Debunking Bush and Taliban as fascists

Sep 07, 2006 15:32

So last week or the week before or something, Bush called Islamic extremists 'fascists." Then the lefty blog world retorted that actually Bush is a fascist ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 15

(The comment has been removed)

lady_frolick September 7 2006, 20:57:32 UTC
Very interesting. I wonder who would want it . . .

Reply


ellen_fremedon2 September 7 2006, 21:46:27 UTC
I would read it--I think you are a genius!

Reply

lady_frolick September 7 2006, 23:44:09 UTC
Surely that's going too far, but what a nice sentiment!

Reply


coquette_not September 8 2006, 03:11:20 UTC
hmm. There's always a Daily Kos diary. But maybe not. They are pretty attached to the Bush=fascist thing.

I went to a Lamont rally the other day and there was someone standing there with a sign that said Capitalism is the Problem. Lamont is not the Solution.

True, perhaps, but I'm too practical these days for such pure ideals. Slightly less crappy is what I'm hoping for in this election cycle.

Reply

lady_frolick September 8 2006, 04:20:24 UTC
No, right, I meant unfettered capitalism. We're stuck with capitalism, which is fine by me, but currently it's running amok. The reason I think getting fascism off the liberal protest table is important is that not only is it distracting and stupid but it also doesn't play in Kansas. In contrast, the idea that corporations have far too much sway with the current administration has legs among your average folk, including republicans, which is why Cheney has always had such low approval ratings across the board. I would have to check this with a constitutional lawyer, but I don't even think it's currently illegal for corporations to write public policy. They do it on the sly due to PR, but I don't think they have to worry about legal reprisals. I'd like some protective legislation passed as well as potential democratic candidates scrutinized for ties to big business.

While I'm making a wish list, I'd also like a firmer separation of church and state but that's a separate issue!

Reply

coquette_not September 8 2006, 04:32:42 UTC
You're definitely right, of course. It's so Orwellian--fascism just means something vaguely bad--and neither side really cares to articulate why, or why not the model doesn't fit. The whole Nazi label is getting a bit old, so now everyone is a fascist.

Reply

lady_frolick September 8 2006, 15:47:15 UTC
That's interesting that you bring up Orwell, because Newspeak is the last point in Emberto Eco's "Eternal Fascism: 14 Ways to Look at a Black Shirt":

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

Or, may I add, a lefty blog.

But I would leave that out of my article because then it would just be me calling people who misuse the word 'fascist' fascist.

Reply


leatherstocking September 8 2006, 16:23:51 UTC
I'm with you on careless use of the term. There's a whiff of sour grapes in the epithet that suggests that if my side can't win, then the game must be rigged. 2006 may be a bad year for Republicans, but the country's been content to return the pseudo-fascist party to Congressional majorities since 1994. And Bush got the first absolute majority of popular votes in 2004 since his father won in 1988. Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat to win an absolute popular vote majority, thirty years ago. Gore beat Bush on votes, but still didn't clear 50 percent. Having regular elections at all seems to complicate any charge of fascism on its face.

Point well-taken on big business, which isn't inherently pro-free market, and in many cases would prefer to limit its risks from competition. I think the concern over who's writing legislation, however, may take the focus away from those passing it, who have at least some minimal fear of voters.

Reply

lady_frolick September 8 2006, 19:43:31 UTC
Wait a minute, you baffle me: George W. Bush in 2000 was the first president to win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote since 1888. Clinton, like every other president, won both the popular and electoral votes ( ... )

Reply

leatherstocking September 8 2006, 22:25:57 UTC
True enough, but Clinton never won an absolute majority, only persuasive pluralities (and trumping big Electoral College wins).

I think the "other" often does a good job of invoking fear of itself without much help from the GOP. But then you knew I'd say that.

Reply

lady_frolick September 11 2006, 00:07:11 UTC
Yeah, the lefty blogger and I would agree that the administration has exploited whatever organic fear there was after 9/11, but you and I agree that there is a difference between the threat of extremist Islamic cells who are actually plotting right this minute and the threat of German Jews who were minding their own business and not plotting anything.

That's why I think it's important for the Left to get it together: there's enough wrong with this country without imagining things.

Reply


ramblingregina December 13 2006, 13:10:03 UTC
Nice meeting you at the Department Partay last night! I've added you to my friends list :).

Reply


Leave a comment

Up