Liberalism and Fascism

Here is how Wikipedia defines liberalism. "Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government."

In other words, it is a world view that was promoted by our founding fathers and is integral in all of our founding documents. The suggestion that liberalism equates to egaliterianism is news to me, and I reject that definition. Rather, the point of liberalism is to take down contrived barriers to advancement so that each individual go rise to their highest level based on merit, not birth, religion wealth, gender, or race. There is nothing antithetical between liberalism and making money or liberalism and honor societies, for example.

Liberalism cannot be related to fascism. It's essence is authoritarianism (the "leadership principle") and the subordination of the individual to the state. "Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race."

Nor is there anything antithetical between conservatism and liberalism. These are complementary ideas, although they are caveated with a realistic view of man-- that man, invested as he is with original sin needs to be counterbalanced and restrained by law and institutions, such as the banches of government. It's an insight that escaped those who were responsible for our current conomic crisis. President Obama, hardly a torch-bearer for modern conservatism, in his January 20th address, said "Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths." Liberals recognize that there are indeed good things that are old.

Finally, I offered a source for you, "The Dumbing Down of America." What is straw about that? It contains real facts. There are many, many more sources.

It does have facts. But the organization of those facts is what I question. An alternative collection of facts can give rise to an equally persuasive tome called "The Smarting Up of America", pointing to rising test scores, increasing patents, books published, and Nobel prizes won.

My sense is that you have a point-- Amercians at least under Republican control-- were getting dumber. You see this in the embracing of nativism and creationism and the resistence in using science rather than dogma to guide policy as in ecology, mining, and global warming. Even the cable shows-- Fox in particular but also all the others-- use classic progranda tools-- simple, repeatable images (Reverand Wright waving his arms each night) or messages ("the war on terror") with plenty of gratuitus sex, gore, and gossip thrown in. It's fun to watch but it isn't smart to watch. I used to subscribe to TIME, but it is today a far cry from the magazine that Henry Luce published. It looks and reads more like a comic book today.

Fascism is a national ideology. For the liberals it is egalitarianism. And they want a single party state run by Authoritarians.

You assert, but don't prove. That statement has more to do with your dogma that reality. The last thing liberals want is a stalinoid state. I may be that it is the hard-core Repubilcans who want that. You see that in the intrusion into private decisions, such as the Terry Shiavio case, and in the erosion of personal liberties, such as increased wire-tapping, suppression of First Amendment rights, and the people who have been incarcerated outside of our legal system in Cuba. The trend in the last ten years is to more statism, largely under Republican governance.. You also see this in a way that touches every child in the unfunded mandate of No Child Left Behind, an intrusion by the federal government into local authority if there ever was one.

But all these cases, as well as the one you mentioned about gay marriage and affirmative action are subject to appelate review. You write about respecting the will of the people, but that contradicts your elevation of principle when your principles contradicts the will of the people. And that is why we have a Supreme Court to ultimately sort it all out. We are a nation of law, and there never is any final word on any of these decisions. That liberals would want by fiat to make all of America march to its fascistic drumbeat is utter nonsense.

Look, there will always be extremists of every political hue. But America is a nation of moderates. We are not center/right or center/left. We are a centrist nation. When the country's policy swing too far to one side, as it did in the late sixties, there will be a reaction. Now you are seeing a reaction to the mismanagement of the last few decades of conservatism. And, perhaps in our lifetime, we will see yet one more reaction to liberalsim, although I don't think that will happen any time soon.

I don't disagree with the definition, history does. Do you propose there was no Bakke case and Californians did not vote on the issues I sighted?

You remind me of a Marxist in how you anthromorphize History. "History"-- whoever she is-- makes no such proclamation that liberalism is fascism. That is your assertion, and it is clearly made out of willful ignorence than an understanding of political ideas. I am astounded that you evidently believe that John Locke shares common ideological ground with Joseph Goebbels. Just because you repeat your assertion, that doesn't mean it's any more true.

Yes, I remember the Bakke case of 1978, Effectively, the Supreme Court outlawed inflexible quotas but upheld the legality of affirmative action per se. Speaking as white male, I never had much of a beef with this. And the reason for that is I have tried to be so competent, that I don't allow myself to be in a place where my abilities are equal to the abilities of someone else. In other words, I don't view competition as zero sum-- they succeed and I cannot. It is is merely one more barrier for me to jump and I do so with alacrity. My view is that affirmative action has its strongest justification when it is based on family wealth rather than race or sex, i.e. if you are poor, you should be given preference over those who are rich, certis paribus. If that were the case, Yale would have never admitted former president George Bush. Affirmative action is merely a recognition that white males have benefited from affirmative action for centuries-- admissions and promotions over other people for no other reason than because of an accident of white, male birth.

You use the word "egaliterianism" as a prejorative and are especially resentful to judges who seem to have upset the natural order of things-- as if the natural order of things is a static reality. It seems to me it is you who is naive. Do you really expect the Christians and capitalists to do the right thing when it comes to public policy? Without the courts, we would still have separate and unequal educational facilities for caucasions and negroes and a generation before that we would have had children toiling in work houses and sausages made out of garbage. Often, moral change must be mandated and enforced sometimes with a bayonet (as in the 1957 Brown vs. the Board of Education) over the howls of bigots. If conservatives had their way, there is no doubt that we would still have slavery.

Fascism was created by the nationalization of certain sectors of the revolutionary left, and its central role in its conceptual orientation was played by revolutionary syndicalists who embraced extreme nationalism. The revolutionary "left' by definition are Liberal. They promote change. Linking Liberals of today and fascism is common knowledge.

All politicans promote change, include your conservative heroes.

It is the the linking of Republican conservatism and fascism that is common knowledge. I am reminded of the slogan used by the '70s Symbionese Liberation Army that involved the kidnapping of heiress Patty Heart: "Death to the fascist insect that prays upon the life of the people." The left, as you call them, and increasingly the center has equated Republican policies with fascism. Do I think they are right to do so? No, I do not. I think they are as profoundly ignorant of history and fascism as you are and represents a failure of critical thinking. Fascism, both in Italy and in Germany, stated certain goals to achieve popular support. But those stated goals were not fascism. Fascism in its fully developed form under Adolf Hitler involved the elimination of the civil rights of entire classes of people and the rule of law-- the diametrical opposite of US/UK liberalism. Superficially, there are both conservative elements to fascism (appeals to folk traditions) and liberal elements (restraints on laissez-faire capitalism), but these are not the heart of liberalism or fascism. In any case, I consider the use of the word fascism and its equation with modern day liberal or conservative political thought dishonest and fallacious.

If you are looking for a non-Wiki source to support my contention, may I suggest The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer.