Fascists and Democrats (But I Repeat Myself)

_{Barry Arrington

November 13, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Over at ENV David Klinghoffer highlights the fascism problem in the Democratic party:

The question posed [in the Rasmussen survey] was:

“Should the government investigate and prosecute scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming?”

. . .

“In response, 27% of Democrats called for prosecuting global warming realists. (Remarkably, 11% of Republicans did, too.)”

The modern progressive movement (which is housed largely in the Democratic party in the US) was planted in the soil of fascism, as Jonah Goldberg has ably demonstrated in his Liberal Fascism.

It seems that the fascist impulse is never far from the center of Democratic politics.

Yes, one in ten Republicans said the same thing, which just shows that some people are in the wrong party, as anyone who has ever listened to John Kasich already knows.

Do 27% of Democrats support public book burnings if the books being burned dispute climate alarmism?

Speaking of book burnings, after 2.5 years I am still waiting for an answer to the question I posed here: Nick Matzke — Book Burner?

Comments

I bet all of the Republican senators and congressmen who championed the civil rights laws in the 1960s would say “no, that’s not fair.” I bet they would say, "How would I know what Republicans will believe in 2011? I live in 1964. Why look so far in the past?" And I bet they would also be disappointed that half a century was not enough time for the party to transcend the hideous, harmful version of social conservativism that is more concerned with racial purity than personal freedom. You've conveniently identified the moment when racist Democrats chose to become Republicans instead, where Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond found a home for their push for "states' rights." Not individual rights--states' rights. Specifically, the right to discrimination. Modern Republicans are not responsible for the sins of their fathers. But neither do they inherit their fathers' triumphs. If a quarter of racists doesn't damn the GOP, why do these poll results damn the Democrats? The most traditional reason of all: we're right and they're the enemy. No further reason is needed when reason isn't the reason for the attack. Are Republicans the party of personal freedom? Ask the conservatives who were furious when they lost the power to criminalize homosexual relations. If there's a party of personal freedom, surely it's the Libertarian Party. It's even in the name.Learned Hand_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Z, here: https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/on-good-government-justice-origins-issues-and-the-alleged-right-wing-creationist-christo-fascist-theocratic-threat/ KF PS: When it comes to the use of equality as a slogan, I simply point out the actual history of Communism with its toll in blood and tears, and the saying about some being more equal than others.kairosfocus_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand: I would say that most people (although not most scholars) place fascism on the side of the spectrum opposite themselves. People sometimes conflate means with the ideology. Authoritarians can be found on the left and the right, but authority is just a means. Extremists believe that the goals are worth the means, whether on the left or the right. But you're right that many people just use the term as a synonym for the forces of "darkness" or more usually authoritarianism. Barry Arrington: How do you explain the word “socialist” in the National Socialist Party? @21Zachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H, Way to miss the point Bob.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Zach,
Most scholars, then and now, placed fascism on the political right.
Yes, that is true, and it says more about "most scholars" than it does about fascism. How do you explain the word "socialist" in the National Socialist Party?Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Most scholars, then and now, placed fascism on the political right. Most people, then and now, placed fascism on the political right. Gee whiz, Mussolini placed fascism on the political right. I would say that most people (although not most scholars) place fascism on the side of the spectrum opposite themselves. Mahuna's analysis is fairly typical of the casual identity-protection most people do when asked to assess the political ideologies of people they dislike: our politics are freedom and light, their politics are slavery and darkness.Learned Hand_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: the pivotal issue is that the very fascists understood themselves to be socialists. The political left is generally defined as advocacy of equality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics The political right is generally defined as support for traditional hierarchies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics The fascists advocated for a highly hierarchical society with an absolute dictator and nationalist exceptionalism. Even if they implemented some aspects of socialism, their aim was far from egalitarian.Zachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

WJM @ 4 - The quotes for the MPI Institute for Meteorology are about the future, and were made in 2005 and 2009. The 2009 one in particular has to refer to 2010 at the earliest, and clearly they're looking even further into the future. So quotes from 2010 and 2007 don't really cut it. FWIW, the past couple of winters have been milder, at least in Frankfurt, with almost no snow in either winter. If this continues (and the trend is German-wide) then it would indicate warming. Winter temperatures are plotted by the DWD here, including projections into the future which suggest an upward trend.Bob O'H_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, the pivotal issue is that the very fascists understood themselves to be socialists. They were "right" of Stalin indeed but that does not say much otherwise. KFkairosfocus_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: it is a common error to assume that fascism is a phenomenon of the right. Most scholars, then and now, placed fascism on the political right. Most people, then and now, placed fascism on the political right. Gee whiz, Mussolini placed fascism on the political right.
Benito Mussolini: Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century.
It's only recently that some on the American right have attempted to redefine the left-right spectrum so that the left encompasses fascism.Zachriel_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

