Blue Dogs Dumped

This must be the first time I’ve seen a member of the MSM refer to centrists as ideologues. Congratulations to Joe Klein for breaking new ground. However, he still leans on false equivalence. What role should empiricism play in politics JK, if any? What if the facts show that one of the “extremes” is standing in the light of reason? Does that still make it a bad idea?

Thanks, Joe. I read Galston’s analysis, & I think it contains an essential fallacy — Galston says there was a big shift in indepentents’ political philosophy, & that shift was to the right; i.e., independents became more conservative.

But I think it depends upon what the meanings of conservative & liberal are. Galston doesn’t say so, but I suspect here he means self-identified conservatives & liberals. The fact is that even within the past four years, many self-described conservatives have become much more socially liberal. The opposition to gay rights is way down on the right. Younger conservatives aren’t as xenophobic as older ones, as hard as Republicans have tried to frighten them about scary Mexicans & Chinese (see Thompson’s post above) — more or less one and the same as far as Sharron Angle can tell. I think you’ll find fewer conservatives wanting to keep the little woman barefoot & pregnant, tho it’s hard to say about the right-to-choose — that may be a wash. Many conservatives have come out in favor of embroyonic research.

What did work for Republicans, to some extent, was deficit-scare, & Obama played right into that, setting up his righty-right catfood commission. But mostly what worked for Republicans was the Blue Dogs making the healthcare & financial reform laws too close to meaningless & the Repubicans in lockstep fighting every measure to help the middle class. Being the Party of No & getting your like-minded “I voted with John Boehner 107% of the time” Blue Dogs to aid & abet you is a darned good, if completely cynical, campaign strategy.

So thanks for nothing, Blue Dogs. Hope now that you’re out of a job, you’ll find meaningful work getting direct pay checks from lobbying firms instead of those annoying indirect campaign contributions with all the strings attached. Nice work.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

A somewhat different look in the NRO:

In 2006, those who voted were 32 percent conservative, 47 percent moderate, and 20 percent liberal. In 2010, by contrast, conservatives had risen to 41 percent of the total and moderates declined to 39 percent, while liberals remained constant at 20 percent….

To complete the argument, there’s one more step: Did independents shift toward Republicans because they had become significantly more conservative between 2006 and 2010? Fortunately we don’t have to speculate about this. According to the Pew Research Center, conservatives as a share of total Independents rose from 29 percent in 2006 to 36 percent in 2010. Gallup finds exactly the same thing: The conservative share rose from 28 percent to 36 percent while moderates declined from 46 percent to 41 percent.

This shift is part of a broader trend: Over the past two decades, moderates have trended down as share of the total electorate while conservatives have gone up….

******************************************************************

Many conservatives, libertarians and liberals list themselves independent because they don’t like either party thus it’s not always most instructive to look at party. Joe is trying to put lipstick on a pig. Voters didn’t want a larger stimulus they didn’t want an increase in spending AT AL. They wanted tax cuts. They were not in the weeds on finanical reform. It had no impact. Obama tried to make us more like Europe and no one wants it.

constandweader,

Not bad, despite the condescending shark you almost got there. As a lifelong conservative I don’t quite remember wanting to keep anyone barefoot and pregnant but feel free to keep the snarky, juvenile narrative. Fresh and creative you are not. The secret of the obvious success of the tea party is that it is devoted to fiscal conservatism and staying away from social issues. I think most conservatives like myself think marriage should stay as it is but it’s 21st on a list of 20 important issues. Who cares? #1 thru #5 on the list is spending and then the next 5 the deficit.

The plan is to tackle those issues 1st. This will be a 3 election cycle process to restore a very conservative congress and get spending back down to about 18% of GDP.

BTW: unreported so far is that while the GOP added 6 new seats in the senate they also replaced I think 5 retiring GOP senators and in each case the new Senator is significantly more conservative. Steve Brown and the Maine sisters will be free to stay true to their moderate belief’s while another 43 republicans are solid conservatives. It will also be noted by Ben Nelson and many of the other Democrat senators up for re-election in 2012 it won’t do to support Obama.

rdw56:

“The secret of the obvious success of the tea party is that it is devoted to fiscal conservatism and staying away from social issues. ”
.
This statement is interesting on a variety of levels (not sure you can say the tea party was an unqualified success since it can be argued that the TP lost the GOP the Senate). But I don’t believe you can say across the board that tea party candidates (or their voters) were concerned with nothing other than fiscal policy. An interesting take below.
.
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/10/19/are-once-libertarian-tea-party-candidates-becoming-social-conservatives.html

One thing we will never hear is the fact that the Left is not happy with Obama and many didn’t bother to vote. All the analysis will suggest that Obama isn’t conservative enough and needs to move even further to the right than he already is. Their is only one group completely shut out of US politics and that is liberals, who make up almost half the Democratic party. The media spent months on the tea party and won’t give the Left even 5 minutes of attention.

Except to point out, endlessly, that we’re never satisfied. As Joe puts it, above:
.
“Normally, I don’t have much patience for the whining on the left…” But this time the whiners might have a point? Nothing that others here haven’t written about for months, but Joe suddenly sees the light. Sort of.

The secret of the obvious success of the tea party is that it is devoted to fiscal conservatism..

Nope. They’re devoted to the idea of fiscal conservatism. When the Tea Party is urging Congress to renew the Bush tax cuts – which will add $700 billion to the deficit…TP’ers pledge fealty to the idea of cutting taxes and reducing deficits, which ends up being a contradiction. You can maybe cover that with spending cuts, but there’s been few serious – or palatable – suggestions in that direction.

doddeb Klein is a propagandist for radical centrists who he now correctly describes as ideologues. The best he has ever done when it comes to the Left is hurl insults, like a right-wing troll, probably as a convenient way to disguise his ignorance on things like economic policy.

Derek: And, I’m probably being unkind. Joe’s actually kind of mellowed since the road trip. I’m just so frustrated by the deluge of false-equivalency reporting since election night (and not only in TIME).
.
I did very much appreciate your @1.0, where you suggested a new paradigm. How about we look at ideas for factual content and relevancy, rather than dismiss them out of hand based on the “ideology” of who posits them. What the hell, let’s try something new.

From Jeremy Jacobs at National Journal:

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures — an all time high. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control — meaning both chambers — of 26 state legislatures.

rdw- the spin this wasn’t as bad as 1994 is nonsense

Not a bad point regarding the left being pissed. However if politics is the art of the possible the left is doomed to be pissed. This isn’t Europe. Conservatives outnumber liberals > 2 to 1. Obama has repudiated every single position he had on national security and defense because he had no choice. With only so much political capital you have to make choices and he choose HC and other domestic policy issues. He’s such a poor communicator he was unable to move the needle on anything and as a result he was shown to be too far to the left of the rest of the country and 60 congressmen paid the price.

“not sure you can say the tea party was an unqualified success”

Absolutely not. They cost us DE and NV at a minimum and certainly more. How to offset that with the house pickups and more importantly the sharp focus on fiscal policy I don’t know but I am thrilled they are here. They will absolutely, positively enforce a rigid adherence to conservative fiscal policy. Every single person just elected to the house understands if they support tax or spending increases they will be opposed in the primary by a well financed candidate and then if they win they will again be opposed by a well finance candidate. They day they vote yes on a spending increase they will begin to get pickered and they will be shown on Fox and Drudge and the many blogs as a fraud.

There are some endemic weaknesses no grass root movement. While the GOP pisses me off constantly they provide some needed functions. ODonnell and Niller would have been better screened if they went through the party and exposed as weak candidates. It’s part of the tea party package. The trade is energy and money for administrative efficiency.

The same is true right now with the 22 Dem Senators up for re-election in 2012. I believe a dozen will be from Red States and they know with certainty right now there is going to be a well financed opponent running against them. While support for the tea party is said to be 25% nationally it’s much higher in places like Nebraska and the Dakota’s. Ben Nelson votes for a spending he will be retired. In Nebraska the tea party will 1st support a fiscal conservative in the Democrat primary. Nelson will face TWO difficult elections.

doddeb empiricism is probably impossible in the age of false-equivalency. The truth is not ideological. The problem at the moment is we need real solutions to real problems and we will either get total gridlock or half solutions.

rdw56 why don’t you explain how a privately run health system is socialist, in this universe? In fact, name one thing he has done that is socialist. He didn’t even bother to nationalize the banks he bailed out.
.
In case you were not aware socialism is a system where all means of production are owned by the government.

grape_crush: very true. And already, the mainstream media is taking as the gospel that we need cuts in Social Security and Medicare. No one is talking about defense spending. I guess that it, like tax cuts, does not really create deficits in Tea World. At lunch I was talking to one of my buds who voted straight GOP and asked her if she was up for the extension of the retirement age to 70. She was shocked. Fun times.

