A political primer for our friends on the Right
On C-Span this week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) agreed with a caller who said the country is descending into "fascism." In response, Cantor said the public is "finally waking up" to this and that the GOP is trying to bring President Obama "back into the mainstream." Funny, but earlier conservative leaders called Obama a socialist and a communist. Preceding Cantor were Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) and the leader of the GOP, hate-talker Rush Limbaugh, tagged Obama as a devote of Marx and Lenin.
It seems our friends on the Right need a primer on the political spectrum and political nomenclature.
But first, let's dispense with some minor silliness. Obama and his party won a crushing election victory, Obama maintains extremely high approval ratings among a strong majority of Americans; Cantor's party and candidate took an election beating and enjoy the approval of a very small minority: By definition, Obama is in the mainstream and Cantor is not.
Now, for the labeling: To make your attack-by-label effective, you really must have at least a middle school understanding of the words you're using. You have to know, for instance, the difference between Karl Marx and Groucho Marx -- otherwise, you make yourself look stupid, impotent and callow, instead of just impotent and callow.
Most 8th graders have access to a Mirriam-Webster dictionary, so let's use the definitions from there, just so we don't go over the heads of the folks in the GOP.
"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
(Just for grins, here's a video from Encyclopedia Britannica that will illuminate for you which end of the American political spectrum is akin to fascism.)
You can tell that fascism is a wee bit different from socialism and communism by taking a little peek at the grand daddy of all fascists, Benito Mussolini. Benny had a private army, called Blackshirts, that he used to attack, imprison and kill socialists and communists. He helped his fellow fascist, Adolf Hitler (his was a race-based a fascism) both invade France and support the fascist "nationalist" side in the Spanish Civil War (which made him a new fascist friend, Generalissimo Franco). Another hint: In 1945, Benny and his mistress, Clara Petacci, were dragged out and lynched by the local communists.
But, in case the distinction isn't clear yet, let's go back to the dictionary.
- any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
- a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively
Now the political spectrum is a complex, layered and nuanced thing, but we won't burden you with all that just yet. In the most simple left-right terms, communism is the far left, socialism is left, liberalism/progressivism is center-left, while conservatism is right and fascism and feudalism are far right.
See? Obama can't be fascist, socialist and communist all at once. (Perhaps next week we'll show how he's not any of them.)
While we're on the subject, the Right has also been equating Obama with Adolf Hitler and, with a twist of historical revision, claiming the Nazi's were on the Left. (Here's Jon Stewart's hilarious video on the subject) Right. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
The "Nazi's were Lefties" meme is based entirely on the words "socialist" and "worker's" in the Nazi name - the National Socialist German Worker's Party. The American conservatives who push this line of thought seem to believe that Hitler wouldn't make up a name that was less than honest to draw in support from people who would otherwise oppose him. I don't share that faith in Adolf.
In fact, as early as 1927, there were bloody confrontations between Nazis and communists in Berlin. By 1933, Hitler had taken office and begun restricting civil rights restrictions - a decidedly Rightwing goal (some econo-Lefties have also attacked civil liberties, such as in Cuba and China). The Reichstag fire gave Hitler an great excuse to both suspend civil liberties and paint the communists, whom Hitler equated with the Jews of Europe, as dangerous. Hitler had the communist leaders arrested, and because the major communist leaders were in jail or under investigation, the Nazis were able to take control of the legislature and set the rules in their favor. Dachau opened that year -- the first concentration camp built in Germany -- and the first people in it were mainly socialists and communists.
Kinda strange that these "Lefty" Nazis were so dead set against the commies and socialists, eh?
Not long after taking office, the Nazis replaced the labor leaders, imprisoning some, with Nazis. They also controlled wages and forbade strikes.
Kinda funny how these "Lefty" Nazis were so hard on labor leaders, eh?
Hitler was equated with the divine, and complete, unquestioning obedience, was due Der Fuhrer. The press was tightly controlled and banned books were the fuel of public burnings. That fits pretty well with Rightwing forms of government, from monarchy to fascism (as in the definition above: "a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader").
On the "Night of the Long Knives," in 1934, the Nazis' purge targeted people who were associated more with socialism than with nationalism, because Hitler didn't want to lose the support of the conservative business community - which had supported his rise to power -- and conservative Army leadership. Both the Army and the business leaders saw the socialists as a threat.
