Why Fear The Left?

As I was saying over dinner with someone the other night, while I'm not crazy about the extreme far Right or the far Left, I fear the Left much more than I do the Right. Did you ever stop to think how most all of the dictators in this hemisphere are Leftists? And out Left has no problem with that? And for all their alleged pacifism, the Left will militarize in a heart beat for what it believes to be the correct cause. And many of the causes of the Left have little to do with what makes America great, or our Constitution.

Dr. Sanity has a related piece well worth reading.

This sort of cognitive dissonance and intellectual insanity is not because they are particularly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, it is because as Duke suggests, they have a very specific political agenda that has been slowly but surely changing American society into their utopia. This "social engineering" on their part doesn't give a damn about free speech except insofar as it can be used to forward their socialist agenda. It doesn't give a damn about freedom of religion, except insofar as it can be used to forward their socialist agenda.

Comments

[Felix]

"Did you ever stop to think how most all of the dictators in this hemisphere are Leftists?"

Um, isn't there just one?

Seriously, who are you talking about beyond Fidel?

Chavez may exhibit some worrisome Putin-esque behavior, but classifying him as a "dictator" because you don't like his politics is just loopy. Am I missing someone else?

[Carol_Herman]

Sorry, but Bush just crashed his presidency far better than the small wreck by nancy pelosi, which ADULTS in the donk party corrected IMMEDIATELY. Maybe, she has ears. And, Bush has proven that he does not!

Despots! None worse for America than James Baker.

I suppose you could call Jimmy Carter a democrat. But THEY DON'T! He gets his money from the Saudis. And, the Saudis are still the problem.

Once you tear away the Monica personal story from Bill Clinton, you're left with a president who was a HAWK on fiscal matters! And, he wasn't an idiot. Like the current president IS!

I know there's gonna be name-calling, now, because there's panic on the RIGHT. Bush blew the GOP all to pieces. Doing exactly what his dad did. Which was to let the Reagan legacy work to elect UNELECTABLE TURKEYS.

You've got to cure that one! You've got to cure how these bad things came to pass. (And, it's not just with the flinging around of RINO that turned off MAINSTREAM/INDEPENDENT voters. Lincoln Chaffee was one of the few "moderates" who supported the saudis. And, the palestinians. You'll notice that he lost. And, no one seems aggrieved to see him go.

While things from Congress are awfully quiet. Except to notice Drudge's headline. That the democrats are not going to enforce their 9/11 rule. Which was to restructure Congress in terms of whose in charge of "intelligence." They're acknowledging that they don't want to "hurt military turf."

Bush just made climbing out of the hole he's dug all that much harder. See if I care? I'm totally disgusted with the GOP. Never again, will I vote for maniacs that can't be trusted.

[salvage]

Did you ever stop to think how most all of the dictators in this hemisphere are Leftists?

No. Tell us, how many? What precentage?

[Seekeronos]

A not necessarily comprehensive list of leftist Latin American leaders:

Fidel Castro > Cuba

Daniel Ortega > Nicaragua

Hugo Chavez > Venezuela

Evo Morales > Bolivia

Michelle Bachelet > Chile

Tabare Vazquez > Uruguay

Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva > Brazil

Nestor Kirchner > Argentina

Of these, two can be said to be dictators, namely, Castro (of whom there is no doubt) and Chavez (who has thus far refrained from shutting down independent press and opposition parties. The fact that Chavez *could* very easily shut those things down implies that he has virtual dictatorial power.

The others are leftists, and generally opposed to the USA's current foreign policies... but they really cannot be held to be dictators in any strict sense of the word.

That said, there are currently no other dicators in the Western hemisphere aside from Castro, and potentially Chavez. Being that those two are leftists, it would be reasonable to conclude that at the current time, 100% of the dictators in this hemisphere are leftists.

[Dan Riehl]

Leftist, dictators, whaever. Liberals are still banana Republic-ans.

[salvage]

whaever.

That pretty much sums up every argument you make.

[Felix]

"Leftist, dictators, whaever."

I see. Ain't nothing as refreshing in the blogosphere as deliberate lack of precision in language.

Riehl, Hitler, whatever.

I'm gradually figuring out why even conservatives think you're a putz.

[Dan Riehl]

I'm gradually figuring out why even conservatives

LOL A new low low in moonbat-assed argument. nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!!

L-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-oser!

[jaime]

"L-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-oser!"

Funny. I would consider the loser to be the guy who's bag is Missing White Girl Porn and blogging the talking points of a failed Republican agenda.

