Contributors

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

14 Lovely and Beautiful Points.

Why not make this week a fascist week? Always a fun topic. Let's take a look at what Dr Lawrence Britt, political scientist, writer, and former executive at Xerox, Mobil, and Allied Chemical, defines as his 14 points of fascism. These are based on extensive studies of Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain, Indonesia, and Chile.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Again, I ask, sound like any group we know? Or any country we know...say in the past eight years?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Points 3 and 7 were just illustrated as being exactly in line with current conservative thought by just dave in the post below.

Last, if you call what dave wrote "bringing it heavy" than what Mark wrote after that must be the weight of a dense star.

Anonymous said...

M., if you really believed the last eight years were the prelude to a fascist state you would forsake Obama and beg the all-powerful Right for mercy.

Somehow I don't picture you actually doing that.

Anonymous said...

Juris, take a look at these fourteen points and tell me-do you think these more accurately represent liberals or conservatives?

Anonymous said...

Actually Sara, I was just ribbing Mark a little when I mentioned "bringing it heavy" because he used the same words before. And you're 100% mistaken if you think Mark "wrote" this - he googled a couple words and cut and pasted an article, it's the same thing he did with regards to the comment section of his latest "support the troops" post. I've seen him do it in his basement. That's not my definition of "bringing it heavy" because anyone can use the internet as well as the cut and paste function of a computer. Now I'm sure Mark and Dave could go back and forth on the points Dave typed...which would make for a much more interesting read (to me anyway).

Now are you, eliz, tom, truthgirl, et all going to type up much more than 1 line anytime soon?

Now Mark and Dave have a much better grasp of history than I do but a response will be posted by me soon enough on a couple points Mark made in the comment section of his "Who is right and who is right?" post. Hint - first hand knowledge can come in handy once in a while. Stay tooned...

Anonymous said...

(Ask and ye shall receive, Crab)

I guess you were hoping that I’m sulk away and just admit you were right and that I’ve been a Nazi all this time…

But, as I’ve said, debating liberals is rather therapeutic; kind’ve feel like the final scene in The Matrix where Neo effortlessly blocks Agent Smith’s blows…

