The Redhunter

If you're 18 and you vote you're a fascist.

If you're a woman and vote you're a fascist.

Fascism started in African villages where "It takes a village" was coined as a phrase.

There were stop signs on German roads under Hitler. If your state has stop signs and you support that you're a fascist too.

The Founders prohibited titles of nobility from being granted by the gov't and banned office holders from accepting them from foreign gov'ts. They too were fascists.

Tom, though, is not a fascist. He's just a moron.

Great Read, Tom! I respect the depth and thought that went into it. This needs to be said in light of the bizarre circus that surrounds Obamania. I've said it before it is all very un-American and very dangerous.

You forget the circus that surrounded Reagan Jason. Celebrity worship is as American as apple pie Brother.
Tom: "facism" and other "ism"s, meaning now are as insults to those of different views. A guy from a blog far inferior to yours branded me and several of my allies as "Nihilists." On my old site I branded Neocons as "Feudalists." I enjoy a good ribbing, but as far as I'm concerned, no matter how enraged I get, we're all still Americans.

The author here makes the same fallacy that Goldberg made. You might as well call it the "Hitler wore pants" fallacy.....as in "Obama wears pants, Hitler wore pants therefore Obama is like Hitler".

Yes fascists who got into office took numerous stands on policy issues both big and small. It doesn't follow that because one shares many positions unrelated to fascism with a fascist that one is a fascist. The first issue here was making 18 the voting age and giving women the vote. Because Mussolini did that universal sufferage is now a fascist issue? Is eating Italian food also fascist chic too?

An in depth, fact based essay doesn't have the impact calling a guy a facist does. It's a sad state we're in when scholarship is trumped by whoever is better at branding and name calling. It's too bad because bloggers like Tom are a good read whether I agree with him or not.
You seem to put lots of effort into your posts Tom. I appreciate that and promise to continue behaving myself when visiting.

Note that neither Boonton nor Truth101 offer a substantive critic of my post. Neither appear to have actually read what I wrote, and I'll bet neither read Goldberg's book, either.

If you want to criticize my thesis, fine, but how about using some historical facts and doing some real analysis?

Come on, you guys can do better.

Truth,

Reagan and Obama are hardly comparable. True, Reagan was revered by many. He was seen as the "Old Man" a bridge to nostalgia and a simpler America. Conservatives and Democrat "Hawks" loved the man. He was a velvet voiced hypnotic speaker, no doubt. And he was very presidential -- even temper, aw shucks demeanor, and very direct.

But, he was not coronated in such away as Obama. The media very grudgingly supported RR, and the hard left has only recently begin to review and rethink Reaganism and the impact he left on the world.

Reagan reverance and the mindless, irrational, emotional,Zombie like following and out poor that Obama has been showered with are hardly anthing alike. What we are witnessing here is our infatuation with celebrity worship in America coupled with MTV generation.

Like I said, hardly the same at all.

"Note that neither Boonton nor Truth101 offer a substantive critic of my post."

The substantive criticism of your post is simple. You are conflating superficial similiarities into substantive ones. Just as many of us share Hitler's habit of wearing pantes, does not mean most of us are substantively like Hitler in our ideology.

For example, Obama is very popular, draws a lot of crowds and yes has lots of people who want to wave Obama banners, t-shirts and bumper stickers. In this way he is similiar to, say, Hitler. He is also similiar to the late Pope John Paul II, Reagan and a host of other leaders, celebrities, and other figures. Fascism didn't invent the popular cult of personality. George Bush, by giving speeches that inspired more cringing and eye rolling than cheering, wasn't making some bold thrust against fascism.

"If the motto of the Mussolini's fascism was "everything in the State, nothing outside the the State, then the implicit motto of It Takes a Village(to Raise a Child) is "everything in the village, nothing outside the village." "

Notice the slight of hand at play here. The 'village' is not the same thing as the state. The 'village' includes the state but much more in that it is both the sum of all the individuals in the village as well as the synergy from all the people in the village together. To use a more modern example, when you think of New York City you think not only of all the various government agencies and functions inside it but also the neighborhoods, the busineses, the cultures and so on.