LH:
The question was, is it fair to say that it “seems that the [racist] impulse is never far from the center of [Republican] politics”?
I bet all of the Republican senators and congressmen who championed the civil rights laws in the 1960s would say "no, that's not fair." And I would agree with them. To be fair a majority of Democrats also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As fascism metastasizes in the American University, let us never forget that the overwhelming majority of college professors (especially in the non-hard science programs) are Democrats. Coincidence? No. One party -- and one party only -- is driving for more collectivism, more government control over our everyday lives. And it is not the Republican party.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

mahuna
I’m confused as to why you chose to call these Democrats “fascists”.
mahuna, it is a common error to assume that fascism is a phenomenon of the right. It is not. If it helps, the most famous fascist part of all time had the words "socialist" in its name. It is a mystery why this confusion should persist, because it is patently absurd to suggest that Hiter and Stalin were on opposite ends of a any spectrum. For further reading I suggest Goldberg's book referenced in the OP.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

I'm confused as to why you chose to call these Democrats "fascists". They are, and always were, Communists, and when Communists are in control, they have oppressed humanity MUCH more than their cousins who called themselves "fascist". Mao alone killed (was responsible for the deaths of) 100 million people. Remind yourself of that every day: 100. MILLION. people. Mussolini, a leading Socialist and long-time associate of Lenin, announced at the beginning of World War One that Benito and his Italian Socialists considered parochial Italian nationalism to be more important than Lenin's idea of the "international solidarity of workers", Lenin threw Benito out of the club, and Benito announced that he and his Italian communists were now to be called "Fascists". The fasces (a bundle of riot batons with or without the axe of execution) was a symbol of Ancient Roman power and authority. So "fascism" really only makes sense when applied to Italian socialists. The difference between Communism and "national socialism" (the German-created term for fascism outside Italy) is that things are actually a bit freer under national socialism because individuals are allowed to own property. In particular, large businesses have private owners who receive profits. Of course every business is required to belong to a state-run cartel that issues production plans for each business. As the song says, "Step outa line, the man come, and take you a-way". Also note that ALL Socialists are Left Wing. The Right Wing is composed of Libertarians and real Anarchists (no government at all, but you OWN all your stuff and don't mess with other people's stuff). The basic distinction is a sliding scale going from COMPLETE government control of everything (despotism/Communism) through levels of mixed government and private control to COMPLETE private control of property. The original Leftists were backers of the kings of France (Monarchists are LEFTISTS) who were seizing control of land and destroying traditional rights. They were opposed by the nobles (who had traditionally owned most of the land) and the emerging businessmen who owned money. When the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis) rose to power in the 1930s, they were anti-Communist because the German Communists were run by Moscow (as were all other Communists). Stalin desired a way to denounce the German Socialists to the public in Western Europe and the US, and so Moscow invented the myth that the Nazis were "right wing" who opposed the virtuous Left Wing. The idea caught on big time with FDR's left-leaning government, and the Press adopted it whole-hog as the reason America needed to destroy the horrible Right Wing dictatorships while allying with all of the good, well-intentioned Leftists around the world. So, if you mean "government or party-controlled restriction of individual rights and property" ALWAYS say "Socialist". Even Hitler and the boys were Socialists.mahuna_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand:
I think people answer survey questions (whether over the phone or in writing) quickly, sloppily, and by interpreting the wording according to their own notions.
Sort of like how you respond to Barry's posts.Mung_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

Do you think that people listen carefully to survey questions, interpret them perfectly accurately, and answer accordingly? I don't; I think people answer survey questions (whether over the phone or in writing) quickly, sloppily, and by interpreting the wording according to their own notions. For example, 26% of Americans answered a survey by saying that the sun goes around the earth. Are one in four Americans that uneducated? I doubt it; I think it's more likely that they answered randomly, or picked the most amusing answer, or misunderstood the question, or otherwise gave an answer that doesn't accurately reflect their beliefs for some unknown reason. We can't know for sure how those people interpreted the question, only how they answered it. We can try to think carefully about those answers--but that requires thinking charitably about people you loathe, rather than spitting on them and calling them names. That might be too much to ask of you. Given the choice between thinking and calling names, I think you prefer to insult people. Not just because you evidently enjoy it, but also as a way to avoid having to think awkward thoughts or reconsider your stated positions. For example, you're so eager to call me names that you've ignored the question again: Is it fair to say that it “seems that the [racist] impulse is never far from the center of [Republican] politics”? Or is the standard only applicable to the other party? It's not an important question. But it demonstrates how one-sided your standards are. This implies that your comments are the result of a bias; I do not think you are willing or able to consider that. I think you'll fall back on more insults rather than take that possibility seriously.Learned Hand_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand, you are lying again. The survey question:
Should the government investigate and prosecute scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming?
LH's fake interpretation:
I suspect that a significant chunk of them understood the question to refer to people who knowingly lied about global warming.
I really don't think you are stupid enough to believe that the word "question" means "knowingly lied about." If I did, I would let you off with, "LH is really stupid." Nope. You are not that stupid. You are a liar.Barry Arrington_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

there is a oppressive censorious element more so in the identities that make up the democratic party. thats why they seek court control on important matters like abortion, gay etc etc etc. Yet its a minority I think or rather the majority who vote dem are just regular people. There is a bad fanatic elements that more are in the dem party. In fact always it was the party of ethnics (including southerners) trying to interfere with Yankees values and wealth. The dEm party, I say, has always been illegal since the cibil war. its been composed of those breaking contract for thier citizenship in the nation in the first place. anyways. Possibly some of them meant to investigate illegal denial of evodence to make the case of global warming by man. Finally human nature and beings easily seek control of speech/beliefs in opposition to important beliefs and desires they seek. Let the dem folk deny they believe in state control of truth!! A good election point in the future.Robert Byers_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

If 23% of nationwide Republicans held those views in 2011, that would be a very bad thing. If? Do you think they were lying? Or do you think survey results might not be a sufficiently nuanced representation of the respondents' views? I happen to agree--but let's apply that to all people, not just those who share your party affiliation. The question wasn't, "Would it be bad if people had super-racist opinions?" I already know your answer to that question. The question was, is it fair to say that it “seems that the [racist] impulse is never far from the center of [Republican] politics”? Or is the standard only applicable to the other party? Do you agree that it is a bad thing that today — not in 2011 — 27% of Democrats are fascists? I hope for your clients' sake that your rhetoric in court is less clumsy and silly. These respondents are not "fascists," except if we use the trendy definition of "fascist": "someone who disagrees with my politics." I do disagree that "scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming" should be prosecuted for questioning global warming. I find the idea that people should be prosecuted just for questioning global warming reprehensible. And I doubt that many of those 27% actually believe that. I suspect that a significant chunk of them understood the question to refer to people who knowingly lied about global warming, analogous to how tobacco companies lied about the health dangers of cigarettes (both directly and by attempting to influence the academic debate). I can't prove it, of course. But then, I'm not driven to assume that the people who disagree with me are "fascists."Learned Hand_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

"Speaking of book burnings, after 2.5 years I am still waiting for an answer to the question I posed here: Nick Matzke — Book Burner?" He is probably a leftist Atheist, He seems to be linked with political activism against the alternative view of ID, with his involvement with the fringe Darwinism advocacy organization the ncse. Leftism is like a bad disease, it has ruined academia with the political correctness. Free speech to a leftist is that you agree with them.Jack Jones_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Yes LH. If 23% of nationwide Republicans held those views in 2011, that would be a very bad thing. Hopefully, the views of that 23% have moderated since then. Do you agree that it is a bad thing that today -- not in 2011 -- 27% of Democrats are fascists?Barry Arrington_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

And here's a national poll showing that as of 2011, 23% of Republicans disapproved of interracial marriage. Would you say that it "seems that the [racist] impulse is never far from the center of [Republican] politics"? Or is the standard only applicable to the hateful idiot liars who do not share your beliefs?Learned Hand_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Yes, if we limit the lessons we learn from it to the same region in which the poll was taken. Is it fair to say that extreme opposition to interracial marriage is a core value of the Mississippi GOP?Learned Hand_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

LH: Comparing a poll in Mississippi to a nationwide poll to gauge the attitudes of a party generally. Do you think that is fair?Barry Arrington_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Seversky, By your reasoning, shouldn't we now investigate and prosecute the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, which misled us all about the risks of climate change?
“Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.” Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.” Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.
Should we investigate and prosecute:
Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.” Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

“We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.” Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

“Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.” Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

“Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.” Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007
More here.William J Murray_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

"determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change" Seversky, I think before we proceed, we should determine what climate change is. Care to explain what it is, since apparently you know? Andrewasauber_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

An attitude that’s shared by 27% of the party is “never far from the center of Democratic politics”? I predict that your standards for determining the core values of a party are highly situational, and used to demean the party you loathe without applying to your own politics. For example, in a Mississippi poll in 2011, half of the surveyed GOP primary voters said that interracial marriage should be illegal. Is this position—one that was of course a dearly-held position of social conservatives for a long time—“never far from the center of [Republican] politics” in the South? Or does such polling lose its significance when it no longer supports angry contempt of those with whom you disagree?Learned Hand_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Do 27% of Democrats support public book burnings if the books being burned dispute climate alarmism?
The purpose of the investigation is “to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.” In other words it’s a bit like investigating whether tobacco companies lied about the risks of smoking. Was that fascism? Or is it your view that giant corporations and industries should be immune from any form of public regulation and accountability?Seversky_{November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply