liberalism

Liberal Fascism

Calvin Freiburger books, conservatism, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Jonah Goldberg, liberalism, National Review
Unfortunately, I probably won’t be digging into Jonah Goldberg’s new book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning anytime soon (I’ve gotta read this, this, and this first, just to scratch the surface of my bookshelf backlog), but judging by the author’s evisceration of a critical review, it’s quite the read. A few excerpts:
–
Judging from this, you’d think I just made-up the phrase from whole cloth. Nowhere does Neiwert mention that I get the phrase from H. G. Wells, quite possibly the most influential English-speaking public intellectual during the first third of the 20th century. It was H. G. Wells who sought to rechristen liberalism as “Liberal Fascism” or — again, his words — “Enlightened Nazism.”
–
Then there’s the omnipresent canard that I must be wrong because of fascism’s “overwhelming anti-liberalism.” Neiwert is again displaying either his ignorance or his dishonesty. It is absolutely true that a great many academic definitions — Ernst Nolte’s “fascist negations” for example — cite fascism’s anti-liberalism. And it is true that Mussolini and Hitler spoke of their disdain for liberalism many times, and there are many quotes to that effect. But guess what? These two European statesmen were speaking in — wait for it! — a European context where liberalism generally means limited government: classical or “Manchester” liberalism. They were most emphatically not talking about progressivism or socialism, which are the correct label for American liberalism and/or the American left (as I demonstrate at length in my book).
–
Secondly, the same sources Neiwert and others cite to cough up this anti-liberalism hairball also usually include another attribute of fascism: It was “anti-conservative” (also on Nolte’s, and many others’, lists). But here’s the fun part: American conservatism is a blend of European conservatism and European liberalism. In other words, the two halves of American conservatism — traditionalism plus classical liberalism — are both considered decidedly un-fascist by most academics who study the topic, as well as by the original fascists themselves.
–
[…]
–
This point about race that Neiwert brings up is an important one — and one that I anticipate and discuss in my book. Because he believes that racism is inherently right-wing, the fact that the Nazis were racists means they had to be right-wingers. I concede, and talk at length, about the fact that the Nazis were racists. But racism, I’m sorry to say, is not definitively right-wing in my book (literally and figuratively). Stalin’s Russia was replete with anti-Semitism. The American Progressives were astoundingly racist (as I show). The Communists in Germany competed with the National Socialists by trying to out-Jew-bait them. Are the American Progressives, Stalin, or the German Reds now all right-wingers? Moreover, are American conservatives somehow racists because a bunch of socialists in Europe were racists? These dots do not connect.
–
One last point on this. The issue isn’t racism-as-bigotry. The point is racial essentialism, the idea that race matters (the title of a book by Cornel West, if memory serves). In America, conservatives argue for colorblindness; the Left does not. The Left believes in the iron cage of racial identity, the Right does not. The Left believes in a racial spoils system, the Right does not. And yet, we conservatives are kith and kin of the most intense racial essentialists of the 20th century? These dots, too, do not connect. (Note: As I say countless times in my book, today’s liberals are not Nazi-like bigots, but they are racial essentialists).
–
[…]
–
Very quickly: As I write in my book, the Nazis were determined to destroy their competition. That is why they hated the Communists. The propaganda that says the Nazis were the opposites of the Communists because they hated each other is idiotic. Hamas and Fatah hate each other deeply, Trotsky and Stalin battled for power, and left-wing academics get their panties in a bunch over where some fellow left-winger puts a comma in a sentence. In none of these cases does mutual hatred translate to ideological divergence. Please: Stalin was a genocidal dictator. Hitler was a genocidal dictator. They both ran totalitarian, militarized regimes of total war. But yes, Nazism and Communism are opposites. Riiiight.