Will you take us up on our offer? Will you go to Iraq? Be the man you blog yourself to be.

[Purple Avenger]

"Will you take us up on our offer? Will you go to Iraq?"

Why don't you go to Cuba and put your money where your leftist mouth is?

[hilzoy]

I'd actually be interested in hearing more about what you think it shows that all the dictators in this hemisphere are leftists. It certainly hasn't been the case for most of this hemisphere's history (Pinochet, Noriega, Rios Montt, the Argentinian junta, Stroessner...) Nor is it now the case outside this hemisphere (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, Pakistan, Myanmar ...)

Is there something about 'this hemisphere, now' (as opposed to 'this hemisphere, recently', 'the world, now', or 'the world, recently') that's significant? Or is it just that it's the only division that lets you say: hey, they're all leftists!'? In which case, we might just as well reply: Did you ever stop to think that most of the recent dictators of Spain were rightists?

[larry]

the main reason to 'fear the left' - and one that not one wiseass lefty commenter has noted - is that 'left' governments have a bad habit of killing their own people in large numbers. huge numbers! world-record numbers! and then imprisoning the ones they let live.

right-wing governments are pikers when it comes to killing their own. say what you will about the ghastly network of death camps under spain's franco,(LOL), for REAL large-scale killin's, you need a left-wing government in power. history shows us, that when murder is to be done on a large - dare we say "industrial"? - scale, it's a commie/socialist/maoist/stalinist dictator that has to be sitting on the skull throne. from 1930's germany to uncle joe to crazy mao to "one-third dead" pol pot, lefties have shown themselves to be the most psychotically deadly of the species. (although the islamists - they of the armenian & darfurian genocides - are coming up fast on the outside.)

THAT'S why they're to be feared.

leftists, of course, will deny this. ("an unlucky 60-year streak of crop failures!")("religion of peace!")("it's all bush's fault!")

[Purple Avenger]

"'left' governments have a bad habit of killing their own people in large numbers. huge numbers! world-record numbers! and then imprisoning the ones they let live."

Heh - Zimbabwe.

[jaime]

"commie/socialist/maoist/stalinist dictator that has to be sitting on the skull throne. from 1930's germany to uncle joe to crazy mao to "one-third dead" pol pot, lefties have shown themselves to be the most psychotically deadly of the species."

Funny how the right likes to roll up every possible type of dictator and make them "the left" in their entirety. Fascism, despite the Nazi "Socialist" tag was the right wing in it's purest, finest form. Heck, the terrorist regimes like Saudi Arabia and Iran are anything but lefties.

Whatever...I guess you guys would call influenza a lefty disease if you thought you could get away with it.

[seekeronos]

I think Dan's basic point is that historically... the left is given to acting less out of reason than out of passion, and in so doing, it tends to go off the deep end. The extreme ends of this were made manifest in Joe Stalin's butchery and elimination of a possible 30 million of his dissidents, and an even greater toll against the PRC Chinese under Mao's Cultural Revolution. Hitler's estimated 7 millions are much smaller by comparison (though still horrific by any mention).

But, I reckon it depends upon the semantics of "left" and "right". Here is my take on it:

Generally, "leftist" governments are closer to Socialism/Marxism (which as Dan said, generally have had the historically worst kill rates against their dissident populations), whereas "rightist" governments are more market economy oriented. And as much as I dislike the prospect of actually agreeing with Jaime on a point, Nazi Germany would be an authoritarian government with a tightly integrated market economy; the Nazi state was a fascist state, as it did not actually *own* companies like Germaniawerft or Krupp. The state did have an interest in the companies' operations.

So, the other political axis being neglected in this argument is authoritarianism vs. anarchism (with moderately regulated government in the middle). By all accounts, most Latin American countries are *very* authoritarian (although next to many of the Islamofascist states, they are downright havens of libertarianism).

The dynamic of Left vs. Right is kind of dimmed when one tries to apply it to Middle East nations; they really have only one resource to bring to market. I'd say I can't really put a mark on them on way or another, and in many cases, it would vary widely within the nation itself (Iraq and Lebanon, which are effectively splintered into ethnic/sectarian "micro-governments").

Perhaps what is of greater importance is the fact that those Latin American nations mentioned above have elected left-leaning executives who have chosen in varying degrees to move out of or reject the US sphere of influence, and closer into the arms of the Islamists (like Chavez courting Iran) and the other remnants of the USSR (courting Putin and the Russian military-industrial complex).

