Many on the left predicted (usually without even reading it) that Jonah Goldberg’s book would end up remaindered shortly after publication (I even had such idiotic prophecies in my own comments section here).
Well, the new edition, in paperback (with a new afterword on the Obama phenom), came out today, and it’s #32 at Amazon
There’s an interview with the author on the new edition over at NRO:
One of the points of Liberal Fascism isn’t to simply say “I know you are but what am I?” to the Left (though that’s definitely in there), it’s to point out that because we’ve made fascism into this cartoon villain we’ve allowed truly fascistic (or if you prefer, statist or progressive) assumptions to suffuse modern life on both the right and the left. I don’t think all of this stuff is evil or even necessarily bad. Rather, I think it advances without us questioning it. I have a chapter in the book called “We’re All Fascists Now.” I wasn’t aiming that purely leftward, but inward. People need to understand that these movements didn’t arise out of a society-wide desire to be villains. It arose out of a desire, a yearning, for progress. I think that’s one of the most basic points I failed to communicate as clearly as I should have.
LOPEZ: Speaking of Liberal Fascism’s endurance, what do you make of events since the book came out, specifically the election of The One?
GOLDBERG: Well, first of all I think I have to thank Barack Obama. Here I wrote a book, working on the assumption that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee (hardly a harebrained assumption at the time), about how contemporary progressivism is a political religion with its roots in German state theory, sharing a close family resemblance to fascism. Among the anatomical and genetic similarities: cult of unity, sacralization of politics, philosophical pragmatism, corporatism, relativism, Romanticism, hero-worship, collectivism, and so on. And out of nowhere comes a guy who campaigns as a secular messiah, spouting deeply spiritualized political rhetoric, claims the Progressives as his inspiration, and proudly sees himself as carrying out FDR’s mission. I haven’t counted them, but I’d guess I’ve received a couple hundred e-mails from readers telling me how they thought the whole book was written with Obama in mind, even though I finished it before he was even ahead in the Democratic primaries.
It does seem prescient now.
[3 PM Eastern update]
The book has moved up to #30…
I’ve been saying for months Goldberg needs to put out an updated, post-election “Yes, We Can!” edition of the book, and the publishers should advertise it: “Now.More Than Ever.”
“No, it’s not fascism, because we’re not going to call it that.”
–Kyle’s dad on SOUTH PARK
“No, it’s not fascism, because we’re not going to call it that.”
–Kyle’s dad on SOUTH PARK
How about, “no, it’s not facscism, because fascism is a dictatorship of the right. Communism is a dictatorship of the left.”
fascism is a dictatorship of the right
What does that mean? The whole point of Jonah’s book is that this is historical revisionism, and nonsense. Fascism is a leftist phenomenon (and leftists understood this all through the early part of the twentieth century, up until the split with the Stalinists when Hitler turned on his former leftist ally). What is it that’s “right wing” about it? As Jonah points out, it was H. G. Wells, hardly a “right winger,” who coined the term “liberal fascism,” as a desideratum.
fascism is a dictatorship of the right. Communism is a dictatorship of the left.
Say what? Geez, Chris, did you manage to spend all your time in history class passing notes to girls or sleeping off last night’s bender?
The complaint by communists that there has never been a real communist state is fairly legitimate. (The difficulty with moving on from that position is that there has never been a real communist state for the same reason unicorns have not yet been bred in captivity.) What you probably mean is a Stalinist state, of which there have been several.
Both a fascist and a Stalinist state are indeed vicious dictatorships, and both suppress liberty, but both are deeply socialist. The only major difference is that fascism is typically nationalistic, if not jingoistic, whereas Stalinist states tend to see their future in exporting revolution to the entire globe.
Keep in mind that you moderns believe that “the right” involves such things as a belief in a Wild West untrammeled free market, very little regulation or oversight of business, a totally emasculated central government with very little tax revenue, a world where wealthy people can do whatever they want, because wealth is the only form of power — polticai connections mean nothing.
Now tell me how any of that is consistent with a dictatorship, with strong coercion from a central authority ruling every aspect of individual life, the importance of The Party, and complete control of the economy and all business decisions. It’s not, is it?
Step away from the slogans and think for yourself a bit, hmm?
Gerrib, are you paraphrasing “Won’t Get Fooled Again” on purpose, or did you step on that irony all on your own?
Rand – understood this all through the early part of the twentieth century, up until the split with the Stalinists when Hitler turned No, Hitler and Stalin were allies of convenience. Hitler got his start as an anti-communist guy, as did (the much more important ideologically) founder of fascism, Mussolini. (You will note that Italy never allied with Russia.)
In fact, the whole scene in Orwell’s 1984 where the ruling party suddenly switched who they were at war with was based on what the Left (or those that supported Stalin) had to do when the Hitler / Stalin pact became public. Prior to the announcement of the pact, communists and fascists were very publicly feuding with each other, then they suddenly had to change.
Carl – no, I actually got good grades in history and political science. In fact, they told me that fascism was a right-wing phenomenon. The revisionism is Goldberg’s, not the previous work.
Monarchy, for example, is widely considered a conservative / right-wing form of government. As anybody familiar with Louis XIV of France can tell you, being a dictator is not incompatible with free enterprise. (Or see modern Singapore, or Saudi Arabia.) Actually, your statement starting with “Wild West untrammeled free market…” sounds shockingly like the Sun King’s economy.
Monarchy is quite compatible with fascism. See Mussolini’s approval of or later overthrow by the Italian king, or the various aristocrats in the German and Italian army high commands. Fascism sold itself to monarchists as the way to keep the dirty leftist socialists from nationalizing their estates.
Your economic analysis is faulty as well. Fascism was not in complete control of the economy. Hitler didn’t nationalize his industries until 1943. He (and Mussolini) DID nationalize trade unions, for the benefit of the weathly. They also bought stuff (mostly military) from the free market as a form of economic stimulus.
Sorry to go on at such length, but quoting Liberal Fascism as if it were true displays a shocking ignorance of modern history. It’s almost as bad as using a book on Flat Earth theory as an astronomy textbook.
Hitler got his start as an anti-communist guy, as did (the much more important ideologically) founder of fascism, Mussolini.
So? That doesn’t make him right wing. Neither Hitler or Mussolini were anti-socialist.
Prior to the announcement of the pact, communists and fascists were very publicly feuding with each other, then they suddenly had to change.
So? That just make it a family spat among leftists, not right against left.
Monarchy is quite compatible with fascism. See Mussolini’s approval of or later overthrow by the Italian king, or the various aristocrats in the German and Italian army high commands. Fascism sold itself to monarchists as the way to keep the dirty leftist socialists from nationalizing their estates.
Again, that doesn’t make it “right wing.” It just makes it a way of allowing a different flavor or left wing.
Hitler didn’t nationalize his industries until 1943.
Do you really believe that Hitler had no control or influence over German industry prior to 1943?
Sorry to go on at such length, but quoting Liberal Fascism as if it were true displays a shocking ignorance of modern history. It’s almost as bad as using a book on Flat Earth theory as an astronomy textbook.
OK, so provide us some examples of things in Liberal Fascism that are false, or historically inaccurate.
Sigh. Chris, monarchy is only a “conservative” form of government when it’s a constitutional or parliamentary monarchy, kind of like Victorian England or various bits of Napoleon IIIs tenure in France. In such a situation the king nominally has plenary power, but in practise a substantial aristocracy (of birth, or better yet of merit, e.g. wealth) has more, and both are severely circumscribed by constitutional guarantees and traditions, either explicitly written down or not.
In such a system central authority tends to actually have only a few well-circumscribed areas where it has plenary authority (typically foreign policy). In most other areas the actual ability to effect change by centers of power is hamstrung either by tradition or by balance from other centers of power, and people are relatively free to do what they please. The absence of some kind of political godhead — in the case of a dictatorship, what Dear Leader wants, in a mob-rule democracy, what the polls today show The People want — tends to limit the amount of damage that can be done by careless uses of power. Basically, no one can really claim to be acting on some irrefutable authority (the will of The Leader, or of The People), and everyone is seen as merely representing his own interests, and entitled to no particular veneration or deference.
You are confusing for some reason the monarchies of the 18th and 19th century, institutions well worn down by centuries of parliamentary reform, with the absolute dictatorships of the 20th century. That’s nuts. Try to imagine Queen VIctoria issuing the kind of diktats that Stailn or HItler or Mao did, or commanding such wholescale restructuring of society as even FDR did and Obama wants to. You can’t. The history of the “conservative” monarchies of the 18th and 19th century is the history of warring parliamentary factions, of conflicting elite power centers. No where do you see the kind of sweeping unlimited power that emerged in the 20th century.
My impression is that you are not really thinking out what is meant by “conservative.” It means “suspicious of social change,” “fond of individual liberty,” “prone to think that social power should scale with social contribution,” “fearful of mob rule and central coercion.” How do you square any of these things with a preference for a dictator or untrammeled (e.g. Louis XIV, Philip II) 17th century monarchy? You can’t. So either you haven’t thought this out, or you are playing word games with what a modern conservative means by “conservative.”
Your economic analysis is faulty as well. Fascism was not in complete control of the economy.
You may be making a facile and bogus distinction between intent and actual success — do you not think Hitler, for example, wanted to control the economy? Have you read Speer’s memoirs about Hitler’s intentions for the Third Reich? Maybe you need to read some Hayek, explore the powerful connections between ecomomic planning and fascism, and vice versa.
I actually got good grades in history and political science. In fact, they told me that fascism was a right-wing phenomenon.
I’m sure they did, Chris. The history taught in schools is appalling in its crypto-Marxist groupthink. They probably taught you industrialism was just one horrible act of violence on orphans, women, and minorities, that Coolidge was an idiot, Reagan a warmonger, Carter sadly misunderstood and unfairly maligned for the hostage crisis, and FDR one step short of God.
I didn’t suggest you use the ideas and interpretations they gave you in history class. Indeed, I suggest you discard those, as self-serving crap, and use the facts they gave you (or Goldberg gives you) and think for yourself.
Fascism without a single-party dictatorship is like monarchy without monarchs.
The 18th century French monarchists were convinced they were right wing and they had a seating chart to prove it.
Fascism without a single-party dictatorship is like monarchy without monarchs.
Do you imagine that not the goal of the current regime?
I wrote:
Fascism without a single-party dictatorship is like monarchy without monarchs.
Rand reponds:
Do you imagine that not the goal of the current regime?
Which one? Aren’t both like saying that someone likes chocolate as long as it doesn’t actually have chocolate in it?
Which one? Aren’t both like saying that someone likes chocolate as long as it doesn’t actually have chocolate in it?
Sorry, you’re going to have to elaborate on this for it to make any sense to readers of English.
Rand, I agree with you that this is one of the most important books of the last ten years. Would that more of your commenters had taken the time to read it…
Rand – so Hitler comes to power in 1933 by blaming the Communists for the Reichstag fire, and Mussolini comes to power in 1922 during a Red scare in Italy, but they are both “merely factions of leftists?” Then who in Europe were rightists?
Regarding Hitler’s influence over the economy – yes, he had influence. So did Louis XIV. Extreme leftists (AKA “Communists” and “Socialists”) didn’t influence the economy – they owned it, literally, lock stock and barrel.
do you not think Hitler, for example, wanted to control the economy? Ah, no. If he wanted to, like he wanted to get rid of the Jews, he would have. Speers wanted to control the economy – he didn’t get allowed to.
Rand and Carl Pham – I use “Right” as a synonym for “conservative.” In that definition, monarchy is conservative, being the oldest form of government. That’s the accepted definition of the term.
The constitutional monarchy of Victoria was not conservative for the time. It was actually rather liberal. Victoria’s peers, even her descendants (Wilhiem of Germany) were much more powerful. Heck, George III, her grandfather, made the last attempt to regain the power of the throne, and revert England to “conservative” principles. (He failed – loosing America and going mad were not helpful to his cause.)
