…and on Michael Tomasky’s schizophrenia on the subject:
…in what conceivable universe is this a “right-wing” program in the Anglo-American sense? Sure, Hitler hates the Bolsheviks, but that’s like saying because the Crips hate the Bloods, they’re on the side of law and order.
Hitler’s party may have been considered “right-wing” within the universe of radical-socialist parties at the time—especially in Soviet parlance because as Hitler notes, Trotsky has ordered the KPD to ally with the Social Democrats to stop the NSDAP at this point—but this is entirely relative and to a great degree a product of Soviet black propaganda. Hitler’s own taxonomy of the NSDAP (later in that speech, for example), placing the Center Party as an arm of World Bolshevism, is just hyperbolic demonization of everyone not him, not a rational construction of a political spectrum anyone should accept.
To imply, as Tomasky does, that the economic program of a socialist, authoritarian, corporatist party is analogous to that of the Anglo-American, small-government, rule-of-law, economic-liberty “right wing” is lunacy. (Especially when the American “Progressive” “left wing” has recently attempted to socialize the medical system, opined that it’d like its opponents to “shut up,” and effectively corporatized most of the auto industry.)
As Goldberg pointed out in his book, fascism was considered glamorous, Progressive, and modern, and a close cousin of Communism, just without the latter’s fetish for state ownership of the means of production. These ideas—and the emotions upon which they’re based—have deep roots in human nature.
Yes. Collectivism is the oldest game in the world, because it appeals to human nature, while simultaneously denying it. It is that “right wing” individual liberty that is the upstart ideology, and truly progressive.
[Afternoon update]
This is pretty funny (the latest in a series): Hitler finds out that Americans are calling each other Nazis.
Collectivism appeals to animal nature.
Man’s nature, his mind, requires freedom.
Collectivist bozo Mike Malloy used to write a weekly column here in Atlanta which would often be a kind of Point/Counterpoint exchange with his libertarian foil, Neal Boortz. At one point he called Boortz a “fascist.” Hmmm, lets’ see how that works: Malloy wants to expand the power of the State and diminish liberty; Boortz wants a minimalist State and exapanded liberty. Yet Boortz is the “fascist.”
You might ask, “What planet are these ‘liberal’ yahoos from?” And I’ve figured out: Bizarro Planet, from SUPERMAN comics. On Bizarro Planet, anti-statism is “fascist,” while slavish State-fellating is “anti-fascist.” Probably Tomasky and Malloy greet people with “good-bye,” and answer questions in the negative by replying, “Yes.”
I don’t like the term right-wing for libertarianism. Originally right-wing referred to the supporters of the French Ancien Régime.
I don’t like “left” and “right” in general as political descriptions, but we seem to be stuck with them. And the left are happy to call themselves that, and anyone who disagrees with them as “right wing.” Hence libertarians get swept up in the net. Note my scare quotes in the original post.
Anglo-American, small-government, rule-of-law, economic-liberty “right wing Except that’s not actually conservative by 1930s standards. In the 1930s, conservatives were very authoritarian. The European flavor in particular were monarchists. Small-government was a liberal idea, which was why we had to fight a revolution to get it.
Small-government was a liberal idea, which was why we had to fight a revolution to get it.
It doesn’t seem to be a very “liberal” idea any more, except among true (classical) liberals (aka libertarian/conservatives). Are we going to have to fight another revolution to get it back?
Are we going to have to fight another revolution to get it back?
Well, the peaceful way has not worked thusfar…
I don’t see anyone in the right or left that is fighting for liberty. I really think our founders would be appalled.
Me either. Perhaps, given that the directional terms were coined relative to the factions’ seating in Parliament, the correct similar term for those still trying to promote liberty should be “the gallery.”
The term for “The Left” that seems to frame the discussion best for classical liberals/libertarians/non-Leftists – without immediately derailing into near-infinite violations of Godwin’s Law – is “Statist”.
Their answer for -most- everything is “Well, government should fix that.” They essentially self-identify across a wide swath of issues. The one major “flaw” in that label is “Well, we don’t think government should be imposing religion!” Which is a perfectly valid comeback – except they’re essentially using government -as- their religion.
As I think I’ve said before, I don’t see authortarianism as favoring either the left or right. Those who would take power will use whatever rationalization or ideology they want to further their goals and whims.