1. I think Obama was the only candidate (left or right) not to wear the flag lapel pin. I’m not much into that type of coerced symbolism myself, but really, is that the best you can do here? Suspicion of foreign things? You got me on that one…I have no idea what you’re talking about. Most of my conservative friends are world travelers and my man GW seems to have no trouble hanging out w/ just about anybody at his ranch or on the other side of the globe. ..can’t see a similarity between national socialists and either party here.
2. So with this one you’re trying to make a correlation that a) conservative don’t care about human rights, and b) that the Nazis didn’t care for human rights and thus they are joined? …I don’t see that. Seems to me that spending is, as always, going up for this and that program to help people, this and that disaster, Africa, you name it… …’course, maybe that’s just that clever propaganda I’m falling for.
3. Scape-goating. I refer you to your own post acquitting Obama of reneging on his campaign finance contribution plan. In a nutshell, it’s ok because he needs to defend himself against the big, bad Republicans. Kinda’ sounds a lot like scape-goating doesn’t it? …course I could bring out example after example of blaming anything and everything wrong with the world on George Bush and the media’s willful compliance or classic examples of the Clintons reneging on tax plans because of those evil Republican predecessors…but why should I pile on.
4. Well, yes, the right is generally pro-military and the left is not; what a news flash. Therein lies one of the biggest differences between right & left…the right generally believes that one of the major functions of government is the security of the nation and thus a strong military is required. Though there is a correlation, it’s the same one between us and any nation with an interest in self-preservation. Asserting national goals and intimidating other nations? I have no doubt that you see it that way. Personally I have no problem using the military to intimidate our enemies. And besides, we’re the big kid on the block and many will be intimidated by us whether we’re sitting in the corner or romping on the playground. And if we’re supplying nation X with this or that service, is it outrageous to expect a little consideration?
5. Well, I’ll leave the sexism comment for Bill Clinton to explain the left’s views on women. But as to abortion, you are correct in that abortion under normal (as defined by the Nazi state) pregnancies was frowned upon, though (and this is my point) for those deemed “undesirable”, abortion, sterilization and euthanasia were actually forced upon them.
6. I know that the media is a sore spot with you but I can’t believe you’d bring it up here when I can so easily catalog 10 examples of liberal bias & propaganda to each one you come up with. PBS? Public Radio? Hello?...what’s the government doing in the this business anyway?
7. Well, I can see how you see it that way as this has been discussed ad nausea here; it’s really just the difference between a 9/10 and 9/12 mentality and we’ve been through this.
8. Religion? Well, this is a complicated one in Nazi Germany. I generally dislike Wikipedia but since you seem to like it, here’s a reference to the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany . Complicated, but it supports my thesis. Did I say they were godless? Don’t think so. But like liberals today, religion is deemed an antagonist to the state and is treated accordingly. The paganism is uncanny, though. And, this is turning into a theme here, but again, this only supports my position. Take any liberal politician, Hillary, for example. She’ll talk a good game about morality and go to church during election season but then push for any reference to God being expunged from public life and promotes abortion on demand.
9. Thank you for putting this in. Did you read it? It completely supports my point on state intrusion into daily life. “…the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control…” But, you were trying to ignore that bit and the bits on personal property & inherited wealth and instead parse out the ‘corporate’ bit, right? That’s good…I’d hate to pile on w/ the other ones. Still, though most industry was not nationalized, the excessive regulation was used to provide whatever outcome the state wanted. Nationalization was used mostly for those that did not comply with the regulations imposed on them. Hmmm…which party is the party for regulation here?
10. Labor… Hmmm… Ok, I’m not a big fan of unions, but show me how they are oppressed in some way by the administration. Can’t say I see ‘contempt’ for the poor from the right either, particularly since most red states are rural, but the left frequently will make comments as to the intellectual fortitude of them.
11. Jocularity! Jocularity! I’m sorry; do we still have a National Endowment for the Arts?? Granted, most conservatives would love to lose this agency... (Why should the gov’t be in the business of art?...Complete waste.) But, I particularly love the “universities were tightly controlled..” bit which again completely supports my point. Speech codes & thought police on campus are rampant, thanks to you know who. …remember our discussion on ROTC on campus?
12. Draconian…yep, that’s what I’d use to describe our prisons. Perhaps those at Guantanamo would be more comfortable in an Egyptian prison? An Israeli one? Or how about a prison near where they were captured? …not sure one would get a nice nickname like “Club Kandahar” over there. Or were you referring to the luxury accommodations equipped with air conditioning and cable TV that house our country’s murderers? Hey, how come tax dollars to pay my cable bill??? Political crimes lumped in with “normal”? And who exactly has been prosecuted for their politics along w/ regular criminals? …and don’t say, “well, go do some research.”…that’s so lame. I try not to post anything I can’t provide an example of. And to call it obsession? Hmmm….I’m not sure there; you may be right. It is an interesting dichotomy; the right keeps trying to lock up the bad guys and the left keeps letting them go. So, I guess in that regard, you are right.
13. Cronyism is only cronyism if you have an R behind your name. Is Hillary’s picture still in the dictionary next to this definition?
14. Thanks…it’s good to end on a note that not only supports my case but brings a smile to my face. Still re-hashing old elections are we? …doesn’t matter if news group after news group recounts and recounts with the same outcome… …doesn’t matter if irregularity after irregularity turns out to be Democratic pollster shenanigans or the dead voting liberal, you just keep on trying…I’ll grant you; you’ve got determination.

I do thank you for furthering my education, though. I occasionally post rather hastily with examples/references from memory and, being conscientious, I go back and do additional research once questioned on my post just to insure that I’m correct and/or at least have some foundation to my caterwauling. By doing so, I learned a lot…but nothing that altered my view terribly. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

@elizabeth, I could make a convincing argument about liberals on more then a couple of those points. On balance though, this particular list slants to the right. That does not support M's assertion that the last 8 years are the initial descent into fascism, nor that a change in party in the White House is going to make any real difference.

Mark Ward said...

Last, I did cut and paste this post from Britt's 14 points, which I found from some earlier links I had been reading, but I believe what Sara is talking about was the previous comments section. Most of the information I wrote came from a research paper I wrote 25 years ago on fascism/communism/capitalism. The rest came from a well supported response to a debate I was having with the folks over at Kevin Baker's blog.

Dave,

1. It gives me great hope that you and other conservatives are not suspicious of foreigners. I think, however, you are all in the minority in your party.

2. This administration has been the absolute bottom of the barrel on human rights. It's insulting to what America is supposed to stand for.

3. He is speaking here mostly of the regimes around the world that we manufacture into enemies and how the right just goose steps right along with whatever bullshit their leaders come up with.

4. Herein lies the great lie that you believe. I think you need to read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins.

5. Yes.

6. PBS? Public Radio? Just because they are multicultural, diverse, and don't share your world view doesn't mean they are "liberal." Air America is liberal, no doubt, but not PBS or NPR. The media is owned by corporations and if you take a look at their boards, you would be pretty hard pressed to find a liberal. This is such a tired, pathetic argument-especially when you look at all of the conservative owned media and how much of the market they control.

7. Your side has been very successful at painting the left as being 9/10. It is a crock of shit and you know it. If you ask me, Bush is 9/10. Where is bin Laden? Zawahari? Our own national intelligence has said that Al Qaeda is fully rebuilt in Pakistan. Tell me, dave, do you think Bush has made us safer from attacks? Really?

8. Dave, I believe our country is founded on the separation of church and state. Another example of the hypocrisy of the right. You talk a good game about less government but boy oh boy, you'd love to have a government that dictates morality based on a warped view of Christianity. Funny, that's the same thing I loathe about bin Laden and his ilk and there are times, when he releases his tapes, he doesn't sound all that different from the people you support.

9. All you really have to look at for this one is the defense industry. Don't you think that Blackwater, for example, or KBR fit this description to a T.

10. Go read Kevin Baker's blog or any conservative blog for that matter and see what they say about poverty. It's nauseating.

11. All I have to say on this one is this: which side uses the word "elite" with more disdain?

12. Well, the Justice Department tried to go down this path but thankfully a few of the good Republicans left told them to fuck off. Again, I submit that more is going to come out about Gitmo and the prisons around the world. That's not America, dave, and you know it.

13. I don't think Hillary is any different than Bush so I agree with you here.

14. What's funny about this is most Democrats freely admit that the mob stole the election for JFK in 1960. I do. So when are you going to come around on 2000? If the Dems had done all the things the Bushies did, we would be in agreement.

I don't expect to alter your view. For the most part (there are a few exceptions) conservatism is the least reflective ideology I know...which makes it more akin to fascism. In the end, that's why Goldberg and his doofus supporters sound sub moronic...the left's big problem is that they are TOO reflective.

There is nothing self actualizing about fascism.

Anonymous said...

Sara, if you read what Mark typed in that other thread he actually only countered 1 of Daves points he made (having to do with industry). Yeah, real heavy. Talk of jingoism, his "estimate", and sneering is Marks opinion (more on "sneering" later).

Just remember Dave – there is no arguing Marks estimates of the population – that estimate of 40 million is probably the same as the estimate he made of those majority of Iowans who were going to be too racist to vote for Obama, thus giving Edwards a win in the Iowa primary or those other people in New Hampshire who were going to give Obama a 20 point win in the primary there earlier this year. He talks to people so you better step off!

It’s just so funny how some of you folks believe things if it fits your worldview…something you accuse conservatives of often. Here’s a very, very brief history of the company I work at right now...

The founder of my company was born in 1888 and died in 1953. He was the son of a piano builder in Germany who did an apprenticeship as a young man in the field of healthcare which the company still operates in to this day. During the 1930’s the company was located in Konigsee, Germany and was a highly developed operation.

In the early years of WWII the company was able to operate...in service to the state only for wounded soldiers for the war (what freedom). Sure it could operate – too bad there were no available raw materials under the Nazi regime so a great deal of time was spent trying to find substitutes for wood and rubber (the use of polyurethane came from this search). Then later in the war the company was declared the property of the people. No compensation given, nothing.

So that guy studied Nazi Germany and concluded that ", the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised"???

What a colossal joke. Believe who you want to...

Article 7: "The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation,"

I can’t believe you read that and thought they were encouraging private property.

"State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State.

Who defines "lacking" or "insufficient"? Very vague terms there and please tell me how the hell the terms "state intervention", "control", "direct management", and "loss is public and social" can be anywhere near the terms "private initiative", "profit", or "self reliance"??

"This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."

That sounds like democrat Maxine Waters. I know you’ve all seen her telling oil executives she would nationalize their industry. For the record – it isn’t self reliance when the government steps in and takes over the industry, thus preventing any kind of failure from happening.

"the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise..Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."

I submit to you that that sounds like Europe today. As I said on this blog before...European governments spend millions of taxpayer dollars subverting the free-market and propping up big business. Many German and French companies are partially state-owned, and are not allowed to fail, no matter what. That is business reality in Europe. Dishonesty and arrogance, certainly not superior ethics. So the government paying for the failings of business is self-reliance? The government bails out businesses that fail? I’d just love to see the level of customer service in that environment. Why bother working hard – if we fail the government will take care of us.

Barack Obama had a large infrastructure investment plan of $60 billion stretching over 10 years on his website. His idea is to put the country to work as FDR did in the New Deal. But such plans rest on a fallacy IMO. The fallacy is that public-sector jobs are just as good as, or better than, private-sector jobs. The reality is that it’s just not true. Private-sector jobs tend to be the ones in fields where innovation happens. Public-sector projects have done a little innovating, like Velcro for example, but that innovation tends to be the exception that proves the rule. A lot of public sector jobs are just a weight on the economy and people instinctively know this. Think of your train of thought as you watch someone x-ray your shoes in an airport security check: I hate this. But, hey, at least it gives someone a job. But is that job worth it even to that person? And is this process really useful? Government often claims it is the only one that can do something, or fund something. Obama talks as though his plan would end pork but infrastructure programs and other public job programs are pork factories. They rank right up there with agriculture in terms of politicization. The etymology of the word or phrase "boon doggle" illustrates this. It first became familiar when a New Deal public jobs program paid underemployed teachers to teach children and adults to make craft projects for home use, "boon doggles." The term became a synonym for silly make work and the scandal of New Deal spending.

The Nazi concentration camps were pread primarily throughout Germany, Austria and Poland. Approximately 6 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews, 2.5–3.5 million Gentile Poles, 200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti, 200,000–300,000 people with disabilities, 10,000–25,000 gay men, 2,000 Jehovah`s Witnesses, 3.5–6 million other Slavic civilians, 2.5–4 million Soviet POWs and 1–1.5 million political dissidents dead. Regular acts of torture for those who survived on rancid food and water, eugenics experiments as well as malaria, jaundice, freezing, poison, amputation and other experiments performed on people using no anesthesia. You get off a train where you were packed in very tightly and a guard separates you from your family...children and old people are executed immediately because they were viewed as subhuman parasites who couldn’t work for the German homeland...many people were disrobed and sent to the showers only it wasn’t water that came out of the pipes...it was poison gas. People made to work, not fed for weeks at a time, you were punished if you moved a dead person from the toilet stall...THAT is what is known as "weeding out". How anyone can compare all that to people "sneering" at others in 2008 is beyond my comprehension and I would guess, quite insulting to former concentration camp survivors who still lead tours through Auschwitz to this day. Maybe you should go over there and try telling them of your hardships of people sneering at you. You will do anything and make any comparison to make a political point. Such is life when politics is your religion.

So yeah, companies could operate in Germany during WWII. Maybe you should visit Auschwitz and see the room (that still exists) that is still full of female human hair that was used to create textiles in German factories as well as socks for submarine crews, pillow filling, carpets, mattress fillings, and whatever else they could conjure up.

Yeah, what freedom.

Since we all know lefties never sneer at anyone else, ever, I don’t doubt that a tiny portion of people sneer at you (sneering being your interpretation – always remember that). You want to know why? Big-government liberals love to encourage people to do the noblest thing possible (to them anyway) - become big-government liberals. That isn't how they phrase it, of course. Mark talks often about liberals "helping people" as distinguished from working in the capitalist private sector. There is usually not the slightest sign of embarrassment at this self-serving celebration of themselves - over and above the careers of others who merely provide us with the food we eat, the homes we live in, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the high standard of living we all have and the medical care and innovation that preserves our health and saves lives. IMO, if you truly want to be of some use and service to your fellow human beings then put your money where your mouth is. You want to see more people have better housing then go freakin build it. Become a builder or developer, make a profit and hire people to build more housing because when you hire people you provide them the means to support themselves - if you can stand the disdain of your fellow lefties who regard many of those words as repulsive or who just think businesses are out to "fuck people over".

So are "sneering" and "weeding out" still the same thing?

I’d like to catch Bin Laden as much as anyone but there are 2000 people ready to take his place once he is caught. It will take more than a law-enforcement mentality.

The words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in our constitution and the concept was set up to protect the church from the state. Now you have the ACLU suing the US Naval Academy for their policy of setting aside 2 minutes for a non-denominational prayer before they eat dinner. You also have the ACLU suing the city fo Los Angeles because there is a teeny-tiny cross in the city’s symbol. I feel safer already.

One last point Mark – when the government funds something, that means the government controls it. When you advocate that the government fund something (which you do often on this blog) you give control to the government. I’m not talking about just national security either.

Now where’s the 1-line insult crew?

Mark Ward said...

"So that guy studied Nazi Germany and concluded that ", the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised"???"

I believe he studied 5 different countries and based his points on that.

"we all know lefties never sneer at anyone else, ever"

Well, I sneer at people on the left all the time. Many of them seem bent on doing the right's work for them (see: Al Franken sex bullshit). They also are incredibly stupid about the benefits of nuclear power and have no real clue at all about how serious Al Qaeda and others are..which is odd because they rip the religious right all the time. And they embrace militant Muslims (the same as our religious right fervents)....why exactly?

"there are 2000 people ready to take his place once he is caught."

Not really. Both bin Laden and Zawahari represent an intelligence coup that could go a long way to preventing future attacks. And who exactly are the people who have the "vision" and following to take their place and continue Al Qaeda at the strength it is at now? I'd like to see some names, please.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say they would be at the level of Bin Laden and Zawahari in terms of intelligence. I just said they are ready to take their place.

Mark sneers! I have proof!

haha, see you tomorrow. We play at B. Willow at 9:00 and 11:10 with a couple more games after that...not sure of the time of those yet though...depends on how we do.

Anonymous said...

OK, the kids are asleep and I need a break from yard work…can I really find nothing better to do with my time than argue w/ you people? …this is going nowhere…but some of your points required a response.

I’ve never read those “14 points of fascism” before but who am I to complain if you want to add supporting material to my points. Your rebuttal, of course, made little sense to me. In the end, the over-riding principles of fascism correlate far more directly to modern liberalism, so I’m not particularly swayed.

1. Totalitarian: your list of the 14 points backs me up nicely on this, and I quote point #9, “…the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control…” I extended this to corporations in my comment as well and can provide examples of fascist policies (which LIL beat me to, thank you very much). The correlation is obvious. What party, here and now, looks for that kind of control? Who wants more and more regulation on business? Who said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK”. Who said, “We’re going to take things away from you for the common good”? Who said, “The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and…” Who is establishing smoking bans that extend onto your property and even into your home? The left’s policies extend to schooling, employment practices, you name it. The control looked for by the left should simply leave one gob smacked.
2. The media angle we simply will not agree on, and that’s fine…the proof is in the pudding and it doesn’t matter a lick who “owns” the stations because they’re not the ones on the air talking. The internet has of course changed the importance of the nightly news so the importance of this to me has waned, but, sadly, many still go to these places for their only news and must take people like Dan Rather at their word. You’d said you were going to read a book I recommended, Bernard Goldberg’s “Bias”. Did you? He’s a life-long Democrat with impeccable credentials…until he saw his profession so high-jacked as to no longer be called news, exposed it, and then the left through him under the bus.
3. Human rights… Why didn’t you provide an example? Not even a lame Katrina reference? But, that’s beside the point, I brought up not “human rights” in the liberal fashion you use it, but the “value” of human life. Liberalism cheapens life with policies of abortion and euthanasia.
4. Religion. We have very different reads on our own history. Seems to me the Pilgrims were seeking religious freedom, not to have religion expunged from their lives. LIL already covered this in fine detail.

And to answer your explicit question: Yes, I do believe we are safer today under George Bush than we would be under Al Gore or John Kerry. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind and no way that I could be dissuaded from this fact. And a brilliant retort to the 9/10 comment (No, you are…No, you are…). The facts are there, you simply choose not to see them. The bad guys say they want to get us…the bad guys have tried to get us but have been thwarted…and the bad guys are on the defensive because we’re not waiting for them to come get us, we’re actively going after them. That is something that changed after 9/11…going after the bad guys…so to say we’re in a 9/10 mentality just doesn’t make any sense at all (were we in Afghanistan pre-9/11? Hello?). Clinton, Kerry, Obama are all on record as favoring “talk”, policing agencies and the courts to combat terrorism which is in fact the policy that was in place pre-9/11. How else can this be said? How can it even be debated? That is exactly how Bill Clinton approached it…And it worked…kind’ve…they got the 1st World Trade Center bombers all right, but that didn’t make the victims any less dead. And therein lies your problem. Policing and courts are reactive, not proactive. And unless Obama has invented a time machine and plans to go back 25, 50 or 75 years to right whatever those perceived wrongs are/were I don’t think bin Laden is going to join him at a peace conference in Geneva to make nice.

PS: I'm finishing this little nuggest while watching the Euro2008 Championship. Events like this are great on so many levels. I particularly enjoy the patriotism the fans show throughout the tournament by displaying their flags and singing songs. It is so striking to think that you and your followers would never be at an event like that...would never show that type of pride in their country. How very sad.

Mark Ward said...

"I need a break from yard work."

I am going to be very interested in your thoughts on a non political post I have been working on for the last month entitled Next Stop: Coffin.

More on the other stuff later...