Everybody can quote from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. You don’t often hear the first part cited.
That helps make it fresh each time I read it. This time, I was struck by the last words of the intro:
… a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
As you know, there is no greater supporter of our nation’s involvement in Iraq than I. But I’ve also been bitterly disappointed by mistakes the Bush administration makes, and continues to make, in prosecuting the war.
I do believe that ultimately, the United States and the "coalition of the willing" should go ahead and do what needs to be done, with or without the blessings of the likes of France and Germany. But I believe also that the administration could have done more to show "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" than it has done. That’s one reason why I think Donald Rumsfeld should have been dumped a long time ago.
Too many of the president’s supporters say "to hell with the rest of the world." They shouldn’t. Yes, we must do what we must do. But we doom ourselves to ultimate failure, and loss of the leadership position that makes us effective, if we don’t show some of the humility in the face of our fellow men that came naturally to those brave souls who signed the Declaration.
They weren’t asking anybody’s permission. But they did want to be understood, and explained themselves eloquently.
We could do with a lot more such eloquence today. The two photos, both taken today, show the options. We’re much better off, and much better able to fulfill our mission in the world, if we are seen the way we are in the photo at top — a statue of Jefferson being unveiled in Paris. The picture below shows a protest in Denmark over Guantanamo. Anything we do to encourage the latter view of us if harmful to the United States, and to the rest of the world — which, whether it wants to or not, depends upon us and the choices we make.
Related Posts
“As you know, there is no greater supporter of our nation’s involvement in Iraq than I.”
Yeah there are.
Jerome, Ware, Jr., was one.
In fact, I can’t think of a lesser supporter of our nation’s involvement in Iraq than you, unless your definition of “support” is “taking no action, shouldering no burden, and making no sacrifice.”
A World Without America
By Peter Brookes
For all the worldwide whining and bellyaching about the United States, today – America’s 230th birthday – provides an opportune time for them to consider for just a moment what the world might be like without good ol’ Uncle Sam.
The picture isn’t pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside the differences America made last century – just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001.
CLICK HERE for the rest of the piece.
These people probably weren’t so excited about the Declaration of Independence:
>He has excited domestic insurrections
>amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring
>on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the
>merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule
>of warfare, is an undistinguished
>destruction of all ages, sexes and
>conditions.
Aren’t those the same terms we now use for the terrorists?
Yeah, it was the indians’ fault that they were subject to mass genocide.
90% of the tribal peoples of North America were killed off by diseases borne by Spanish and French explorers, 100 years before England colonized the New World.
Liberals have plenty of real things of their own doing about which to feel guilty, instead of shifting their guilt feelings to historical myths, whereby they can blame nameless ancestors of someone else.
The same people who protest Gitmo would protest even moreso when they find out that the detainees will for the most part be executed when returned to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other lands. But then, since the anti-Americans wouldn’t have Gitmo to be against, what next? Maybe back to protests because we listened to Zarqawi’s cell calls, and now we have even looked at whose numbers he had in memory. Compared to our enemies beheading people, Americans are treating people horribly like at Abu Graib. Yes, the liberals have turned logic on its head.
Lexwolf, that is an interesting piece about the world without America. I think he forgot to mention S. America which would turn into a bloody continent of war as the Communists saw the opportunity to enslave hundreds of millions of free people.
You mean, the way Chavez and Morales are trying to do even as we speak?
And yes, that is a good column. A little chip-on-the-shoulder in tone, perhaps, but sometimes our friends overseas can make us feel that way.
“But I believe also that the administration could have done more to show “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” than it has done.”
Back to your point, Brad. Reasonable people can quibble about whether the US should have shown more decent respect in recent years but nobody can deny that we have gone to great, great lengths to consult with our allies and the UN.
Unfortunately those worthies far too often wouldn’t cooperate with us even if we performed handstands and did cartwheels for them. For example, as we now know, there were very good reasons why Russia, Germany and France refused to cooperate with us against Saddam. This refusal led to a very unnecessary war that could have been avoided easily if all these countries had presented a united front towards Saddam.
Americans have some type of need to be liked by other countries, while many of those other countries operate on pure self-interest. If we ever came close to their amoral approach to the world’s problems the world would really be in bad shape. Can anyone honestly say that if the US didn’t exist and Russia, France, Germany, China, or India were in our position, that those countries would do a better job at consulting with others than we are currently doing? Most of those countries have little respect for their own populations, let alone the people of other countries.
Christopher Hitchens: This July Fourth, ignore polls on America’s image
Here’s what I want to know, and here’s why I want to know it. At what point in history, exactly, did the Pew Center decide that it knew how to measure world opinion?
I ask this because almost every week I seem to read a study of how the rest of the globe thinks (or at any rate feels) about the United States. The polls in this country are unreliable enough and are often used to measure intangibles, such as “approval ratings,” which is why there is so much fluctuation within and between them. But who’s doing the random samples in Somalia and Tajikistan and Ecuador?
I ask because these polls tend to inform Americans that the rest of the world has a decidedly low view of them. That this is true in large parts of the Middle East, and among large swathes of European intellectuals, is something that I can already tell you from experience.
For that matter, it was at one point true that the majority of Pakistanis, say, believed not just that all Jews had left the World Trade Center on time, but that (therefore) they had all reported for work on time, hung around for a bit — presumably whistling and wearing unconcerned expressions — and only then left; doubtless offering some clever Semitic excuse. Not even al-Qaida’s pilots had as exact a schedule as that.
Nonetheless, and despite the absurdity and hysteria of much of what is said and believed, we seem almost ready for a poll of Americans on what they think the rest of the world thinks of them in opinion polls, where the “finding” would be that most of those Americans polled think that most other people polled think they stink.
There are several possible responses to this.
One of them — no doubt to be found in the presumed “red states” — is to say “who gives a flying flip?” Another is not to surrender to impressionism, and to do some work of one’s own.
Large numbers in India, for example (another multiethnic federal and secular democracy), report highly favorable views of the U.S.
A very important poll in Iran (where polling is illegal) found that a huge majority of Iranians considered better relations with America to be the single most urgent priority. One of those who conducted the survey was a former American embassy hostage-taker, who was jailed for publishing his findings.
Then there is the question of method…….
CLICK HERE for the rest of the column.
The following screed of mine appeared in The State on Wednesday, 11/27/2002. It was a response to a column by an individual who’d been out of the country and was appalled by the low opinion foreigners she encountered had of the US. I did not dispute what these folks said — hey, folks say all sorts of things — but tried to conclude with one objective fact: what country above all others do folks want to immigrate to? I don’t pretend to best Hitchens in any regard. I just want to add my two cents worth by sharing what I wrote to fit within The State’s 500-word limit.
World opinion one thing, facts another
Anne Knight’s plaintive column, “World’s voice on American actions often goes unheard” (Nov. 17), depicts the updated ugly American surrounded by foreigners expressing opinions 180 degrees out of sync with what she knows. She asks, why don’t we Americans pay more attention to world opinion? That’s a great question, but here’s a better one: Why don’t the world’s elites pay more attention to what their citizens really need, think and desire?
One need not be a Jacksonian (America first, in short) to disregard foreign criticism of U.S. policy; most objections can be found – if they in fact don’t originate – in left-wing, right-wing and right down the vertebra publications within our borders. The problem is that the criticisms are too often supported only by shallow arguments that don’t discuss the foundations of U.S. policy.
The attacks look like political campaign messages, where 30-second sound bites supplant reasoned discourse. In this game, world domination goes to the side that has the best bumper stickers; the substance, however, is the bumpers, and we’ve got ’em.
She’s entirely correct that American agricultural subsidies disproportionately benefit American farms to the detriment of needy African farmers; I’d add that U.S. consumers lose, too. But the free trade that the U.S. traditionally boosts is hamstrung by domestic politics seeking to protect jobs and wealth, as the machinations of the textile industry in the Carolinas demonstrate. Now that the administration has trade promotion authority, free-trade initiatives are underway. Africa could have to wait, and that’s sad. But it’s the United States, not the world elite, that is the world’s most powerful free-trade advocate.
U.S. trade policies are not the primary cause of hate-America attitudes. Ms. Knight finds that U.S. support for Israel is an overriding issue, followed closely by our arrogance in opposing international treaties.
Let’s look first at those pesky Jews. Israel is the only democracy in the area; its Arab citizens have rights that citizens of neighboring countries do not; and its previous prime minister offered the Palestinians’ leader, Yasser Arafat, just about everything that he demanded, only to be met by a firm refusal. The Palestinian leadership seems to have lost the diskette that had their charter; the phrase calling for the elimination of Israel remains. President Bush’s decision to ignore Arafat now seems to be accepted by the European elites who’d been ignoring Arafat’s dissembling and embezzlement.
Finally, few compare Israeli actions to those of other Arab nations, for example, Jordan’s quite brutal and indiscriminate repression of Palestinians. Israel is free, even after 15,000 terrorist attacks.
What about U.S. disdain for treaties? We can’t sign the land mine treaty because we are being honest about needing mines in Korea; besides, we don’t leave them lying about like others do. Kyoto? If the earth is warming, are humans are the cause, or is it part of a natural cycle? Kyoto is based on 1) models that to date don’t work with real world data, and 2) political considerations designed to damage the U.S. economy.
By using 1990 as the baseline year, Europeans benefit because the former Warsaw Pact nations were still pumping out noxious emissions from inefficient factories that have since closed. Even if humans are responsible for global warming, Kyoto’s outrageously expensive diktats will postpone peak warming by only six years. Oh, and Kyoto leaves out India and China, significant contributors to the CO2 problem that Kyoto is meant to fix. Even the Africans are cool to this treaty because they need economic development.