Industrialists who had provided the funds for the Nazi victory were unhappy with the socialism and homosexuality of Nazi party's militia commander Ernst Röhm, so they conspired against him and got him executed. Tell me again, which end of the political spectrum boasts of its homophobia?
The party always supported extreme nationalism, and racial and sexual discrimination, but by the mid-30s the Nazis abandoned all pretense of being socialist and began selling off public ownership of state-owned firms in steel, mining, banking, utilities, shipyards, ship lines and rail. The delivery of some public services that were provided by the government prior to 1930 were transferred to the private sector.
Privatization? Which party has been pushing that one? Oh, right. The Right.
The "proof" we most often hear from the American Right that the Nazis were Lefties is the assertion that the Nazis banned private gun ownership. Skip over, for now, the historically inaccurate assumption that the Right is always pro-gun and consider what really happened with gun laws under the Nazis.
After World War I, the Weimar Republic required the surrender of all guns to the government. In 1928, the German parliament replaced the gun ban with strict gun licensing. By 1938, the Nazis had relaxed for "good" German citizens the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time they seized power, but specifically banned Jews from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. In short: German nationalists could own guns, but Jews and communists ("enemies of the National Socialist state") could not.
Arming "us" and disarming "them" fits the definition of fascism ("and forcible suppression of opposition").
I'm hoping that helps the GOP leadership and their talking heads sort things out. Maybe now they can find some more sensible ways to attack the president. Or something.
















While I recognize that your version of the political spectrum is very clever for the purpose of your post, I disagree with it.
I would even stay - you have no idea of what you're trying to talk about.
Take a look at what socialism, fascism and communism have in common:
- dictator or group (collective or state) over individual
- controlled systems of production and distribution of goods
These values and the conservative values are actually at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
Conservatives emphasize the equality and priority of an individual over group. This is what is causing their distrust of government.
It's clear that you are trying to create guilt by association, but it's not clear whether you are deliberately lying or you just have no clue.
March 27, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I implore you to turn of Fox News and hasten thee to a library.
March 27, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I implore you to make whatever point you want to make without deliberately rigging your version of the "spectrum".
You kind of admit to it when you decide to make it "simple" and put fascism (and feudalism) right of conservatism.
Even when someone accepts without objection that you are confusing the republican party with conservatism, social systems with political philosophies - and then force your select nit-picked "facts" to align with (what else?)the conclusion that there is really very little difference between Cantor, republicans and fascism - even then your argument stands as firmly as a house of cards.
March 28, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey AmericanDad - what about the Lefties like Olberman on MSNBC? Is it OK for him to throw around words like Fascist for President Bush?
March 28, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the shoe...er, gets thrown...
March 28, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure I understand you're response...is it OK for Olberman to call Bush a fascist and then agree with Dean that no president deserves such a label?
March 28, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're confusing conservatism with libertarianism. Libertarians, who can be either left- or right-leaning, "emphasize the equality and priority of an individual over group," and advocate small government. Conservatives, at least as they exist in today's American political system, have no problem with big government when it comes to things like the military, or imposition of religious symbols ("In God We Trust"); can support things like the Defense of Marriage Act, and call for a nationwide ban on abortion; and have no problem with government surveillance of its citizens, illegal search and seizure, or restrictions on freedom of speech, as long as those things are done by a rightward-leaning Republican president.
At any rate, you did nothing to refute the main point of this post, which is that calling Obama a fascist, socialist or communist is a sign of either ignorance of what those words mean or just plain dishonesty (or in Michelle Bachmann's case, being insane in the membrane).
March 27, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. you are confusing conservatism with republican party.
March 28, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes, the "no true Conservative" defense. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. Etc., etc., etc.
The Republican party has been dominated by ideological conservatism since at least 1980. This country has had three Republican presidents since then, and all three owed their elections to the conservative base of the party. You own the Republican party, and it owns you, Lalo. Deal with it.
March 28, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that there's a big similarity between fascism and authoritarian communism: the authoritarian part. And yet it's still true that (a) these political philosophies are different from one another, (b) Barack Obama has none of them, and (c) conservatives are more authoritarian than liberals in many respects.
