Have you ever been called a commie by a radical Right wing fanatic? I have, and if you are at all like me you have probably been called a commie too. Many of us who dare point to the extremism of the American radical Right have been accused of being a communist. Consider it a badge of honor. You are now a pro-democracy freedom fighter.
Seeing this happen again and again got me thinking I should discuss this issue further. People are getting fed up with all this authoritarian hate mongering on behalf of a corporatist agenda. We finally have our freedom movement taking a stand on Wall Street, not that most Americans know about it, thanks to a corporate media that would rather cover a small Tea Cult gathering than a real grass-roots popular movement.
The members of the American radical Right are programmed to attack unions, public employees, teachers, and every other non-wealthy American who dares to think for himself, who dares to vote against the party of minority rule.
When fascism comes to America, "conservatives" will celebrate their victory over "socialism", while living in more squalor than ever before.
But they will already have been indoctrinated on who to blame. We liberals would be the equivalent of the German Jews in fascist Amerika.
The extremism of the neo-Republicans has even alienated long time conservative Republicans like former senators Chuck Hagel and Arlen Spector. So who does that leave in control of the Republican Party? Fanatics.
I suggest reading retired GOP Congressional staffer Mike Logren’s account of his finally leaving the cult. Yes cult. You see, I’m not the only “commie” calling the extremist party a cult.
“It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant.”
“It is this broad and ever-widening gulf between the traditional Republicanism of an Eisenhower and the quasi-totalitarian cult of a Michele Bachmann that impelled my departure from Capitol Hill.”
This cult is the greatest threat to our freedom and democracy. They have a major political party and the power of vast wealth behind them. They must be called out for being a cult of American proto-fascism. It is beyond corporatism. They hate us for our freedom and democracy.
There are five pillars of Right Wing fanaticism shared by radical Republicans and fascists. Both promote rule by an authoritarian tyranny of the minority that is of, by and for the economic and political elites.
In addition to their mutual desire for minority rule and opposition to democracy, they also love to label their opponents as communists. This is essential to their Reich Wing ideology.
They hate unions. We’ve all seen the Tea Cult Koch brothers using their lackeys to crush unions.
The radical Right also regards public education, journalism, science, and all other endeavors to seek and share truth as threats to their radical belief system. Noted climate scientist, and oxy-moron, Rush Limbaugh is a great example.
The Nazis gave us the Big Lie. Orwell gave us, “Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. War is peace.”
Republicans have expanded the Big Lie list. Pick almost anything said by Palin, Bachmann, Coulter, Beck, Hannity, or most of the FOX(R) propagandists. No wonder millions of Americans still think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim.
Thanks to them we can add “Tax cuts for the rich create jobs,” and “Saddam has ties to al-Qaeda and is building WMD’s with his “nuklular” aluminum tubes.” We heard Bush’s mouthpiece Fleischer tell us, “Americans need to watch what they say,” and of course, Dictator Dick Cheney’s advice to voters in ’04, "If we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again." And last but not least, “Expanded health care would become “death panels”. Note the especially threatening and ominous tone of the latter three.
They’ve added so much to the list of phrases that constitute neo-fascist creed and indoctrination.
Both Fascists and Republicans love their Big Lies. They love them so much they forget to thank the “liberal” corporate media for spreading them.
So in review we see fascists and radical Republicans share these characteristics:
1. Authoritarian opposition to democracy and advocacy of minority rule.
2. Fanatical hatred of unions and scorn for workers’ rights.
3. Red baiting and scapegoating anyone who disagrees with them as a commie.
4. Contempt for education, journalism, and science that questions their radical Rightist indoctrination.
5. The proven Propaganda method of the Big Lie.
There are surely more characteristics shared by radical Rightists, but I think I’ve covered the most prominent ones.
Cultists are going to hate me for saying this, but as FDR said, “I welcome their hatred”.
It is no virtue to tolerate the intolerant. It is no vice to stand up and demand justice, freedom and democracy.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
You don't even need the comparison to fascists. Your five characteristics of radical republicans, a description that fits most of the republican candidates, is sufficient to question their suitability to run this country.
"We finally have our freedom movement taking a stand on Wall Street..."
How are the Wall Street protests any more genuine than Tea Party rallies? As I recall, the Tea Party protests were called astroturf movements. Aren't these the same?
"In addition to their mutual desire for minority rule and opposition to democracy... They hate union... The radical Right also regards public education, journalism, science, and all other endeavors to seek and share truth as threats to their radical belief system."
As for the rest, by your definitions above, thank god I'm not part of the radical right. They sound awful. Of course, I've also never met someone, heard someone on the radio, or seen someone on TV that fits your definitions either, so perhaps the radical right only exists in your mind.
FDR also said: I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.
FDR also said: When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on.
And Bryan White said:
Over thousands and thousands of years, birds have built their nests in exactly the same way. They can not rethink or relearn the process, because there was no thinking or learning involved in the first place.
And FDR was opposed to govt workers forming Unions. Very opposed.
Are you sure? Are you sure he didn't mean that he was opposed to government worker unions?
Appropriately, my word verification is "babble"
Too bad the Right has convinced too many Americans to not vote on the issues that affect them.
They're very good at saying:
Look over there! A death panel. Watch out! There goes a Mexican! Look, there goes a Muslim! Oh, no! Job creators are being oppressed by liberal socialists.
What? You’re not a part of the radical Right, Mr. Moderate Republican? OK. Good.
Let’s have a look at what we have seen from you to substantiate this.
We’ve seen your words of support for unions, teachers and public education. No? We’ve seen your brave defense of investigative journalism. No? Then we’ve seen your brave support for climate science. No? We’ve seen your outrage at Republican voter suppression campaigns. No?
We’ve seen you absurdly suggest the radical Right exists only in my mind. Yes?
Well then. That should be proof right there that you cannot possibly be part of the radical Right. You deny its very existence.
Supposing there’s a slight possibility that there’s such a thing, could you please explain how you’re not part of the radical Right?
Your question doesn’t seem like what a moderate would ask.
“How are the Wall Street protests any more genuine than Tea Party rallies?”
I can answer that with a question. How are corporations any more genuine persons than human beings?
They have a lot more money. Ah, money. That would be the ticket.
The Tea Cult is purely a non-grass roots, astroturf creation of Right Wing Big Money. Open season was declared on Obama by a corporate FOX political operation, a corporate Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, and a corporate Republican House leader Dick Armey’s Freedom Works. All are Republicans. All are dedicated to destroy Obama’s presidency and undermine democracy by employing legions of fanatic followers in an artificial movement feigning populism. There are no leading Tea Cult figures that challenge the Republican dogma of tax cuts for the corporate and rich elites, and Big Money control of the political process.
The vast majority of Americans, (that would mean democracy if we actually had it) are clearly opposed to that radical theft of democracy, theft of a government of, by and for the people, and... the Tea Cult.
And that’s the simple truth.
Thank you for the link.
Just the FOX(R),
It might surprise someone without the facts that teachers and public employee unions did not collapse the stock market and plunge us into a recession.
It may also surprise someone without the facts that FDR was against public employees striking. He was not against workers’ rights to organize to present their views.
"The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government." –FDR
@Dave, first of all I object to having to defend myself. If you believe I'm radical (using your inflated definitions) you should have to prove it. I shouldn't have to prove I'm not. But since this might be entertaining...
"We’ve seen your words of support for unions, teachers and public education."
You would have if you were paying attention. One point for me.
"We’ve seen your brave defense of investigative journalism."
Wait, what? What does this have to do with right wing ideology? Nice try. I confess, I have not offered a proactive defense of investigative journalism, but to earn the point, you must demonstrate how a lack of defense = radicalism.
"Then we’ve seen your brave support for climate science."
Yes you have, on your blog and mine. I do question the politicization of climate science, but support the science itself. Although, I'm still a skeptic (I have no doubt you see the distinction). Another point for me.
"We’ve seen your outrage at Republican voter suppression campaigns."
That's like asking when I stopped beating my wife. To answer the question, I have to accept the premise that Republicans have a campaign of voter suppression. If they did, I would be outraged.
If you'd like to earn the point, you need to show me evidence, and voter ID laws don't count because there is nothing discriminatory about asking someone to show an ID to vote.
"That should be proof right there that you cannot possibly be part of the radical Right. You deny its very existence."
Actually, I'm well aware of the existence of the radical right wing, but no one in it meets your definition.
You said: "minority rule." Not me. Another point.
You said: "opposition to democracy." Not me. Another point.
You said: "red baiting." Not me. Another point.
As you've defined the radical right, there are 5 points in my favor and 2 that you still need to back up. As I said, by your definition, I'm pretty damn moderate. By your definition, I'm unaware of anyone who is on the radical right.
My issue isn't whether or not a radical right exists; it's your fabricated definition of the radical right. That exists only in your mind.
Great post, Dave. The five points boil it down to important essentials everyone should be aware of.
Along that line, I think part of the problem is that many Americans who've been around awhile fail to appreciate how far right the whole political landscape shifted. For many, it happened like the well-known example of boiling a critter. If you just drop it into a pot of boiling water it will squeal and jump out. If you put it in warm water and set it on the burner, it gets hotter and hotter a bit at a time until . . . it's all over. That's how many people were conned, a bit at a time, into buying into nonsense and backing Republican pols who got us to the lousy mess we're in now.
It's a little different with younger people, most of whom have no frame of reference, no memory of moderate and even somewhat progressive Republicans when there still were some. Younger people have no recollection of a time when doing some things would be tantamount to committing political suicide. Things like hollering "you lie" during a presidential address; or declaring that a party's No. 1 goal is to make the president a failed leader and replace him; or suggesting if one's party doesn't win power at the polls it'll be time to get out the guns, and worse;
Somehow, people young and old must come to understand how far down a bad, dead-end road our country has been taken. That, and come to the realization that the two major parties aren't the same, aren't equally corrupt, and that things don't have to be the way they are now.
Heathen Republican wrote: "How are the Wall Street protests any more genuine than Tea Party rallies? As I recall, the Tea Party protests were called astroturf movements. Aren't these the same?"
No they're not the same. That you ask reveals where you get your "news" and why you would ask the question. Read all about it here.
"In January 2010, FreedomWorks was offering a "Citizen Lobby Training" for a Tea Party Patriot group whose cofounder was featured in a January 15 New York Times article on the movement's push to take control of the Republican party."
If you read the entire article at SourceWatch, you'll notice its genesis was a scam that ripped off insurance buyers, channeling the money to Dick Armey's Freedom Works PR firm, for use in creating tea party groups to disrupt congressional Democrats' town hall meetings.
There's no indication anything like that chicanery is behind the current Occupy movement.
"It's a little different with younger people, most of whom have no frame of reference, no memory of moderate and even somewhat progressive Republicans when there still were some."
You're referring to a time when both parties were regional parties, not ideological parties. When the parties were regional, you'd find liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Now that the parties have aligned along ideological lines, you don't find either. Stop lamenting and accept progress.
"Somehow, people young and old must come to understand how far down a bad, dead-end road our country has been taken. That, and come to the realization that the two major parties aren't the same, aren't equally corrupt, and that things don't have to be the way they are now."
That's a pretty good description of Democrats. The young people who realize it think of themselves as members of the Tea Party.
free0352 said... "No, we hate it because you keep stealing our money. It's not your money, it's our money. We earned it, if you want to give yours away fine but leave our's alone. Stop thieving."
You joined up with the largest socialist organization in the world, to do a job I didn't want done, while stealing my tax dollars out of my pocket, and you have the gall to complain that I'm stealing from you?
And still my tax dollars pay for your socialist benefits, for serving in a war I never wanted the USA to engage in.
Sucks to see your money stolen, to go for causes you don't approve of, doesn't it?
Live with it. Man up. You live in an interrelated society. If you don't like it, you can leave.
The Heathen Republican said..., "You're referring to a time when both parties were regional parties, not ideological parties. When the parties were regional, you'd find liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Now that the parties have aligned along ideological lines, you don't find either. Stop lamenting and accept progress."
We've seen this style of progress before. It's a common form of historical progress that has a tendency to lead to very hard times.
"We've seen this style of progress before. It's a common form of historical progress that has a tendency to lead to very hard times."
I literally don't know what you're talking about. When else, in the history of the U.S., have we gone from regional parties to ideological parties? Then when did we go back to regional parties? If it happened twice, tell us about the first time.
If you're able to come up with that historical precedent, explain what hard times occurred the first time around.
If you were trying to make a clever and snide comment about Republicans, you failed because Democrats have also become an ideological (not regional) party.
The Heathen Republican said..., "I literally don't know what you're talking about. When else, in the history of the U.S., have we gone from regional parties to ideological parties? Then when did we go back to regional parties? If it happened twice, tell us about the first time."
I can give two specific periods in the USA when hard core ideologies took center stage and produced hardship.
1. The years leading up to the US Civil War.
2. The years leading up to Prohibition.
Other nations have also experienced strong ideological divides.
TOM is it your view that the Nazi's didn't exist before the concentration camps were built?
You seem to imply that there were no Nazis in the years prior to the construction of the concentration camps.
The US had concentration camps and still does in the form of Indian Reservations. Does that make us all Nazis?
Heathen Republican wrote: "You're referring to a time when both parties were regional parties, not ideological parties. . ."
The Republican party is the party of the South and border states of the Confederacy. The GOP has strength in the plains states, parts of the Midwest and Arizona. But without solid support from white Southerners, it's dead in the water. Its big-money backers can only buy so many votes and whip up only so much resentment and paranoia elsewhere.
The Republican Party has become narrowly and rigidly ideological, having purged itself of even slightly progressive members and nearly all its moderates. It's highly disciplined about ideology. That all goes together to make the GOP more like a political pressure group or extremist faction like the Birchers than like a big-tent party.
Meanwhile, Democrats still have a big tent. Its ranks include a range from liberals like Pelosi and Kucinich in the House to conservatives like the recently departed Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson. As for discipline, forget it.
Most Democrats aren't especially ideological. Few Democrats who are active in politics make ideological arguments. They instead stick to issue-oriented arguments. (Something many of liberals believe is a mistake.) What we do often see is pols and propagandists on the right accusing Democrats of speaking and acting on the basis of ideology, or referring to them as if they're doing that.
Re: the tea party. It's not a very youthful faction. The demographic is overwhelmingly WASP 30- to 60-something Republicans, mostly located across the Sun Belt. Basically, they're Bush's 23 percenters with a new name bestowed by Freedom Works.
Of course not.
Are you saying that Republicans are brown shirts beating and killing people so the can't vote, or vote a certain way?
Whatever anyone hates about our government, it was by popular/majority vote.
Republicans have been trying to eliminate S.S and other programs since the day they were enacted.
They never had the votes, or the people's support, until now.
Call Republicans what you want, but they have been winning the elections for decades (which means millions of Americans support their ideas) and any Americans who don't understand how we got 14 trillion in debt (Republican policies) are denying reality, that they refuse to pay for the government we have built for almost 100 years.
that also, is not fascism, just a different viewpoint on how involved the government should be in our lives.
Will America be worse off with Republican policies, of course, and we have all the evidence we need given our situation.
But Nazis, not hardly.
TOM, fascism is a marriage of government and corporations. Government becomes captive to the interests of the most powerful corporations.
I think a strong case can be made that this is what we have today.
Nationalism, excessive flag waving and a fixation on military adventures are also hallmarks of a fascist society.
Of course fascism is just a different political viewpoint, is it not?
One worrisome trend (for me anyway) is that we're seeing now is that the left has moved to the right. And of course the right has moved further out. Obama's policies are far to the right of Reagan's.
Dave has touched on some of the reasons this has occurred. The main one being that Democrats have to become more fascist to get the corporate dollars for campaigns.
As the Democratic Party moves further right, the Republicans and Tea Party folks will have to go further out to differentiate themselves.
As was mentioned previously, it's a slow cook. But you'll see more rapid change when Republicans sweep Capital Hill in the next election.
BTW, I'm not saying the Tea Party are Nazis, I'm just saying they have a lot in common with the Nazis.
I call it the “Reagan Youth” syndrome. They have no sense of history.
My five points are not fabricated. I have written about them all in detail and provided supporting factual evidence.
I’m not sure I have ever accused you of all those traits. In your defense, I don’t remember you calling me a commie, but we have plenty of examples of those more extreme than you having done so. See, I’m not calling you a fascist, or even as extreme as some other commentors. Although you are certainly not a moderate, and are out of sync with the majority of Americans who are not Republicans.
Your support of the Republican Party agenda of FOX(R) political operatives and labeling corporate media, including newspapers and broadcast news, as “liberal media” is antithetical to true journalism.
Your support of the Republican Party agenda amounts to promoting minority rule due to their exclusive representation of the economic elites’ interests over the public good. The Republican agenda is openly antagonistic to the majority’s consensus on restoring former tax rates on the rich.
Your support of the Republican Party agenda amounts to subverting democracy by imposing onerous restrictions on voter registration as in Florida and elsewhere, and stripping the right to vote from eligible citizens who once had the right.
I do question the politicization of climate science.
Yes, but only on one side of the issue. You have promoted the Great Climate Hoax conspiracy of evil scientists, yet you do not question the politicization or financial motives on the part of the energy-funded deniers.
voter ID laws don't count because there is nothing discriminatory about asking someone to show an ID to vote.
Someone who legally voted in the past, has committed no crime or changed address, and has subsequently been denied the right to vote will most certainly find it discriminatory when asked for multiple ID’s or otherwise denied his rights. Driving is a privilege. Voting is a right. Republicans are working to deny that right.
We know there are plenty of Americans who were denied their rights by the GOP war on democracy, and not just in Florida:
This morning, in South Bend, Indiana, a freshman student at St. Mary’s College, excited to vote for the first time, left the polling place in tears because she only possessed a private college ID and was unable to vote. The poll workers, nuns at a local convent, were trying to help the young student through her problem. While they were helping her, they realized that some of their fellow nuns, who had just arrived at the polling place, also could not vote because of the photo ID law. Not only was this group of nuns disenfranchised, but so would be four floors of retired nuns in their convent.
Democracy is antithetical to right wing ideology. But don’t take my word for it.
“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” – Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich
The Right has long employed the ruse of “vote fraud” in order to suppress real voters who are likely to vote their interests. An intensive five-year investigation by the Department of Justice under George W. Bush famously netted only 86 voter-fraud convictions. Hardly the champions of democracy compared to the thousands disenfranchised.
I have to accept the premise that Republicans have a campaign of voter suppression. If they did, I would be outraged.
This explains why you are in denial.
Republicans are not only anti Democratic Party, they are truly anti-democracy. This is simply the truth.
No, we hate it because you keep stealing our money. It's not your money, it's our money. We earned it, if you want to give yours away fine but leave our's alone. Stop thieving.
This is both sad and amusing considering I have paid more taxes than you have. The irony is my tax dollars are going for your pay and health care, and for other soldiers wounded in a war I opposed. But you don’t hear me whining about “stop thieving”, do you? No you don’t.
There are none more blatantly sniveling than greedy aristocrats and corporate Wall Street goons on welfare demanding they contribute less to our nation’s well being. A bunch of elitist crybabies. Boo hoo. Oh, the tyranny! Oh, the oppression! Oh, the terrible injustice of it all. Sniveling indeed.
Your contempt for the Wall Street demonstrators is also both amusing and sad. It falls into the “punish the victim” and let the perpetrators go free mentality. There’s your “Virtue of Selfishness” on display.
Your side of the argument is fucked because it was given it's full chance for two years strait starting in 2008.
My side? You are either joking or completely oblivious to the minority of progressives in the largely corporatist Democratic Party.
But then again anyone to the left of Dick Cheney is a socialist to you.
I agree, lies and misinformation are not the same as oppressive fascism. However they are tools of fascists.
The loss of our Constitutional rights is due largely to politicians’ representing their interest in reelection by posing as “tough on crime/terror”, instead of upholding their oath to the Constitution.
Where did I call anyone a Nazi? I’m only listing the common traits shared by fascists and radical Right Republicans.
Where are the concentration camps? Where are the murders?
Abu Ghraib is one example of both. Gitmo and rendition sites are other incarceration centers for those without prior conviction. Unprovoked war of aggression is also murder. Ask Afghans and Iraqis and now Pakistanis where the bodies are. Obama has now assumed the authority to kill Americans without trial, on only his word that the targeted person is a terrorist. This is how the ugly side of fascism begins.
You are oversimplifying and generalizing about hate and racism. In fact you sound almost like a Republican with, “The racists in America were the Democrats until after WW II”. You meant Dixiecrats, right?
The Republican and Democratic parties are not the party of Lincoln or the party of Dixiecrats anymore. They are the moderate and radical right corporatist parties.
And despite voting for Republicans, most Americans want to keep Social Security, Medicare, and former tax rates for the elites. They have been conned into voting against their interests.
Your feud with those two ladies has no relevance to our discussion. That is your personal problem. Please, we really don’t care to hear your complaints about them.
I'm not saying the Tea Party are Nazis, I'm just saying they have a lot in common with the Nazis.
My point exactly, and the woman who had her head stomped to the curb by the Rand Paul fanatic would probably agree.
Being duped, or stupid, is not the same thing as being forced, or having voting rights taken away.
Americans voted for this kind of representation (policies) freely.
I'm sure Mrs. Clinton is still saying her vote to give President Bush the power to start hostel actions against Iraq, did not mean he could, or would start a war with Iraq. Really?
Democrats still vote to keep Bush policies (war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, GITMO, the Patriot act, etc., etc) are Democrats just like SS men backing up their leader?
When Democrats drew the voting precincts in Texas and Republicans left the State so a vote could not be taken, were Democrats being fascists forcing a certain Democratic win by drawing the correct lines?
American politics infused with bigotry, violence, misinformation, fraud, etc.; is a messy, mean process. And it should be hard fought, because the winners (majority) get to pass the laws we live under.
It's no surprise that politicians will slant government to reflect their policies, the surprise is that Americans keep voting for these idiots.
The sad fact of American Asians being held prisoners, does not equate to the murder machine of Nazi concentration camps.
Man up. You live in an interrelated society. If you don't like it, you can leave.
I could say the same right back at you. In fact, I am. I'll vote that you have to pay your own personal bills. You vote which ever way you want.
The irony is my tax dollars are going for your pay and health care, and for other soldiers wounded in a war I opposed. But you don’t hear me whining about “stop thieving”, do you? No you don’t.
That's because I'm an employee. What to welfare recipients do to earn their checks exactly? When they start working, I say we tax payers should start paying.
Oh, the tyranny! Oh, the oppression! Oh, the terrible injustice of it all.
That's exactly what it is. It's a mob using the power of the state to take from those who have more. It's not altruism, it's pure greed and envy.
Letting people keep more of their own money? Yes, traditionally an authoritarian position don't you think?
The feud was because I dared to criticize the President. That does not deserve the hate I have received, and is a good example of political intolerance.
Sorry, I have the right to criticize the President without the strong arm tactics of extremists trying to silence me.
Comparable to the Nazi efforts to silence their critics through lies and misinformation.
Just using my personal experience of political intolerance, which is what I gathered your post was laying ground to prove.
Don't care to hear about political suppression and actions of hate. What are you saying.
The KKK were Democrats. Dixiecrats came much later. The History of Democratic racism, is undeniable.
By the way pillar 1 - Republicans have had majority and have House majority now.
It is not the rule of the minority over the majority.
until Obama came along; democrats only held the White House for 8 out of 29 years.
Newt became powerful, because he was speaker of the House.
Democrats won majority in 2006 and lost it in 2010.
We get the representation we deserve (vote for).
Corporate favoritism is undeniable, but I don't see any opposition to that from the Presidents decisions. Extending Bush tax cuts, saving corporate America from bankruptcy, weakening inviromental laws, etc.
The minority rule is by the elites who have bought both parties, not minorities in Congress.
Yes I've been called a Communist and a Socialist. And I've been told that I hate my own country and I want the terrorists to win. And every time I questioned the Iraqi invasion, I was single-handedly derailing and demoralizing our troops.
You have not been a "Good German".
"I was single-handedly derailing and demoralizing our troops."
Wow, I've never known anyone with such power. You must be 10 feet tall, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
May I have you autograph? :)
"largest socialist organization in the world", talking about the Communist Party of China,right?
Tom, are you over looking that fact that the Dems. had control of the House for 40 years straight?
You must have listed the wrong source. On a topic of the difference between the Tea Party rallies and the Wall Street sit-in, you pointed me to a source on FreedomWatch. What does this have to do with men and women around the country showing up to town hall events and opposing government spending?
@Weasel and SW Anderson
Both of you arguing that the right is ideological and the left is not is unconvincing. I do not say the following as a form of evidence, but simply to make a point. Reworking Anderson's quote:
"The Democrat Party has become narrowly and rigidly ideological, having purged itself of even slightly conservative members and nearly all its moderates. It's highly disciplined about ideology. That all goes together to make the Democrats more like a political pressure group or extremist faction like the KKK than like a big-tent party."
If you think the left is such a big tent party, tell me how likely you think it is that a pro-life candidate could ever win the Democratic nomination for president?
My point is that both parties are now centered around their own ideologies. When people claim that one party is moving left or one party is moving right, they are entirely correct. One could argue that, as regional parties, both parties were centrist, big-tent parties. The parties are no longer tied to geography and have each chosen an ideology.
Your point is to deny the ideological factor on the part of the left. Yours is not a winnable argument.
I asked: "How are the Wall Street protests any more genuine than Tea Party rallies?"
You answered: "I can answer that with a question. How are corporations any more genuine persons than human beings?"
Non sequitur. Non-responsive.
You followed up: "They have a lot more money." With a dense paragraph talking about Koch, Armey, Fox, and Freedom Works.
I find this to be equally non-responsive. First, your answer presumes there was money behind the Tea Party rallies. The original rallies were spontaneous. As people of like mind coalesced, they organized and raised money.
Second, your answer presumes there is no money behind the Wall Street sit-in. I have as much evidence as you do (read: none), but I will assert that the Wall Street hippies are bought and paid for by George Soros.
Finally, your answer presumes that a protest with money behind it is illegitimate. You state it as though everyone knows it, but I see no connection between money and "genuineness."
What I see in your response is a lack of evidence that the Tea Party is "astroturf." That's just a partisan charge that you picked up from your masters at MSNBC and the New York Times. Stop spouting talking points.*
*I'm trying out the patented Dave Dubya approach to debate. How am I doing?
Lastly, I don't know the ideology of the people storming Wall Street, even though I make remarks like "hippies" and "sit-ins." For all I know, these are simply an extension of the Tea Party. Has it occurred to you that they might be the same populists that attended Tea Party rallies, and are similarly opposed to big government and corporate dominance of our politics?
You've derided the Tea Party so much that you seem not to realize that you agree with some of the basic tenets behind the movement.
"Your support of the Republican Party agenda amounts to promoting minority rule due to their exclusive representation of the economic elites' interests over the public good."
I'm convinced, and I'm jumping on the bandwagon. I'm a conservative, and my views haven't been represented in the Republican Party for decades. I, too, am a victim of minority rule!
I can't believe I never saw it before, so thank you Dave for bringing it to my attention. You no longer need to think of me as an opponent; we are allies standing up for every day Americans against being ruled by the minority.
"An intensive five-year investigation by the Department of Justice under George W. Bush famously netted only 86 voter-fraud convictions."
Some might see this in a positive light: voter fraud isn't nearly as common as some people like to say. Unless you have some evidence that Bush's Justice Department overlooked some other cases?
Since you seem to have the data at your fingertips, how many voter fraud convictions have been won by the Obama Justice Department?
People, people, people, I think we all need to relax and discuss ice cream and ketchup. It’s more relevant than you think and a lot less contentious. We’re all sensible liberals, after all.
People could easily argue that categorizing things with labels puts them in perspective. However, in politics it doesn’t work that way. Using objectionable labels causes everyone to arm themselves and abandon any search for truth. Worse still, each side applies the aggressive labels to the other, and what I find most ironic, is that each side means it. They are being serious when they do this! What a bunch of Rush Olbermanns!
Obviously, neither side advocates Nazism. Obviously, both sides want their personal flavor of democracy and are arguing in favor of it. From my liberal ideological window, the far right side does seem plutocratic to me, which is anti-democracy, as I define it. It is not what I want. However, many ancient Athenians would tell me I that what I want is not akin to real democracy, and so would many republicans. Democracy has different flavors.
I know what you are thinking: democracy is like ice cream. Exactly! I want an Oreo blizzard. Free tells me, “but wait, that’s not ice cream.” It has a little ice cream in it, but it’s not ice cream. It’s Oreos. I want real ice cream, vanilla. As you may imagine Dave protests immediately, because vanilla ice cream as it is typically packaged has preservatives, additives, and very little milk fat, compared to real ice cream. It’s not real ice cream, Dave tells us. Pericles would declare all of our ice cream to be forgeries. “Aaaaa, we invented ice cream,” he would say. “Your representative ice cream is not ice cream. Each of you arguing about whose fake ice cream is real is just comical.”
We need Voter ID laws. We cannot let someone vote without knowing who they are. The requirement is obvious. No it is not! No Sir! It is an attempt to obstruct democrats, the ones without IDs, from voting. We must allow corporations to promote a candidate as freely as possible. Denying them this free speech is not democratic. Oh yes it is! Corporations mute the voice of the individual if you do this. No candidate can afford to ignore them. That’s not democracy. Oh, no they do not. They still have their one voice, just as each member of the corporation has his voice. Individuals can organize too. Corporations are just organizations of people? Yeah, what about what I said? Oh yeah, what about what I said?
Imagine a stage and a large audience in a theatre. On the stage there is a large upright bottle of ketchup tilted slightly toward a broken bottle of ketchup, lying on its side. Imagine its contents, spilled over the shards of broken glass. The larger bottle of ketchup in the audience leans over and whispers to the small bottle: “Don’t worry son. They are only actors and it’s not real ketchup.”
Don’t worry son, they are only actors and any democracy one could devise without my council is not real democracy.
In fact, any democracy I haven't endorsed is Nazism, fascism and yes, murder! It is child molestation, witch burning and genocide!
If I think of any more labels that can apply to various forms of democracy, I will be happy to share those also.
TOM wrote: "The KKK were Democrats. . . Dixiecrats came much later. The History of Democratic racism, is undeniable."
Sure, if you cherry-pick your time frame and can prove no Republicans were KKK members. The sad truth is, racism was an American shortcoming that included Republicans and Democrats to varying degrees in different places and eras.
Republicans controlled the government throughout the 1920's. There was no desegregation of the military, no Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts passed on their watch. When a Southern Democrat worked a miracle getting those vital reforms passed, Dixiecrats couldn't become Republicans fast enough.
"Just using my personal experience of political intolerance, which is what I gathered your post was laying ground to prove."
I don't think Dave was trying to lay ground for any such thing.
If you want some "political intolerance" to condemn, you might look into how Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island lost his Senate seat and why Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an independent in 2001. You might take time to contemplate how any Republican who even obliquely criticizes, or disagrees with, Rush Limbaugh had better get on his knees and publicly beg forgiveness, if he/she knows what's good for them. And, any Republican who votes against what Grover Norquist demands had better be prepared to face a well-financed primary opponent in the next election.
Finally, there's much to be learned from former Republican Senate staffer Mike Lofgren's remarkable article at Truthout.
I'm sure if a person looks hard enough they can find some political intolerance almost anywhere. I don't think anything on the left these days begins to match, in thoroughness and vindictiveness, the examples of political intolerance I just provided.
Very good, John! You can argue both sides. I will just sit back and eat my popcorn.
You must have listed the wrong source. On a topic of the difference between the Tea Party rallies and the Wall Street sit-in, you pointed me to a source on FreedomWatch. What does this have to do with men and women around the country showing up to town hall events and opposing government spending?"
The predictable response of someone who didn't read the linked article or can't comprehend what it said, being blind because he will not see.
What you wrote:
"Your point is to deny the ideological factor on the part of the left."
After I had written:
"Most Democrats aren't especially ideological. Few Democrats who are active in politics make ideological arguments. They instead stick to issue-oriented arguments."
"Most" is not all and "few" doesn't mean no Democrats. What I wrote is far from "denying the ideological factor on the part of the left."
You're saying facts aren't facts because you choose to deny, ignore or twist them to suit your purpose. Fine. End of attempt to have a rational discussion.
I argue both side of debates routinely. It is horrible. I lose every time.
I often argue both sides. It is great! I always win!
Dave @ October 4, 2011 12:10 AM
You ought to be ashamed of your self!! Really Dave, to quote just part of FDR's letter to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, of August 16, 1937 to support you claim that FDR was ok with Public Labor Unions but against them having the power to strike is the lowest form of political debate. I thought you were better than that.
Here is the next paragraph you didn't include in your post. My next post will be the last two paragraphs.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful."
FDR in a letter to letter to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, of August 16, 1937.
It sounds like FDR really would be ok with the firing of public workers if they went on strike. For this reason and a damn good reason at that.
"a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."
Very, very clever. The ice cream was nothing but smoke and mirrors distraction.
You soothe and comfort the unwitting reader by revealing the ketchup is not real. HA. The broken glass is real. You can't fool me. What about the bottle's rights? It is a victim of Glassism.
A comment I wrote this evening seems to have disappeared. Is it trapped in moderation, or has Blogger.com struck again?
That one was read as spam.
Oops, I forgot I had moderation for the older post. I didn't think the discussion was continuing.
Very, very clever. The ice cream was nothing but smoke and mirrors distraction.
The ice cream was a metaphor for democracy, just like democracy is.
Of course it is. And democracy is all smoke and mirrors when the glass shatters.
I like you, HR, really. You keep me honest and focused in my ranting.
”I asked: "How are the Wall Street protests any more genuine than Tea Party rallies?"You answered: "I can answer that with a question. How are corporations any more genuine persons than human beings?" Non sequitur. Non-responsive”.
Forgive the awkward mixed metaphor. Let me spell it out because this needs to be clear.
The people on the street are genuinely of the 99 percent of Americans that have been ripped off by Wall Street. The artificial, corporate manufactured, anti-tax, anti-social spending, and above all anti-Obama Tea Cult is the complete opposite of the Wall Street voices of the people. The Tea Cult speaks for the privileged elite and powerful Republicans who sponsor them. Our people demand accountability from enabling politicians and justice for the swindlers, a genuine plea for more democracy and less corporatism. The Big Money funded Tea Cult demands more money. See the difference?
One is a genuine populist voice representing the vast majority of Americans. The other is manufactured artificial populist voice that most Americans disagree with. How’s that for a genuine difference?
”The original rallies were spontaneous.”
Yeah, right. The rallies were plugged on FOX(R) and called the “FOX Tea Party” for God’s sake.
”What I see in your response is a lack of evidence that the Tea Party is ‘astroturf.’”
No evidence of the “FOX Tea Party? No evidence of Armey and the Kochs? LOL! (I hardly ever do this) Now that is truly hysterical.
”Has it occurred to you that they might be the same populists that attended Tea Party rallies, and are similarly opposed to big government and corporate dominance of our politics?”
No, not at all. You never know, perhaps a very few, but not at all likely. Good idea for a survey, though. So why aren’t you with the Wall Street protesters? Never mind. I think we all know.
“I'm a conservative, and my views haven't been represented in the Republican Party for decades.”
I gotta hand it to you. You’re on a roll here. Yeah, that darn Republican Party has been way too liberal, especially since Reagan compromised and raised taxes. At least we have the legacy of Reagan turning the US into a debtor nation from a creditor nation.
“Voter fraud isn't nearly as common as some people like to say”.
Yuk, yuk. “Some people” meaning only Republicans, of course.
Just The FOX(R),
You did some research for a change. Very good! I bet you still didn’t read the article I linked to though. And your obsession with FDR indicates a lack of interest in the prime topic. I understand.
A low form of debate is misrepresenting your opponents claim. I didn’t say FDR was “ok with public labor unions”.
I said, “He was not against workers’ rights to organize to present their views”. You see, “Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical,” were FDR’s words. More to my point though, is he was not out to bust existing unions like Republicans were and still are.
I can point to something else you may have not caught. FDR said, “the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” “As usually understood” is what we debaters consider a qualifier that provides context.
There’s more. “The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.”
You see in the context of the times, FDR reasonably used the term “impossible”, but in the years since, we know that is not the case. It became possible.
You are right on this, “It sounds like FDR really would be ok with the firing of public workers if they went on strike”. Especially during the war, that is exactly where he stood. He wanted the government functioning. In fact he understood during wartime striking in any vital industry would need to be prevented.
This is very unlike Republicans today. They destroy unions out of political vengeance and they threaten to shut down the people’s government for their political purposes.
Just re-read your post of October 4, 2011 12:10 AM, there are no links provided for me to read as you suggest in your post of October 5, 2011 1:07 AM. Please direct me to the post that has the links you wanted me to read.
So you agree that Reagen right when he fired the Air Traffic Control workers when they when on strike, was just following FDR? I guess I just don't understand what good is a Union if it lacks the power to strike.
"You see in the context of the times, FDR reasonably used the term “impossible”, but in the years since, we know that is not the case. It became possible." How did it become possible?
Just The FOX(R),
I was referring to retired GOP Congressional staffer Mike Logren’s article linked in my original post. Did you read it?
Is it news to you that many public unions cannot strike? Police Fire Corrections, etc. That fact alone limits their bargaining power. We understand why this is the case. They have a duty to public safety. That still doesn’t mean they can’t negotiate hours, pay, work requirements, safety conditions, and challenge dangerous, unfair or bad management decisions, etc. You know, the very reasons that a need for unions exist. It’s this concept called workers’ rights.
How did it become possible for public service unions to form? Obviously some changes were made. There’s a good subject of research for you to look into.
Well stated, Dave! I have been called a commie a few times too, but in every case it was by someone who didn't know what they were talking about (i.e. ignorant, ill-informed conservative Republicans), and I AM proud for that designation! The growing anti-Wall Street uprisings throughout the country prove that people of our persuasion are on the correct track. Now labor unions and civic groups are even starting to join in. Eventually the MSM will be forced to get a grip and straighten up to fly properly. It's only a matter of time, and we WILL win!
I'm not sure what real effects will result from the demonstrations, but at the very least attention will be drawn to the perpetrators of our economic instability.
I have an ominous feeling the corporate media will turn on us at the smallest incident. And we know the kind of folks that will provoke something.
TOM, there is little difference between the leadership in the Democratic and Republican Parties.
They both want the same things, and that's to sell their votes to the highest bidder.
They differ in rhetoric, and they have different team colors and mascots. Still they play the same game and share the same owners.
I really don't care that the illusionary Democratic Republican Party divisions mean something to you.
They exist only to divide America and make us hateful and fearful of our neighbors.
Free0352, when you were in the military and my money was being taken from me to equip you to do things I objected too...
And as you say, you were an employee of the US Military.
How much profit did your company earn? How much were your customers charged. How many billable hours did you incur and were your customers paying on time?
Just the Facts! said..., ""largest socialist organization in the world", talking about the Communist Party of China,right?"
That would be the largest communist organization in the world. They are not socialists.
The US Military is the largest socialist organization in the world.
There is a difference between communism and socialism.
HR says, "The Democrat Party has become narrowly and rigidly ideological, having purged itself of even slightly conservative members and nearly all its moderates. It's highly disciplined about ideology. That all goes together to make the Democrats more like a political pressure group or extremist faction like the KKK than like a big-tent party."
That's a load of bull. The Democratic party has moved right of Reagan.
You'd have to almost call Dick Cheney a red handed liberal hippy commie, to make your argument sensible.
"That's a load of bull. The Democratic party has moved right of Reagan."
You've essentially validated my point. I had the same reaction with SW's version and swapped out a few words so that you folks on the left would get the point.
The debate about parties moving left or right is sheer opinion (with an ounce of faith). There is no proof that will convince one side or the other, so we should move on.
HR, swapping out the words doesn't really make the point.
Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are getting rid of the lefties and left leaning moderates.
Look at Obama, there isn't a Bush program he doesn't like. He and Bush both support the use of state sponsored torture to terrorize populations. Both believe in keeping White House affairs secret. Both believe in ever expanding war for the sake of war.
The only squabbling we really see in the parties are efforts to prove to the public that we should vote for one fascist over another.
If you were to read some liberal forums, you'd find that liberals overall are sick of the Democratic Party and feel they've all become Bush style conservatives.
The true believes on both sides believe that the peripheral issues matter most. Issues like expanding gay marriage, protecting Paris Hilton's earnings so she can create jobs in China, like all of the other rich people do.
Weaseldog wrote: "Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are getting rid of the lefties and left leaning moderates."
I think you're misreading the situation. After 2004, when Howard Dean became Democratic Party chairman, he instituted a 50-state strategy, instead of concentrating on blue states and areas. That resulted in a sizable number of moderate and somewhat conservative DEM candidates getting elected to the House and Senate from red and purple districts and states.
Dean's idea was that to get anything done it was necessary to regain control of Congress. He was right about that and succeeded. As it turned out, I'm sure he was less than delighted with how those Blue Dog and moderate Dems pulled the other way so often and so hard.
Politics ain't bean bag, and it's not an exact science either.
'There is a difference between communism and socialism.'
So you agree that Reagen was right when he fired the Air Traffic Control workers when they when on strike, he was just following FDR? I guess I just don't understand what good is a Union if it lacks the power to strike.
I have no problem with public sector workers forming a union, I just do not believe, once they have done so, they should have the right to strike or to vote, or contribute in elections for the members of the elected body that has anything to do with their wages, or budgets.
That seems fair, that way Public sector Unions can not effect the out come of elections by supporting candidates who promise the public workers large increases that the rest of have to pay for through our taxes. Sounds like a great comprise, non partisan concept to me.
I don't like responding to those who won't give a name. But just this time I will.
I have no problem with private sector owners forming a Chamber of Commerce lobby, I just do not believe, once they have done so, they should have the right to vote, or contribute in elections for the members of the elected body that has anything to do with their no-bid contracts, regulations, pollution, or public safety impact.
That seems fair, that way Private sector corporations can not effect the out come of elections by supporting candidates who promise the corporation large increases in no-bid contracts that the rest of have to pay for through our taxes.
Anonymous said..., "'There is a difference between communism and socialism.'
That information is hidden in books.
If you want me to tutor you, then I'll need payment. I'm a capitalist after all.
You don't think private education should be free do you?
The US Military is the largest socialist organization in the world.
I actually think John Myste here said it best when he said the military is as socialist as a football team is a dictatorship. The military is a part of government, it isn't THE GOVERNMENT. There is a difference.
There is a difference between communism and socialism.
Yes there is, most of you are socialists, but I'm pretty sure none of you are full blown communists.
Chamber of Commerce lobby doesn't require workers to join it in order to do business in an area,,,fail.
C o C doesn't not control wages or prices like a union, fail!!!
CofC not recognized by or protected by any laws....fail!!!!!
should I keep on ?
Where did you here this, "I just heard a quarter of Republicans think Obama may be the antichrist. A Muslim antichrist I gather."
time for a little source checking
This will be my final response to an anonymous comment in this thread. Why? This one gets a second response because he posed a reasonable interest in a source for my claim. I will offer the courtesy of providing it for him.
Here is the source for my statement about Republicans believing Obama is the antichrist. It is from a Harris poll.
14 percent of Americans say President Barack Obama may be the Antichrist. When split by political party, 24 percent of Republicans and 6 percent of Democrats viewed the nation's leader in this way.
Looks like some stupid Democrats go to the wrong church or something. Fear and ignorance are contagious.
free0352 said... "I actually think John Myste here said it best when he said the military is as socialist as a football team is a dictatorship. The military is a part of government, it isn't THE GOVERNMENT. There is a difference."
Would you then make the argument that the US Military is not a service provided by the government, intended to benefit the people? If it is, it's socialist.
If it's intent is not a benefit, then you have a case.
It sounds like you are confusing a system of government with government-provided services.
Obama is far too ineffectual to be the antichrist. If he is, the devil's game is really falling behind.
I'm not a good Obamamaniac
I must not be allowed to voice my criticisms of our President. I must be evil. I must give the fascist salute to Obama, or I am a traitor to the Democratic party. I must be attacked with hate.
Sorry, I thought when you talk about minority you meant a numerical minority, not an ideological minority. Of course an ideological minority can be debated since it is a definition within one's mind, not an indisputable numerical minority.
You did use "Nazi" in your piece and with all the talk of fascism I assumed you were comparing today's Republicans to Nazis. A fun, but totally incorrect comparison given the facts. Which would of course be wrong intellectually, Historically, factually, and ideologically.
What we have is a perfectly reasonable use of access to politicians by corporations. If the opposition does not meet, or beat the corporate attempt of political persuasion. that does not mean the politicians favoring the corporations are fascists.
I do not cherry-pick the facts of historical racism in America. If those facts don't fit in with your agenda, that's not a problem with the facts.
If flag waving is a fascist trait, then America has been fascists for a LONG time.
Why is it such a surprise, that in a capitalist country, government listens to and helps corporations succeed?
You have not made the case.
You have defined what YOU think the problem is, of course, that opinion is not reflective of unbiased observations.
Like your judgment of these two female bloggers being ladies. If you had read the hate mail I received from these two women, you, or no one would define the authors of that hate mail as ladies. But your biased, uneducated position on the issue leads you to only one position, the wrong position.
Politicians are not fascists because they favor corporate positions.
Women are not ladies because they are your friends.
Post a Comment