The administration objects to the International Criminal Court because we can’t sign in good faith. As the world’s hyperpower, we deploy forces all over all of the time, often at the request of others. As a practical matter, we can’t allow our troops to be at the mercy of a politically driven process that would go after a Pinochet or Kissinger but not a Castro, Amin or Mugabe. As a legal matter, the ICC treaty violates U.S. constitutional protections: the Fifth Amendment would not allow us to hand any citizen over.
If we Americans “see the world in a breathtakingly limited, self-involved way,” it’s due in part to our unique Constitution that protects individual rights. World elites are undermining protections Americans hold sacred.
We can say and write without fear of prosecution, while citizens of Canada, the U.K., or (if the EU has its way) EU member states may not, simply because we don’t make exceptions for the feelings of others. Ironically, while it was our English heritage that put the right for trial by jury into our constitution, today the Brits are removing that guarantee from their system.
We probably are “largely culturally illiterate” in comparison to the rest of the world. But for all of our bad, crude, selfish ways, where is it that most of the world’s non-elites would like to live? Let’s hear the answer.
A professor friend of mine just spent 3 weeks as an official guest of a Chinese university. They gave him the complete tour of the urban areas like Beijing and the remote farm towns. He came back with a completely different perception of China. Prior to going, all he was reading was look out for the Chinese empire, amazing progress, growth, power, etc. What he observed was different in many ways. Many people from 50 years on up congregating in little town squares day after day, where the government has little exercise programs, music, and discussions for these “forced” retirees who have no pension or social security. The govt. is forcing them off the job so that the young and restless can be put into jobs. Their lives have been written off. Pollution. He said you will nearly gag as you leave a hotel or govt. building and hit outside air. It is sort of a yellowish smog with an acrid stench. Things we take for granted like dentistry are nearly unheard of in China. While central planning has the urban areas growing and bustling, the rural areas are suffering and not progressing at all. The bottom line is he said 80% of the Chinese, if possible, would move to the USA immediately. Most of those who visit or come here to educate would rather stay permanently. China represents the miserable failures of the socialist and communist experiment, yet many liberals in America would move our nation in that direction. If anything, many Americans are really naive about the rest of the world, and do not appreciate the true success of our economic and political systems.
Brad, Mary’s right. You say: “I do believe that ultimately, the United States and the “coalition of the willing” should go ahead and do what needs to be done.” What exactly do you propose?
You are adament in your support of the war yet offer nothing concrete in the way of achieving success. You suggest the president has made huge mistakes and that Rumsfeld should resign (or be fired). But basically you’re just proposing re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You really miss the big picture. The stay-the-course plan cannot possibly succeed. Whether or not Rumsfeld is in power, whether or not we have a bit more support world-wide. If we’re going to fight then you should propose an all-in strategy. The stay-the-course strategy is the worst of all approaches to this thing.
Why don’t you propose a big tax increase to fund the war. Also, if it’s so important, why don’t we bring back the draft and let everyone’s children be subject to participation? If we’re going to fight this thing, let’s go all out. It’s crystal clear that: Stay-the-Course = Defeat
In practice, President Bush’s statement that American troops will have to remain in Iraq until at least 2009 means that “Stay-the-Course” can be translated, “Leave ’em there until the next President can withdraw ’em, at which time we can criticize HIM for cutting-and-running.” It’s time for average Americans to say “Put up or shut up, Mr. President. When you send Jenna and Barbara to Iraq, when you propose a gasoline tax hike to pay for the additional costs of the war, then we’ll listen to you.”
I do believe that ultimately, the United States and the “coalition of the willing” should go ahead and do what needs to be done
What, exactly, “needs to be done?” I wonder if any of the administration’s supporters are capable of expressing this in anything other than noble-sounding but vague generalities such as “Stay the course!” “Stand firm!” etc.
Dave, your description of China sounds remarkably like the American dream of George W. Bush. He and his republican colleques have trashed pollution standards. The minimum wage (and all other wages for that matter) are stagnant. Health care is in disarray, benefiting only hospitals, insurance companies and pharmacuical firms. Bush tried his best to undermine social security. But thankfully, thanks to the democrats (for now at least) he failed. And of course Enron and others are doing their best to wipe out company pensions.
The corporate welfare system we now have is beginning to look a lot like socialism. Yes, that’s right, the conservative movement in this country is turning the USA into a hybrid form of socialism. How ironic. After years of listening to all the crap from the right about how liberalism is moving us in the direction of a welfare state it’s only when the republicans take control that the nation moves toward a true socialist state. The only difference is that conservatives are using capitalism as a front for their socialist agenda. A good name for this movement would be Caposocialism.