Tax cuts ARE conservative. The deficits were not caused as much by a lack of revenue but by excessive spending. The Tea party supports a small govt approach and while not endorsing a measure it will be something like a percent of GDP.

So if GDP is $15T and we decide 18% is the optimum number than spending s/b $2.7T. I think we are near $3.7T (wild guess) . The smart plan is to reverse the stumulus out and many of the recent increases to get as close to the 2006 baseline as possible and then hold spending increases to inflation and grow out of the deficit. Normally with GDP growth of 3% or more tax collections are > 5%. So maybe we cut spending to $3.2T and get a 5% increase on a revenue base of $2.4T (guess) so that’s $2.835T yr 1 then $2.97T and $3.125T.

The idea is over 5 years or so hold spending until GDP catches up. This way we stay the USA of the Reagan boom years.

I didn’t day he’s a socialist. It’s fair to say if you have a spectrum and at one end is pure capitalism and the other is pure socialism he clearly leans socialists and far moreso than the average American.

I don’t think HC is socialst but it is too heavily govt controlled and thus less nimble and inventive than it would otherwise be. Look the history of the last century is that socialism is utterly disgusting. How is it you walk into a hospital and everything inside it, every tool, equipment, drug, etc was invented or developed in the west, most likely in the USA while we have 2.5B people in China who have contributed absolutely nothing to human advancement since they went socialist?

Socialism is a pretty disgusting thing. To tend in that direction is more than a little dangerous. Capitalism is far from perfect but socialism is the embodiment of evil.

I am aware of what socialism is. I happen to think progressives / liberals are more naturally fascists as Wilson almost certainly was. But that’s a different argument for a different day.

I don’t think you’ll argue all of these totalitarian religions belong on the left along with progessivism and liberalism. I don’t think it’s fair to call liberals totalitarians but they certainly have the totalitarian instinct. Listen to any liberal discuss Fox and the 1st reaction is to shut them down. We have a gazillion news outlets and the Fox audience is 1/10 the networks but liberals regularly rage about shutting down Fox. That’s fascism. That’s a totalitarian instinct. The old orwellian fairness doctrine was the govt trying to stifle free speech. Sure you can say anything you want as long as I agree with it.

The tea party is the embodiment of a grass roots movement for freedom. It’s an irony the classical liberals like David Hume are the fathers of modern conservatism. They feared big govt most of all. Let’s limit govt to thesize of GDP, say 18% and cap spending at that level.

“One thing we will never hear is the fact that the Left is not happy with Obama and many didn’t bother to vote.”

.
And everyone of them is a frigging idiot!

The way to handle defense spending is also as a percent of GDP and we are typically around 4%. I do think you’ll see some movement here is only to limit future increases to inflation. In that way as GDP grows > inflation the defense budget will take up less of it.

There is no question that the view of the Republican high command was to run on economic fear – unemployment, “regulatory certainty” and particularly concern about the deficit. They viewed the economic anxiety issues as unifiers, and social issues as potential wedge issues, particularly with women voters. I know this because I heard Haley Barbour say it to a bunch of Republican fat cats, not knowing there were a few spies in the room. To a remarkable extent, the Republicans did indeed manage to exploit the economic concerns while avoiding losing votes on the social front, where the American people are inching ever so slowly toward greater tolerance.

But it is not true that “Obama tried to make us more like Europe and no one wants it”. The great majority of Democratic losses were quite close, reflecting a shift of the mushy middle within the 45 yard lines which, in turn, was largely a function of low turnout among the young, and high turnout among the old. Given that recent surveys show the quality of life and relative wealth of virtually every European nation to be superior to that of the United States, I rather wonder why it is so important that we continue on our more destructive path.

Allthings,

Democrats voted in normal numbers. The problem is Obama lost independents in an almost complete reversal of2008. There is also a creeping shift in the mix of those who identify as independent with conservatives increasing relative to moderates.

rdw56,

The change depends on what your definition of “Conversative” is. If you are talking about “Conservative” on social issues, I believe this country has moved to the left. Like you said, gay marriage is now 20 of 21 issues on your list and the Religious Right was no where to be seen in this election.

I call myself, a Liberal, and I am not ashamed like other Progressives. However, if you are talking fiscal issues, like government spending, I am probably more conservative than most Americans. (“You’re probably a closeted Republican!!” my wife once said. LOL!)

I would reform Social Security, cut Medicare/Medicaid, and cut Defense spending. This accounts for 60% of the budget. In their Pledge to America, Republicans have stated these are parts of the budget they won’t touch. They won’t touch these, where will they cut spending?

Granted, I am probably not as anti-Tax as most Conservatives, but you can’t balance a budget deficit by cutting taxes. Just look at the Reagan years. The years with the least deficit REAGAN RAISED TAXES.

I actually like Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, and while I don’t agree with everthing he stands for, I think he is a rising star in the Republican party. At least he has constructive, if provocative ideas.

What makes me Liberal, are the social issues and human rights, which for me are more important than economic policy. I am more worried about a government which can lock me up without a trial than a government that picks my pocket.

“They feared big govt most of all. Let’s limit govt to the size of GDP, say 18% and cap spending at that level.”
.
Liberals believe in a mixed economy, not big gov’t. They also believe there is such a thing as a business cycle. After 6,000 years of observation man figured out he could take the rough edges off the business cycle. We now have almost 100 years of empirical evidence with that experiment. The fact that there hasn’t been another great depression is evidence that the techniques work. Prior to that swings in the business cycle were brutal.
.
To manage the business cycle liberals have adopted 3 sets of fiscal and monetary policy. One for when it is in recession, one for when it is booming and one for when it is booming too much. It is the middle set that leads to balanced budgets. For example, the last politician who balanced the budget was a Democrat.
.
Unfortunately, we are losing members of the right who are trained in economics. The right now seems to think only one approach to the business cycle is required, one in which gov’t expenditure rises and gov’t revenue falls. I know they pay lip service to balancing the budget but the evidence is they don’t actually do it. For example, they start unnecessary wars. They hand out unfunded entitlements and they use ideology to manage the business cycle, rather than reason. Their desire to extend the tax cuts to the rich is just further evidence that balancing the books is not something they really care about. I can assure you that is not the case with liberals. They will be in favor of balancing, once the recession is over. My guess is the conservatives won’t be.
.

“Look the history of the last century is that socialism is utterly disgusting. How is it you walk into a hospital and everything inside it, every tool, equipment, drug, etc was invented or developed in the west, most likely in the USA while we have 2.5B people in China who have contributed absolutely nothing to human advancement since they went socialist?
.
Socialism is a pretty disgusting thing. To tend in that direction is more than a little dangerous. Capitalism is far from perfect but socialism is the embodiment of evil.”
.
First you say he’s not since there’s no evidence he ever were then you rail against it as it’s a matter of fact.
.
No one ever argued for socialism, the fringe on the right did as if it was evident. Show me the evidence.

Interesting comments here about who turned out to vote and what it might mean, but of more interest to me is who didn’t turn out to vote and what that means. The blue dogs are that for a reason: they have to be to survive in right wing leaning districts. They couldn’t win for loosing this time with the raised decibel level of the right wing ever since the election of Obama.
.
The turnout will be much higher in 2012 and be a more accurate representation of the country. Boehner’s phrase that “American has spoken” election night keep’s ringing in my head with the thought, “no, only a minority of America has spoken.”
.
rdw, your description of capitalism vs. socialism in the realm of discovery and innovation is a little over the top. Give it a little more thought?

“Tax cuts ARE conservative.”
.
No fiscal responsibility is.
.
If you can cut the taxes and get there fine, but as evident by Reagan he cut taxes and then increase them again then to try to balance the budget. It’s called tax policy.
.
Socialism is ownership of production and not about taxes. Although taxes tends to be higher in socialist countries due to the idea that people should have certain rights to a much more expensive and extensive safety net.
.
Again, taxes are a matter of policy to balance expenses, not socialistic by default. I so wish people on the fringe would push their ideas instead of sh!t they hard someone else tell them.
.
We’ll see if we have any new ideas to solve our problems but if we’re going to judge things by the pledge its the same old tired and retired song.

You are hyper-ventilating. This govt can’t lock you up without a trial. Unless you are a citizen of another nation caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans. I am not quite sure which of the laws recently enacted you disapprove of by boy now Obama has approved each and every one.

I am not quite sure what social polices you are talking about either but most of them are less of an issue and most conservatives support a less aggressive approach in ending bad law. Part of that is we have a conservative court striking down dumb laws like campaign finance reform and overly restrictive gun control. Moreover they are reversing many wacky decisions of the lower courts and previous law such as affirmative action. If you are talking about Gay marriage most conservatives believe that isn’t a constitutional issue and if state legislature approve so be it. I think if a lower court finds a right to gay marriage it will get tossed on appeal.

