NeoConservatism vs Fascism

[AllieBaba]

I'm not embarassed at all. I'm not the one with faulty reasoning powers.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not embarassed at all. I'm not the one with faulty reasoning powers.

Oh look, a riposte....

I think we might have to refer this one to the video referee, it's so damn close.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow, them's big words.

 

[Diuretic]

Wow, them's big words.

Except size isn't everything. Well I keep getting told that anyway

 

[Steerpike]

Goldberg is either mocking his readers or, if he's serious, is exposing himself as proto-totalitarian.

Diuretic, it's easy to criticize everyone else, but you're making statements about a book you haven't even read. That deserves at least as much criticism as someone leaving the TV knob stuck on FoxNews. There's nothing in Goldberg's book that is pro-totalitarian, and yes he's serious.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Al,

Are aware that on the axis of leftwing/rightwing ideology fascism is extreme rightwing?

The political spectrum is more like a wheel. If being right down the middle is 1200, then hard right is 0300 and hard left is 0900. Fascism is at 0500 and Communism is at 0700. In both cases in the extreme the need for the "state" eventually goes away. Both in their practicing scheme involve total governmental control of the economy but fascism is more of a partnership where business actually calls the economic shots with a fully willing government where in communism the central committee calls the shots.

 

[Paulie]

Al,

Are aware that on the axis of leftwing/rightwing ideology fascism is extreme rightwing?

No, she's no where NEAR aware. She felt good to say that liberals are generally fascists though. It sounded great in her head before she posted it.

If anyone here can post THE excepted definition of fascism, I'd sure love to see it, because as far as I was concerned, there isn't one. It's never been clearly defined, and the term gets thrown around all the time as more of a dirty word than anything else.

"Fascism is tyranny" doesn't cut the mustard, either. Yeah, it can be considered tyranny, but that certainly does not define it.

I'll get in on this thread more later, these are my favorite kind.

 

[Diuretic]

Diuretic, it's easy to criticize everyone else, but you're making statements about a book you haven't even read. That deserves at least as much criticism as someone leaving the TV knob stuck on FoxNews. There's nothing in Goldberg's book that is pro-totalitarian, and yes he's serious.

I never travelled to the Soviet Union but I haven't got much time for totalitarianism, didn't have to go there to despise their system.

I'm not going to read it, well not unless it's put online and I can read it at no cost. It's basic premise - explained in many reviews and online discussions - is the point here, not his evidence or lack of it. I'm not reviewing his book, I'm taking a shot at his idea that "liberalism" is fascism. If anyone here wishes to dispute my contention that Golberg is full of it and that "liberalism" isn't fascism then I would be happy to discuss that.

On a more serious note. It appears that Goldberg is being taken seriously by many people. Frankly that's a worry. It is Doublethink in action. Doublethink is a tool for manipulation of the populace and damnit, it works!

 

[Steerpike]

It is Doublethink in action. Doublethink is a tool for manipulation of the populace and damnit, it works!

That may or may not be true, but it's hard to take seriously when you are arguing from an uninformed position. I mean, your statement about pro-totalitarianism, which is demonstrably false if you read the work, seems to indicate a bias. Newspeak/Doublethink etc. seem to be convenient catch phrases to attach to something you don't like but don't really want to know enough about to attack substantively.

 

[Diuretic]

That may or may not be true, but it's hard to take seriously when you are arguing from an uninformed position. I mean, your statement about pro-totalitarianism, which is demonstrably false if you read the work, seems to indicate a bias. Newspeak/Doublethink etc. seem to be convenient catch phrases to attach to something you don't like but don't really want to know enough about to attack substantively.

As I said Steerpike, I'm not reviewing Goldberg's book. I would be arguing from an uninformed position if I was trying to review it. I'm not though. Me, biased? Yes, I'm biased. I've read Goldberg's pieces on NRO and frankly I find them to be poorly argued. I'm no one-man brains trust, I don't have a posh occupation in society, but I know when someone's pretending to be knowledgeable when they're not and Goldberg's pieces on NRO demonstrate to me he isn't in the front runners when it comes to opinion writers.

My references to Newspeak and Doublethink are considered and highly deliberate. I'm pointing out actual manifestations of them. Orwell knew them of course, he pointed out they were markers of the totalitarian mindset. Godberg's premise that "liberalism" is fascism is a classic example of Doublethink. If Goldberg holds to that then I rightly suspect him of a totalitarian mindset. I'm not smearing him, he's providing the evidence, I'm just pointing to it.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568245/fascism.html

"Fascism, modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.

Agreed it's radical right-wing, but we're no where near this point as a country and neither is the Republican party.

You do realize that Colbert satire right?

 

[BrianH]

The CIA only is authorized to operate overseas. The FBI operates in this country. Theoretically that is their respective spheres of influence. FBI is a police force. There's a difference.

Now ook at your definition... Heightenened nationalism OR ethnic identity. It doesn't require both. So who is it who isn't reading?

Fascism is associated with naziism, hence your confusion. But naziism also had other things wrapped up with it.

Ok, fair enough....so we we're a fascist state any time we unite under one flag. Say during World War II? Or directly after 9-11 when everyone was waving their American flag?
Then every country that shows patriotism and a sense of nationality is a fascist state then? If nationalism is the key component, then let me tell you, there are more people in other countries that are willing to unite under their flags and fight for their country. As far as the U.S. goes, if the government is pushing "Fascism" their not doing a very good job of it.

