The New American Liberalism: Fascism In Disguise

It must be a lacking in their ability for complex thought that permits the American Liberal of today to kid themselves, along with portions of our society, that they are anything close to what Classical Liberalism was intended to be. All one need do is take the classic concept and compare it to the actions we see from today's Left.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]

Individual rights? Can an ideology which today argues for the regulation of what individuals eat, if or where they can smoke, whether or not they can own a gun, where, or if they can hunt, how much wealth they should be permitted to accumulate before they are held in disdain be considered an ideology of individual rights? The liberalism of today embraces collectivism over individuality, that's as clear as clear can be.

Many of the highlighted elements overlap. But there are enough examples to address each concept with something new. Freedom of thought? That from the party which has institutionalized the concept of hate speech so much so that individuals expressing sentiments out of the norm can be imprisoned for longish terms simply because they expressed a different, even if ugly view?

Limitations on the power of government? I needn't even supply an example to demonstrate that the collectivist mindset of the contemporary American Liberal simply cannot entertain that view. From what to how we drive, which gas we use, to what one learns in school, where and what we can build, or when we need to tear it down, these are all decisions today's collectivist Liberal would empower government to make.

The Rule of Law? Every duly legislated law and even voter referendum passed with which they disagree is immediately challenged in court, either by the ACLU, or some other manufactured and well-funded legal arm of the American Left. They've become skilled at using the judiciary to subvert the very concept of genuinely democratic law.

The free exchange of ideas? Not from an ideology constantly attacking free speech, just as they are doing today in this case in San Francisco.

The troubles for KSFO began in 2006 when a fifth-tier liberal blogger from San Francisco, hiding behind the pseudonym “Spocko’s Brain,” started sending the station’s advertisers complaint letters. Such correspondence included cherry-picked audio clips and mini-transcripts from previous broadcasts. One such letter, as posted by Daily Kos contributor Mike Stark on January 3, began: more

They don't support free markets, but wish to tax and regulate, allegedly for the common good, at every turn. And through McCain Feingold they've now begun to regulate the political speech of us all.

Transparent government? When documents disappear from our National Archives and billing records show up under a First Lady's desk?

Liberalism? Not a chance.

Fascism

The term fascism was first used by Benito Mussolini, and it comes from the Italian word fascio, which means "union" or "league", and from the word fasces, which means rods bundled around an axe.

That's the word you want to look up today if you want to get to the root of today's American Liberalism. They avoid that definition only because they are generally so seemingly un-militaristic and openly anti-war. But don't kid yourself. Like every other aspect of American life today they attempt to collectivize and ultimately control, when the day comes that their own very non-Liberal view is threatened, if they have that power, they will gladly exercise that one, too.

The growth cycle of today's American neo-Liberalism won't be complete until they do.

Comments

[Rick]

Perhaps we can borrow a perjorative from across the aisle and call them neo-coms.

They do seem agressive in seeking a servile populace; one gets an impression that near to the dearest freedom they'd allow is late-term abortion.

Cordially...

[Horatio]

"The Rule of Law? Every duly legislated law and even voter referendum passed with which they disagree is immediately challenged in court, either by the ACLU, or some other manufactured and well-funded legal arm of the American Left. They've become skilled at using the judiciary to subvert the very concept of genuinely democratic law."

The interpretation of laws by an independent judiciary is an essential part of the "rule of law." Of course we challenge stupid and unjust laws immediately. After all, that's what the courts are for and, what's more, why wait? Are you really this stupid, Dan? "Duly legislated law," as you so clumsily put it, is only as good as the judiciary's opinion of it. Don't you know that???

[Fred Beloit]

There is something in the wiring of their pacifist but hate-filled emotional pack that makes it impossible to conduct a discission or make a point without being insulting. This trait appears in every blog one has been privilaged to visit as a commenter. See post above. "Their" in my statement refers to the "we' in the post above.

[Dan Riehl]

is only as good as the judiciary's opinion of it. Don't you know that???

You are a complete fool. It is only as "good" as if and when it falls within the parameters of the Constitution, you idiot. You know, that document you Libs so endeavor to re-write. And the judiciary is the precise vehicle with which you would attempt to do it.

[DANEgerus]

To have a political spectrum you have to have opposites.

The opposite of Left is Right.

The opposite of collective is individual.

So the true opposites of today's Collectivist Left are the Libertarians and it is the (R)epublicans who are in the middle.

The Libertarians just don't seem to know that.

[Mike Stark]

Not gonna spend a lot of time here educating the willfully ingorant (read: stupid), but what is wrong with Spocko furthering KSFO's right to free speech? What is wrong with him telling advertisers what is said on the radio station they've chosen to associate their brand with?

OK, you're gonna say that Spocko sends misleading clips, taken out of context or otherwise distortive of the intended meaning. I in no way concede the issue, but instead stipulate to it for the purposes of this arguement. Even if it were true, isn't the answer to Spocko's deception more free speech? KSFO just did a radio show on Friday - three hours worth - that addressed (some of) Spocko's soundbites. The facts that during the course of the show they blackmailed advertisers, astroturfed the call-in lines, lied about Spocko's impact and spent much of the time discussing the completely irrelevant topic of Spocko's online psuedonym speak volumes about the underlying issue, no?

Further, your discussion of regulations above... the fact is that our society has chosen a certain level of compassion. We do not want to emulate the colonial powers of old in which the controllers of a nation's capital insulated themselves from the inferior classes and did/do nothing to provide for the underclass.

As such, it behooves us to think about minimizing the costs of the compassion we provide to the underclass. If trans-fats cause health problems that allow people to live, but only marginal existences, often in nursing homes etc., and if said people have their care paid for by yours and my dime, well, perhaps those trans-fats aren't a good thing to be feeding those that will never pay for the consequences of their choices. Cigarette companies have known of the health effects of their product for ages. In this country, they are allowed to profit by selling sickness and death, but in large part, you and I, the tax-payer, pick up the bill for the treatment of destitute smokers.

Oh, I know, you think the world is a simple place where there are no difficult choices... "You smoke, you get sick, you die... Don't come to me to bail you out." I understand that is your idea of "tough love" (though where compassion enters the picture is elusive)... But you will always be in the minority with that vision of social darwinism of yours. America, in my opinion, is a great country and part of that greatness is predicated on how well we've chosen to take care of the less fortunate. Until you join the "Riehl" world and accept that more people agree with me than with you, well, you'll never be able to make reality based economic decisions.

BTW, I spent four years in the Marine Corps. I was fed a steady diet of food laden with trans-fats at the chow hall and they subsidized my cigs. (Yeah, I smoked as a young'n.) Do you think I deserve health care if complications develop as a result of the choices I, and the USMC, made while I served? More to the point, what do you think a retiree deserves if they made the same choices I made for thirty years? Would you say - "tough luck. you made the choice to serve. you volunteered to re-enlist over and over again, knowing what they were feeding you. You chose to smoke the cheap cigs they offered. You made your bed, buddy. Deal." Or are some people deserving of being held less for their choices? If the latter, isn't that actually an insult to those that served? After all, they are moral agents capable of choosing every bit as well as the rest of us. Why dehumanize them by insulating them from the consequences of their choices?

Ugh.

I'm a ranter, but at least I'm not a hypocrite and a moron...

Don't even let me get started on gay marraige, Terry Schaivo, domestic spying, corporate welfare, tort reform, etc. etc. etc.

[Oregonian]

Riehl, buddy, after writing this sort of screed, you're not really in any position to call someone else a fool.

[Sadly, No! Research Labs]

"You are a complete fool. It is only as 'good' as if and when it falls within the parameters of the Constitution, you idiot."

Um, challenging decisions in court somehow subverts the rule of law?

I'm really not following this one. Is this a way of saying that the Constitution should be interpreted by the president? Because if you look in the Constitution, it sets up a body specifically for this purpose, called the Supreme Court...

[Rick]

Dan,

Tread with care, because sooner or later some "progressive" will unsheath the checkmate di tutti checkmates: "reality has a liberal bias." At that point, it's all over.

Judicial review would be much improved if the check & balance of recall & impeachment were employed. Or judges be appointed for fixed terms, rather than life. We are, after all, supposed to be self- (and not elite-) governing.

Cordially...

[Dan Riehl]

I'm really not following this one.

Spare me. You don't do coy very well. Try explaining why the Left tries to torpedo every conservative nominee for any court if the judiciary hasn't become just another political tool? You know damned well you're spouting nonsense, unless you're really that much of a lightweight. The Left can't win enough of their agenda by trusting in the ballot box, so you've resorted to trying to skew the judiciary to the left. That's hardly a defense of the democratic legislative process. You even try to block them in comittee because they would win in a majority vote.