Campaign Financing

Calvin Freiburger blogospheliberalism, campaign finance, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, Owen Robinson, vatism
Owen Robinson’s latest column tackles campaign-finance reform:
–
There is a new push by some to use taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns. For years there has been a voluntary program in place by which taxpayers can offer some of their money for political candidates by checking a box on their tax forms and submitting the funds. These funds are set aside and offered to candidates who agree to certain fundraising and spending limits. Very few candidates accept the public funds because the spending limits that they require are too stringent for how real-world campaigns are run.
–
In Wisconsin, there is a new proposed law regarding public financing of elections for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates. This is part of an ongoing effort by some folks to make all campaigns publically funded.
–
The proposed law increases spending limits and makes some other tweaks, but by far, the biggest change that it makes is to use money from the general fund instead of from funds that taxpayers volunteer for that specific purpose. In other words, the bill seeks to use money that was taken from taxpayers with the threat of imprisonment instead of money that the taxpayers agreed to donate for a specific cause.
–
This is a monumental shift and for reasons both philosophical and pragmatic, this bill and other efforts to use taxpayer funds for political campaigns should be soundly rejected.
–
The philosophical reason for rejecting the publically financing of political campaigns is quite simple. Citizens should not be forced to pay for the advocacy of ideas that they oppose. Conservatives should not be forced to pay for television ads by a liberal candidate touting the glories of government controlled health care any more than a pacifist should be compelled to fund a radio campaign by a candidate who supports the Iraq War.
–
There is a deep gulf between being forced to fund government programs with which one disagrees and political campaigns with which one disagrees. The government programs were put in place by duly elected representatives of the citizenry. Nobody has elected the candidates running campaigns.
–
Beyond the philosophical reasons for rejecting publically financed campaigns, there are two extremely pragmatic campaigns. First, publically funded campaigns further strengthen the hand of incumbents in political campaigns.
–
Incumbent politicians enjoy a much greater ease in accessing media coverage. They can hold press conferences on things that they have done. They can send out surveys and informational mailings at taxpayer expense – with their names prominently displayed, of course. They are called upon for comments on pending issues by reporters and columnists. In short, an incumbent walks into any political race with the advantage of name recognition and coverage that can cost a challenger thousands of dollars to overcome.
–
Publically financed campaigns level the playing field, but only in terms of campaign spending. Since the incumbent enjoys such an advantage going into the race, the challenger will always be at a disadvantage.
–
Furthermore, one has to remember who sets the rules for who qualifies for public funds, how much can be spent, and on what it can be spent. Anyone na•ve enough to think that incumbents won’t twist the rules to their advantage deserves to be forced to pay for campaigns.
–
The great mantra of the supporters of taxpayer financing of campaigns is that it will “get the money out of politics.”
–
Hogwash.
–
The truth is that there is no moral or constitutional way to prohibit people and groups from advocating in an election. If WEAC wants to spend $2 million on television ads in support of a candidate, there is no way to stop them – nor should there be. One of the quintessential American principles is that citizens have a right to speak freely about their government. This includes advocating for or against candidates for political office.
–
If a candidate’s campaign is publically funded and he is permitted to spend $300,000 and a group of citizens spends another $2 million on his behalf, how is that different from today? Is the candidate any less “beholden to special interests” than if the group did the same thing under the current rules? No, not at all. The mechanics of political campaigns will remain the same.
–
Corrupt politicians will remain corrupt and honorable politicians will remain honorable. The only thing that will be different is that the politicians won’t have to work as hard to raise funds because the taxpayers will be forced to surrender theirs.
–
Like most campaign reform measures, taxpayer financed campaigns do nothing to solve the problems they purport to solve. Instead, they strengthen the hand of incumbents while creating more problems for those incumbents to “solve.”
–
Reject taxpayer financing of political campaigns. Instead, let’s focus on transparency and accountability. Every corrupt politician is only one election away from unemployment if the citizens will it.

Odds & Ends

Calvin Freiburger culture, Duncan Hunter, Fox News, Fred Thompson, free speech, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, O'Reilly, rap, Steyn
Good cultural news? Debbie Schlussel points to a possible shift away from rap music, in the form of decreasing sales. I’d have to see more than this to be persuaded that an actual movement away from this garbage is taking place, but we can hope.
–
Fred Thompson entered the No-Spin Zone tonight. Bill O’Reilly treated him well, and he came off well. Can we dispense with the “Fox is out to get me” hooey now?
–
Mark Steyn takes on the thought police and Canadian Islamic Congress here.
–
Duncan Hunter is staying in the race, and unfortunately, it sounds like he’s going into meltdown mode. Congressman: YOU’RE NOT GOING TO BE THE NOMINEE.
–
The 20 most annoying liberals? Indeed.

