I don't agree that Britt's essay was written expressly for American conservatives. First, I don't think you can make an argument that conservatives borrow from fascists to any significant degree. Therefore, limiting your rebuttal to comparing fascist characteristics to liberalism was a waste of your time, and not really applicable. (Please remember that the either/or view of politics in the US is really only a small microsample of all available political ideologies.)
The essay is based on the comparisons of past fascist regimes, listing their similarities. It's a good one to put up here, simply because it is so short. Another short essay I referenced was by Umberto Eco, written in the 80s. Remember, I compared fascism to neoconservatism, and I argued that neoconservatism is very different from conservatism.
For a really good look at fascism and how it sneaks in without any real resistance, read the Mass Psychology of Fascism. For an elaboration of its characteristics, read The Anatomy of Fascism. If you're interested, anyway.
The essay is based on the comparisons of past fascist regimes, listing their similarities. It's a good one to put up here, simply because it is so short. Another short essay I referenced was by Umberto Eco, written in the 80s. Remember, I compared fascism to neoconservatism, and I argued that neoconservatism is very different from conservatism.
For a really good look at fascism and how it sneaks in without any real resistance, read the Mass Psychology of Fascism. For an elaboration of its characteristics, read The Anatomy of Fascism. If you're interested, anyway.
xpanda said:
xpanda - to me, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference between a conservative and a so called neo conservative.
An essay written by Patrick Spence, Central Michigan University, and titled "The Neo-Conservative ideology: Why it deserves consideration." delves into the neo-con philosophy that underpins the ideology, and does a pretty good job - I disagree with some nuance', but agree with the overall picture he draws - and I see no relationship at all to fascism.
I remember a failed study back in the 70's that attempted to link conservatism and exocentrism - and I see the same kind of attempt at a link here - to fascism rather than exocentrism.
To me, the mainstay in fascism is the need for a scapegoat, and I don't see that in modern conservatism, while I do see it in modern secular liberalism who uses religion as well as oppositional conservatism as the boogie man. Does that mean that modern secular liberalism is fascist?
It seems to me that the liberal mind must pigeonhole any ideology that it sees as a threat - and conservatism IS a threat to modern secular liberalism.
I would go so far as to say that modern secular liberalism is just what Orwell envisaged when he so artfully presented the concept of Big Brother in "1984". And that is very scary.
bblight said:
There are a lot of differences. Which is precisely why so many Republicans and conservatives take issue with this administration.
Could you link me, please?
Again, I compare fascism to neoconservatism, not conservatism. The scapegoat changes with neoconservatism, as extreme militarism is the goal, the scapegoat is secondary (a fascist trait). In the case of this group of neocons, the scapegoat at one time was communism, the scapegoat is now labelled islamofascism. (Neocons themselves believed and wrote taht the end of the Cold War was the time to assert American military dominance. They also write that they need a reason to do so, one they can sell to the public.)
You may see another form of fascism in the US that uses Mexicans as the scapegoat. An isolationist tendency is building in the US, which includes anti-immigration and anti-globalisation groups merging. Lou Dobbs can be counted on for many of these talking points. (Fascism is really neither left nor right, and many state that where left and right intersect is precisely where you will find fascism.)
Religiosity isn't being used by American Liberals to justify extreme militarism or statism. In fact, they are asserting the opposite. The 'boogey man' is to be a 'threat' to national security, not individual liberty as religion is to liberals. It is about external enemies, not two camps fighting in-house. Fascism is all about the state's interests, with the rights and interests of the individual subverted to the state's common goals.
And vice versa. For every quote you give me demonstrating liberal disdain for conservatives, I'll find one that shows the opposite. (Coulter v. Franken, et al.) This just means you're looking at two competing ideologies, which is healthy. It doesn't imply fascism, however.
Both American liberalism and conservatism have taken a little too much glee in technological advances which allow for the subjugation of civil liberties. This still doesn't make either fascist. Further, Orwell's vision isn't fascist necessarily. You can of course find similarities in style, but the same can be said for communism and socialism as they compare to 1984.
Fascism is marked by hypernationalism and a worship of extreme militarism, for the purposes of the state's 'dominant destiny'. There must exist a great external enemy, ill-defined but known to be 'not us'. The rights of the individual are subverted to the divine rights of the state. Science and art are considered to contradict and impede the goals of the state. The state relies heavily on corporate profiteering for its power. Power is in most cases stolen, though not in an obvious coup or totalitarian sense. All of this creates a common psychology among the people and those who detract are considered traitors or not true members of the state.
(The most recent GOP ad with the white flags is fascist propaganda par excellence. Truly. I nearly laughed at its obviousness when I first saw it. It had it all: hypermilitarism, dissent as treason, 'enemies are watching.' I mean, really, it was taken right out of Naziism, and I am not saying that lightly.)
American fascism has been around in bits and pieces since WWII, it's just become much more obvious and all-encompassing through this administration.
xpanda said:
http://dex.edzone.net/%7Eprs/neocon.html
The humor in this is that fascism isn't all bad, just as conservatism and liberalsim aren't all bad - there's a lot of good mixed in there with the bad.
I think it's a matter of degree where conservatism or liberalism can be corrupted into fascism - or Soviet Comunism (which could be considered a fascist state with institutionalized worship of the state replacing religion)
Of course, I don't study the fine differences between one or the other like you do - if it's not obvious, I probably don't see it - but the duck test still works for me - no matter that you call it a horse, if it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck!
This author doesn't understand what neoconservatism is, with all due respect to him.
For starters:
"Central to the Neo-Conservative ideology is the belief in a market driven economy with few barriers to trade, the promotion of economic growth, deregulation of many aspects of business, smaller role of government and Judeo-Christian values towards the family. Neo-Conservatives have a passionate philosophical conflict with the Democratic Party in as much
as it promotes liberalism that is characterized in policies such as those that were part of the New Deal."
NeoConservatives believe very much in large government and the welfare state. Irving Kristol and Co. state so themselves with regularity. Many of them are former Democrats or former Trotskyites, all with big-government, social democrat roots. Where they differ from traditional Democrats is in their desire to place militarism at the forefront, and their techniques for doing so. (The part of liberalism they don't like is the individualist aspect of the ideology.)
As for basing society on Judeo-Christian values, this is highly debatable. At the core of this argument is the study upon which neoconservative thought was borne. These folks studied Strauss, Machiavelli and others like this, each of whom believes it is the duty of the leadership to promote religiosity, but are not advised to actually believe it. Religious beliefs create cohesion and dutifullness among citizens, and are thus a useful tool for leaders.
(I don't consider Bush to be a true NeoConservative, but rather, the convenient figurehead appointed by the NeoConservatives.)
For starters:
"Central to the Neo-Conservative ideology is the belief in a market driven economy with few barriers to trade, the promotion of economic growth, deregulation of many aspects of business, smaller role of government and Judeo-Christian values towards the family. Neo-Conservatives have a passionate philosophical conflict with the Democratic Party in as much
as it promotes liberalism that is characterized in policies such as those that were part of the New Deal."
NeoConservatives believe very much in large government and the welfare state. Irving Kristol and Co. state so themselves with regularity. Many of them are former Democrats or former Trotskyites, all with big-government, social democrat roots. Where they differ from traditional Democrats is in their desire to place militarism at the forefront, and their techniques for doing so. (The part of liberalism they don't like is the individualist aspect of the ideology.)
As for basing society on Judeo-Christian values, this is highly debatable. At the core of this argument is the study upon which neoconservative thought was borne. These folks studied Strauss, Machiavelli and others like this, each of whom believes it is the duty of the leadership to promote religiosity, but are not advised to actually believe it. Religious beliefs create cohesion and dutifullness among citizens, and are thus a useful tool for leaders.
(I don't consider Bush to be a true NeoConservative, but rather, the convenient figurehead appointed by the NeoConservatives.)
xpanda said:
We'll have to agree to disagree.
This reminds me of a period in the early 90's in Masasachusetts when the Democrat pro-lifers changed parties and made an attempt to take over the Republican party and get their pro-life candidate elected governor. They never recognized that NorthEast Republicans are bigger social liberals than are NorthEast Democrats and they failed miserably, allowing Bill Weld to ascend to the governors seat.
The nation often makes the same mistake when looking at Republicans - assuming the "conservative" mantle covers all of them, when the facts are that the Republican party covers the ideological spectrum, from Northeast liberal to southern conservative - and everything in between.
Sorry, this author doesn't really get it. If you look at his list of references, there isn't a neoconservative book on the list.
Try NeoConservatism by the man who fathered the movement. It is in stark contrast to your author's interpretation.
Try NeoConservatism by the man who fathered the movement. It is in stark contrast to your author's interpretation.
xpanda said:
No thanks - it'll just confuse me. I've always considered myself a new deal Democrat that believes in traditional AMERICAN values - in other words, A Reagan Republican. Over the years, I've been given, and I've assumed the label of conservative - and that's ok - I like the label - it fits and feels comfortable like and old, thread worn sweat shirt.
What galls me is that so many liberals like to use the old "progressive" monicker to define themselves, yet all that I see is tax and spend and chase failed programs while supporting a bloated buraucracy and catering to groups of social deviants while repudiating organized Christian religion and traditional AMERICAN values.
I just love politics!