Carl – you write It [conservative] means “suspicious of social change,” “fond of individual liberty,” “prone to think that social power should scale with social contribution,” “fearful of mob rule and central coercion.”
Let’s take those one at a time. “Suspicious of change” = yes.
“Fond of individual liberty” = no. That’s libertarianism, which is not the same as conservativism.
“prone to think that social power…” = yes. Also known as “plutocracy” or “aristocracy” depending on how “contribution” is defined. Typically considered right-wing ideas.
“Fearful of mob rule” = arguably any form of government.
“…central coercion” = libertarianism, not “conservative.” Also found in so-called classic liberalism, AKA what the Founding Fathers thought, which was highly progressive for its time.
One last thing, Carl – I actually studied under an honest-to-God Marxist. (Mexican woman, studied at Oxford, very interesting accent.) I know what Marxism is, and think it’s a screwed-up way to run a country. The guy who taught European history was a Republican, got tenure before my dad even started high school, and fought in WWII. He knew what fascism was.
Just to muddy the waters a little, anti-monarchists in the 19th century were called “liberals”, because they believed in individual liberty and economic liberty (capitalism). Hence the term “classical liberal”, not to be confused with the modern “progressive” liberal.
If I understand correctly, it was Stalin who originally labeled fascism as “right-wing”, and that has been duly parroted for decades by his fellow travelers in the United States.
The 18th century French monarchists were convinced they were right wing and they had a seating chart to prove it.
Indeed, though I’m not sure what your point is. Are you claiming that Hitler and Mussolini were monarchists? If so, do you have any evidence of it?
Rand – so Hitler comes to power in 1933 by blaming the Communists for the Reichstag fire, and Mussolini comes to power in 1922 during a Red scare in Italy, but they are both “merely factions of leftists?”
That’s right (errrr…left). Why do you have trouble with the concept of factional fighting on the left? It was simply two different gangs of leftist power-hungry thugs at war with each other.
Then who in Europe were rightists?
The (true) liberals, as they are today.
I use “Right” as a synonym for “conservative.” In that definition, monarchy is conservative, being the oldest form of government.
Itself a nebulous term, particularly in this context. Certainly, there was nothing in any way “conservative” or monarchist about Hitler. He was about as radical as they come.
Rand – Mussolini was a monarchist – he kept the Italian king in power. Hitler certainly wasn’t against aristocracy – he kept the aristocrats in his army (unlike Stalin and Lenin). Franco, the one facsist who got to pick his successor, anointed the heir to the Spanish throne, and ruled as nominal regent to the Spanish throne.
You use “true liberals” to refer to some unnamed party in Europe as the rightists. The problem is that the self-identified conservatives of the era were monarchists and fascists. Just because you don’t like “conservative” being in the same sentence as “monarchist” doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit there.
BTW – the modern conservative parties in Europe usually call themselves “Christian Socialists” or something similar.
I’ll try one more general explanation of fascism vs. socialism:
Socialists think that the State is not that important. The communists thought the State would wither away, which is why the USSR national anthem was the Internationale (“Workers of the world, unite!”)
Facsists think that the State is the be-all and end-all.
Socialists reject the old order. They kick out monarchs and take land and power from aristocrats.
Facsists attempted to revive ancient empires (AKA, “Roman,” Hitler’s obsession of Wagner) and support aristocrats.
Socialists advocate workers owning the means of production. (This usually doesn’t work out.) Facsists advocate private ownership.
By the mid-1930s, the American and British politicians supporting fascism were folks like Charles Limburgh (floated as a Republican for President) and Lord Halifax (willing to negotiate with Hitler in 1940, and a Conservative peer).
Carl said: “Keep in mind that you moderns believe that “the right” involves such things as a belief in a Wild West untrammeled free market, very little regulation or oversight of business, a totally emasculated central government with very little tax revenue, a world where wealthy people can do whatever they want, because wealth is the only form of power — polticai connections mean nothing.”