Pathetic

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, demagogues, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, torture, treason, useful idiots, War on Terror, Wisconsin
I’ve never thought too highly of Wisconsin blogger and frequent Boots & Sabers commenter Scott Feldstein, but now he’s hit a new low. On December 19 he wrote an irate post about how morally inferior those of us who support torture of terrorists in certain circumstances are. The (censored) highlights:
–
When the f*** did we start condoning state sanctioned torture? Raise your hand right now if you’re for torture. I’ll make a list of people whom I would not let walk my dog, let alone have any position of responsibility or judgement. A list of moral retards…Anyone who wants to trade their souls for some perceived security is a chickens*** motherf***er who should be kept far away from small children and sharp objects.
–
Of course, we know waterboarding has worked, and a lot of innocent American civilians could very well be dead today if Feldstein had his way. Oh, and this guy’s concern about human rights, compassion, and the US’s moral credibility is wholly selective—predictably, he supports killing innocent babies. Phony.
–
As pathetic as all this is, it isn’t what spurred me to write this post. In the comments section, we see the following exchange:
–
MIKE: being a fomer us marine if it saves only one of my brothers im all for it,fight fire with fire. it is clear to me none of you have ever been to a combat zone or have ever served this great nation! its called war for a reason.suck it up butter cups!
–
SCOTT: It’s clear to me, Mike, that you don’t really understand what makes our nation great in the first place.
–
MIKE: Your telling a us marine he doesnt understand what makes his nation great ! its people like me that went to somolia ,the gulf .i earned my f***ing stay, what the f*** have you done? just keep running your sewer we all need a breeze
–
SCOTT: I stand by what I said, Mike. One of the things that makes our nation great is the fact that we have respect for individual liberty and human rights. One of the chief manifestations of this value is the fact that we don’t torture people. I won’t give up my values for safety (real or perceived). How about you? Thanks for your service, by the way. As for what I’ve done, I earn the money that pays your salary.
–
Where does this twerp get off thinking he can tell an American serviceman he doesn’t understand his country’s greatness? The arrogance, the sense of innate superiority, is stunning. What a pathetic, disgusting hypocrite.

Off to Protest Global Warming? You’d Better Bring a Coat

Calvin Freiburger environment, global warming, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, Washington Times
Hat tip to Dennis Prager for this Washington Times piece by geophysicist David Deming, which chronicles quite a few record decreases in temperature the globe’s seen this year. The conclusion:
–
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you’re hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can’t make this stuff up. Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
–
Al Gore, call your office…

The Lovefest Continues

Calvin Freiburger Bush, education, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iran, liberalism, me, moonbats, reporter, War on Terror
–
Ah, yes, dear Mr. Freiburger and his little neocon fantasies. What do you have to say about the fact that Iran curtailed its nuclear weapons program in 2003, yet King George just recently acknowledged the same fact?
–
The “fact” our lib-of-the-day refers to is actually a National Intelligence Estimate—which, according to Alan Dershowitz, “falls hook, line and sinker for a transparent bait and switch tactic employed not only by Iran, but by several other nuclear powers in the past.” This, by the by, would be the same Iran that’s still doing this. And this. And this. Yeah, I really feel good about giving these guys a clean bill of health.
–
President Bush has been caught in a lie. Or is it a situation for people like you, Calvin, that you think the president’s own intelligence “cooked” the intelligence?
–
First, no he hasn’t. Second, what does “you think the president’s own intelligence cooked the intelligence” even mean? Is it a vain attempt at wit?
–
Maybe this quote by Herman Goering (he was a Nazi, in case you don’t know, since you supposedly received such a poor education at Fond du Lac High School) at the Nuremberg Trials can explain it better for you:
–
Such a poor education? I never said anything of the sort. Shouldn’t we expect a college professor to read a little more carefully, and get the basic facts right when he attacks someone?
–
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding to the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country.”
–
Predictably, our friend sees Nazis around every corner. Never mind that the attack, and the continuing threat, are all too real. It figures.
–
On second thought, I’m trying to talk logically to a neocon.
–
“Trying” being the operative word…