 

[jillian]

Ok, fair enough....so we we're a fascist state any time we unite under one flag. Say during World War II? Or directly after 9-11 when everyone was waving their American flag?
Then every country that shows patriotism and a sense of nationality is a fascist state then? If nationalism is the key component, then let me tell you, there are more people in other countries that are willing to unite under their flags and fight for their country. As far as the U.S. goes, if the government is pushing "Fascism" their not doing a very good job of it.

The hyper nationalism is only one aspect. There were quite a few other requirements that I linked to. You know my feelings on this subject. I think they've made enough inroads where our antennae should be up.

FWIW, I hate false shows of patriotism... the whole magnetized "support our troops" garbage.. by people who don't care that over 4,000 of them have died for an unnecessary war.... and don't care that the ones who are wounded aren't getting the help they need, quickly enough.

Also, the whole flag stickpin thing...from people who have and who want to eviscerate the constitution, that galls me incredibly. So I guess maybe the whole fake patriotism thing seems rather unhealthy to me... particularly when the people wearing those flags and using those magnets aren't railing against warrantless wiretaps. So their protestations of patriotism ring rather hollow.

 

[midcan5]

Diuretic's points above are right on.

Why would anyone debate a work that should be labeled as fiction, life is too short to argue over a book that is consistently shown to be revisionist nonsense.

There is an excellent piece online that reviews Fascism, link is below for those interested. It has some good history, definitions, and looks closely at Rush Limbaugh. Here is link to Chapter II.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismii.php

 

[BrianH]

The hyper nationalism is only one aspect. There were quite a few other requirements that I linked to. You know my feelings on this subject. I think they've made enough inroads where our antennae should be up.

FWIW, I hate false shows of patriotism... the whole magnetized "support our troops" garbage.. by people who don't care that over 4,000 of them have died for an unnecessary war.... and don't care that the ones who are wounded aren't getting the help they need, quickly enough.

Also, the whole flag stickpin thing...from people who have and who want to eviscerate the constitution, that galls me incredibly. So I guess maybe the whole fake patriotism thing seems rather unhealthy to me... particularly when the people wearing those flags and using those magnets aren't railing against warrantless wiretaps. So their protestations of patriotism ring rather hollow.

I see your point. I agree that we have to keep an eye out for this type of thing. I can't stand fake patriotism either.

And most people do care about our 4,000 troops. the problem that people have in the South anyway, is when we see people (on the media portrayed as "liberals"), blaming soldiers for massacres in Iraq before evidence is even brought forth. Or liberals attacking recruiting stations, stuff like that. We get a pretty biased media down here, as I'm sure you guys get one up there too. I bet we're all getting different media based on where we live. The view that we get of liberals down here is that they don't support our troops. We get the stories about liberals (dems) who vote for war and then don't vote to send troops armor and the supplies they need. The view we get of liberals is the view of the hippie in the 60s spitting on soldiers.

 

[Steerpike]

Why would anyone debate a work that should be labeled as fiction, life is too short to argue over a book that is consistently shown to be revisionist nonsense.

There hasn't been a showing of that from what I've seen. But at least this tells me who is interested in a discussion and who isn't. That's always useful information on an internet forum.

 

[midcan5]

There hasn't been a showing of that from what I've seen. But at least this tells me who is interested in a discussion and who isn't. That's always useful information on an internet forum.

Don't pout, it's unbecoming. Liberalism, as Jeremy Waldron writes, is about a social order that is acceptable to the people living under it. And respects each individual living under its authority. Fascism is about the Nation and in that nationalistic fervor the individual is lost. Read the link above, very good. Comparing Liberalism with Fascism is an apple and oranges point of view. The premise is wrong why continue.

 

[Steerpike]

Don't pout, it's unbecoming. Liberalism, as Jeremy Waldron writes, is about a social order that is acceptable to the people living under it. And respects each individual living under its authority. Fascism is about the Nation and in that nationalistic fervor the individual is lost. Read the link above, very good. Comparing Liberalism with Fascism is an apple and oranges point of view. The premise is wrong why continue.

You are assuming the premise is wrong without having read the presentation and defense of the premise, so you're arguing from a point of ignorance at least with respect to the book.

The book's title didn't originate with Goldberg, by the way. It comes from H.G. Wells and has been the subject of scholarly debate. See link:

http://jch.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/4/541

Your dismissal of an entire book out of hand because you don't like a phrase that has a historical basis for use, isn't anything that can be discussed. If you educate yourself on the book and have substantive reasons as to why it is wrong, then that's great. I think that's how the debate over the issue is supposed to work. So far, you've presented nothing but vagaries and ad hominems.

 

[Steerpike]

By the way, Midcan....in case you're missing my point:

The guy wrote a book about a time in U.S. History, using a title that is historically accurate in that it is a phrase that was actually used at the time in history by the adherents of a certain political philosophy. You have to admit, based on those facts, that dismissing the book due to the title is nonsense. Whether you think such a thing as liberal fascism is possible or not, that term was used at the time and that's what the book is about, at least in large part.

 

[manifold]

I'm not embarassed at all. I'm not the one with faulty reasoning powers.

Yup, you'd need to have some before they could be considered "faulty."