The only way to consider 'the village' to be the same and only thing as 'the state' is to take the strict libertarian view that nothing exists beyond the individual. That's fine if you want to argue that is a better way to think of things but it is a tough sell to say that we should all change the way we use language to accomodate that worldview. It is likewise wrong to argue that this is the fascist view of "the state and nothing outside the state" unless you want to strike the pose of the 'libertarian nazi' who considers everything and anything that falls short of his ideology 'fascist'. Go ahead and make that argument if you must but don't be surprised if you are taken about as seriously as the immature kid who thinks getting dentention for passing notes in class is 'fascism'.

Goldberg was just using the word "fascist" to generate some anger. No different than when Rush or Ann call Libs commies or socialists. Helps them get attention and sell books. Forgive me if I don't take that tactic seriously.

truth101, you still need to deal with the substance of the argument.

Excellent comment, Boonton! That's the type of response I was looking for. And now that you've offered a substantive response, thank you for stopping by!

Now just work on your spelling.

"You are conflating superficial similiarities into substantive ones. Just as many of us share Hitler's habit of wearing pantes(sic)..."

The similarities I outlined were not superficial, but policy related. Never did I mention clothing style. Rather, I went over the militarization of society and economic policy. Those are hardly superficial. But let's go through the case point by point.

Let's get this out of the way first

Fascism, like communism, is NOT "guys with guns taking over a government." They might be that, but they might also be quite peaceful and democratic . There are communist parties in the West which have and do participate in the democratic process and relinquish power when the lose an election. Ditto with American neo-fascists like Woodrow Wilson. Rather, fascism, like communism, is an established philosophy about the relationship of the people, government, and business.

Militarization of Society

From a speech speech Michelle Obama gave at UCLA:

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."

Really? I thought in America we had the freedom to just sit in front of the TV eating potato chips all day. Guess not.

Barack Obama himself has spoken about his "Universal Voluntary Service"

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.

If Bush had proposed this the left would be saying it was a new SS. As it is, can anyone doubt that such an organization would be used to advance the political agenda of the left?

We see the militarization of society aspect with the "we're all in it together" rhetoric. With Obama we're all supposed to march off together hand in hand to achieve his goal, and it certainly isn't winning the war on jihadism.

Fascist Economics

We see the fascist economics with the control of business to suit the ends of those who control the government. Note that we're not talking about food safety, or regulating securities trading so as to prevent fraud. We have the use of TARP to now regulate executive salaries. Everyone is requited to "go green." Corporations are supposed to be "socially conscious." Diversity uber ales.

The left demonizes industries which don't do their bidding. In 2004 the Pharmaceutical companies were enemies of the people. Last year it was "big oil." Who is next? The message is clear; do our bidding or we'll destroy you.

Hillary even brags about it in It Takes a Village

Socially minded corporate philosophies are the avenue to future prosperity and social stability

Yikes!

"Industrial policy" is the granddaddy of it all. It's the idea of government centrally directing business to achieve it's goals. Government does not own businesses, but controls them. Again, we're not talking about food safety, but achieving such things as "carbon reduction" or "diversity goals" or what type of cars should be produced or whatever.

Cult of Personality

It is a fair point that a cult of personality, is not exclusive to fascism. Your point about the Pop and the Catholic Church is a good example. But it's also not the thrust of my argument. More to it, while cult of personality does not alone define fascism, it is an aspect that you can't ignore.

That said, I can't imagine a "Children Sing to Reagan" like the infamous "Les Misbarak" and "Children Sing to Obama". The fixation on Obama's body is positively sick, and again, nothing we saw with Reagan. Finally, much of the press worships Obama too, quite unlike what we saw with Reagan . The cultification of Obama has reached heights never before seen in America.

Speaking of Reagan, in other places on this blog I've admonished conservatives for going overboard on him (do a search for him in my search box at right).

Hillary Clinton and the Role of the State

"The 'village' is not the same thing as the state. The 'village' includes the state but much more in that it is both the sum of all the individuals in the village as well as the synergy from all the people in the village together."

Which is it? In your first sentence you say the village is not the same as the state but in the second you say it is but also includes more. You admit in the second sentence that the 'village' is the state (I have no idea what you mean in the second half of your second sentence).

Which for Hillary it is. She wants the state to determine what values will be taught to your children, not parents. We see this all the time in the public schools with their environmentalist propaganda.

I'll let Goldberg say it:

In Clinton's village, however, there is no public square where free men and women and their voluntary associations deal with each other on their own terms free from the mommying of the state. There are no private transactions, just a single "spiritual community that takes us to a higher purpose" managed by the state. This is the Volksgemeinschaft reborn as a Social Gospel day-care center.

It's not by accident that Hillary's early hero was Saul Alinsky, whom she knew. Indeed, she wrote her college thesis about him: "There Is Only the Fight: an Analysis of the Alinsky Model." Much of his rhetoric was quite similar to the fascist rhetoric of the 20s and 30s.

So now the anti-smoking crusade has spread to forbidding it anywhere in public; but do buy them as we need the tax dollars. The food fetishes admonish us we're too fat, and the anti-trans fats movement is moving into full gear. And be sure to put on your bicycle helmet!

The point is that less and less of our lives is escaping regulation. The concern for public health has gone beyond stopping the spread of polio to nanny-state concern about what eat. After all, we're told, if you don't live a healthy life "we all pay for it." Environmentalism long ceased being about clean air and water and now is about regulating absolutely everything. It alone is a totalitarian ideology that knows no limits.

Back to Hillary and her "politics of meaning." Goldberg again:

The politics of meaning is in many respects the most thoroughly totalitarian conception of politics offered by a leading American political figure in the last half century.... Hillary's vision holds that America suffers from a profound "spiritual crisis" requiring the construction of a new man as part of a society-wide restoration and reconstruction effort leading to a new national community that will provide meaning and authenticity to every individual. Here is a Third Way approach that promises to be neither left nor right, but a synthesis of both, under which the state and big business will work hand in hand. It is fundamentally religious vision hiding in the Trojan horse of social justice that seeks to imbue social policy with spiritual imperatives.

If it makes you feel better Goldberg goes after Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson for similar reasons. I'm no fan of them either.

"The only way to consider 'the village' to be the same and only thing as 'the state' is to take the strict libertarian view that nothing exists beyond the individual."

Don't look at me, it's Hillary who thinks this way. She's the one who sees the 'village' as the state.

"It is likewise wrong to argue that this is the fascist view of "the state and nothing outside the state" unless you want to strike the pose of the 'libertarian nazi' who considers everything and anything that falls short of his ideology 'fascist'."

It was Mussolini who defined fascism as "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State." not me, Jonah Goldberg, or Michael Ledeen. The second half of your sentence is a straw man. Nowhere on this blog have I said that all people to the right or left of me are communists, socialists, or fascists. Indeed Goldberg goes to great lengths to say that he does not take that position either, which I said in my original review of his book (follow the link at top. Further, in t he end I said that Obama and his wife are more similar to Juan and Eva Peron.

Lastly, Goldberg makes clear that "liberal fascism" is of the smiley face variety. Hillary et al do not want to round people up and shoot them, and this is of course a huge difference. The cover of Goldberg's book, a smiley face with a Hitler mustache, was not chosen by accident. Liberal fascists do not want to end voting, but they do want to limit liberty.

So it's not a 1984 we're headed towards, but a Brave New World. And I will stand athwart history yelling "stop!"

"The similarities I outlined were not superficial, but policy related. "

Policy similarities can be superficial as well. As I pointed out among the long list of policy planks of Italian fascism are items that no one would dispute today. No one sersious today objects to women having the right to vote. The Founders were opposed to titles of nobility etc. That Mussolini also ran on them doesn't magically make the policies fascist anymore than we can say Hitler was a Republican because he built the autobahn and Eisenhower built the interstate highway system.

"Really? I thought in America we had the freedom to just sit in front of the TV eating potato chips all day. Guess not."

I would respond to this but I notice you don't actually link to the speech itself but an article about it that includes only this quote and not what came before or after. I'd like to see the context of the speech rather than jumping to what I think is the unreasonable conclusion that Michele Obama would have us all marching off to work camps run by the state.

"Barack Obama himself has spoken about his "Universal Voluntary Service""

So you can find stuff that *may* or *may not* be fascist. No doubt you might be able to find a Bush quote where he says something like sometimes civil liberties must be sacrificed for freedom. Fascist? Kind of depends on what that means. If all this means the Peace Corps then I'd say no. If you got real evidence that....say...we are all going to be marched off to work camps then feel free to present it.

""Industrial policy" is the granddaddy of it all. It's the idea of government centrally directing business to achieve it's goals"

Industrial policy is not 'socially minded corporate philsophies', which is the quote you provided from Clinton's book. Industrial policy is the idea that the gov't will manage competition in various industries and take a hand in picking which industries get funding and which won't. A real life example would probably be Japan's systems of having corporate collectives that blur the line between gov't and companies.

This seems to be a consistent theme of yours. You take one phrase or term that is associated with fascism (or whatever else you want to target), and then you take a different phrase or term used by Obama, Hillary or someone you don't like and assume they re interchangeable. To make that argument you must provide more evidence. Provide evidence that when Hillary speaks of 'socially minded corporate philosophies' she is talking about industrial policy and not, say, corporations utilizing more flex time, family leave policies and more provisions for families with small children or dependents.

"That said, I can't imagine a "Children Sing to Reagan" like the infamous "Les Misbarak" and "Children Sing to Obama". The fixation on Obama's body is positively sick, and again, nothing we saw with Reagan. "

I won't deny that society has produced some Obama-camp. I'm doubtful this is unprecedented. The press fawned over Jackie Kennedy and ignored things about JFK that would be unimaginable today. Fox News, with viewership equal or larger than CNN, was basically running Bill Ayers crap 24-7 in the week or two leading up to the election. Somehow I just can't see major media of ages past hyping "JFK, daddy's boy to Hitler supporting mobster dad" with similiar intensity.

"Which is it? In your first sentence you say the village is not the same as the state but in the second you say it is but also includes more. You admit in the second sentence that the 'village' is the state (I have no idea what you mean in the second half of your second sentence). "

The village includes the state but also what is not the state. I think I made that clear with the NYC example. NYC includes Mike Bloomberg and City Hall but also the businesses, the schools, the numerous little neighborhoods, the papers, the culture(s), the tiny group of Ayn Rand worshippers who gather every Tuesday at the coffeehouse and so on. My reading of 'the village' might be akin to how conservatives use 'the culture'. It may include the state but the state is only one element to a larger set.

"Which for Hillary it is. She wants the state to determine what values ...."

Opps you did it again! You take 'the state' from fascism talk and equate it to 'the village' from Hillary's use of the African proverb (and the African phrase does not mean 'the state' in the sense a fascist does....if you disagree please state that clearly) yet forget to include any actual evidence that Hillary intended to use the two interchangeably.

"It's not by accident that Hillary's early hero was Saul Alinsky, ..."

Guilt by association is not an argument either. Hillary also had Barry Goldwater as an early hero. Who cares. It Takes a Village was not written when she was in high school or in college but in 1996. If you want to argue it supports a fascist view of the world you should be citing the book itself and not a mish mash of unrelated nonsense (or if you feel they are related then you must demonstrate that, if you think the book is following Alinsky's philosophy then demonstrate the link).

"So now the anti-smoking crusade has spread to forbidding it anywhere in public; but do buy them as we need the tax dollars. The food fetishes admonish us we're too fat, and the anti-trans fats movement is moving into full gear. And be sure to put on your bicycle helmet!"

You've wandered far from your thesis here. Certainly WWII, Hitler, Mussolini and the fight against fascism was about something more than easy access to cheap junk food and childhood bike injuries. While there's a good argument to be made against the nanny state and more against the 'nanny mindset' which I think is more at play here, dressing it up as anti-fascism is as silly as the high school kid who calling dentention fascism.