Same-Sex Marriage Nuance

Calvin Freiburger gay marriage, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, judicial activism, liberalism, society
From David French:
–
The language surrounding the same-sex marraige debate is inherently deceptive. Much of the news coverage of the Iowa decision has declared that “Gay Marriage” is now “legal” in Iowa. Or that a judge struck down a state “prohibition” against same-sex marriage. Neither statement is precisely true, and the distinctions matter.
–
Same sex marriage is legal in every state in the United States. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s legal everywhere. There is no law in any state that prevents a man and a man or a woman and a woman from marching down the aisle of a church (or standing together in a backyard garden) and saying “I do.” Priests and pastors from our watered-down mainline denominations perform these ceremonies all the time in states from coast to coast.
–
So, the issue is not whether same sex marriage is legal. The issue is whether same-sex marriage should receive the same state benefits as traditional marriage. Homosexual activists have made great progress in the public debate by essentially making people believe that the police would stop a same-sex couple from getting married. Nothing could be further from the truth. Homosexual activists are not asking for same-sex marriage to be “legal” (it already is) but instead for the state to recognize and incentivize their unions.
–
But what’s the state interest in doing so? Must the state recognize and incentivize every private relationship? At the moment, all of the available social science tells us that the two parent, mother-father family provides kids with their best chance to get a good education, escap poverty, and avoid prison. Why can’t the state choose to recognize and incentivize the one family structure that we know leads to the best outcomes across society?

Liberal Theory of Relativity

Calvin Freiburger abortion, blogosphere, feminism, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, humor, Iraq, Islam, Islamofascism, liberalism, moonbats
Here’s a rather striking example from the lefty blogosphere of Bush Derangement Syndrome and general resentment of America. The post itself is actually an important message about Islamic honor killings, and I agree 100%. But just when I think the Left might be getting a dose of reality, the Comments section brings the nuts out of the woodwork. The highlights:
–
[A]lthough honor killings are rare in the good old U.S. of A., there are nevertheless plenty of Americans who still place the “family honor” above the welfare of their kin. I point to my parents-in-law, who have now placed their phony-baloney reputations above three generations of sexually abused family members by intimidating anybody who dared suggest that the perpetrators should be exposed.
–
You’ve got my total sympathy for the suffering those creeps put your loved ones through, but two nuts do not a national trend make. And if the perps were to be exposed, they’d go down for the count (that is, unless they got a left-wing judge to hear their case. Ironic, no?). A pretty defining difference between America & the Middle East, I think.
–
It’s important to note that the increase in the number of so-called “honor” killings in Kirkuk goes along with the occupation. The dissolution of the established social structure under the occupation is leading to devastating things.
–
Boy, I’d like to see some solid numbers on that one! But just for fun, let’s temporarily assume it’s true: 1.) “My life is crappy right now, therefore I’m entitled to kill my daughter”? Uh-uh. 2.) It’s entirely proper to condemn Bush’s handling of the war, but that’s a separate issue from whether or not it should be waged at all. Liberals could also use some perspective: y’think those devastating things are likely to get better with the fundamentalists as the country’s dominant force? Dream on.
–
That [viciously anti-woman] attitude exists, sadly, in this country too – it’s just that usually the consequences aren’t death.
–
Out of 300 million people, some consider women inferior?! Unheard of! If somebody wants to argue that it’s a national trend extending far beyond the scope of Bill Clinton, then show me what constitutes that attitude here.
–
Right on about the attitude towards women, an attitude that is deteriorating fast here in this country with all this crazy legislaton being sanctioned by the Supreme Court, with a man being given the legal right to tell a woman what she can do or can’t do with her body.
–
I get it. Bemoan the killing of girls and your (partial) inability to kill children in the same breath. If not for abortion’s human consequences, this would be hilarious.
–
Amidst all this we had the usual assurances that Islam is not to blame for honor killings (a courtesy that the far Left seems to forget when discussing, say, Fred Phelps or abortion-clinic bombers), but the interesting thing was how few could resist the knee-jerk reaction to opine, “Yeah, but America does [insert-crime-here]!” Is it really that hard to make a simple condemnation of evil?
–
The Liberal Theory of Relativity: “Every woe and/or wrongdoing in this world can be related back to the evils of the United States in some way.” Just don’t question their patriotism, whatever you do.