News Snipet 'Blog

You're right--I don't get it. (And I don't equate liberalism with socialism.) Why is it popular to call terrorists Islamofacists? Surely not because they care about women's rights, the environment, or the poor.

I associate hard-line (so-called) "conservatives" more with fascism than I do liberals. (I am NOT calling conservatives fascists, so don't bother going there.) The dictionary definition of fascism includes this: ". . . and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." When has the Left ever been accused of belligerent nationalism? Aren't they generally branded as America-haters? And hasn't the Left worked against racism? (Strom Thurmond was a conservative, as I recall, as was Jesse Helms.) I think of fascists as law-and-order run amok--civil liberties undone in the name of security. It's not liberals trying to snoop through your check-outs at the local library.

I really think there's a disconnect somewhere in how we talk to each other and how we perceive the other. I want to be left alone--no Big Brother poking through my bank records, my bookstore purchases, or my trash. You know I consider myself a left-centrist (for whatever that means), yet you seem to identify the "stay out of my life" crowd as inherently conservative. I don't. When I think of marching over the little guy, I think of J. Edgar Hoover and the current trend of using eminent domain to support big business ventures--and those certainly are not associated with liberalism.

What I suspect is that Conservatives are no longer particularly conservative and that Liberals are not as liberal as they used to be. Maybe we need some new definitions.

 

Hi EP!

Great comment. I think that I can help a little. I taught political science, and did it kind of backward from most. I had developed a model that works well and aids one in understanding the cyclical nature of political systems.

I used a crude version of it in this post:

News Snipet 'Blog: THE LIBERAL BUSH ADMINISTRATION

One of my ("unspell checked", and unedited) comments was published by a left blog (friends of mine) at www.neolibs.com (it is the December 23 post). (Please keep in mind that they published my comment--it wasnt really an article).

I think in all reality the majority of America functions in the middle (at least about 50%) with the rest making up the fringe left (I would say about 30% left and 20% right --what I define as right). You and I for example would be more alike than not.

You are absolutely right, though, about terminology. We can look at the term conservative and liberal in purist terms, but all they mean is that one wants to stay and the other wants to go. If one lives in a democracy for example, the conservative wants to stay there and it is the liberal who wants to move toward fascism. If one lives in dictatorship, then it is the liberal who wants to move toward democracy.

The key to evaluating American liberalism vs. conservatism, is that real American conservatives want to preserve the foundations of liberty and democracy. Liberals, in the name of progress, want to empower government to deal on a more collective level (socialism) and of course the move toward egalitarianism takes one away from individualism. It is a quandry, and a dilemma many liberals face when advocating programs and initiatives based on collectivism. A good study of Fabianism may be entertaining when you have a minute.

Anyhow, I have left you with a to much to read as usual.

Kindest regards!

-Jack

p.s. I am in the middle of our busiest season at work. I do quarterly SEC reports for 12 corporations, and it is crunch time. Will try to get back to a little more of the Snipet's intended format after the end of March.

 

That was very helpful, Jack. And I didn't know that your area was poli-sci. Hang in there with your SEC reporting--we'll look for more regular blogging when you come up for air.

 

Jack, I need an illustration as to how/why. I had a great discussion with my poli sci professor after class one day during my senior year of college. It was about how the Nazis were known as fascists yet they were called the National Socialists. I cant recall the details of the chat, sadly enough. I remember some but not the most important parts. For one, I know fascism is a right-wing authoritarian form of government, and socialism is a leftist economic philosophy, something along those lines. Educate your ol boy Danny M/Chickenhawk. (This is not a self-Valerie Plame name leak; my name is in my blogger profile)

For the record, I am sympathetic to Hugo Chavez and the plight of Venezuela. It's one of the countries that Ive read up quite a bit on, and its been through some extremely hard times which I feel justify Chavez's philosophies. I have always found it odd that our government was making a concerted effort to link Chavez to al Qaeda and bin Laden for some time, then just stopped and moved on to Iraq... but thats not the point of my post, Im more interested in Jack's model here again. Its a great model and Ive never seen anything else like it that attempts to answer questions.

That was a plug for Jack Mercer's political model

 

Ha! CH, you always bring a smile to my face, and the News Snipet Blog!