In my opinion, most of the Latin American nations are fairly moderate in terms of not going to the extremes that Castro has gone in Cuba. Chavez? He is a pock-faced punk with a big ego and an axe to grind against the USA if only to secure his tenure among Venezuelan leftists voters... he is playing to his base.

Of course, he does represent a potential regional security threat down the horizon, especially if he decides to buy into the Shanghai Pact and seek nuclear arms alongside Iran. He also a tendency to provide papers to visiting Jihadists to make their eventual transit thru the US border that much easier. He has already thrown down his cards, and the gambit with him will be to attempt to contain him by vexing him into being generally boorish and stupid, so that he overplays his hand (much like he did in his recent visit to the UN in NYC).

Castro remains a potent, if not ailing threat. But not much can be done other than to wait him out, and hopefully we will have the good sense to buy out Brother Raul, or whoever actually succeeds Castro as El Presidenté. By this, I mean opening up Cuba to trade with an aim to limit the influence of his legacy on succeeding Cuban administrations, or at least, remove a barrier that has ceased to be useful since the collapse of the USSR.

Evo Morales and the others can be managed by silently supporting their opposition, and through US efforts to "acknowledge" their regimes and their grievances. I think toning done the FTAA which has been a sore point over our subsidized farmers vs. their substantially cheap manufacturing price points might be good for all parties concerned: a sort of a defanged protectionism.

In short, moving or influencing leftist governments to shift more to the center-right whenever possible... is probably much better than letting them wander off further into the realms of lefty lunacy.

[larry]

well, crud. i forgot to include the famous old line, "nazis weren't neither left-wing!" in my list of tired lefty excuses for left-wing barbarism.

a rough list of the top 3 mass murderers of the 20th century goes like this:

3) hitler - 10-15 million dead
2) stalin - 20-30 million dead
1) mao - 30-40 million dead

now, stalin and mao were self-proclaimed commies, so a lefty can't really deny those murders....but calling hitler "rightwing" is a sacred (and incorrect) tenet of leftism, so naturally, the lefties zoom in on poor old adolf and proclaim HIM to be the A#1 killa of all time. as for the 50-70 million the undeniable commies killed, well,....easier to just not comment on that. (see above) although i have seen some amusing denials in the past: "nobody knows for sure how many died in the great leap forward/ukranian genocide/etc! the chicom/soviet govt. refused to publish statistics! it might be as few as 20 million!"

but what the hell. as the leftwing sociopaths like to say, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet, right?

[jaime]

Your trying to tar me with the crimes of Josef Stalin?

Um...I haven't killed one, much less 15 million people. And I don't blame you for Nazism. Sheesh. Get your ass kicked in an election and your crazy goes off the charts.

[larry]

interesting, is it not, interesting who answers back when larry types in the words "left-wing sociopath".

[Seekeronos]

@ Larry:

Ain't that the truth. You'd almost think someone felt a tad guilty.

[seekeronos]

That is quite an accusation, Jaime.

I do not know Larry personally, nor have I been on ths blog long enough to learn who the local meth dealers or gay prostitutes were. I don't have a particular interest in those things.

I was only remarking on how fast you were to comment back and defend yourself as if someone had conflated your beliefs with those of a mass murdering despot (Stalin, to wit).

Something about "left-wing sociopath" must have gotten your goat, eh?

And I am not so sure of your self-avowed "Christianity" either, since your speech is consistently vile, bitter, and utterly lacking of anything of that is spiritually edifying. You seemed more obsessed with ratting out whoever you think is cooking up meth somewhere, or posting ridiculously poorly thought out arguments, and then when challenged on those arguments, you resort to cursing and ad-hominem attacks.

Tsk.

[larry]

right you are, seeker. you'd think that since jamey's arguments are so...oh, how to put this diplomatically?....."simple", and "childlike", you'd think they'd at least also convey an equally childlike charm.

i personally think that jamey's continuing online hatefulness is why his mom took away the computer last week. i've heard that she used to spank him vigorously, but later realized that was an incorrect approach; when she stumbled upon his 'matthew shepard' posts fantasizing about being tied up by non-homosexuals. well, that and the recurring theme of the "12-year-old prostitutes".

regretfully, it seems that medication is now his last, best hope. should that fail, i'm afraid all that's left for him is what is now known as the 'kennedy method' for dealing with difficult children: a lobotomy. a tad brusque, perhaps, but papa joe kennedy always spoke highly of it at parties & dinners, usually just before he gave his 'i adore the nazis' speech. joe junior & jack & bobby & ted were always embarrassed by dad's crush on hitler, ("never mind those ridiculous 'death camp' rumors! as we democrats say, you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet! besides, the ss uniforms are just *stunning*! i've ordered 3 for myself, for wear around the house!"), but joe was quick to silence their complaints with his now-famous "snip-snip" gesture to the frontal lobes.

(avuncular chuckle) gosh, they really WERE america's royal family.

[Officious_Pedant]

Well, if you look at the left/right spectrum, and we assume for the purposes of this debate that left equals ownership of all is distributed among all the people (utopia) and that the right equals ownership of all is held by the state (dictator), then EVERY dictatorship is, by definition, right wing. The rest is semantics.

If a person runs their country whereby everything political, economic, and military is held to be an arm of the state, that person is pretty far to the right. Which is dictatorial. They can say whatever they like about People's Republic, or Workers Paradise, but those statements fail on their face. Some of you would do well to read Locke, for example, to see the demands that were placed on the population of the State. And recall that Locke's writings formed some of the principals this country was founded on. The assertion that the populous is essentially a mob in need of guidance, for example, and that it is a State's right to demand the lives of that populous, and their duty to give it.

It is particualrly apt that the definitions of left and right, at least partly, came into being during the French Revolution, and were assigned based on your position toward the Crown. Also the fact that they are tied entirely to your point of view. To discuss them as though they are empirical fact is simplistic at best.

[seekeronos]

Now ya see... left and right... have completely flip-flopped when you start playing the semantics game. Your argument might better be placed into a framework that is best measured by the GINI index (often known as the "have/have-not" index). It is measured from 1 to 4, with 1 representing the utopic vision of everyone owning everything equally, and 4 being everything owned by one individual.

On the extremes of what of conventionally accepts as right we have Mussolini or Hitler style fascism: largely private (that is, non-government owned) industries lead by families or corporations which made some deals with the government to receive protective and favored status in that nation's economic structure. Competition is allowed and much bribery greases the economic wheels.

On the extreme left - we have the Stalinist examples of Soviet Russia and North Korea... the state owns everything lock, stock, and barrel.

At various points in between, we have (from conventionally accepted concepts of "left to right") :

- the Red Chinese expanded command economy (with billions of peasants despite a few glittering westernized cities).. a horrific GINI index in spite of anything Mao and Marx would have foreseen...

- The Euro-plex (typified by Scandinavian, German and French economics) of tightly controlled industries which are privatized, but heavily taxed to support those nations' socialist programs ... low GINI and fairly even distribution of wealth, but hampered business opportunities and the notion of meritocracy and a perverse desire to assimilate itself to the the third world to its own destruction...

- Japanese/Taiwanese/Australia market economies, with highly regulated but a distribution of wealth tending toward a large upper middle class. GINI has been largely kind here, remaining at about 3.2 or less over the past generation, but is starting to swing up...

- The USA: ultra free-trade, hyper commercialized, decayed industrial base, with relatively little regulation on its corporate structures, a very high GINI skewing consistently over 3.5, and a relatively small safety net for economic failure. But those who succeed, often succeed big.

All that aside... it is completly impossible for human society to every get an absolute 1 or an absolute 4 on the GINI... we are too greedy as individuals to ever allow a true marxist economy "where everyone held everything in common" and still be able to allow commerce to occur .... commerce exists based upon people supplying others' wants from an abundance that they can trade in, to supply thier own needs.

Absolute ownership is also equally impossible, since nations with exceedingly high GINIs often plunge into revolution (marxist or otherwise) in an attempt to dethrone the "king of the hill."

Even Kim il-Jong cannot completely own everything in the DPRK. He has to keep his enforcers (the DPRK military) relatively fat and happy to maintain his status as kingpin.

[larry]

also, officious, i couldn't help noticing that your "if they own everything & the military is an arm of the state, they must be right-wing" argument conveniently seems to absolve entirely the *self-proclaimed* commies of russia, china, et al, of their multitude of crimes against humanity.

even though they SAID they were commies, even though commies have ALWAYS been understood to be left-wing, you've postulated a theory in which the murdering communist scum somehow magically become.....right-wing. letting the kind & noble lefties off the hook for killing more people than all other political philosophies combined.

this makes me a tad suspicious of your motives.

[12 18 poster frame]

I've pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning. I haven't gotten anything done today. I haven't been up to much , but oh well. I've just been staying at home waiting for something to happen, but so it goes. Pfft.

[Sandra]

LÒinteret du forum est precisement de susciter un debat parmi les citoyens pour que le budget et les choix quÒil sous-tend soient places au c?ur du debat public. Un budget, ce sont des choix. Des choix supposent des priorites.