The fact is this is a great time for the tea party because there are no really pressing social issues. Gay marriage is getting a lot of noise but lefts face it, what’s 5% of the population gay? Who cares?

This is incredibly important.
-
JK wrote: “a larger stimulus package might have helped the economy recover at a faster clip, but the Dogs opposed it on fiscal responsibility grounds. A second argument: the public really has had it with Wall Street, but the Dogs helped water down the financial regulatory bill, gutting the too-big-to-fail provisions. There is real merit to both points. If the stimulus had been bigger and the financial reform package clearer and stronger, the public would have had a different–and, I believe, more positive–sense of the President’s agenda.”
-
Here’s the thing: the liberal base of the Dems wanted (1) a bigger stimulus; (2) better financial reform; (3) better immigration reform; (4) a public option. All of these would be good for economic growth, good for life expectancy and health, good for fiscal stability (yes, a stimulus costs money, but the gov’t is borrowing at a low rate, and businesses and households aren’t spending, so it’s better for long-term growth and thus the deficit). The GOP/Tea Party wants… the opposite of whatever they perceive liberals to want.
-
There is no difference, in tone or substance, between what the elected GOP leadership wants and what the average right-wing blog commenter wants.
-
But there is a huge gap between what the rank-and-file Dem wants vs. what elected Dems like Obama, Bayh, et al want.
-
Ordinarily, that is just fine and dandy. The two sides talk, we get something kinda in the middle, we work on fixing it over time. But the GOP has literally no views on policy. (I honestly don’t see one issue on which the GOP has had any kind of consistent policy preferences/proposals over the past 10-15 years. Maybe the need to reduce gov’t revenue, regardless of whether we’re at peace or war, in a boom or a recession).
-
Centrist Dems like Obama want to compromise because they want to compromise. There are no policy beliefs there, no principles. Meanwhile, there are roughly zero centrist Republicans.
-
So we have a liberal base that, as JK points out, has been right about everything (going back to invading Iraq, Bush’s tax policies, the end of regulation of the financial sector, etc.), but only gets the support of about half its elected officials. We have a conservative base that is animated by their resentment of liberals, Muslims, the New Black Panthers, San Francisco, and arugula; they are fully backed by Boehner, McConnell, Limbaugh, et al.
-
JK wrote, “The point is, ideological myopia is counter-productive whether it’s found on the left, the right…or the center.”
-
This is an accurate truism. But for the moment, in this context, the threat of ideological myopia from the left is 0. Yet the Democrats try to compromise with people who have no principles but “I don’t like Democrats.” (See, e.g., this story about Grassley changing his views every few weeks depending on what the Democrats are willing to give him). As a result, we get worse policy, and, for the Democrats, worse politics.
-
Centrism in accommodation of nihilism is no virtue.

“our description of capitalism vs. socialism in the realm of discovery and innovation is a little over the top.”

What’s over the top?

Walk into any hospital or factory and look at every thing in there. Where was it invented? Developed? Improved? What were some of the major advancements of the last century? If you put up a list of 1,000 who many from the USA and europe and how many from the rest of the world?

2? can you name 2?

Socialsm and Fascism and the other lefty/totalitarian religions were almost certainly the worst things to ever happen to humanity.

What would the world be like if in 1776 China and India had the same founding fathers and the same constitution and developed as we did? Would we have cured cancer in the 1920′s? Liberals lament 5% of the worlds people use so much of the worlds assets. It’s because we create most of them you twits. It’s called American Excpetionalism

rdw56: “I happen to think progressives / liberals are more naturally fascists as Wilson almost certainly was. But that’s a different argument for a different day.”

Jonah, is that you? Put down the cheetohs – don’t you have an NRO column to write about how the recent election was exactly like episode 3.09 of Battlestar Galactica?

Fascism has nothing to do with the left, Jonah. You can keep repeating that stupid lie as much as you like, but it isn’t going to make it true.
.
Here are Mussolini’s (well, Gentile’s) words: “Fascism takes over from the ruins of Liberal Socialistic democratic doctrines those elements which still have a living value. It preserves those that can be called the established facts of history, it rejects all the rest, that is to say the idea of a doctrine which holds good for all times and all peoples. If it is admitted that the nineteenth century has been the century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy, it does not follow that the twentieth must also be the century of Liberalism, Socialism and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the “Right,” a Fascist century.”
.
So cut the b.s. – why should we take you seriously if you are going to talk such slop using a poorly-sourced, poorly-written and deeply stupid book as your guide?

“recent election was exactly like episode 3.09 of Battlestar Galactica?’

Good stuff! Excellent!! You capture the man. But you also have to give him credit. His timing was perfect coming on Hillary and Obama professing their affinity for the progressive era.

I was born in 53 and looking back the nonsense they put in history books was astonishingly bad. I was taught Wislon was a genius and his peace plan a marvel of diplomacy. He even got the nobel peace prize. It was a total disaster and was never even ratified. Lord Keynes left the peace talks furious with Wilson for being so pigheaded and predicted the treaty would result in disaster. There is no question Wilson prepared the ground for Hitler and WWII.

There is a 2 hour documentary on the history or military channell tittled “Paris 1919″. They hammer Wilson. His moral and intellectual preening alienated almost everyone there. He and his plans were a disaster. Hard to know which award the clowns in Olso should be more humiliated over, Obama or Wilson. Obama did nothing so that’s pretty embarrassing. Wilson took a bad situation and made it worse I’d go with Wilson.

BTW: The more you now about Wilson the uglier he becomes. He was one nasty piece of work. He makes Bush look like a boy scout. Goldbergs smart move here was I think in making it clear this man was a very serious racist. That just freezes politically correct liberals. In defending a man like Wlson, an avowed racist, you are defacto defending racism.

Fascism is absolutely of the left. I’m not sure what Mussolini meant when he said ‘right’ but it has no bearing on 2010.

Here’s the simple shorthand. The right in 2010 is modern conservatism which is most clearly tracked to classical liberalism as espoused by Hume. That is freedom from govt. small govt, more individual freedom.

The left in 2010 is totalitarian. You want big govt. you want govt to control nearly everything including health care and the media, Sorry but socialism, communism and fascism are all totalitarian religions. They all belong on the left. The Nazi’s actually called themselves socialists and Hitler was once part of a socialist group.

All of the instincts of modern liberals are totalitarian. Your 1st policy choice is more govt. You believe the best solution to problems is to get the ‘smart’ people to decide the best answer and dictate to the rest of us. You don’t like Fox. It’s not good enough to hit the off button. You want Fox shuit down. That is at it’s core a fascist instinct. That is something Wilson did.and all liberals would like to do.

Jonah laid this out clearly and coherently.

Well you didn’t name 2. Does that mean you agree with me the economic and humanitarian performance of the last 100 years by all non-western, non-capitalist nations was pretty pathetic? Again, if I walk into a hospital what would I find that was developed outside the capitalist world?

We are but 5% of the worlds people. I walk into the hospital and see all of the drugs and incrediibie equipment and you know what I think?

I think dem Americas are pretty exceptional!!!!!

You are not allowed to think that are you?? What exactly would happen if you accidently one time spoke the truth?

Like all “conservatives,” you insist that I want things that I don’t and insist that I believe things that I don’t.
.
You don’t know anything about me, you just make assumptions apropos of nothing.
.
Which has saved me a lot of time as spending much effort refuting your “points” would be pointless since you’ll just regurgitate the same nonsensical crap Jonah printed in his stupid, stupid book.
.
Every – and I mean every – academic expert on fascism understands clearly that it is a right-wing political movement. I have a Ph.D (liberal elitist, you say!) in European history and not a single, reputable, peer-reviewed book published in the last 60 years argued that fascism was anything other than a radical right-wing movement.
.
Does that mean that conservatives are fascist? Not at all. Fascism is a different beast entirely that has no meaning in American politics. To argue otherwise is to be willfully obtuse.
.
I’ll only say that words have meanings, and that you cannot just define “Fascism” however you want to.
.
Your calling modern liberals “fascist” is as stupid, if not stupider, than when hippies called American soldiers who fought in Vietnam, or Rockefeller Republicans, fascist.
.
But you can believe whatever you want, I guess. It’s a free country, after all.

“poorly-sourced, poorly-written and deeply stupid book as your guide?”

Be fair-minded and give the man his due. He was at the top of the best seller lists several times and with Glen Becks help substantially reshaped the narrative on Wilson, the progressive era, progressives and fascism. If hillary intended to spark a movement, and she most certainly did, it’s been stopped in it’s tracks. Wilson was himself a nasty piece of work and the progressives of 1918 look no different than the brown shirts of 1940. Who was it who sat in jail for several years without a trial because he dsagreed with Wilson, Eugene Debs and 3,000 of his nest friends?

They didn’t cover that stuff in the textbooks in the 60′s and 70′s but liberals are no longer controlling the narrative.

