

The leftwing/rightwing ideological spectrum is less like a straight line and more like a slightly less than complete circle. Where the extremes on both sides are a lot closer to each other than they are the "middle."

 

[Steerpike]

The leftwing/rightwing ideological spectrum is less like a straight line and more like a slightly less than a complete circle. Where the extremes on both sides are a lot closer to each other than they are the "middle."

True enough.

Great song in your quote, Manifold. Saw those guys play a few months back.

 

[Diuretic]

I've seen that link before, and read through it. It doesn't provide the information I said you didn't provide, namely the information that documents where Goldberg is wrong. Instead, the author simply asserts that Goldberg should have included many other groups (right-wing) groups in his work. I don't know that it was the purpose of his work to talk about right-wing fascism, but I certainly can't disagree that the groups mentioned in your link have fascist characteristics. Nothing in the link, however, demonstrates that Goldberg was wrong. At best, one could argue his book was incomplete (at least if it was to be a treatise on fascism generally, which it wasn't).

Goldberg's premise is flawed. Fascism and "liberalism" - and here we get to the Newspeak re-definition of the word, I think Goldberg means the soft, velvety Left of US politics - are inconsistent. He means the tendency to authoritarianism even in the US wimpy Left, but he can't use it because he damn well knows the Right are past masters of authoritarianism. So he deliberately misuses the term "fascism" because, well, no-one but a fascist loves a fascist.

 

[Diuretic]

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]


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


the word works for me.

I'm sorry I wasn't more precise but I was going from my understanding of the term, if it was wrong I'd appreciate a correction.

 

[Diuretic]

Hey, that's my job!

Grasshopper.........you have much to learn about dense. Fortunately you are in a forum with many role models....

 

[Steerpike]

Goldberg's premise is flawed. Fascism and "liberalism" - and here we get to the Newspeak re-definition of the word, I think Goldberg means the soft, velvety Left of US politics - are inconsistent. He means the tendency to authoritarianism even in the US wimpy Left, but he can't use it because he damn well knows the Right are past masters of authoritarianism. So he deliberately misuses the term "fascism" because, well, no-one but a fascist loves a fascist.

I think you have that impression because you haven't read the book, Diuretic. Goldberg does get there to some extent, but that's not the most interesting part of the work. The majority of it extends to a historical view of what are now considered 'liberal' policies or groups. He provides some interesting information, for example, about the Wilson administration. It's more of a perspective on history than a commentary on the present-day liberals, although there is some of the latter in it. At least, that's my reading.

 

[midcan5]

Fascism can be a tough one as elements are sometimes contradictory. Umberto Eco does a good job in his fourteen points and the link below spells it out as well.

"Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each..."

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

Eco's 14 points are accurate as well.
http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/eco/ur-fascism.html


Neocon is modern and while this is pretty negative it fits well enough as a general definition:

"Neoconservative. Originally used to describe left-wingers who crossed the floor, neocons are on the authoritarian right, rather than the traditionally conservative libertarian right. They tend to be very pro-war and adopt the mentality of "We're better than you and we know it."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=neocon


Jonah Goldberg has to be one of the most idiotic revisionists of modern times. Any person even vaguely familiar with Fascism knows it is of the Right and not the left. I will grant that extremists seem to meet in a circle as in the end dictators dictate but if you can't tell the difference between political ideologies you should stay home.

http://www.alternet.org/story/72960/

 

[Ravi]

I think you have that impression because you haven't read the book, Diuretic. Goldberg does get there to some extent, but that's not the most interesting part of the work. The majority of it extends to a historical view of what are now considered 'liberal' policies or groups. He provides some interesting information, for example, about the Wilson administration. It's more of a perspective on history than a commentary on the present-day liberals, although there is some of the latter in it. At least, that's my reading.

Care to post some of the examples and his rationale?

 

[Steerpike]

Care to post some of the examples and his rationale?

I don't have it in front of me so I can't right now.


MIDCAN - I take it you haven't read the book.

 

[midcan5]

I don't have it in front of me so I can't right now.


MIDCAN - I take it you haven't read the book.

I glanced at it, but as an English prof I had once said, if you are eating bad meat, is it necessary to eat the whole thing to know it is bad.

Pure unadulterated garbage in my mind and scary as if you can turn wrong into right and right into wrong you can do anything, it is why rightists tend to be fascist in the first place. Read Eco above. Or edit see good review below from Slate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2182871/

"Liberal Fascism, then, is a howl of rage disguised as intellectual history. Some mean liberals called Goldberg hurtful names, so he's responding with 400 pages that boil down to: I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[Steerpike]

I glanced at it, but as an English prof I had once said, if you are eating bad meat, is it necessary to eat the whole thing to know it is bad.

Pure unadulterated garbage in my mind and scary as if you can turn wrong into right and right into wrong you can do anything, it is why rightists tend to be fascist in the first place. Read Eco above.

That's easy to say, but like I said the book is heavily sourced. If you just dismiss it out of hand that's not much to discuss (and not really a substantive evaluation of anything).

 

[Ravi]

I don't have it in front of me so I can't right now.


MIDCAN - I take it you haven't read the book.

Tomorrow will be fine.

 

[Steerpike]

Tomorrow will be fine.

Ravir:

If I post some of this rationale and sources do you intend to respond? The reason I ask is I often find in politics forums as soon as I do something like that, the response is either entirely ad hominem in nature, or the post is ignored entirely because the person doesn't know how to respond to it and doesn't wish to know.

I'm not saying you're that way, but if I actually take the time to provide it can I expect an objective response or an out-of-hand dismissal?

 

[Truthmatters]

What are we defining as NeoConservatism?
NeoConservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

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

There's a good difference between the two.

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

Sure looks like the modern R party to me.