Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 84

Thread: The Reality of Red State Fascism

  1. #1
    A Little to the Left Redsfaithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bexley, OH
    Posts
    7,467

    The Reality of Red State Fascism

    This is from pretty well known libertarian Lew Rockwell.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/...e-fascism.html

    Year's end is the time for big thoughts, so here are mine. The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing.

    This huge shift has not been noticed among mainstream punditry, and hence there have been few attempts to explain it – much less have libertarians thought much about what it implies. My own take is this: the Republican takeover of the presidency combined with an unrelenting state of war, has supplied all the levers necessary to convert a burgeoning libertarian movement into a statist one.

    The remaining ideological justification was left to, and accomplished by, Washington's kept think tanks, who have approved the turn at every crucial step. What this implies for libertarians is a crying need to draw a clear separation between what we believe and what conservatives believe. It also requires that we face the reality of the current threat forthrightly by extending more rhetorical tolerance leftward and less rightward.

    Let us start from 1994 and work forward. In a stunningly prescient memo, Murray N. Rothbard described the 1994 revolution against the Democrats as follows:

    a massive and unprecedented public repudiation of President Clinton, his person, his personnel, his ideologies and programs, and all of his works; plus a repudiation of Clinton's Democrat Party; and, most fundamentally, a rejection of the designs, current and proposed, of the Leviathan he heads…. what is being rejected is big government in general (its taxing, mandating, regulating, gun grabbing, and even its spending) and, in particular, its arrogant ambition to control the entire society from the political center. Voters and taxpayers are no longer persuaded of a supposed rationale for American-style central planning…. On the positive side, the public is vigorously and fervently affirming its desire to re-limit and de-centralize government; to increase individual and community liberty; to reduce taxes, mandates, and government intrusion; to return to the cultural and social mores of pre-1960s America, and perhaps much earlier than that.

    This memo also cautioned against unrelieved optimism, because, Rothbard said, two errors rear their head in most every revolution. First, the reformers do not move fast enough; instead they often experience a crisis of faith and become overwhelmed by demands that they govern "responsibly" rather than tear down the established order. Second, the reformers leave too much in place that can be used by their successors to rebuild the state they worked so hard to dismantle. This permits gains to be reversed as soon as another party takes control.

    Rothbard urged dramatic cuts in spending, taxing, and regulation, and not just in the domestic area but also in the military and in foreign policy. He saw that this was crucial to any small-government program. He also urged a dismantling of the federal judiciary on grounds that it represents a clear and present danger to American liberty. He urged the young radicals who were just elected to reject gimmicks like the balanced-budget amendment and the line-item veto, in favor of genuine change. None of this happened of course. In fact, the Republican leadership and pundit class began to warn against "kamikaze missions" and speak not of bringing liberty, but rather of governing better than others.

    Foreshadowing what was to come, Rothbard pointed out: "Unfortunately, the conservative public is all too often taken in by mere rhetoric and fails to weigh the actual deeds of their political icons. So the danger is that Gingrich will succeed not only in betraying, but in conning the revolutionary public into thinking that they have already won and can shut up shop and go home." The only way to prevent this, he wrote, was to educate the public, businessmen, students, academics, journalists, and politicians about the true nature of what is going on, and about the vicious nature of the bi-partisan ruling elites.

    The 1994 revolution failed of course, in part because the anti-government opposition was intimidated into silence by the Oklahoma City bombing of April 1995. The establishment somehow managed to pin the violent act of an ex-military man on the right-wing libertarianism of the American bourgeoisie. It was said by every important public official at that time that to be anti-government was to give aid and support to militias, secessionists, and other domestic terrorists. It was a classic intimidation campaign but, combined with a GOP leadership that never had any intention to change DC, it worked to shut down the opposition.

    In the last years of the 1990s, the GOP-voting middle class refocused its anger away from government and leviathan and toward the person of Bill Clinton. It was said that he represented some kind of unique moral evil despoiling the White House. That ridiculous Monica scandal culminated in a pathetic and pretentious campaign to impeach Clinton. Impeaching presidents is a great idea, but impeaching them for fibbing about personal peccadilloes is probably the least justifiable ground. It's almost as if that entire campaign was designed to discredit the great institution of impeachment.

    In any case, this event crystallized the partisanship of the bourgeoisie, driving home the message that the real problem was Clinton and not government; the immorality of the chief executive, not his power; the libertinism of the left-liberals and not their views toward government. The much heralded "leave us alone" coalition had been thoroughly transformed in a pure anti-Clinton movement. The right in this country began to define itself not as pro-freedom, as it had in 1994, but simply as anti-leftist, as it does today.

    There are many good reasons to be anti-leftist, but let us revisit what Mises said in 1956 concerning the anti-socialists of his day. He pointed out that many of these people had a purely negative agenda, to crush the leftists and their bohemian ways and their intellectual pretension. He warned that this is not a program for freedom. It was a program of hatred that can only degenerate into statism.

    The moral corruption, the licentiousness and the intellectual sterility of a class of lewd would-be authors and artists is the ransom mankind must pay lest the creative pioneers be prevented from accomplishing their work. Freedom must be granted to all, even to base people, lest the few who can use it for the benefit of mankind be hindered. The license which the shabby characters of the quartier Latin enjoyed was one of the conditions that made possible the ascendance of a few great writers, painters and sculptors. The first thing a genius needs is to breathe free air.

    He goes on to urge that anti-leftists work to educate themselves about economics, so that they can have a positive agenda to displace their purely negative one. A positive agenda of liberty is the only way we might have been spared the blizzard of government controls that were fastened on this country after Bush used the events of 9-11 to increase central planning, invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and otherwise bring a form of statism to America that makes Clinton look laissez-faire by comparison. The Bush administration has not only faced no resistance from the bourgeoisie. it has received cheers. And they are not only cheering Bush's reelection; they have embraced tyrannical control of society as a means toward accomplishing their anti-leftist ends.

    After September 11, even those whose ostensible purpose in life is to advocate less government changed their minds. Even after it was clear that 9-11 would be used as the biggest pretense for the expansion of government since the stock market crash of 1929, the Cato Institute said that libertarianism had to change its entire focus: "Libertarians usually enter public debates to call for restrictions on government activity. In the wake of September 11, we have all been reminded of the real purpose of government: to protect our life, liberty, and property from violence. This would be a good time for the federal government to do its job with vigor and determination."

    The vigor and determination of the Bush administration has brought about a profound cultural change, so that the very people who once proclaimed hated of government now advocate its use against dissidents of all sorts, especially against those who would dare call for curbs in the totalitarian bureaucracy of the military, or suggest that Bush is something less than infallible in his foreign-policy decisions. The lesson here is that it is always a mistake to advocate government action, for there is no way you can fully anticipate how government will be used. Nor can you ever count on a slice of the population to be moral in its advocacy of the uses of the police power.

    Editor & Publisher, for example, posted a small note the other day about a column written by Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, in which he mildly suggested that the troops be brought home from Iraq "sooner rather than later." The editor of E&P was just blown away by the letters that poured in, filled with venom and hate and calling for Neuharth to be tried and locked away as a traitor. The letters compared him with pro-Hitler journalists, and suggested that he was objectively pro-terrorist, choosing to support the Muslim jihad over the US military. Other letters called for Neuharth to get the death penalty for daring to take issue with the Christian leaders of this great Christian nation.

    I'm actually not surprised at this. It has been building for some time. If you follow hate-filled sites such as Free Republic, you know that the populist right in this country has been advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now. The militarism and nationalism dwarfs anything I saw at any point during the Cold War. It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth – not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.

    Along with this goes a kind of worship of the presidency, and a celebration of all things public sector, including egregious law like the Patriot Act, egregious bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and egregious centrally imposed regimentation like the No Child Left Behind Act. It longs for the state to throw its weight behind institutions like the two-parent heterosexual family, the Christian charity, the homogeneous community of native-born patriots.

    In 1994, the central state was seen by the bourgeoisie as the main threat to the family; in 2004 it is seen as the main tool for keeping the family together and ensuring its ascendancy. In 1994, the state was seen as the enemy of education; today, the same people view the state as the means of raising standards and purging education of its left-wing influences. In 1994, Christians widely saw that Leviathan was the main enemy of the faith; today, they see Leviathan as the tool by which they will guarantee that their faith will have an impact on the country and the world.

    Paul Craig Roberts is right: "In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush." Again: "Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy."

    In short, what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized fascism. Why fascist? Because it is not leftist in the sense of egalitarian or redistributionist. It has no real beef with business. It doesn't sympathize with the downtrodden, labor, or the poor. It is for all the core institutions of bourgeois life in America: family, faith, and flag. But it sees the state as the central organizing principle of society, views public institutions as the most essential means by which all these institutions are protected and advanced, and adores the head of state as a godlike figure who knows better than anyone else what the country and world's needs, and has a special connection to the Creator that permits him to discern the best means to bring it about.

    The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist while adopting an ideology – even without knowing it or being entirely conscious of the change – that is also frighteningly anti-liberty. This reality turns out to be very difficult for libertarians to understand or accept. For a long time, we've tended to see the primary threat to liberty as coming from the left, from the socialists who sought to control the economy from the center. But we must also remember that the sweep of history shows that there are two main dangers to liberty, one that comes from the left and the other that comes from the right. Europe and Latin America have long faced the latter threat, but its reality is only now hitting us fully.

    What is the most pressing and urgent threat to freedom that we face in our time? It is not from the left. If anything, the left has been solid on civil liberties and has been crucial in drawing attention to the lies and abuses of the Bush administration. No, today, the clear and present danger to freedom comes from the right side of the ideological spectrum, those people who are pleased to preserve most of free enterprise but favor top-down management of society, culture, family, and school, and seek to use a messianic and belligerent nationalism to impose their vision of politics on the world.

    There is no need to advance the view that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However, it is time to recognize that the left today does represent a counterweight to the right, just as it did in the 1950s when the right began to adopt anti-communist militarism as its credo. In a time when the term patriotism means supporting the nation's wars and statism, a libertarian patriotism has more in common with that advanced by The Nation magazine:

    The other company of patriots does not march to military time. It prefers the gentle strains of 'America the Beautiful' to the strident cadences of 'Hail to the Chief' and 'The Stars and Stripes Forever.' This patriotism is rooted in the love of one's own land and people, love too of the best ideals of one's own culture and tradition. This company of patriots finds no glory in puffing their country up by pulling others' down. This patriotism is profoundly municipal, even domestic. Its pleasures are quiet, its services steady and unpretentious. This patriotism too has deep roots and long continuity in our history.

    Ten years ago, these were "right wing" sentiments; today the right regards them as treasonous. What should this teach us? It shows that those who saw the interests of liberty as being well served by the politicized proxies of free enterprise alone, family alone, Christianity alone, law and order alone, were profoundly mistaken. There is no proxy for liberty, no cause that serves as a viable substitute, and no movement by any name whose success can yield freedom in our time other than the movement of freedom itself. We need to embrace liberty and liberty only, and not be fooled by groups or parties or movements that only desire a temporary liberty to advance their pet interests.

    As Rothbard said in 1965:

    The doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both contemporary left and right. This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths.

    There has never in my lifetime been a more urgent need for the party of liberty to completely secede from conventional thought and established institutions, especially those associated with all aspects of government, and undertake radical intellectual action on behalf of a third way that rejects the socialism of the left and the fascism of the right.

    Indeed, the current times can be seen as a training period for all true friends of liberty. We need to learn to recognize the many different guises in which tyranny appears. Power is protean because it must suppress that impulse toward liberty that exists in the hearts of all people. The impulse is there, tacitly waiting for the consciousness to dawn. When it does, power doesn’t stand a chance.

    December 31, 2004
    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
    --Oscar Wilde

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Mod Law zombie-a-go-go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic University
    Posts
    4,302

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    Be real careful with this thread. Labelling something or someone "fascist" is pretty close to hate speech, and I won't hesitate to shut this thread down if it devolves into such.

    Consider this a pre-emptive warning. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing what you cats have to say about the issues presented in this piece, as opposed to the insults.
    "It's easier to give up. I'm not a very vocal player. I lead by example. I take the attitude that I've got to go out and do it. Because of who I am, I've got to give everything I've got to come back."
    -Ken Griffey Jr.

  4. #3
    Waiting for a tour/album KittyDuran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Hamilton, Ohio
    Posts
    8,413

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    Yeah, Rf, you should have titled it "Ladies and Gentlemen, your Republican congressmen and women"... :MandJ:
    2014 Reds record when I'm attending: 23-18 - FINAL
    2014 Dragons record when I'm attending: 2-1 - FINAL
    "We want to be the band to dance to when the bomb drops." - Simon Le Bon of Duran Duran

  5. #4
    Pagan/Asatru Ravenlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Williamsburg, OH and the wilds.
    Posts
    8,994

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    logically, whenever you enter a war, you always become more statist. especially when your party is in charge.

    in my world, none of this is suprising. you have no guarenteed rights now. it won't be used against most of us in our lifetimes. more like our grandchildren and great grandchildren's.

    in a perfect system, one party majority would never happen. but of course, in a perfect system, we would have actually have built up for a war instead of spreading way, way too thin.
    the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop


    yes, this really is how we make our living.

  6. #5
    C-A-T-S CATS! CATS! CATS! WVRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    8,445

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    Im sure once our emoticon friend reads this, it will warrant RF opening a hatemail page on Reds Daily.
    Quote Originally Posted by savafan View Post
    I've read books about sparkling vampires who walk around in the daylight that were written better than a John Fay article.

  7. #6
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    22,888

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    When you get past the fascist name calling, there are some kernels of truth in the article. As Ravenlord noted, the state tends to grow anytime there is a war, and usually does not then return to its former size once the war is over.
    Unfortunately, a strong military is a necessity, and that requires some centralization in authority. I wish we still had the situation that prevailed for roughly a century between 1815 and 1914 where there was no grave foreign threat to America and we could safely maintain a very small standing military.
    Whenever conservatives and Republicans support any expansion in federal control and power, they should first ask themselves if they would still support the expansion if Hillary Clinton was president and the Democrats controlled congress.
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."

  8. #7
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,123

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    what is being rejected is big government in general (its taxing, mandating, regulating, gun grabbing, and even its spending) and, in particular, …. On the positive side, the public is vigorously and fervently affirming its desire to re-limit and de-centralize government
    I completely disagree with this. The federal government continues to grow and grow, and very few people disagree. We've got all the beuracracy with the Homeland/airport security, etc. Gov spending is even worse. Most Americans don't seem to care, because they figure the financial crisis will happen after they are dead.

    Both parties always promise in their campaining to shrink gov, but the monster continues to grow and grow.

    Also, I wouldn't really call the Republicans winning the last election any kind of mandate. I did vote for Bush, but I'm not a big fan of his. The democrats let America down by not presenting a compelling candidate. Oh, I wish we could get a candidate with a legitimate plan to reduce government in all areas and the guts to implement it.

  9. #8
    Member Spring~Fields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,630

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    Interesting article.

  10. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Huntington WV
    Posts
    622

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    I have never cared much for Lew. We agree, but I think his style is over the top. This was an interesting article, though.

    I completely agree that 1994 was a coup of sorts and that it was short lived. But, the problems are far more deeply rooted than the recent tragedies. We elect Representatives on their politics (etc.), but we only re-elect them every two years if they get us enough pork. This may be oversimplified, but at the very least a rookie Rep. needs to get at least the same amount as those before them.. So, a good libertarian is not going to get re-elected very often without giving into some big government. So, you have a group of Republicans who want to remain in office. The President Clinton thing blows up and the right has a new calling card, Christianity.

    It is also important to note that President Bush has surrounded himself with NeoCons. I think this is very dangerous, because they make no bones about their hawkish, big government, deficit running, style. This certainly has not helped.

    I completely agree that war leads to more statist tendencies and that might even be the right thing to do. But, imho the problem runs deeper than reacting to crisis and change can and will only start at the state level and that is where Libertarians and Constitutionalist need to really pick up the pace.

    .

  11. #10
    Team Puffy Leadoff Hitter CbusRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Bexley OH
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by WVRed
    Im sure once our emoticon friend reads this, it will warrant RF opening a hatemail page on Reds Daily.
    :MandJ:

  12. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,222

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    Lew Rockwell was banned from the right-wing radio station in SF after he disagreed with the host. (Lew thought Elian Gonzalez belonged with his dad.)

    He's an interesting guy.

    BTW, Not to pat myself in the back to heartily here but I brought up a lot of these same points before. Unfortunately that thread was derailed because I used the word "war-monger".

    Anyhow, the ideological split between libertarians and tariff-and-subsidy, big government Bushies is one the fissures developing on the right. Another is in between the hispanic-courting Bush/Rove and Western Republicans.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  13. #12
    On the brink wolfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    is everything
    Posts
    2,687

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by zombie-a-go-go
    Be real careful with this thread. Labelling something or someone "fascist" is pretty close to hate speech, and I won't hesitate to shut this thread down if it devolves into such.

    Consider this a pre-emptive warning. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing what you cats have to say about the issues presented in this piece, as opposed to the insults.
    Have to disagree with you here zombie. Labelling something or someone fascist is not hate speech. In the context of the article, the term fascist is applied correctly. It notes reactionary tendencies that elevate the state above all else, a rejection of rationalism, and a belief in an Ubermensch type of leader. Granted, at times, the term 'fascist' is thrown around and meant as an insult, so I can see where you might be coming from. That isn't the case at all here. Fascism is a philosophy that is still studied and debated in political science. I find it disgusting, but it doesn't make it any less real. Using the term fascist is not necessarily an insult or hate speech. Rockwell makes some convincing arguments in the article. I don't line up with Rockwell in many areas, but I share his concerns over restrictions of individual liberties.

    p.s.-zombie, I wasn't trying to criticize your modding here. You did a great job of looking after a potentially ugly discussion. I just wanted to add clarification to the context of the article.

  14. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,416

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfboy
    Have to disagree with you here zombie. Labelling something or someone fascist is not hate speech. In the context of the article, the term fascist is applied correctly. It notes reactionary tendencies that elevate the state above all else, a rejection of rationalism, and a belief in an Ubermensch type of leader. .
    Is a rejection of "rationalism" really a part of the fascist party platform? I wonder if Redsfaithful really knows what Fascism is.

  15. #14
    A Little to the Left Redsfaithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bexley, OH
    Posts
    7,467

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix
    Is a rejection of "rationalism" really a part of the fascist party platform? I wonder if Redsfaithful really knows what Fascism is.
    I didn't write the article so why does it matter?
    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
    --Oscar Wilde

  16. #15
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,998

    Re: The Reality of Red State Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
    I didn't write the article so why does it matter?
    Because anyone who dosn't stay in line gets poked, as apparent from the reaction you get for having the audacity to step out of line.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25