Great job George, you’ve turned the Red states into something closely resembling Red China, complete with pollution, low wages, poor working conditions for many workers and lost pensions.
Great rant, Bud. Now if only it were true!
Bud, you must live in a whole different world. I was beginning to have some faith in you. Greatest economy ever, great new drug program for seniors (which I havent decided was a good idea or not), zillions of acres and miles of ocean in Hawaii added to the national trust, and still you complain. You really need to live in Red China for about a year, then you would beg to come back here, and thank your lucky stars you have George Bush in charge.
I thought bud liked socialism, especially of the public school and welfare variety.
It is truly sad to see how increasingly, the American “Can Do” attitude is becoming the American “Can’t Do” attitude.
America needs a grand and glorious national goal for this 21st century. A grand and glorious national goal that shall ignite the American spririt and the imagination for generations of Americans to come.
America needs to set a great big American goal, set a date, and shoot for the moon.
Be it known to all mankind that July 4, 2020 shall be declared American Energy Independence Day.**
AN INDEPENDENCE DAY PLAN FOR KICKING THE FOREIGN OIL CAN
http://aimnewmedia.net/charalambous/
forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=2943
http://aimnewmedia.net/charalambous/
forum/viewtopic.php?
forum=3&showtopic=2894
Isn’t is time we finally set about the task of doing it…the American way?
By means of the above plan or any other plan, set a date and do it.
** The calendar was wide open. Anyone could have jumped on this blantantly obvious opportunity. You’d a thunk that SOME politician would gotten around to blurting out a date.
Our lack of a rational immigration policy has created more pollution and energy use than anything else. Since 1970, the population has increased by 110,000,000 due to immigrants, illegal aliens, and their offspring.
Currently, we have over 23,000,000 illegal aliens in America, burning gasoline, drinking water, producing sewerage and litter. And they have absolutely no right to be here.
The CC, I like your idea. A Manhattan/Apollo approach to energy independence is what we need. With a barrel of oil going for $75 we are certainly throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the oil rich nations. And much of this winds up in the hands of potential terrorists.
In 2001, President Bush increased alternative energy research tenfold over the Clinton budget. The problem with most of it is that the fuels and devices are too expensive, because they are so inefficient to produce.
Proper tire inflation would save more energy than higher CAFE standards.
What’s So Great About America?
By Dinesh D’Souza
The newcomer who sees America for the first time typically experiences emotions that alternate between wonder and delight. Here is a country where everything works: The roads are paper-smooth, the highway signs are clear and accurate, the public toilets function properly, when you pick up the telephone you get a dial tone. You can even buy things from the store and then take them back if you change your mind. For the Third World visitor, the American supermarket is a marvel to behold: endless aisles of every imaginable product, 50 different types of cereal, multiple flavors of ice cream, countless unappreciated inventions like quilted toilet paper, fabric softener, roll-on deodorant, disposable diapers.
The immigrant cannot help noticing that America is a country where the poor live comparatively well. This fact was dramatized in the 1980s, when CBS television broadcast an anti-Reagan documentary, “People Like Us,” which was intended to show the miseries of the poor during an American recession. The Soviet Union also broadcast the documentary, with the intention of embarrassing the Reagan administration. But it had the opposite effect. Ordinary people across the Soviet Union saw that the poorest Americans had television sets and cars. They arrived at the same conclusion that I witnessed in a friend of mine from Bombay who has been trying unsuccessfully to move to the United States for nearly a decade. I asked him, “Why are you so eager to come to America?” He replied, “Because I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat.”
The point is that the United States is a country where the ordinary guy has a good life. This is what distinguishes America from so many other countries.
CLICK HERE for the rest of this great column.
Does World Opinion Really Matter?
July 6th, 2006
Since September 11, 2001, I have often wondered how, say, Frenchmen, Britons, and Swedes, would have behaved if, instead of destroying New York’s World Trade Center, terrorists had killed nearly 3,000 people in attacks on the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the area around Big Ben in London or the Swedish Parliament in Stockholm. I already know how the Spaniards reacted when the terrorists kill hundreds in Madrid.
Since September 11, 2001, I have also believed that we should be very wary of European public opinion, especially when it is in its anti-American mode.With few exceptions, Europe’s elites, particularly on the left, always have been publicly contemptuous (and privately jealous) of the United States. They have always mocked our diversity, our informality, our social mobility, and our appeal to the huddled masses of the world……
Clearly, when the U.S. enters something as momentous as the war on terrorism, for example, it is obliged to to explain and, if possible, justify its actions. But when Thomas Jefferson admonished us, in the Declaration of Independence, to afford “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” he did not mean blind obedience to the opinions of mankind, including the part of mankind who live in Europe.
CLICK HERE for the whole column.
Lee, you’re a fine one to talk about socialism. Where would you be if you had to depend on your own initiative and industry for your survival? Where would South Carolina be without its flood of federal handouts?
But one thing you said helps to illustrate why people remain conservatives, even though conservatism has an unbroken legacy of failure. You characterize public education as “socialist”. That’s ridiculous, but it helps to suggest that you will excuse all of the numerous and manifest failures of conservatism by claiming that the various policies were insufficiently conservative. If that’s true, then it doesn’t matter why conservatism is a failure, we can count on it to fail. One possibility is that (as seems obvious by looking at the uneducated, shiftless, freeloading populations of conservative states) conservatism fails because of inherent deficiencies.
If, on the other hand, the failures of conservatism arise from insufficient orthodoxy, it has to be because conservatism is such a hothouse flower that it wilts at the slightest adversity.
In any case, I think we can look at your own life and those of your fellow conservatives, and realize that whatever the reason, conservatism is an unequivocal failure.
Heh. It’s Mary again, practicing not denial this time, but projection.
Explain to me why whenever a government program fails spectularly, the Left’s solution is to throw gobs and gobs more money at it?
Also explain to us why the Left originated political correctness and campus speech codes if it’s so sure of itself? Is the Left so fragile and unsure of itself that it can’t tolerate any dissent?
And why has the Left entered the apparent status of permanent minority party if it is such a success?
If the current status of conservatism is an “unequivocal failure” then please, please, please, give us more of that “failure”!
“The newcomer who sees America for the first time typically experiences emotions that alternate between wonder and delight. Here is a country where everything works: The roads are paper-smooth, the highway signs are clear and accurate, the public toilets function properly, when you pick up the telephone you get a dial tone.”
Lex, who’s living in denial? The D’Souza fluff piece paints a slanted picture of fat happy poor people in America that own color TVs and drive automobiles. But comparing the poor in the U.S. with India or Russia is simply not valid. Let’s compare the poor slum dwellers of Williamsburg County with the poorest folks in Holland or Belgium. I’m sure we wouldn’t come across nearly so well. It’s easy for people with good jobs who drive nice cars and live in the suburbs to revel in the glory of capitalism, but the fact remains real wages are falling and both personal and government debt is soaring.
We’re in much better shape than rural China, India or Sub-Saharan Africa, that’s true. But in terms of most health measures, education and leisure time we’re gradually falling behind other First World Countries. Only the resiliency of the American worker has allowed us to weather the storm of Bush’s capitosocialism experiment. But for how long?
Lex, I notice you don’t give any examples of failed government programs that the left “throws money at,” and you don’t give any examples or details of political correctness and campus speech codes, or explain why they are attributable to “the left”. I have heard of college standards of conduct that include provisions against racist insults, but I am at a loss to understand how such provisions have anything to do with suppressing dissent from “the left.”
As for continuing conservative failure, well, those who live in South Carolina, can, I think, can count on it. South Carolina’s conservative policies insure that South Carolina will, as they have for so many years already, continue to produce an uneducated, unhealthy, shiftless population, dependent on subsidies and handouts paid for by federal taxes extracted from the citizens of liberal states.
Lexie foolishly gloats:And why has the Left entered the apparent status of permanent minority party if it is such a success?
Liberalism will never become a “permanent minority party.” The bankruptcy of conservatism and hubris of people like Dear Leader and yourself will assure its resurgence.
The only question is how much damage will capitosocialism (hat tip to bud) inflict on America and Americans. How much credit card debt to the Chinese will Dear Leader sink us in? How many rights and liberties will we forfeit. How long will we hemorrhage money to terrrorists because Big Oil bankrolled Dear Leader’s political ambitions?
Capitosocialism,
Hmm, Robin Hood in reverse. You’ve coined quite a useful word bud. Thanks.
Most real liberals gave up trying to sell their ideology in the 1930s, and partnered with the socialists to create fascism.
Hubert Humphrey, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and the two Bush presidents were the embodiment of a less agressive hybrid of liberalism and socialism.
The remnant of true liberalism is libertarianism, carrying the torch of von Mises, Friedman, Hess, and Hospers.
Right, Lee, we get it, the reason South Carolina’s conservative policies have failed is that they aren’t conservative ENOUGH. They deviate in some way or other from some imaginary ideal.
Like I said, it doesn’t matter whether conservatism fails because of its inherent defects, or if it fails because it’s such a hothouse flower that it can’t endure any deviation from the most rigid orthodoxy.
The end result is that conservatives wind up uneducated and shiftless, dependent for their survival on handouts from liberals.
Lee,
Where on earth do you get this stuff? Fascism and socialism are polar opposites. What bothers me about these kinds of comments is that there is a tiny kernel of truth to them, yet in totality they are absolutely false, and uninformed people may actually believe what you say. It’s true, in the beginning, there were some socialists involved with the fascists, but after fascist motives became clear, and after the socialist elements had been tortured, murdered, and inevitably crushed, then there was no longer any doubt that fascism and socialism were totally distinct and diametrically opposed philosophies. Mussolini, a turncoat socialist, switched sides. National Socialism was a deliberate misnomer used by the fascists to give fascism a revolutionary appeal (i.e., to fool ordinary people into thinking they were getting a kind of socialism). The fascists and the so-called National Socialists (The Nazis) despised and hated socialists and everything that socialism stood for. Fascism is a right wing movement-socialism is a left wing movement. Rich industrialists and capitalists funded fascism, and fascism’s core constituency came from the middle and upper middle classes, whereas socialism gained support from peasants, farm cooperatives, and unions. Fascism facilitates class and racial structure while trying to unify a stratified society against a common enemy; socialism on the other hand tries to eliminate class structure altogether.
For those concerned about countering revisionist history, here is an excellent speech from Michael Parenti (a true expert on the subject of fascism).
“In 1922, the Federazione Industriale, the leaders of industry,
along with top bankers and agribusiness associations, met with
Mussolini to plan the March on Rome, contributing 20 million
lira to the so-called “fascist revolution.” Within two years after
seizing state power, Mussolini had shut down all opposition
newspapers and crushed the socialist, liberal, Catholic,
democratic and republican parties, which together had
commanded about 80% of the vote. The fascists were never a
majority in Italy. Opposition leaders, union leaders and others
were beaten, exiled or murdered. The Italian Communist Party
endured the severest repression of all.”
Mark, like many socialistic liberals, you are in denial, probably due to sloganeering in the public schools. Meaningless terms like “right wing” and “left wing” substitute for sharp reality.
If fascism is not a form of socialism, what is it?
Mussolini was a communist who spit off to create his own movement, the Fascists. Hitler did the same, to create what he called, “socialism without internationalism”.
Those who consider themselves to be “liberal” and “progressive” avoid studying the rise of fascism, and its many supporters among the academics and so-called “intelligentsia” of Europe, England and the Northeastern US.
The fact that they were naive dupes, who were later betrayed by the thugs they had supported does not remove the glowing speeches and articles by liberals in support of fascism. I have a file drawer full of them, from FDR appointees, to the Ivy League, to the New York Times.
It is shame which has modern liberals are still attempting to rewrite history and disown their fascist and communist siblings.
Mark,
like most socialists or communists you deny any connection with national socialism or fascism even though your side is simply one side of the coin and they are the other. I’m also not sure why you would prefer to be on the socialist side considering that it’s responsible for killing at least 100 million people while Nazism/fascism killed “only” 20 million. For myself, I would want to be on the side of democracy and capitalism but hey, what do I know about the socialist mentality?
What’s the big significance of the fact that Nazis “despised and hated socialists”? Mao despised and hated the Soviets, too, and even went to war with them. Does that mean Mao wasn’t a communist? Or maybe the Soviets weren’t communists? Vietnam went to war with China in the late 1970s. They despised and hated each other, too , but surely you wouldn’t suggest that they weren’t both communists. In all three cases, simply a falling-out between comrades. Other than that there is very little difference between Nazis and communists/socialists.
Let’s look at the similarities:
1. both were totalitarian systems.
2. both killed many millions of people.
3. both ruthlessly crushed any opposition when they assumed power and suppressed any resistance thereafter.
4. both established numerous large camps to incarcerate, exploit and kill their opponents. The Nazis had the concentration camps. The Soviets had their Gulag. The Khmer Rouge had their Killing Fields.
5. both had extensive propaganda systems
6. both had cults of personality: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung/Kim Jong Il. In fact, I don’t know of any communist country without these monstrously huge portraits of the dictators everywhere.
7. Nazis and fascists had some rich industrialists funding them, as you say, although those people clearly had no choice in the matter and would have had that 3am knock on the door if they had refused. Socialists/communists just went whole hog and nationalized the whole shebang (and usually executed the businessmen on top of it). Seems like the Nazis have a slight edge there, wouldn’t you agree?
Then you say:
“socialism gained support from peasants, farm cooperatives, and unions. Fascism facilitates class and racial structure while trying to unify a stratified society against a common enemy; socialism on the other hand tries to eliminate class structure altogether.”
You mean support from the peasants who were killed by the millions and the unions that weren’t allowed to exist? Never forget that the whole Soviet Empire was brought down by people who wanted to form a real union instead of the sham outfits they were supposed to like.
Socialism has one of the tightest social structures known to Man. The elite gets everything its heart desires, all the while saying that they are just like everyone else, while the regular Schmoes have to make do with whatever is left over.
It is shame which has modern liberals are still attempting to rewrite history and disown their fascist and communist siblings.”
Not to mention their racist past, present and future.
Lee,
FYI. I’m not a liberal. I’m a social democrat (i.e., a democratic socialist). I know the difference between fascism and socialism. I grew up in a family full of New Dealers and Social Democrats who fought in WWII against the fascists. None of them ever talked like you do.