March 27, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo35adm is correct. The left is for those who want more govenment control and the right is for those who want less.
March 27, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A third grad understanding of Right and Left is OK, so long as you're in the third grade. I presume you're 8 or 9 years old.
March 27, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. In trying to educate, you have your work cut out for you. From some of the comments above I can see NewsMax and Fox News are more influential sources of 'knowledge' than an actual reading of The German Ideology or Das Kapital. Perhaps there really is something to the aphorism "ignorance is bliss".
March 28, 2009 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, reading your comment I can only agree with you.
Especially if, as you imply, Das Kapital is the source of your vast knowledge about the spectrum of political philosophies.
Just like you must have developed an objective and intimate understanding of Islam from reading the Bible.
March 28, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry guys, you're wrong. There are people on the authoritarian right and people on the liberatarian right; there are people on the totalitarian left and people on the anarchist left.
Even if the amount of government control could be classified on a simple one-dimensional spectrum -- which it can't be, since there are different types of government control -- it wouldn't be the decisive factor in whether a political philosophy is on the right or the left.
Great post.
March 27, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great, thanks for your agreement that the premise of this post makes no sense.
March 28, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding post. Recommended.
March 27, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that "Encyclopedia Britannica" clip, especially the part where the Pledge of Allegiance is recited (no "under God" in the pledge in 1946!).
March 27, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a very informative and entertaining vid. Good post.
March 27, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're getting too hung up on labels. And Cantor didn't explicitly say to the caller "Yes, you're right, Obama is a fascist". He instead responded to the part of the caller's statement about a "one-party system".
And by the way, didn't Obama win just 52% of the popular vote? Is that a "crushing" victory?
I saw on Gallup he has a 62% approval rating. Is that "extremely high"??
You can get caught up in your lingo and descriptors but I agree with Cantor that he is going to destroy capitalism and tax this country into the stone age in order to pay for his enormous budget.
March 27, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Obama will raise taxes on the rich to pay for Bush's "What's good for rich people" fiscal policies.
Seems pretty fair to me. Those who broke it have to buy it.
March 27, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't think taxes will go up for everybody, you are delusional. You don't consider cap and trade to be a tax? Plus, the top 2% don't make enough money to pay for all of Obama's spending, even if you taxed them at 100%. Where is the rest of the money going to come from?
March 28, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, 62% is "extremely" higher than 28%. There will always be those falling into the tail of a normal distribution.
March 28, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but what's the 28% you're referring to? I must have missed that.
March 28, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106426/Bush-Job-Approval-28-Lowest-Administration.aspx
March 28, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does Bush's approval ratings have to do with Obama? Last time I checked Bush was not in the White House running the place. Now people are responding to what they think of how Obama's doing. His rating relative to Bush's is meaningless.
March 28, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. You questioned whether Obama's 62% approval rating was "extremely high."
2. BobLT said, 62% is better than 28%.
3. You asked BobLT what he was referring to when he said 28%.
4. I posted a link to a poll showing that Bush's approval rating in April 2008 was 28%. Therefore, Obama's 62% approval rating is not only high, it is extremely high in comparison to Bush's 28% approval rating. In other words, a far higher percentage of the American people approve of Obama's performance at this point in his presidency than approved of Bush's performance towards the end of his presidency.
You see how it works? You make an assertion, someone counters your assertion, I support the countering of your assertion. The next step is for you to either counter the countering, or change the subject by pretending to be confused about what everyone is talking about. You chose the latter.
March 30, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I responded to your link on March 28th at 3:15pm as you can see above. How is that changing the subject?
Obama's ratings relative to Bush's are irrelevant as we debate whether the American public agree with where Obama is taking the country.
The people who are in the minority (ie the 38%) have every right to be critical of Obama's agenda.
March 30, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding post. Rec'd and bookmarked for future reference.
Crushing vote: 365 to 173 of the votes that count. a/k/a Landslide. Also House and Senate. 3 to 0 shutout by that count.
Anyway, the election is over except for whatever the hey is going on in Minnesota. And so we rejoin and accept the will of the voters as one.
March 27, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink