An aside: I have no idea why it's been so long since I've posted. I guess I haven't had much interesting to say about science, video games, or philosophy, and there's only so much I can say about politics without drumming the same beat over and over.In any case, I have to be very careful here. Goldberg spends a lot of time in his book detailing what he means by fascism because its use today is so generalized. Most people just use it as an epithet for something they don't like. "You mean they took the free coffee out of the break room? What a bunch of fascists."
Also, Goldberg spends the first part of the book looking at the fascist movements of Europe, first Italy and then Germany, then follows up with the American fascist movements before talking about what they ended up looking like in modern America. Yes, it happened here in America. No, it wasn't identical to Italian or German fascism. All of these movements were born of their own time period to specific peoples, so each fascist movement is going to carry specific markers. Italian fascism didn't involve virulent anti-semitism, and American fascism never involved dictators (though it came close at times). My point being that fascism doesn't just mean, "tyrannical dictatorship," and because Goldberg spends hundreds of pages setting up his premises, it would be very difficult for me to do the arguments justice in a single blog post.
So, why do I think Obama is eerily reminiscent of American fascist movements? The political messianism, the cult of youth and action, the reliance on personality and destiny rather than argument and idea; those are strongly familiar themes. The general philosophy of governance is similar, too: Everything within the state, nothing outside the state. American fascism (which took the name "progressivism") worked diligently to dissolve individualism, erase the lines between private corporations and the federal government, establish a welfare state so expansive that people would be absolutely reliant on the government, and create a government not "of the people" but of benign experts who would create an ordered society through their expertise and brilliance as opposed to the debauchery of "democracy."
So what do we see? A man who campaigned on "hope and change," as "the One we have been waiting for." Under his governance, the federal government became the majority shareholder of a major American corporation and has attempted to expand that ownership to the healthcare field. We have more "czars" in the Obama administration than Russia ever had. The drumbeat for a "new New Deal" repeats almost every other day.
So, no, I'm not calling Obama a Hitler or a Mussolini. He's more like a Wilson or an FDR. But it would be worth it to understand why the comparisons can be made before criticizing them. I recommend reading Goldberg's book; even if you disagree with conservatives, it's worth it to understand where ideas come from and how they evolve over time. If you end up thinking that he's gotten it wrong, at least you know what it is that he's arguing first.
2 comments:
Let's start with a couple of small points:
"So, no, I'm not calling Obama a Hitler or a Mussolini."
Good work using "not calling" someone a fascist to draw a link between them and fascism. No, really. Good work. Very subtle.
Second, awesome, awesome job on taking one book you read, stealing it's terrible ideas and basing your argument solely off of those, rather than coming up with your OWN misguided hysterical nonsense.
On to addressing specific bits of idiocy your post had to offer.
"The cult of youth and action." Seriously? I mean, really? Are you really, really implying that encouraging young people to become active and involved in the politics and issues that impact their lives is somehow an act of encroaching fascism? Wait. Of course you are. Yours is the party that actively discourages voter turnout, knowing that the people are not with them, and that only through keeping the public disenfranchised can they gain or hold power. But really, "the cult of youth and action" statement might be the dumbest thing in this little screed of yours. Which is really saying something.
But wait! There's still more stupidity ahead! Of course there is.
"So what do we see? A man who campaigned on "hope and change," as "the One we have been waiting for." Under his governance, the federal government became the majority shareholder of a major American corporation and has attempted to expand that ownership to the healthcare field. We have more "czars" in the Obama administration than Russia ever had. The drumbeat for a "new New Deal" repeats almost every other day."
First - the only people who have ever done the basement rat stupid trick of capitalizing "the One" are fear-mongering fuckwits like you. It's just plain ridiculous, and makes you look even more paranoid and batshit insane than you already do. So there's that.
I regret that I do not have the time to provide you with the many, many references that exist to back up my next point, but I trust that you think you're smart enough to do a little research. Note I said "you think you're smart enough". I certainly don't.
How dare someone who sets stock in conservative ideas and free market principles accuse this administration of interventionism? It is obvious and has been for some time that the only reason our economy has done so well in the past is due to large scale interventionism and government interference, for better or worse. Under Republican leadership, there is more government interference and distortion than under any liberal administration to date.
Also, the point about there being more "czars" is just silly and an attempt to use semantics to manipulate the reader's emotions to help them identify with your point. It's cheap and ugly.
There's more, of course, but to sum up: You are either just a terrible person with syphilitic brain that has ceased to work in any real sense, or...nope. No or.
Ah, yes, of course. You disagree with me, therefore I am a terrible person with an inability to think rationally. Makes perfect sense. Way to go there, debate club captain. Hope that trophy will fit on your desk. Nice to know we can act like adults on the internet.
*Ahem*
I'm just going to make a few points. First, I didn't "steal" anybody's ideas. I wrote a blogpost with the idea in mind, "Hey, I've been reading a book, here's some of the things inside it." If that's stealing, then there's a lot of reviewers out there who are in big, big trouble.
Second, I am having summarizing the contents of an entire book in a couple of paragraphs. You'll have to forgive me for not fully explaining some of the ideas. I'd say the best idea would be to read the book before attacking said summary, but you already chose the latter. (Strawmen, the "cult of youth and action" meant that political movements prized action over reason and logic, and the political thinking of the youth was superior because of their youth.)
Third, I'm no economist, but when I look at big cases of government interventionism, I don't see good things. That whole New Deal thing, for example. You know, the one that worked so well that FDR wanted a second one after the first to give it a jumpstart?
So, Tiana, just to conclude: I'm no thief, you should try to understand what you're arguing against before going all knee-jerky, and your constant reliance on insult and ad hominem does nothing for you.
Thanks for reading, do keep coming back.
Post a Comment