That’s a great point, but that only describes one way of being “on the right”. Another way involves being a social conservative, and wanting the government to enforce a more narrow sort of morality than social liberals prefer: sex, sex, sex, it is all about sex, unless you acknowledge that abortion isn’t really about sex per se, and drugs aren’t about sex, and, in my town, a variety of other ways of being “normal” which aren’t sex: conservatives in my town favor regulating (using the force of government and the police): the number of pets you can own in my town, the length of the grass in your yard (more than the liberals do), how many cars you can have in your driveway, how crooked the trees in your own yard can grow, where you can keep your garbage cans, and a variety of other “ways to be normal”, because normality and perceived property values are more important than liberty to these conservatives. Oh, and they’re a patriotic bunch! So patriotic that they want to make the pledge of allegiance mandatory at various functions, and they want to make flag burning illegal. Oh, and they don’t really care about democracy. This isn’t because they are on the right, it is just an additional aspect of their whole package. But because of their sneakiness at election time, I wonder to myself: what if they could set up a dictatorship? What would it be like?
Never mind Hitler and Stalin. What about these social conservatives, who value their social conservatism more than they value liberty? Are they on the right? And if they did impose a dictatorship, what would you call them?
(I want to acknowledge that I’m still working through my thoughts here.)
Mussolini was a monarchist – he kept the Italian king in power.
He didn’t do so because he was a monarchist.
The supposed differences you cite between socialists and fascists, to the degree they are true (e.g., fascists have and had little interest in private property rights) are trivial compared to their similarities.
And obviously, you haven’t read the book.
Maybe my question could be boiled down to: There are different ways to be a right-wing republican. Imagine each kind setting up a dictatorship. What labels would apply to the resulting systems of government?
But because of their sneakiness at election time, I wonder to myself: what if they could set up a dictatorship? What would it be like?
The people you are describing might call themselves “conservatives,” but they are not, at least in a Burkean sense. Just as most Americans who call themselves “liberals” are not, either. They are all just variants on fascism, soft and hard.
There are different ways to be a right-wing republican. Imagine each kind setting up a dictatorship.
There is nothing “right wing” about setting up a dictatorship.
But now we have confusing terminology: People who are social conservatives and consistently vote Republican at the national and state levels are the one who consistently pass liberty-reducing laws in our town council. It is natural to call these people “right wingers”, and it is easy to imagine these right-wingers setting up a dictatorship. (These guys play hardball at election time, to the extent that makes jaded Chicagoans shake their heads in disbelief.) If they did set up a dictatorship, everyone would be tempted to it them a “right-wing dictatorship”. What would you call it?
That should have read: “Everyone would be tempted to call it a ‘right-wing dictatorship’. What would you call it?”
I guess I’m asking how do you, Rand, distinguish terminologically between a local dictatorship run by people who vote for Democrats at the state&federal levels, and a dictatorship run by people who vote for Republicans at the state&federal levels? (I’m sorry for the multiple posts.)
I guess I’m asking how do you, Rand, distinguish terminologically between a local dictatorship run by people who vote for Democrats at the state&federal levels, and a dictatorship run by people who vote for Republicans at the state&federal levels?
What would be the point in making such a distinction? One would be a Democrat dictatorship, and the other a Republican dictatorship. Neither would be “right wing,” if by that you mean classically liberal and in favor of individual rights and freedom (which is how Jonah defines it in his book).
> Rand – so Hitler comes to power in 1933 by blaming the Communists
The Progressive and Greens often blame the Dems for various things. All three blame the Repubs for certain things. And the Repubs return the favor.
Since Gerrib thinks that opposition can only be between left and right, we’ve got a pidgeon hole problem – we have at least three actors (the Progressives and the Greens also blame each other) and only two labels.
The solution is that Gerrib is, once again, wrong. Folks on the left oppose one another all the time, so do folks on the right. It’s not just minor quibbles over policy, but the big issue – who decides. (Guess why Hillary opposed Obama….)
Left vs right is not defined by who opposes who, but their policies.
Chris must think that Trotsky was a right-wing reactionary, since he, too, opposed Stalin.
A terminological distinction would be very useful, if you lived in the United States, since the those are two of the threats we are actually faced with.
I haven’t read Jonah’s book, but the problem I have with the way it is cited here, (not necessarily by you, Rand), is that by insisting that fascism and communism are both left-wing phenomena, the focus is taken off the possibility of Republicans of various stripes start sliding toward dictatorship. (And even if they never get to full blown dictatorship, the slide toward it is unpleasant.)
If you want to have a conversation about Europe, Australia, Canada, and other countries which have similar left-right divides, speaking about the dangers of a “Democratic dictatorship” vs a “Republican Dictatorship” won’t sound right. If you want to talk about the danger of a dictatorship run by former Democrats/Liberals/Labourites/Greens/etc, we have terms like “socialist” and “communist”, and on the local level, we can joke with terms like “the People’s Republic of Berkeley”. But if you want to have a conversation about the danger of a dictatorship run by former Republicans/Conservatives/Tories/Christian-Democrats, we don’t have any good terms, although people like me, and I think Chris Gerrib, would tend to use the term “Fascist”. If “Fascist” is historically inaccurate, what term should we use? And on the local level, imagine the Republican equivalent of the “People’s Republic of Berkeley”. What is the appropriate terminology for joking around? People like me, and perhaps(!) Chris Gerrib would tend to make jokes that played off Nazi motifs. You are saying these jokes aren’t historically accurate, but what should we do instead?
Perhaps you’ll say that jokes in particular are unncessary, but my questions are about language. Language is a tool. People really do want to make jokes, so they need a good tool to help them achieve their goals. And they certainly want to have conversations about international trends, so they need words that talk about the dictatorial impulses of so-called “conservative” political parties, so they need good language for that too.
I haven’t read Jonah’s book, but the problem I have with the way it is cited here, (not necessarily by you, Rand), is that by insisting that fascism and communism are both left-wing phenomena, the focus is taken off the possibility of Republicans of various stripes start sliding toward dictatorship.
That’s a problem of Republicans, not the “right wing.”
Jonah discusses this problem in the book. There is a chapter titled “We’re All Fascists Now.” He has said that, as a result of writing it, he has become less conservative, and more libertarian.
If “Fascist” is historically inaccurate, what term should we use?
You can use fascist to describe a dictatorship of any kind. Our only point is that it shouldn’t be used to bash classical liberals, because fascism is precisely the opposite of classical liberalism, and that leftists shouldn’t be immune from the label. Including Barack Obama.
People like me, and perhaps(!) Chris Gerrib would tend to make jokes that played off Nazi motifs. You are saying these jokes aren’t historically accurate, but what should we do instead?
I’m not saying they’re not historically accurate. I’m saying that people who behave in such a way are not of “the right.” If you want to make jokes about conservative dictatorships, then make jokes about conservative dictatorships. Just be aware that there was little “conservative” about Adolf Hitler. He was an extreme radical in his political beliefs — he wanted to destroy and remake Germany in his own image, and much of them were socialistic.
There are many similarities between the Nazi Party platform and that of the Democrats. You can focus on the differences, if you like — Jonah and I are pointing out the many discomforting similarities. Calling a state-developed automobile the People’s Car (Volkswagen) is hardly the act of a rampant individualist or “right winger.” He wasn’t tryng to fool people when he named the party the National Socialist Workers’ Party. He meant it. The primary difference between his party and the Communist party was that his was national and meant to privilege Germans (and Aryans) while the Communist movement was international, and more focused on class warfare transcending national boundaries.
“right wing,” if by that you mean classically liberal and in favor of individual rights and freedom (which is how Jonah defines it in his book).
Which is a completely useless historical definition. “Classically liberal” was liberal / radical / progressive for its time. The fact that, 200 years later, what was once the province of wild-haired revolutionaries is now accepted just shows that political thought evolves over time.
There is nothing “right wing” about setting up a dictatorship You’re really using “right” and “conservative” to mean “policies I like.” That works for Alice in Wonderland, not so much in reality.
Left vs right is not defined by who opposes who, but their policies. True. Fascist policies were radically different in intent and effect then Communist. Goldberg, in his book, deliberately attempts to mislead by glossing over these very fundamental differences between fascism and socialism.
Trotsky was a communist / leftist. His goal was to create a “worker’s paradise.” Hitler and Mussolini didn’t give a damn about the workers.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
In your view, is the “social conservative” wing of the Republican party “leftist”? For example, is Sarah Palin a leftist regarding her opposition to legalizing drugs?
(Not that it matters, but: although I have not and never will use recreational-drugs in my personal life regardless of their legality because I’m a square, I’m reluctantly in favor of legalizing any drug that doesn’t make people run around and act like a psychotic killer. So I guess I’m a right winger, while Palin is a left winger. Huh.)
Hitler and Mussolini didn’t give a damn about the workers.
Most leftists don’t. They just find them a convenient and sympathetic vehicle by which to attain their goal of political power.
In your view, is the “social conservative” wing of the Republican party “leftist”?
No, but it can be somewhat fascist. Again, Jonah discusses this in his book. The point is not that all fascism is leftist, but that none of it is “right wing,” and that certainly Hitler and Mussolini weren’t.
“And on the local level, imagine the Republican equivalent of the “People’s Republic of Berkeley”.
How? I have quite a vivid imagination and I can’t get there.
Outside of Henry Paulson, who in the Republican party leadership seems comfortable with anything other than a democracy? The classic liberals are not Democrats.
Today, you have more to fear from a “progressive” leader becoming totalitarian than you do from a far right leader.
Your definition of “in power” may be non-standard.
McGehee – Mussolini was replaced in favor of the king. Stalin didn’t have to worry about that, since the Russian monarch was shot.
Most leftists don’t. They just find them a convenient and sympathetic vehicle by which to attain their goal of political power. In Stalin’s case, yes. But automatically imputing ill motives to people you disagree with is a poor way to run a railroad.
This has been very helpful. I’m concluding (unless I’m corrected, which I welcome) that “Republican Fascism” and “Socially conservative fascism” make sense to you, but “right wing fascism” is an oxymoron.
I’m still looking for a term for the variety of fascism that focuses, in particular, on controlling real estate rights. I have a need for such a term.
Bill, I answered your question above: my Republican town council likes to stick their nose into what I think should be people’s private business. They dictate. And they play games with the elections, such that they don’t respect the spirit of democracy. They would be very happy to rule unchallenged for life (many people would – this is completely orthogonal to left vs right). If they trample on the majority enough, they’ll be voted out, but instead, they focus on people who aren’t “normal”, like the lady with five tiny dogs, or the guy who has a prairie restoration project going on in his very secluded and private backyard. I’m actually really vanilla myself, but I get do-gooder outrage when I think about the council bossing around people just for being a little different when they are no harm to anyone.
D’oh! I said “orthogonal to left vs right” but on this blog, I think other terms would be used: socially liberal vs socially conservative is sort of what I’m getting at, and Democratic vs Republican is sort of it too, but neither quite describe what I used to call “left vs right”.
I’m still looking for a term for the variety of fascism that focuses, in particular, on controlling real estate rights. I have a need for such a term.
Plain old “fascist” works well enough. But they’re not fascists because they’re Republicans. They’re fascist because they want to run your life and your real estate. Their political party isn’t particularly relevant.
Their political party might not be relevant in the abstract, but it is very predictive in practice. I guess that’s how unfair prejudice gets started.
Their political party might not be relevant in the abstract, but it is very predictive in practice.
I know many Republican who wouldn’t behave that way, and Democrats who would. I don’t think that it’s derivable from either party platform.
Oh, I meant: in my town, it is predictive.
To talk about what is predictive nationally, first you have to establish that there are at least several sorts of people who are apt to join the Republican party, and at least one of those sorts is a right-wing classic liberal, and at least one of those sorts is not at all like that. Which is why the GOP has the big-tent debate every so often…