"It was Mussolini who defined fascism as "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State." not me, Jonah Goldberg, or Michael Ledeen. The second half of your sentence is a straw man."

Not quite, you are essentially taking anything and everything you disagree with and trying to force square pegs into the round hole of fascism. You close with an interesting passage:

"So it's not a 1984 we're headed towards, but a Brave New World. And I will stand athwart history yelling "stop!""

Brave New World is very interesting in that I think a fascist like Mussolini or Hitler would not hold it up as an ideal example of what they wanted to achieve. In fact, they would probably cite it as an example of what they were trying to prevent. You may recall that in Brave New World the people are indulged so much in enjoying the most personal consumption possible that it's almost impossible to tell if a state even exists. It's not a world where trans-fats are banned, it's a world where trans-fats are piped free into every home and the people wouldn't even know what to do with decent food if they got it. A Mussolini or Hitler would probably say that by pushing the militarization of society and putting the state above the individual they were countering the problem that modern technology makes it possible for individual desires to produce a "Brave New World" of cheap, easy and endless personal indulgence.

It's very interesting that you would cite Brave New World here while also painting yourself as the freedom fighter for eating potato chips, because it demonstrate you are really just trying to lump everything you don't like into fascism. I don't blame you. It's very easy to classify everyone you disagree with as some type of Nazi. Kind of like how some liberals have put a huge amount of energy into constructing intricated 'proofs' that people who disagree with them are racists. But at some point it becomes very obvious that this is less about substance and more about simple immaturity.

This will be my last comment on this thread, and since you're my guest I'll let you have the last word. I've noticed that these debates tend to deteriorate after awhile, and you and I are starting to go around in circles. We've each made our points, and if you want one more that's fine, but then let's move on.

Second, your's is a good reply in that I can see this subject has you thinking. As such, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about Iraq or Afghanistan. Why don't you next comment on one of those posts?

"As I pointed out among the long list of policy planks of Italian fascism are items that no one would dispute today."

Maybe that's the case on the left, but I can only find two or three things on the list I quoted that I or any conservative would agree with.

Your main argument is "every similarity is superficial" and "it's out of context." These can be good arguments, and tell you what, I will take it under serious consideration.

"To make that argument you must provide more evidence. "

Be honest, I could write a book, volumes even, and I you'd still say it was all superficial and out of context. Jonah Goldberg did write a whole book, and you don't believe him.

"because it demonstrate you are really just trying to lump everything you don't like into fascism."

If I am seizing on any small bit to make my argument, I would simply ask you to please consider if you're ignoring everything to defend yours. Just consider it, please.

"Guilt by association is not an argument either. Hillary also had Barry Goldwater as an early hero. Who cares."

I don't think you understand the concept of guilt by association. I noticed a lot of people incorrectly used this to defend Obama's association with Bill Ayers.

This is Guilt by Association

For example, if a person associates with a person he knows to be a KKK member, and you used that to call him a racist, would you accept a "that's guilt by association" defense? I hope not, as I sure wouldn't.

"You take 'the state' from fascism talk and equate it to 'the village' from Hillary's use of the African proverb (and the African phrase does not mean 'the state' in the sense a fascist does...."

Yes it does. Yes, the village that Hillary refers to is the state. Hillary and her liberal buddies want to take control of children away from parents and give them over to the state. Add to it "City Hall but also the businesses, the schools, the numerous little neighborhoods, the papers, the culture(s)..." whatever, it's still the idea that her elitist bunch (Marian Wright Edelman / Children's Defense Fund) know better than parents how to raise your children and will take them de facto from your control. Another technique they are using is to push the The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). More on that in a later post.

"Brave New World is very interesting in that I think a fascist like Mussolini or Hitler would not hold it up as an ideal example of what they wanted to achieve."

Correct, they wanted the dictatorial style of fascism. Today's "liberal fascists" want the smiley-face fascism of Brave New World

"But at some point it becomes very obvious that this is less about substance and more about simple immaturity."