I guess the thing to always remember that the move away from democracy is always incremental and rarely intentional. Many on the left want to empower the government to accomplish a social agenda, but do not realize that in doing so they empower it for far more than that. Fascism is the opposite of democracy, and a move in either direction away from it leads us there ultimately. One can advocate that the move there from the left or "liberal" direction requires less bloodshed than proceeding in the right, but the result is ultimately the same. CH, the problem is that governments rarely are content to stop at socialism and proceed to communism then are but a step away from fascism. There is little difference between a Marxist and a Nazi--Naziism just having an ethnic component to it.

CH, democracy places its faith in humanity and its potential. Any other model discounts that in varying degrees. I am having a conversation with Smorg and he made an interesting statement. In a discussion concerning Social Security he said, "My original point was that it is good to have something in place to force (as government does) people to save. Otherwise, many people simply won't and we'll pay more for it down the line." Where Smorg and I differ is that I believe in human potential and resilience, and think that if people were not looking toward a government pension then they would be saving for the future. Smorg's assumption is that people won't and therefore should be forced to take care of themselves or he will have to.

So what's the reality? If you knew that you had to save for your retirement in order to eat, would you? Or since you believe that the government will keep you up later on you don't bother to save?

My mindset tells me that enabling destroys initiative and eventually enslaves one to a system or a government. I am a strong individualist and realize that the more independent I am, the freer I am, and the less a government will have in telling me how to live my life.

So the progression goes--contemporary liberalism embracing the tenets of socialism leading us further and further down the road to fascism. I am not a conspiracy kook, but honestly feel that I will witness global fascism in my lifetime. We have seen it cycle time and again on smaller scales, in smaller nations, and as America, the last bastian of democracy begins to crumble we will see the world follow suit. Not encouraging I know, but I think that a few friends agree with me...Plato for one--although he never predicted it on a global scale.

CH, I think this is more common sense than anything, and instinctively you know it. Even though we look at it on a macro scale, the day to day incremental changes happen on a micro level. These can be seen in the erosion of Constitutional rights and the blurring of the separation of powers. This started long before Bush and is the aim of both of our parties at large. Keep in mind, CH, that the politician is rare in 2005 who has the interest of his people in mind over his own ambition and power.

Well, I'm rambling now, and need to stop. Look forward to your thoughts!

-Jack

I am in the process of writing another Snipet on this very topic. Will holler when its done.

 

To me, having the government "look after" some of my money (Social Security) and saving for my own welfare are not mutually exclusive. I do hope to get something back from Social Security after all I've paid into it, but I can't even imagine making that my only retirement plan.

 

Hi EP!

The only problem is that the government isn't looking after your money. They are giving it to current SS recipients, and also its politicians are spending it on special interest to for influence peddling. Social Security, contrary to what most people believe or understand, is not a savings plan--it is a wealth reallocation plan that has no future guaranteed return.

Keep saving, EP! As the program exists it will not be available to you until you are 80 :)

-Jack

 

At least we dont embrace Pat Robertson....by the way, there is nothing wrong with Danny Glover, his role in Lethal Weapon 3 has made him a good household name!!! :)

 

I like Pat Robertson. He just says what most of us are too gutless to say. He most certainly doesn't belong in the same breath as Glover, Penn, Steisand, et al. He actually knows what's going on in tyranical regimes and refused to be blinded by left-wing propaganda.

As far as the communist leanings of the liberal elite, big shock. Thy don't mind wealth redistribution and oppression of the people as long as they and their talent-driven lifestyles aren't affected. It's hypocrisy at its finest. At least us conservatives are honest. We want to keep ours and let you keep yours, and we'll actually give generousl to charity so don't need government to throw away good money after bad.

 

LOL, Jack. I know they're not "managing" it--it's actually somewhat like a Ponzi scheme, isn't it? Still, I like to believe I'll get a little something out of the system someday. If not, they should let me write off all those years' contributions as charitable deductions.

 

How does Pat Robertson know whats going on in tyrannical regimes? It appears to me he doesn't. Otherwise he would have cancelled the 700 Club himself long before now. He does refuse to be blinded by left-wing progaganda, good for him. But he happily acceps right-wing propaganda, isnt that for sure?

"As far as the communist leanings of the liberal elite, big shock. Thy don't mind wealth redistribution and oppression of the people as long as they and their talent-driven lifestyles aren't affected"

you really need to clarify that.

 

You know Chewbacca, youre right! I see the light and its all beginning to make sense. Thank you!!!!


p.s. loved you in Revenge of the Sith

 

Was that Chewbacca? He looked so...young!