[Sadly, No! Research Labs]

"Not gonna spend a lot of time here educating the willfully ingorant"

Mike, what are you doing here? I'm sitting around waiting for [mumble-mumble] email, and you're hanging around at Riehls!

You are so busted, man.

[Purple Avenger]

"and part of that greatness is predicated on how well we've chosen to take care of the less fortunate."

I can get 100% FREE medical care at the local hospital (JFK Medical Center in Lake Worth FL) just by claiming to be an illegal alien with no paperwork or money.

It don't get much better than that my man unless you want the government to hand out $100 bills like they were M&M's.

[splashtc]

sooo true.

[mos]

Wow, dude. Project much?

[Rick]

"..."and part of that greatness is predicated on how well we've chosen to take care of the less fortunate.""

I guess that help's explain the hossanahs for Fidel Castro. He "takes care of the less fortunate." Loves them so much, he's made millions and millions of them. Part of Cuba's greatness.

Of course, the benefactors must be pampered. It's only right.

Cordially...

[seekeronos]

Meh. This country is doomed if liberals like some of y'all here really are the future of this country.

Perhaps it is time for us true conservatives to consolidate themselves into the northern red states, and partition the nation off from the crazies, the muzzies, and all the other latter day "liberal" fascists who seem bound and determined to ruin America.

Heh! A Confederacy in reverse. Wouldn't that be ironic.

And before you say that Bush has already been the ruination of America...

...If Bush was running the nation into the gates of hell at a brisk pace, then a majority Democrat government (Donkey Kongress + Hillary + a few more judicial activist S.C. Justices re-writing the constitution) will be a rocketsled to hell with greased skids.

[_NH]

Buckley-gate will be a serious blow to NH Democrats
Monday, January 15th, 2007

The Concord Monitor recently posted something about this scandal being nothing more than ‘petty politics’ and about Ray Buckley being ‘ethical’. Neither could be further from the truth.

Ray Buckley was one of the most vicious attackers on the political scene. He was noted for sending out ‘yellow’ cards to attack other candidates. The Democrats did not seem to mind this.

Here is an example of a card which contained many untrue statements but which somehow Buckley was not afraid to sign as paid for by the local party organization: Buckley Hit

Buckley was ‘no oridinary Democrat’.

Here is the letter that a former landlord of Buckley’s sent to Governor Lynch. Since Governor Lynch notified the Democrats first instead of the police after receiving the letter, perhaps he too should be charged; with conspiracy to cover up a crime.

December 26, 2006
Dear Governor Lynch,

I have followed with interest your comments about getting tough on those who use the Internet to prey on children and about how you want to put those who indulge in kiddie pornography away for a long time. I trust your concern and that of Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is genuine. When the Foley situation surfaced in Washington, there seemed to be some question as to how much Speaker Hastert knew in advance. For your benefit, I shall give you details here and an indication of how you can learn more about a particular individual should you so choose. I deliberately avoided doing this during the campaign, so as not to make it a political issue. However, I am not the only one privy to this information. I fear it is about to come forward from other sources and could prove harmful to the Democratic Party and the State of New Hampshire, especially at a time when the first in the nation primary is so much in the news.

The New Hampshire Democratic Vice Chair (and apparently a candidate to replace Kathy Sullivan as party chair) and Manchester City Chair Raymond Buckley has a long history with kiddie pornography. You may choose not to believe me, but the man lived in my home for 16 years, and I know details that would make the average person both sick and furious. I would be willing to take a lie detector test and suggest that others, including former and current elected officials, would, if so tested, tend to verify what I say. . . . I know for a fact that Mr. Buckley used to smuggle kiddie porn from Amsterdam and Denmark into the United States inside Newsweek and other magazines. You could not enter his room without stepping over kiddie porn strewn on the floor. I will never forget how Mr. Buckley became furious at me one day for letting Donna Soucy in the house and escorting her upstairs to his room without warning him in advance.

In 1998, Grolen Communications supplied Manchester Democrats with a computer. Mr. Buckley took it for his personal use and I discovered that under my roof, he began more and more to use the Internet to search for kiddie porn. That was one reason (of several) I was forced to evict him in July, 1999. I am a libertarian who believes that people should be free as long as they do not harm others. I also believe we have enough laws on the books now to crack down on those who harm others. In Mr. Buckley’s case, we’re not talking about shades of gray. We’re not quibbling over a year or two regarding the age of consent. We’re not talking about abuse of 12 and 13 year olds; we’re talking about pre-pubescent four through nine year olds of a specific type. . .

I cannot say I have ever seen Mr. Buckley having sex with children, and I cannot say he has continued his kiddie porn passion after I evicted him in 1999, but if a long history of possession of kiddie pornography is something you believe society needs to look at, here’s a place to start looking. I can only assume that even a cursory investigation will convince you that Mr. Buckley is not the person Democrats or New Hampshire want in a leadership position.

Sincerely,
Steve Vaillancourt

[diondrum]

Stark, your post demonstrates such eloquence that I’m surprised you had to resort to violence against one of George Allen’s supporters last year. I think you got your platitudes confused and used power against truth rather than speak truth to power.

How’s your diet these days? You looked a little chunky on Olbermann. I’m loathe to see my tax dollars go for your bypass surgery, so perhaps we should ban Ben and Jerry’s in an effort to force you to make the right choices.

Ugh.

[Buzzy]

I suppose the argument could be made that both the Democrat and Republican party have lost their way but at issue here isn't Democrat or Republican, those are political parties, but liberal and conservative.

All too many of today's Democrats are in no way liberal per the definition of the term and haven't been for years. They are the biggest threat to individual freedom this country has ever known and the term fascists is much closer to being correct than liberal would. If they were truly liberal they would insist on minimalist government and as few regulations as possible instead of seeking to control the actions of the citizens through ever more laws and constraints.

Dan you batted this one right out of the park, now if you'll give us the "other side of the story" with how Republicans aren't conservative both sides can feign outrage.

[blog responder]

Re: Fascism...

'As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." (The US dictionary definition has gotten somewhat squishier since then, as all the larger dictionary companies have been bought up by multinational corporations.)

'Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But not a government of, by, and for We The People - instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.

'In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" - the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks like John Boehner and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.'

From: "Reclaiming The Issues: Islamic Or Republican Fascism?"
by Thom Hartmann
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-23.htm

[Sgt.York]

I have to agree with "blog responder" - Fascism is a dictatorship that merges state with corporate interests and uses 'patriotism' to control the populace.

What you are talking about is the Liberal desire for a NANNY STATE that acts as a parent protecting the populace from their childlike desires.

==========================

[ApplePie]

The term fascism was first used by Benito Mussolini, and it comes from the Italian word fascio, which means "union" or "league", and from the word fasces, which means rods bundled around an axe.

And your post comes from the word "feces", which means piece of shit.

What you describe is far from Fascism, Dan. If you want to call the left Communist or Socialist, that's your prerogative. But calling them Fascist just makes you sound ignorant and uneducated.

[jim]

Who's been in power for the past 6 years? Why it's Republicans.

Who's pushed the Patriot Act? Who's fought against anyone trying to restrain the power of the Executive Branch? WHo's extended the use of Presidential signing statements more than all other previous Presidents combined - and extended the intent of those statements not just to make a legal distinction, but to border on saying the President is entirely exempt?

Who's stated the president has a right to imprison any one he wants, for no stated reason, with no trial, no right to see the evidence against them, and no right to communicate to anyone?

Who's violated FISA and surveilled US citizens WITHOUT warrants, that could be gotten up to 72 hours *after* the surveillance started, since BEFORE 9/11?

Who's stated that we don't even have the right to look at Presidential documents? Who's fought against the release of documents that show who even *visits* the White House?

Hint: not a Democrat.

I guess the Democrats have been pushing their fascist agenda psychically?

Do you even believe this when you write it? It sounds much more like what you wish could be true, just so your party wouldn't be letting you down so bad.

I understand the feeling, but please pay more attention to reality.

[Bruce Graeme]

Before Hitler and Mussolini brought infamy to the term fascism, Wells had referred to himself as a "liberal fascist."

Liberalism today in large would reject any association with fascism when in actuality what they reject is the old terminology.

Fascism in theory need not contain all of the harsh elements of Nazism and as a concept presented under a different name it fits in perfectly with a socialist agenda.

When analyzing the ideas and philosophies of liberalism today, if in comparison we look back at Wells’s concept of liberal fascism, we have a very close match.

Yes, Wells’s liberal fascism is still alive, but that is not what it is called - It is called progressive.