Are you calling me immature? If not, then I apologize. If so, let's not talk that way to each other. I have several liberals come here to debate me, and the ones I let stay and those who can argue while still saying polite. I'm rather hoping you'll agree to this. Otherwise I'll have to stop taking you seriously.

Ok, enough from me. As I promised you get the last word.

---This was due largely to Peronist policies. Upon coming to office, Peron, along with his popular wife, Eva, established a corporatist state characterized by lavish social spending, elaborate welfare programs, protectionism, confiscatory taxation and runaway deficits.

....Argentina degenerated into the Latin American basket case that it is today---

This is shockingly inaccurate revissionist history that I must address because I am in Argentina right now. Let's review the facts. Peron ruled from 1946 to 1955, and briefly returned for two years in 1973. The economic crisis occured in 2001. Most economic historians (of which Mr. Kuhner is clearly not one of) attribute the crisis to the 10 years leading up to the crisis, during the rule of Carlos Menem (1989-1999). Menem was a radical free market fundamentalist (more erudite economist would call it crony capitalism). He sold off state enterprises to his cronies (like Russia after the collapse of the USSR), embezzeld the proceeds,, peggged the pero to the dollar as a short term fix, and was later convicted of corruption. Blaming the crisis on Peronism is a serious case of historcal revisionism. Menem's short term peg to the dollar created the long term problem that Argentina struggles with (but allows me to eat and live extremely well thanks to exchange rate). Peronism had many problems, but it is definitly to long ago to have caused the crisis, which was actually created by Menem. Horribly inaccruate reporting by Kuhner.

Forgive the typos above, I had to get to a bus and only had a few moments. My favorite typo in my post above is ¨pegged the pero to the dollar¨. They actually pegged their 'peso' to the dollar, not a dog.

More interesting, Justicialism (the modern form of Peronism practised by the current left-of-center rulers of Argentina, the Kirchners) has resulted in five years of 9% annual economic growth (2003 to 2007) in Argentina, and they were able to pay off the entire government debt to the IMF in 2006.

Here is the Wikipedia summary of the far-right miltary junta's economic policies in the ¨Economy of Argentina¨ entry:

-----Greeted initially with euphoria in the business community, the coup d'état filled policy-making positions generally – and the critical Economics Ministry in particular – with ultra-conservative ideologues, many of them scions of Argentina's old agricultural elites. In touch with the investors' and exporters' legitimate need for stability but quick to order wage freezes that often lasted months, these Cambridge and Chicago-trained economists proved unable to curb the junta's appetite for defense spending and unwilling to discourage speculators from taking advantage of Argentina's financial instability, often themselves profiting through the use of their advantage as insiders.

Buffeted by wage freezes difficult to oppose against the backdrop of massive human rights abuses, real incomes fell by over a third that first year alone and have yet to fully recover. Unusually corrupt among the country's litany of often opprobious past Economy Ministers, José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz also pursued "free trade" and a strong peso policy even as inflation ran at over 100% a year, encouraging a wave of imports that helped result in a 20% fall in industrial output. Credit markets in New York and Paris meanwhile opened up to Argentina's profligate government and corrupt financiers alike and by 1981 over US$30 billion in bad debts had piled up, destroying business confidence and forcing a ruinous run on banks and the peso.-----

So, to summarize actual history, the far right brought on $30 billion in bad debt, inflation of over 100%, real incomes fell by 33% and a 20% reduction in industial out-put occured in the years leading up to the leadership of Menem. Somehow this was left out of Mr. Kuhners amazingly inaccurate reporting. Mr. Kuhner chose to selectively blame the economic crisis on Peron, completely ignoring the 20 years of policies that were much more disastrous and directly tied to the crisis. Instead, he changed history a little to support his argument.

It´s unfortunate that such inaccurate history makes it into the Washington Post, to be repeated in the bloggsphere until this new version of truthyness becomes ´fact´. But maybe in this case the ´facts´ needed to be adjusted in order to support the underlying thesis. Shoddy.

jason, your knowledge of Argentina obviously exceeds mine. I threw that piece from Kuhner in there as an afterthought, and whoever is right I don't see it changing the thesis of my post regarding Obama's economic policies.