My dad was in a union right here in SC after the war. He grew up poor during the depression in a mill town-you can bet that his sympathies were with the democratic socialists of the time. He always credited the New Deal and the GI bill as having saved the country. He used to say, “You know, if things had not of changed after WWII, there would have been a revolution in the US. Once the GIs had fought the war and found out what they could really do, they weren’t willing to be treated like peasants anymore”.
I wish my long deceased Aunt Beck were still alive to hear you badmouth FDR-she’d set you straight. She supported my mom’s family during the depression. She understood what fascism was. She understood that free market policies and speculation had caused the Great Depression. My dad worked for the CCCs and his dad worked for the WPAs-they understood fascism and the failures of free market capitalism. This ain’t no liberal elite that I’m talking about here. I didn’t get this from sloaganeering at public school. I did however spend a great deal of time growing up talking with people who lived through the period, and they all had pretty much the same story. They used to talk about “Hoovervilles” and living hand to mouth-and they all voted democratic through the period.
I wish we could go back in time and that you would call my dad or one of my uncles a fascist (their way of looking at things concerning fascism is about the same as mine)-they’d set you straight.
I wish these people were still alive. They would set you straight in a heartbeat.
“I’m not a liberal. I’m a social democrat (i.e., a democratic socialist). I know the difference between fascism and socialism.”
Please explain your understanding of liberalism, social democracy, democratci socialism, fascism and socialism. Especially include any differences and similarities between these, just so we can be on the same sheet of music.
This is a facinating discussion. Frankly, many political movements may, at times, borrow from others that seem to run counter to the basic tenants of the movement. Mark, you’re quit correct in describing the differences between the Nazis and the Communists. However, the end results: persecution, intolerance, eventual failure as a movement was the same. I think with any political movement when those at the extreme end of the spectrum take control the movement is eventually doomed to fail.
And that brings me to my next point. The current conservative movement in the U.S. It began by promoting self-reliance, fiscal responsibility, smaller government (except for the military), less government involvement in business affairs. But it also had elements of social activism, even in the beginning. Abortion and gay rights issues are two that come to mind.
Whatever position you take on these various issues it is crystal clear that the current crop of conservative leaders in Washington, especially, G.W. Bush, have moved away from the discipline of the conservative movement into a new area, that until now, is somewhat uncharted terroritory. This new movement relies heavily on the government to hijack the nation’s economy in order to benefit a few, well connected wealthy individuals. This new movement uses many of the same fear and intimidation tactics employed by earlier, failed political movements. 9-11 was the key to furthering this movement. Many very intelligent people have been fooled, including Brad, into thinking we are in a real life or death struggle. In fact, we are really dealing with a law enforcement and diplomacy issue. (The recent Holland Tunnel plot that was foiled proves this point. The ringleader was arrested in Lebanon, not Iraq. Good intelligence nabbed the bad guys, not multi-billion dollar military operations.)
In the end, this capitosocialist movement will also fail. The question is how far will it go? How many rights do we have to give up? How much do CEOs have to make (in relation to workers) before people wake up? In the meantime, those of us who love the American ideals as spelled out in the constitution must continue to fight for these sacred principals.
In the short run the best solution is to vote for democrats in elections. Though by no means perfect they do at least exhibit some sense of moderation.
Bud, if you think the billions of dollars the US govt. is spending on technology and the tremendous increase in intelligence gathering due primarily the fact that we have people now running the government who consider protecting us priority number one is a coincidence, you are really naive. The Iraq war and foiling terrorist plots here, London, and everywhere are ALL connected. We don’t know what we don’t know of course but Zarqawi and Bin Laden both publicly announced that they ordered hits in the domestic USA. Because our military is doing such a super job in Iraq and Afghan. killing this subhuman scum while also capturing names, contacts, etc of their underlings, even here. How anyone could not connect all this is unreal to me. Then again, while Clinton was in office for 8 years, his admin. purposely and structurally implemented constraints so we could NOT have proper security intelligence.
As to the corporate greed rant, a guy named Warren Buffet, (one of those wealthy connected individuals you referenced) who accumulated $44 billion in his business dealings, is giving it all away. His choice, and he is one of the greedy businessmen that people like you like to stereotype. Same with Bill Gates, who the Clinton admin. spent 8 years suing to try to destroy a successful American business. Are there excesses? Yes. But does Streisand need to charge $300 per seat for the fans who want to hear her? Let the free market decide as it is doing with her and the Dixie Chicks. Concerts are being cancelled due to lack of sales for both. The market will moderate excesses and that is the way it should be.
If the government had “invested” the $150,000 that Warren Buffet began his fund with, the next year there would have been nothing left, let alone $44 BILLION for charity.
“Democratic socialism” usually has a few elections to find out who is part of the gang, then elections are cancelled. It’s a mental cop out for self-deception by people who are uncomfortable with how much ideology they share with Hitler and Stalin.