“Socialsm and Fascism and the other lefty/totalitarian religions were almost certainly the worst things to ever happen to humanity. ”
.
I’m not going to mince words here since I really don’t want to call anyone names. But if there’s something that truly p!ss me off it’s idiots like you who make the claim that socialism and fascism belongs on the left on the political scale. Not only is it profoundly idiotic to claim this, but it flies in the face of any basic facts; left and right is about production and ownership. Fascism is about corporation owning everything (over simplification) with a much larger influence in our political system. Socialism is about the workers owning production. Dynamically fricken opposite.
.
You’re a libertarian aren’t you? You’re the kind of person with that idiotic purist attitude that you’re on the right hand of the scale and you guys never do anything wrong because you’re into freedom and all that. Sorry bud – all extreme form of politics leads to tyranny. Left and right. Those are basic facts as documented through history.
.
Yours is a fabrication to purify historical facts from actual data.
.
And here it is; if you truly believe that fascism and socialism is the same because they can lead to totalitarism then conservatism and liberalism HAVE to be the same by proxy that they lead to democracy. If that’s the extend of the logic behind it you FAIL. But the real fail is that you have to ignore actual facts in order to make that comparison.

Your calling modern liberals “fascist” is as stupid, if not stupider, than when hippies called American soldiers who fought in Vietnam, or Rockefeller Republicans, fascist.
.
************************************

I am not calling modern liberals fascists or socialist or communists but it is clear on the modern spectrurn if you have total govt control on one end and total individual freedom on the other conservatives favor the individual while liberals favor big govt.

That is the single biggest difference between right and left in the post-Reagan era.

In that same vein. All 3 of those religions are totalitarian. That puts them squarely and indisputably on the left. All three are govt control of one design or another. This is the precise opposite of classic liberalism, which is to say modern conservatism.

I am saying the modern liberal has totalitarian instincts. Just the mere reaction to Fox is one example. You don’t her conservatives trying to shut down ABC or the NYTs. That’s a liberal thing. I bet you that you are still pissed Reagan tossed the embarrassing “Fairness Doctine”.

“He was at the top of the best seller lists several times and with Glen Becks help substantially reshaped the narrative on Wilson, the progressive era, progressives and fascism.”
.
So, because Goldberg is popular (so is ‘Dancing With the Stars’ and the KFC Double-down sandwich) and because he duped another huckster-rube like Glenn Beck, I should respect his total bulls***?
.
That is the stupidest thing you’ve written yet.

“Here’s the simple shorthand. The right in 2010 is modern conservatism which is most clearly tracked to classical liberalism as espoused by Hume. That is freedom from govt. small govt, more individual freedom.
.
The left in 2010 is totalitarian. You want big govt. you want govt to control nearly everything including health care and the media, Sorry but socialism, communism and fascism are all totalitarian religions. They all belong on the left. The Nazi’s actually called themselves socialists and Hitler was once part of a socialist group.
.
All of the instincts of modern liberals are totalitarian. Your 1st policy choice is more govt. You believe the best solution to problems is to get the ‘smart’ people to decide the best answer and dictate to the rest of us. You don’t like Fox. It’s not good enough to hit the off button. You want Fox shuit down. That is at it’s core a fascist instinct. That is something Wilson did.and all liberals would like to do.
.
Jonah laid this out clearly and coherently.”
.
What a bunch of drivel. You know what’s funny; you state that modern conservatism is for small government etc but the track record is the opposite. Then you make the claim that liberalism is for bigger government but facts show that it shrunk under Clinton and now under Obama.
.
Plus you make the false claim without facts that liberals want totalitarism yet the right keep inviting corporations (see fascisms) to get more influence politically and economically across the boards nationally with less options for states to say no.
.
That’s the problem with you libertarians – you don’t square your argument with facts. You start with your opinion, find something to support it and contrary to facts stick with your assertion.
.
Prove it. I know you can’t since it’s absolute drivel ‘refudiated’ by facts and the actions of the right hand side of the isle for the past 3 decades.

“left and right is about production and ownership.”

No it isn’t. left and right are about control. Liberals wish to control everything via big govt. Conservatives are classical liberals. We want freedom from govt. Socialism if big govt control via ownership of the means of production. Fascism is big govt control of the mans of production by govt control of the capitalists. Again a modern example is Fox news. It’s a business liberals want shut down but ordering it’s owners to either literally shutting it down or more likely to start producing the content THEY want to hear. That is fascism.

It’s not about ownership. It’s about control. It’s the totalitarian instinct. It’s in the liberal gene and is absolutely of the left.

No I actually don’t watch Beck or listen to his show but I respect what I know via clips and news articles.

Deal with the very simple facts that have been laid out.

Modern conservativism is classical liberalism is small govt.

Modern liberalism is big govt. It’s about control.

Socialism, communism, fascism and modern liberalism are all about control. All are religions of the left

Tell me where that’s wrong..

RDW,

Here is a list of 70 products developed and sold by GSK, a pharmaceutical company headquartered in the United Kingdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_
Wellcome. And they have 100% government health care!

Here is a list of at least 50 products developed and sold by Novartis, a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novartis. And they have higher taxes for rich people!

I must say – you really show American exceptionalism – the exceptional jingoism and ignorance of the American Right Wingnut.

Well, hippooath, this is the current form of conservative thought in the US. “Conservative” = “USA” = “Good” = “tax cuts” = “Jesus” = “bald eagles”; meanwhile, “Bad” = “Liberal” = “Racism” = “Muslim” = “Soshalism” = “Nancy Pelosi”.
-
Nevermind that Hitler massacred socialists, that Mussolini proclaimed his hatred of socialism and his commitment to the right, nevermind that the National Review was penning paeans to the fascist militarist Francisco Franco until his death (see: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/01/francisco_franc.html ).
-
Nope, none of that matters. Not when you’re allowed to make up your own definitions of words. Why learn facts, why deal with messy uncertainties of history and human nature, when you can instead fall back on the moral certainty that “us = good,” and its inevitable logical corollary, “them = bad.”

“facts show that it shrunk under Clinton and now under Obama.”

Clinton was a centrist but above all a politician without an ideological bone in his body. Obama has expanded govt spending by 21% since he took office and passed a HC bill all agree is a huge expansion of govt control over HC.

Bush was not a fiscal conservative. he never promised to cit spevding. His idea was to infuse govt with conservative values. He promised to expand education funding and no child behind was an attempt to make govt more accountable.

dollared,

the point was about the west and capitalism versus socialism. I know Europe especially pre-1980 was industrious, not so much today.

The smaller point about the USA was in reference to the common liberal lament how 5% of the worlds people are such pigs using up a disporportunate resources. Well the obvious fun point is we’re so friggin productive. tell me how many drugs you were able to find from countries who goverend on the left side of the spectrum?

That was the point. Big Govt. S U C K S. The bigger it gets the worse it is. Obama wants to get bigger. He just got a message from the American people. GFU.

I like Nancy. Be good to her. She is as dumb as a rock. He line has to be one of the greatest describing how liberals legislate.

“Well we have to pass it to now what’s in it”.

This is for the ages, trust me.

I like Nancy. Be good to her. She is as dumb as a rock. He line has to be one of the greatest describing how liberals legislate.

“Well we have to pass it to know what’s in it”.

This is for the ages, trust me.

‘refudiated’

Princess has a gift doesn’t see? No one gets so far under the liberal skin so quickly. Don’t know of you saw it but there’s a great youtube clip of Sarah Pal Michele Backmann getting Chris Matthews unglued.

“No it isn’t. left and right are about control. Liberals wish to control everything via big govt. Conservatives are classical liberals. We want freedom from govt. Socialism if big govt control via ownership of the means of production. Fascism is big govt control of the mans of production by govt control of the capitalists. Again a modern example is Fox news. It’s a business liberals want shut down but ordering it’s owners to either literally shutting it down or more likely to start producing the content THEY want to hear. That is fascism. ”
.
You’re an idiot. Read a book will you? TOTALITARISM is about control. Extreme politics have a greater chance leading to totalitarism but doesn’t always do it. There are many examples of socialistic democratic countries and the core of those countries are not CONTROL – it’s means of production and what part of the governments role exist in production.
.
Fascism is about corporate ownership of production – dynamically opposed to working class ownership of production. You don’t even know basic political science and history. Seriously man.

“It’s not about ownership. It’s about control. It’s the totalitarian instinct. It’s in the liberal gene and is absolutely of the left.”
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
.
Seriously. Who want religion in politics? Who want to decide what you can do with your body? Who want to use our military to excert control over other countries? Who is arguing that corporations are constitutional induvidual. Who want to hide who gives whom money in our political system? Who want to know who they are? Your fantasy understanding of right and left is comical.
.
About the ‘book’ you’re talking about. It was absolutely trounced by prominent historians across the political spectrum as nothing but fiction. Why? Because it was written by a person who spent a whole summer or something putting together a book about a subject he had no formal understanding about and based it completely about what he thought. In other words – before he wrote the book he was convinced that what he wrote was the reality. And trust me – I will take a historian that have spend decades looking into real facts (regardless on what side of the political spectrum he’s from) before I take a hacks word that spent a summer arriving to a conclusion he made before he even opened one single book.
.
That’s the problem with you; you don’t care about facts – in fact people who do are elitists in your mind. But people like book hack here and Joe the plumber and Sarah Palin inspires you since they arrived to the same simplistic world view you do without as much as taking anything ‘true’ in regards.
.
Ignorance is truly a bliss but not very accurate,

I must say – you really show American exceptionalism – the exceptional jingoism and ignorance of the American Right Wingnut.

Let me see, 5% of the worlds people, 25% of it’s GDP. Sounds pretty exceptional to me.

“HC bill all agree is a huge expansion of govt control over HC. ”
.
What control, there’s no public option? You’re still required to have a private insurance company to provide you with insurance. That’s like…corporatist and fascist on the left right scale.

“I am not calling modern liberals fascists or socialist or communists but it is clear on the modern spectrurn if you have total govt control on one end and total individual freedom on the other conservatives favor the individual while liberals favor big govt. ”
.
I see the reason why right can’t lead to totalitarism is because they want small government. And liberals want big government. See the words define what they are, not the reality. And since you think that big means totalitarian then fascism and socialism have to be the same because of the supposed size of those governments.
.
Do you have any idea of nonsensical that logic sounds?
.
And how you have to ignore not only history, facts but also everything we know about those ideologies in order to make that assumption?
.
You know why they’re call ideologies don’t you? It’s because there’s an idea behind them. The idea as it turns out is not the size of the government. It’s a little bit more than that.
.
Anyway – I know I can’t convince your cemented world view but it helps me understand the tea party movement and the idiocy behind it.

“About the ‘book’ you’re talking about. It was absolutely trounced by prominent historians across the political spectrum as nothing but fiction.”

Actually it wasn’t. Few historians commented. Goldberg has rendered Wilson toxic. Wilson was a racist and a pretty nasty one at that. This was not a nice man. You know as well as I do no liberal historian can defend a racist. Many of the founding fathers were slave owners but didn’t hate their slaves. Word has it Jefferson was quite fond of a few. They were men of their era. But Wilson was 40 years after the civil war and he resegregated the post office. Up threw the 80′s this was mostly unknown. It wasn’t in my history books. Goldberg changed all that. Wilson has become about as politically incorrect as it gets. Someone like a Doris Kerns Goodwin looking to do a book on someone new won’t go near Wilson.

Plus there’s so much more. He makes Bush look like a boy scout.

The govt is going to me making more of the allocation decisions and not just via insurance companies. Anyway you slice it it’s big govt and it’s toward totalitarian. That’s the left.

The idea as it turns out is not the size of the government. It’s a little bit more than that.

What am I supposed to do, write a book? of course it’s about size of govt. A better description might be span of control but it still gets to control and the bigger the govt the more control.

Plus you make the false claim without facts that liberals want totalitarism yet the right keep inviting corporations (see fascisms) to get more influence politically and

political influence is free speech and guarranteed in the constitution. It is the opposite of totalitarian. You wanted to limit their rights to free speech. That IS totalitarian.

Your calling modern liberals “fascist” is as stupid, if not stupider, than when hippies called American soldiers who fought in Vietnam, or Rockefeller Republicans, fascist.

It’s interesting you make this point. That’s what drove Goldberg to write the book. airhead liberals constantly misuse the term.

I think the “whining” in the middle far out weighed anything the liberals were voicing. I have never been so disgusted with my generation and the preceding generation of boomers. It was all about me, me, me.

rdw: You seem to not understand that the Tea Party is solely owned by the Fox Propaganda Network, their creator and master. And, the Republican Party is merely a tool for the right wing echo chamber controled by corporate interests. They will pander to the theocrats and to the TPers as needed. But, it is the plutocrats that are the victors.

to rdw56

This is the oxford definition of fascism

“an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices”

It then states
“The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader , and a strong demagogic approach”

reference
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0288390#m_en_gb0288390

from the encyclopedia Britannica article on fascism some of the common themes that run through all fascist regimes are:

Opposition to Marxism
Opposition to parliamentary democracy
Opposition to political and cultural liberalism
Totalitarian ambitions
Conservative economic programs
Corporatism

reference
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/202210/fascism

look we can argue about finical policy or about whether G W Bush was a “true” conservative or not (you seemed to accept him as one when he was in charge). But the simply fact is you are wrong, fascism is not a left wing ideology by its very definition. You can be angry about this, but it is a fact and no amount of arm waving or quoting popular media figures can change that.

Look I understand you are passionate about this, but please educate yourself on the definition of words such as fascism before using them to attack someone. Words have meaning and cannot be interchanged simply because they sound better to you.

rdw: How cavalier you are with other’s rights. It must be your Rand Paul streak who thinks the Civil Rights Act went too far.
.
Gays care. As do young people who see the intolerant demean them and their rights.

I’m so bored of having to read rdw56. I hope he is ignored. I give him a thumbs down.. he is not even witty. If I must endure reading right wing philosophy I prefer George Will who at least tosses in some Arthur Schopenhauer, in jest from time to time. I enjoy a good misanthrope from time to time. It makes me understand conservatism. It is rather like Darwinism. They don’t much want to carry the weight of others. They emotionally detach and let the masses starve. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose…
All the feeders can be cut from the cord and set free. Free as birds. They can hunt for bug for nourishment. Homeless and eating rats. Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of freedom. Like Grapes of Wrath. Those good days in America.

rdw must have enrolled in Beck University. He buys into the Beck theories on Wilson borrowed from that famed NRO historian Jonah (Lucianne) Goldberg. Beck also encourages the works of an “historian” who sells home teaching kits including works of another “historian” who claims slaves had it easy until the federal government stepped in with regulations. Seriously.
If you paid attention to the history of Goldberg’s research as he documented on NRO, it was Goldberg loafing along, begging for assistance because he didn’t have time to read on vacation. It was a laugh.
.
I used to read NRO everyday just to get a conservative perspective. But with the oversight of the ever virginal Katherine Jean Lopez, it just became too extreme. Chris Buckley left, David Frum left, and Bill Buckley himself was unhappy with the extremism.

Bush was not a fiscal conservative. he never promised to cit spevding.
.
Not true.

“The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year.
.
Administration officials had dismissed the significance of the proposed cuts when they surfaced in February as part of an internal White House budget office computer printout. At the time, officials said the cuts were based on a formula and did not accurately reflect administration policy. But a May 19 White House budget memorandum obtained by The Washington Post said that agencies should assume the spending levels in that printout when they prepare their fiscal 2006 budgets this summer.[...]
.
…the cuts are politically sensitive, targeting popular programs that Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. The Education Department; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeownership, job-training, medical research and science programs all face cuts in 2006.
.
‘Despite [administration] denials, this memorandum confirms what we suspected all along,’ said Thomas S. Kahn, Democratic staff director on the House Budget Committee. ‘Next February, the administration plans to propose spending cuts in key government services to pay for oversized tax cuts.’”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html
.
Dubya was good at promising the moon (or Mars) and then yanking the funding needed to get there.
.
I wonder about your definition of ‘fiscal conservative’, rdw56…It sounds more like, ‘cut taxes and take no responsibility for what happens next’.

I actually had some interesting e-mail dialogues with some of the NRO contributers. The exchanges would go on the whole day.
The least interesting were with Jonah Goldberg. When asked why he hadn’t enlisted to serve in the military, the keyboard chickenhawk responded with a “yawn” and said after all he had a family to support.

Re: Your statement that the Blue Dogs helped water down the stimulus “on fiscal responsibility grounds.”

Too vague. To put it more specifically: The Dogs acted out of fear that they would be demagogued by conservatives using the usual insincere and stupid “fiscal responsibility” slogans.

What they failed to realize was that that would happen no matter what they did. So they might as well have done the right thing.

My scroll wheel finger hurts.

rdw: You don’t know that conservative groups buy books by conservative authors in bulk to drive up their sales?

As Derek noted above, JK calling centrism an ideology! Somewhere in New Zealand, SZ’s ears just perked up. Also agree with El Vez @ 3:33.

Otherwise people, it’s f@cking Thursday there isn’t it!? Pirate Wench would frown upon many of you.

As for Joe, he says:

“Normally, I don’t have much patience for the whining on the left about the Blue Dog democrats”

But it should read:

“Normally, I don’t have much patience for the left. I will never genuinely engage them. I will call their passionately held concerns, however eloquently expressed, however correct, ‘whining.’ e.g. Telling Stuart Zechman to “get a life”

“Simply b/c I’m a petulant windbag who would feel less secure in my windbaggery if I engaged such idiots, clearly beneath me, in dialogue. Next up, the latest ravings from Charles Krauthammer!”

Finally he says: “The point is, ideological myopia is counter-productive whether it’s found on the left, the right…or the center.”

And from this week’s sagacious print column:

“He [Obama] will take his deficit-reduction commission’s recommendation for reforming Social Security, a provision favored more by Republicans than Democrats, and try to pass some form of it, which would be regarded as a historic achievement [by villagers but not Americans]”

Well, if you’re right, it will be quite interesting to see how many of his zealots fall off the bandwagon.

Ditto Ivy. Per my reference to Wenchy below, I wake up when the day is largely done there and scan through the day’s posts/comments. It is getting increasingly difficult to find little oases of engagement.

Agreed. Going forward I will ignore rdw. If I wanted to be influenced by Beck University I would enroll. If I thought Goldberg had anything intelligent to impart, I would read his book. Not being so, reading their propoganda second hand is just too boring.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/78890/a-lost-generation
.
jcapan: I posted this link on another thread yesterday. Page 3 of the article has an interesting comparison between Japan’s and the US’s problems.
.
I also stated I understood you and Stuart are so frustrated by the dominance of the Third Way. I feel frustrated too. However, I read the anger but don’t recognize any solutions that you propose.

fascism was placed on the right as an offset to socialism and communism and this made some sense in that era but not in the post-Reagan 11.

The right is defined by conservatism which is small govt and the opposite of ALL of the old religions. In this ear what defines the left is totalitarianism and fascism is absolutely, positively totalitarian.

The people at Oxford are wrong.

Although I understand the temptation. With so few liberals left in the Swamp, it’s hard to find someone to engage with at times.

oh yes, we’re so witty. But the worm has turned hasn’t it? Obama hasn’t figured it out and won’t. He’s a one termer. Libs who think losing the blue dogs is a good thing are morons. They were replaced by strict conservatives. We ARE going back to small govt conservatism. This is a total rebuke of liberalism. We are as the saying goes a center-right nation. You can put fascism on the right if you wish but it matters little. Like socialism and communism and progressivism it’s a dead religion.

Obama wanted to move to the European model. It’s not happening.

I think the Blue Dogs were particularly destructive in the way that watered down the stimulus, cutting the parts that might have been most effective, aid to the cities and states, which could have meant fewer layoffs.

Also, when it looked like there was a compromise on bringing down the Medicare age to 55, that could have been golden.

These were not left-wing proposals, just common sense. Even Republican presidents have used spending as a stimulus, Reagan included.

We need more centrists, because that’s where the majority is, but we need better ones as well.

“Normally, I don’t have much patience for the whining on the left…”
.
That’s probably one reason why you haven’t had an original thought in thirty years. Why don’t you just retire? Your pathological bi-partisan centrism only serves to legitimize the traitorous corporatist right, move legislation in the wrong direction (see: “a larger stimulus package might have helped the economy recover at a faster clip…”) and help give cover to the politically vacuous to believe they’re something other than feckless idiots. You own the disastrous policies of the past and the current diseased political environment and much as FOX news or anyone in the business. Congratulations.

No rdw56, they did not, you did.

That should read you are (sorry was distracted by marking papers).

Well said Elvis Elvisber…
.
One wonders how we are going to solve the terrible problem of unemployment in an age where “centrists” refer to empiricists as “whining extremists?”
.
As you correctly point out the empiricists, or radical extremists, have been right about a lot of things. I wonder what the secret of their prescience is? How did they know there were no WMD in Iraq, for example? Was it a simple matter of observing that no one provided any empirical evidence for that claim, or is there a darker more mysterious power they possess?
.
The guy who argues that people like myself are really fascists did mention Hume today, as one of the founders of the Republican party. Hume of course was a British empiricist. He believed that all knowledge was derived through the senses. He argued there was no such thing as a priori knowledge. Man is a blank slate who can only discover truth through observation and inductive logic.
.
I think we are in crisis at the moment and somehow or other we all need to find a common thread to latch on to. I pray that thread leads us to follow policies that will solve our problems, in real-time. I don’t care if they are from the right, center, left or some other dimension of space and time we haven’t discovered yet, as long as they work.
.
Is there anything we can all agree to?

By the way, to the guy who says all liberals are fascists, many political scientists draw the political spectrum as a circle, rather than a line. If you ever get to actually read Marx you will discover that after the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat ends, there is no government at all.
.
I guess using your logic, that means all Libertarians are communists.

Completely agree with you. Virtually nothing has been said about how disillusioned many on the left are. Obama needs to be more forceful and push for the things that Democrats actually care about. I’m all for compromise (Hell my name is ModerateMainer), but the degree to which Obama has compromised and how he has compromised is truly disheartening. In many instances, he acquiesced to the demands from the right, but actually received no concessions in return. I thought the definition of compromise was sacrificing some of your ideals or goals in order to accomplish real tangible goals. What exactly did Obama accomplish when he took the public option off the table for example? If I didn’t think it would be a disaster for the party, I almost wish we could have someone challenge him in the primaries. To say I’ve been disappointed by Obama would be a vast understatement. That being said, there is no way in hell I would stay home on voting day, because as frustrated as I may be, it’s pretty obvious that Tea Party influence spells doom for our country.

Thanks for the link Apr. Krugman spends a lot of time comparing the two nation’s travails. As the TNR piece alludes, however, Japan is a parliamentary system. And for 18 of the 20 years since Japan’s bubble burst, the conservative LDP was in power. While factional jousting for party leadership is the norm, there was basic unity on policy. They spent the nation’s vast wealth on endless “stimulus spending” on wholly unnecessary infrastructure boondoggles, benefitting their bosomy chums in the construction sector (no bid contracts anyone). Think pork on acid. There isn’t a valley in my local mountain chain (ostensibly a National Park) that’s undammed. No matter how rural or unused a road in the nation, it’s in pristine condition.
.
Japan is therefore often referred to as a doken kokka or construction state–it was that bad, although the dems are trying to de-fund a lot of the projects still on the table, cancelling dams etc. Along with huge subsidies to rice farmers, these mostly rural construction projects were the only decent jobs in the countryside (and therefore, as in most nations, the core support for the conservatives was rural). But these projects never die. B/C of another huge distinction, far more important than the parliamentary vs. presidential systems, that the bureaucrats hold more power than elected officials here. The politicians don’t tell them what to do, they don’t hold power over the budget. And as is the case universally, b-crats never request less money, never cancel projects of their own accord.
.
I could go on and on but suffice it to say that at times outsiders use Japan as a convenient juxtaposition, but it is naturally far more complex. If you’re interested in reading further, check out Alex Kerr’s “Dogs & Demons.” Pretty excoriating stuff but most insightful. And I’ll close with a joke–for years students from China would come to Japan for university but often their parents would admonish them before leaving to be careful about picking up any socialist tendencies while here.
.
And I missed your comment to SZ. Maybe b/c he’s travelling. I think I’ve made my ideas clear enough in the past. But I’d guess going FWD, that will be the topic–whether it’s dem party redemption or 3rd party formation.

You are hyper-ventilating. This govt can’t lock you up without a trial. Unless you are a citizen of another nation caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans.

And you are wrong as usual. Ever hear of Jose Padilla? No? Here’s a quick refresher:

José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists.
Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an “enemy combatant” after his arrest in 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radioactive “dirty bomb” attack. That charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court after pressure from civil liberties groups.

Get it? He was an American citizen arrested and held without trial for 3.5 years. BTW, it’s called the Patriot Act. Perhaps you should read it sometime.

Agreed. What a close-minded ideologue. You can’t reason/rationalize/ converse with people of that ilk. Unfortunately, he (or her, women can be just as dumb and ignorant as men, I don’t want to discriminate) illustrates the growing problem with a good deal of our politics. Many people just aren’t reasonable any more, and would rather just shout things like COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, FASCIST, rather than have a legitimate dialogue. I mean look at this guy, he says fascism is a liberal ideology. And he’s being serious! Where can any conversation go from there? Only into ridiculousness (as evidenced by any comment section on FoxNews.com or other hard right sites.)
Also, to the person who talked about the Tea Party’s success due to staying on a strictly fiscally conservative message; (Can’t remember if I’m referring to the same nutcase or not, don’t really feel like scrolling up to check) what about balancing a budget or reducing deficits involves painting Hitler moustaches on Obama, openly carrying weapons, or waving ridiculous “don’t tread on me” flags. Poor Tea Partiers, so oppressed by Obama. (I had trouble typing that last sentence without my computer exploding.) What exactly has Obama taken away or “destroyed” about our nation? Except for your racist ideals and perceptions?

I don’t agree with shepherdwong, but at least the post amused.

Wait a second…. someone goes to Beck University, and actually announces it? Isn’t that something you would want to keep to yourself? I can’t even think of something that going to Beck University is akin to, as it is a choice that you continue to consciously make. My initial analogies were along the lines of “going to Beck university is like having a great-grandfather who was a Klansman or a Nazi, you probably don’t want to advertise it,.” However, that just doesn’t work, because you can’t control what your ancestors did or didn’t do. However, you can control whether or not you choose to support and be receptive to a fear-mongering racist.

But I don’t believe you can say across the board that tea party candidates (or their voters) were concerned with nothing other than fiscal policy.

*************************************
I didn’t say that. I said primarily concerned. The Tea party isn’t about gay marriage or abortion. It’s about spendingand the expansion of govt. That doesn’t mean they don’t have opinions or positions on anything else. The organizing factor is spending.

He had a trial. What is your point?

NewsBusters| TIME’s Joe Klein: Blue Dog Ranks Thinned By Voters Because They Didn’t Spend Enough
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/11/04/times-joe-klein-blue-dog-ranks-thinned-voters-because-they-didnt-spend

You really are stupid aren’t you? Being held without habeas corpus, no attorney and rendered to Guantanamo for 3.5 years before public outcry finally gets him a trial and you’re okay with that? What’s more, you’re entirely too dim to realize that he was held without trial for 3.5 years! My point is that he is a citizen and he was illegally detained w/o trial for 3.5 years and you’re wrong yet again.

Sarah Palin invented the word. So i might as well use the new language.

‘Things’ are not induviduals. Corporations are things. All of us have as induviduals the right to free speech. Each and one of the people who own and operate corporations have a right to speak.
.
For someone who say that you are for induvidual why would you give up your induvidual voice to a thing?

They’re buying a lot of books in bulk aren’t they? Is that how Palin made $6M. Funny I saw a dozen clips of various book signings and I saw a reception worthy of a rock star.

In fact the conservative media is by far the healthiest part of the political genre with it’s own publishers. It’s so big they bypass the NYTs famed review of books many of them not even bothering to send a courtesy copy knowing they’ll never print a review. In fact a number of liberals are trying to get the NYTs to shift it’s categoriies to put conservative books in their own grouping soas not to be so regularly embarrassed. It’s quite common for the NYTs bestseller not to have been reviewed by the NYTs.

Quite like the SBVs and a dozen other stories. The MSM told Kerry not to acknowledge the SBVs, they’d bury the story. So for a few weeks if you got your news from the NYTs or ABC news you had no clue as to what was going on. So Kerry never dealt with a problem that the MSM lost the ability to contain.

you go ahead and tell yourself they’re not real sales. Princess is still independently wealthy and powerful.

No one said fascism is a liberal ideology. The claim is fascism is a totalitarian religion of the left along with socialism, communism,progressivism and liberalism. The spectrum has big govt/totalitarian control at one end and small govt at the other. Conservatives are small govt. Liberals are big govt.

I am not saying Oxford was wrong to place Fascism on the right in the 30′s and 40′s since they were opposed to the marxist/totalitarian religions but in 2010 that makes no sense. The ideological arguments today are best summarized by size of govt and span of control. While Reagan has pretty much destroyed socialism he didn’t eradicate it. Castro still lives with his people in poverty and totalitarian misery but by and large some form of free market democracy rules in advanced nations while others are still transitioning from monarchy or socialism.

As spelled out in the oxford definition Fascism is totalitarian. It’s about total control. That clearly puts it on the left side of the spectrum in 2010. The right is about individual freedoms, small govt, free markets, etc. Modern liberalism is absolutely about big govt and increased span of control of the masses under the ‘leadership’ of the elites..

“But the simply fact is you are wrong, fascism is not a left wing ideology by its very definition.”

Of course it is. Your own definition above declares it is totalitarian. That is the opposite of conservative. That is clearly more akin to modern liberalism which places all of it’s faith in government

Jimmy Carter doesn’t get enough credit and Reagan too much but the fact is the role of govt in our lives has been substantially rolled back from the 30′s and 40′s. We don’t have wage and price controls and massive govt regulation as we once did. This is a far freer nation as areso many others.

The standard is govt control. Fascism is by all definitions totalitarian and in 2010 that puts it on the left.

lilaland’s got kind of a poetic way to put things, which I’m really enjoying.
.
He or she hit the nail on the head with rdw56 here.

rdw, first you did say they were wrong, which is untrue. You may think of fascist in the mold of the regimes of the early to mid 20th century, but that is not the be and end all of the term. The word you chose, fascism, has a strict definition and application, and you chose to ignore the reality of what the word means because it did not suit your purpose. You chose this word because a) you wanted a word that conjured powerful emotions of disgust and revulsion b) you earlier had to admit that Obama is not a socialist, so you could not used that term and c) you (thank goodness) realized that the term Nazi is inappropriate (on this last point I thank you, many others on both sides don’t realize that).

As for totalitarian being closer to liberal philosophy, well any in depth analysis of this would show that is absurd. Both conservative and liberal ideologies can lead to totalitarian states, as demonstrated by the history of the past two centuries all across the world. Your particular brand of conservatism (the smaller government Libertarian brand) does not represent all of conservatism, just as anti-capitalism does not represent all of liberalism. Even libertarianism shows as many roots in liberalism (with its belief in upholding individual rights over the interest of the state or corporations) as it does in conservatism (by definition is upholding the status quo and based on the political parties originating in the UK who do see an active role of the government in maintaining the traditional order of things even if it means interfering with personal liberty). Conservatives, especially modern ones in both your country, mine (Canada) and in much of the rest of the world, are actively fighting against personal freedoms (such as gay marriage, women’s right to chose, religious freedom etc) in the name of maintaining the “traditional ” order (which is unsurprising as the root of the word conservative is to conserve something). You may think conservative means getting the government out of everyones hair, but it does not in both practice and theory.

Once again rdw you are ignoring the meaning of words because they do not serve your purpose, This is wrong. Now if you want to debate the view of the state as an instrument of the people to obtain a better life versus it as an obstruction, that is fine, and we can do that. But you are using words out of context and making statements about the root of totalitarian states which are patently false and frankly offensive. A state can become totalitarian, or authoritarian (not the same thing) by a multitude of means, almost all from extreme ends of both sides of the political spectrum. If you cannot understand that, or are not willing to accept that than you will remain ignorant of how history works.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I can’t stand when people (from either side) twist words out of their meaning because the sound good, not because they actual fit the situation. Maybe its the scientist in me, but precision counts.

Now to get to sleep, leave the marking for tomorrow.

hussy, I am 69, retired and disabled. What I do with my time is my business. Now you go harrass someone else.

jcapan: Thanks for sharing your knowledge of the Japanese economy.
.
I have a joke I heard today.
Man goes to bed. Hears knocking at his front door. It is late but he gets up to answer the door. There is a snail on his front porch that says he is selling magazine subscriptions. The man swears at the snail and kicks him aside.
Two years later, another knock at the door. It is the snail. “What was that about?”

“Now to get to sleep, leave the marking for tomorrow.”
.
Hey, you are the one up at 2:00 am. Now turn out your lights and shut off your computer. Make sure that all your windows are shut to conserve energy. No smoking. Don’t touch yourself. Set your alarm. Brush your teeth. Take your vitamins and any other medication that you need that has been prescribed by a doctor. Wipe your feet if you have been outside. Don’t eat candy before you go to bed, and don’t drink coffee. Here’s your teddy bear and you favorite blanky.
.
Your nanny. Nighty, night.

jc: thanks for the insight.
.
apr: You saw David Seraris on TDS, too!

Was that supposed to be an insult, because it A) has nothing to do with my post and b) makes no sense.

Oh by the way I do turn off the lights, computers, and have all the windows closed to conserve energy anyway (I also live in Canada which can get quite chilly at night and my pet turtle would freeze if the window was open). I don’t smoke (because i don’t want to and because I understand that its an unnecessary health risk) or drink coffee. Don’t take medication or vitamins, didn’t set the alarm or wipe my feet (I live alone so the place is as messy as I want it to be) and don’t like candy. I did brush my teeth, not just for the fact that health teeth are attractive but also oral health has been linked to overall health. As for touching myself, well unless you are Christine O’Donell I’d say its none of your business. I don’t have a blanket or a teddy bear, although I once had a stuffed owl as a child.

You see I chose to do all these things, not because someone told me to, but because I wanted too. I never had a nanny (we were middle class but not rich so we could not afford it). Now look at that a liberal who does things not because the state told them, but by choice, that must blow your little mind huh.

I think that the demoralized feeling coming from the Left and the drift of the center to the right, are part of same phenomenon and are a result of the same cause. The cause is not the economy; people don’t really blame Obama for that. And I don’t even believe it is a result of any specific piece of legislation, or even the war, which is off the radar for now.

I think that the Left feels abandoned, and I mean abandoned, not because the legislation had to accommodate the Blue Dogs, but because Obama has allowed the Right to frame every single debate and he has failed to respond even to outright slanders. His health care bill was a modest (too modest imo), fiscally responsible and morally decent piece of legislation, but the Right framed it in terms of death panels and big government. And Obama let them get away with it. Obama has lowered taxes for most people but the Right wing has successfully characterized him as a tax and spend liberal.

I, for one, am tired of defending Obama when he won’t defend himself and when he doesn’t defend me when I have been slandered. I really am not in favor of death panels and I would appreciate it if my President would be absolutely clear about those sorts of things. Yes, it is a ridiculous but necessary part of his job. And he is not doing it.

In the absence of a clearly articulated political philosophy coming from Obama and no energy coming from his own base, the Center has drifted. They are listening to the loudest angriest voices because the Voice of Reason seems to think it beneath him to defend himself and those who are counting on him.

Obama complained to Jon Stewart recently that he had done a lot of good that no one seemed to know about. He was absolutely right. But whose fault is that?

I counted about 25 posters on this thread. Of the 109 comments so far rdw accounts for over 35%.

As for totalitarian being closer to liberal philosophy, well any in depth analysis of this would show that is absurd.

************************

There’s not question. What s your 1st reaction when you think of Fox news? Most libs want them shut down. The fairness doctrine is right out of George Orwells 1984. You want to control what we eat what we drink, ban smoking, what we can watch, what we can hear, etc.

Reagan’s great line on liberalism was, “If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it”.

By contrast small govt is the opposite of totalitarian. And yes all conservatives are small govt and between conservatives and libertarians you have a near majority.

I don’t blame you for wanting to shut down Fox and Talk Radio. Mocking govt has become a sport. Support for and confidence in govt is in the toilet and will remain there. As noted by a Democrat analysts, Goldston I believe, the electorate is becoming progressively more conservative and less moderate. His stats, not mine. One thing is sure, in the post-Reagan era the concept of 70% tax rates is an absurdity yet that was liberal doctrine for 5 decades.

are actively fighting against personal freedoms (such as gay marriage, women’s right to chose, religious freedom etc) in the name of maintaining the “traditional ” order (which is unsurprising as the root of the word conservative is to conserve something

******************************

Neither gay marriage nor abortion are personal freedoms. If a gay couple lives together with no ‘contract’ or in a civil union or in a marriage they are not any more or less free. The issue on abortion is a constitutional issue. As Scalia has explained may times and most politicans understand the Supreme Court screwed up as they often do. There is no right to an abortion in the constitution. Nor is there a right to ban abortion. It is a decision for the states. It is in fact by Obama is hesitant to move on gay marriage preferring the legislature to make on call as designed in the constitution. Obama understands as a political issue abortion has been good for the GOP and bad for the courts. Before Roe v Wade Supreme Court appointments were generally rather sedate affairs. Today it’s considered one of the most important things a President does. It is why conservatives like me who despise GWBs fiscal policy still give him an A. His Supreme Court picks were stellar. Roberts and Alito are stars and will be for decades.

which is unsurprising as the root of the word conservative is to conserve something). You may think conservative means getting the government out of everyones hair, but it does not in both practice and theory.

*********************************************
That is exactly what it means. The thing we wish to conserve most is the constitution who’s very purpose and design was to limit the power of govt. We want judges to stick to the constitution which lives not via their whims but an amendment process which is in turn controlled by we the governed.

This is why Scalia is so despised on the left especially in academia. He is the intellectual force behind a strict interpretation of the constitution and the bene noir of the intellectual left. He is sharp, clear and elegant in his attacks on the tendency of liberals to look to legal decisions in other countries to support their own pointing out quite correctly this is nothing more than judge shopping. Larry Tribe was just embarrassed by the release of a letter he wrote Obama making it clear he needed to appoint someone with intellectual heft because no one on this court can effective debate Scalia. It’s actually worse than that. They can’t match Roberts or Alito either.

“you earlier had to admit that Obama is not a socialist, so you could not used that term and c) you (thank goodness) realized that the term Nazi is inappropriate (on this last point I thank you, many others on both sides don’t realize that).”

There’s so much here. I don’t refer to Obama as a socialist so I didn’t have to admit anything. I frame it carefully. He clearly has socialist tendencies and probably would like to be but understands that’s an untenable position outside Harvard’s campus. Among Reagan’s great achievements were advancing the Hayek economic school of economic freedom which is to say no central planning and minimal govt by selling the advantages of low marginal rates, free trade, etc AND just as importantly mocking socialism as an evil disease, a blight on mankind, because that’s what it is. As are ALL totalitarian forms of govt including fascism.

Regarding Nazism national socialism in Germany was every bit as evil as socialism in Russia and China. The Russians and Chinese were more prolific in their evil but once you murder over 10M why count?

My point on liberalism isn’t that you are socialist although in your heart of hearts would probably like to be but you absolutely have the totalitarian instinct. That’s absolutely, positively a leftist instinct. Liberalism absolutely is a lefty religion just like socialism and fascism but in the modern sense. You are not socialists,

BTW: regarding Nazi, a ton of fools use it to smear. It is used far more often by the left to smear conservatives. We saw this frequently with Bush. It’s tired, lazy, boring and stupid. So much so it reflects only on the moron using it.

CHINA BUSTS U.S. FOR SOCIALISM. And fiscal irresponsibility.

Cui Tiankai, a deputy foreign minister and one of China’s lead negotiators at the G20, said on Friday that the US plan for limiting current account surpluses and deficits to 4 per cent of gross domestic product harked back “to the days of planned economies”.

“We believe a discussion about a current account target misses the whole point,” he added, in the first official comment by a senior Chinese official on the subject. “If you look at the global economy, there are many issues that merit more attention – for example, the question of quantitative easing.”

*********************************
rdw., from Istapundit,

Another example w/b the govt takeover of General Motors. It’s an example of Obama’s ignorance regarding economics and his totalitarian instinct. He honestly believes there was no other option. He’s got no idea what bankruptcy laws are designed to do.

For the record I am very bullish on the economy now that he’s had his wings clipped an will be unable to do more damage. Even an economic clown like Obama can only keep capitalism down for so long. But we do have several have a range of problems his deficits have created so it won’t seem like a boom. The good news is we are in a recovery that is getting stronger NOW and will begin to generate jobs at a healthier sustained rate. The better news is John Boehner will get the credit.

“the Right wing has successfully characterized him as a tax and spend liberal.”

Pretty cool no! Well he is doing rather a lot of spending and he did run on a promise of rolling back the Bush tax cuts. That pretty much means he’s a tax and spend liberal.

He also mangled his idea of extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class by calling them, “Obama’s tax cuts for the middle class”. Hard core libs no doubt saw this as clever. Sane people were mostly insulted. He wasn’t going to be lowering taxes for the middle class by a penny. It made him look like a used car salesman. That’s probably not fair to used car salesman. He is not a natural politician and damn sure a lousy communicator. He comes off sleezy when he thinks he’s clever. I get Bill Cllinton could explain how Obama was being honest. But then that’s the rub. It appears he is going to hold his ground on this. He will lose. The House and the Senate will sent to him a bill to extend ALL of the tax cuts and he will have to veto it and hope they send him another with what he wants. They won’t. If Obama doesn’t sign that bill and taxes go up for everyone 1/1/2011 he will get crushed in the polls.

I gotta be up to 40% by now. How about that, witty, insightful, instructional and prolific.

“If you cannot understand that, or are not willing to accept that than you will remain ignorant of how history works.’

Saw a great debate on c-span not too long ago regarding the state of history, the reporting of, and the conservatives were quite pleased. History as a genre is quite popular with subjects like Lincoln and the civil war a genre within itself. One of the panelists made a great point about how history has expanded well beyond the reach of academic historians, who tend to be very liberal, with a far more diverse group of writers and thinkers. The academic on the panel of course thought it a scandal.

He also pointed out how difficult it had become for academics to inject their liberalism into their writing. I was taught that Wilson’s diplomacy ended the war, his peace plan was brilliant and the New Deal ended the depression. Well you can’t write that today in a history book without creating a scandal. What Goldberg did to most damage Wilson had less to do with his preening arrogance, his failure in Paris in 1919 and role in setting the table for WWII, his egregious actions during the war to suspend habeas corpus but rather his racism. he resegraged the post office and was in fact rather vile in this regard. IN this day and age that’s indefensible. I found this out as an adult because academic historians covered it up.

So I do know how history works and the internet has been fabulous in ending the liberal monopoly. It is being rewritten properly this time.

BTW: another emerging genre is the Vietnam Era. talk about sham reporting. There are a number of books out now correcting the image sleezebags like kerry tried to promote of the American soldier as a war criminal. Titles such as stolen valor are not just correcting the history of vietnam but the role of the liberal press in lying about and sliming those who fought.