Lee, the loser leftists who have failed in life, because instead of studying demanding and difficult hard sciences they chose to major in sociology, Medieval History, psychology, and other pursuits of unneeded nonsense, now want to sit back and condemn “the wealthy”. When will these people ever take responsibility for their own poor decisions in life. Probably never but at least for now I can be grateful that they are in the minority.
…and going by their current antics they will stay in the minority for a very, very long time. They certainly can’t be entrusted with our national security.
The leftists don’t want the rights and responsibilities of defending themselves and their families, as required by the Seconnd Amendment.
They’ll be lined up around the block to get their hands on Buffet’s money.
Classic Lee: “The leftists don’t want the rights and responsibilities of defending themselves and their families, as required by the Second Amendment”. Lee, show me the words ‘required’ or ‘responsibilities’ in the second amendment. You really should quit making stuff up. No one is REQUIRED to own a gun.
Lex, all of us are losers thanks to the inept leadership of our current administration and congress. It’s only the left that recongnizes it.
If you look to the original intent and historical reasons for the Second Amendment, you will find that it comes from the English, German and Swiss requirements that every citizen be armed. Their laws specified the types of arms, the amount of arrows and bullets, and how much practice.
George Washington wanted the same mandates for America, but the others watered it down to what was fresh in their memory – the British attempts to disarm the citizens of Massachusetts. The first act passed by Congress was the Militia Act of 1792, which is still in force. It makes “every able-bodied man” a member of the militia of his state.
Lee you are so full of baloney. The second amendment is not very clear (the whole militia thing is very confusing) but one thing is crystal clear, the founding fathers did not mandate gun ownership.
Bud, there is at least one town in Georgia and one in Indiana where residents are REQUIRED to own a gun. That is the law.
bud, you a simply uninformed on the subject of the militia. I gave you some history. Go remediate yourself, instead of remaining a victim of public education.
You are a member of the militia of this state and of the United States of America, even before you join the State Guard, National Guard, Reserves, or full-time military services. The govenor can call you up tomorrow. That is the definition of “mandatory service”, whether you want to deny and shirk it.
The Second Amendment is only unclear to those unfamiliar with history and law. I stated clearly that the founders debated legislation making drill and details of arms mandatory, as they had been under English law, but only made membership in the militia mandatory and universal, leaving the details of drills and arms to the states, because the militias were all state militias until just before World War I.
The Mexican War and Civil War were fought with armies formed from state militias. Only the North instituted a federal draft and used European mercenaries.
In addition to “every able-bodied man, aged 17 to 45” being a member of the militia, they have a duty to defend their family and neighbors. In order to perform that duty, they have a duty to keep and bear the arms necessary.
Here’s a great comparison:
Concealed-carry Florida has the lowest crime rate since 1971
On the other hand, very strict gun-control Washington, DC, has just declared a “crime emergency” with 14 murders in just 2 weeks. Makes you wonder how all those criminals get the guns to kill all those people.
Just some food for thought. Obviously criminals respond to incentives and disincentives like everyone else. If they know their intended victim is likely unarmed, they are much more likely to go for it than if they know that their target might blow them away. Plain common sense, which is probably why liberals have such a hard time understanding it.
LW, those stats are explainable. Jeb and George Bush shipped all the Florida guns to DC so that all the killing would happen to blacks. This fits with the larger conspiracy to dynamite the NO levees so blacks would drown. What will they think of next, maybe direct a hurricane to Harlem. Just ask Calypso Louie Farrakhan or the NY Times.
If you want to see what America would look like if liberals, progressives and democratic socialists had unbridled control of all government, just look at any of the cities where they do: DC, Baltimore, Detroit, downtown Atlanta.
If you go to any of them at night unarmed, you are asking to be robbed and killed.
Lee, guilt ridden white liberals in the cities you mentioned either buy property way out in the suburbs as far from their minority masses as they can, or they move into fortified, 24 hour armed security complexes in the city limits, all the while calling conservatives racists for segregating from the minorities. That is so rich!!!!!!!!!!!
This white liberal is proud to have 3 children attending public school in Richland District 1.
I hope they get some remedial education on the US Constitution, so they don’t fail to grow up into patriotic Americans.
Bud, if you lived in inner city Atlanta, DC, or Detroit, sending your 3 kids to public schools would be tantamount to imposing a prison sentence on them. Think about that. Algore and Clinton did, and never let their kids attend public schools. Surprised?
Lee, my children are properly educated so they respect true American values. This education is done by their loving father.
Dave, I thought we were discussing education in South Carolina?
Good for you, bud, but a lot of us don’t think parents should have to remediate their children because of the poor citizenship taught by government schools. Schools should be teaching what made America great, and how it is supposed to work, not how it does work as a socialist perversion.