Conservative vs. liberal
There are times when I do not know whether to call myself a liberal or a conservative. By liberal, I mean “classical” liberal, which is connected to a tradition of individual liberty and small government instead of today’s popular construction with its socialistic worldview. I generally have to ask people, “What do you mean,” when I’m queried on my political ideology. David Koyzis offers helpful distinctions in his book Political Visions & Illusions: A Survey & Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies, which is well-worth reading.
Koyzis rightly points out that we all tend to waffle between idolatry and gnosticism in our political alignment. We are idolatrous when we believe that our political preference is the remedy for the world’s problems, and we are gnostic when we believe that competing ideologies are inherently evil. In an honest moment, I would confess that I do believe that my political ideology is right and all others are wrong because, at the end of the day, I think I’m always right. This is why I struggle with whether I am liberal or conservative.
To conserve something, says Koyzis, means to keep it, maintain it, in the face of forces that might tend to eliminate it over time. A conservative fears that something is being lost with change that cannot be replaced. Conservatives tend also to regret nothing more than the loss of their own power and privilege. What makes someone a conservative is not so much one’s views on government but common attitudes toward tradition and change. Conservatives do not like change. Conservatives want to conserve their own traditions and institutions even if that means trading off innovation and progress.
Liberalism starts with the fundamental belief in human autonomy, which means being self-directed and free to govern oneself in accordance with rules in which one willingly submits. The most basic principles of liberalism, according to Koyzis, is that everyone possesses property in their own person and must therefore be free to govern themselves in accordance with their own choices provided that those choices do not infringe on the equal right of others to pursue the same. Human persons should be free from coercion that favors one person or group’s preferences for another. As such, true liberals have a consistent aversion to government coercion in ways that conservatives do not.
The liberal/conservative distinction may explain why many conservatives do not mind expanding the size of government to maintain their own values and traditions. Many conservatives have no problem using the coercive nature of government to enshrine “traditional values” in America in ways intolerable to liberals. For example, conservatives and liberals would disagree about having prayer in (former Protestant) public schools. Conservatives lament the absence of prayer while liberals see no place for prayer in that setting, or even the idea of public schools.
We saw this distinction clearly in the politics of Ron Paul during the last presidential campaign. Paul stood out among the other Republican candidates because he was more concerned about liberty than using government to preserve traditions and preferences. At the end of the day, I have more affinities with liberals than conservatives because there are some American conservative cultural traditions that America has benefited by extinguishing.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top89 Comments to “Conservative vs. liberal”
Doesn’t your second paragraph essentially say we waffle between “I’m right” and “You’re wrong”? Or am I missing some distinction?
Bradley also suggests that there are two versions of liberalism but fails to see that there may also be two versions of conservatism. I think the contention between the two types of conservatives is the conflict in the Republican party today.
If our labels are wrong, it may be advisable to drop them and focus instead on the ideas themselves.
Report comment to moderator
I have found that most political points-of-argument or discussions center around such terms as “liberal” and “conservative,” which have dubious definitions. Without hard and agreed-upon definitions, you cannot even have a discussion.
Bradley says, “Koyzis rightly points out that we all tend to waffle between idolatry and gnosticism in our political alignment.”
“…idolatry and gnosticism…” We Christians must lay out our arguments in biblical terms like this in order to understand them rightly. If Koyzis discusses liberal and conservative in terms of idolatry and gnosticism, that’s a book I want to read.
Report comment to moderator
The terms are of little value today, since they don’t mean what they originally meant.
Modern conservatives want change just as badly as liberals. They want to increase liberty by reducing the power of government. Liberals want to create a Utopian society by increasing the power of government.
History is a long slow march to the left. Yesterday’s liberals are today’s conservatives. Modern conservatives want what the liberal founding fathers wanted. Modern liberals aren’t anything like classical liberals. They are essentially the exact opposite.
Here is a little thought experiment. What group was considered to the radical left in the 17th century?
It was the Anabaptists. They called for separation of church and state. They argued for freedom of conscience, speech, religion. Today the Anabaptists are considered to the radical right. And yet the Anabaptists today have the same views that they had in the 1600s.
They didn’t change, the world changed. The world keeps going further to the left, i.e. toward a Utopian society created in their own image.
Report comment to moderator
I love waffles.
We are idolatrous when we believe that our political preference is the remedy for the world’s problems, No! how can any solution be found if every time you get a solution you are ‘idolatrous’? When you have a solution that works you are ingenious not idolatrous.
and we are gnostic when we believe that competing ideologies are inherently evil. Gnostic? Perhaps if you stretch the term. Rather if the competing ideology is inherently evil (we can name a few) then you are “Correct” . If the competing ideology is only evil sometimes then you are “seeing the bigger picture” . If the competing ideology is not inherently evil, then you are a bigot.
Report comment to moderator
One cannot label oneself liberal nor conservative unless one is also to give as a quick adjunct what that term means to the individual. In different parts of the world the term have diametrically opposite meanings.
Report comment to moderator
When pressed for my political preferences I am at ease with saying that I vote for the beautiful people. Which I do.
Report comment to moderator
Variously attributed, it’s been said that America has the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. This seems to me a more accurate depiction than “idolatrous” and “gnostic” since most politicians are gnostic and all gnostics are idolators.
The same person is also alleged to have said, “When both political parties come together it is something both stupid and evil. This is also known as ‘bipartisanism.’”
Report comment to moderator
So, which party is which?
Report comment to moderator
On election night it is always easy to tell which party thinks they are going to win. They are the ones with the bigger and more expensive buffet.
Report comment to moderator
Modern conservatives want change just as badly as liberals. They want to increase liberty by reducing the power of government. Liberals want to create a Utopian society by increasing the power of government.
XION is confused. The powers of government are set by the Constitution not by the political parties.
Republicans and Democrats can only change the size of the government and the use that they make of government.
Leftists believe in liberty too, but they don’t think it’s inversely related to the “power” of government. One feature of liberty is the freedom of people to use government as they wish, according to its Constitutional powers. To right wingers, not demonizing government is “utopian” thinking.
Report comment to moderator
It’s seems leftist want liberty but they do not want to take responsibility for the consequences of their liberty.
Report comment to moderator
One thing that distinguishes humans from animals is that humans actuively pass on a history and a heritage *traditions) to their forebears. This is the key to human progress. We benefit from the work, wisdom and legacies of those who have gone before us.
Animals, on the other hand, may benefit or suffer from the environment created for them by humans, but left to themselves, they would simply live in the same way that they lived thousands of years ago, operating on survival instincts, hunting and gathering and procreating.
I see us, in today’s culture, acting more and more like animals. We prefer individual liberty to the often less selfish task of passing on a healthy heritage to our children (unless of course that heritage is a huge debt). Today, we trash our past heroes and live for the moment and for ourselves. We forget the blessings passed on to us by generations who carried them faithfully. We feel less of a moral imperitive to pass on good traditions and legacies to the next generation. We think we don’t need such legacies and that we can invent and create our own lives without them. We lose so much with such ignorant and ungrateful self-absorbtion.
Report comment to moderator
DOULOS8 makes a good point at #1. I think Anthony Bradley’s views of conservatives and conservatism are not as well-informed and a bit too stereotypical.
For instance, he wrote: “Conservatives tend also to regret nothing more than the loss of their own power and privilege.”
Anthony, this strikes me as ridiculous.
Ron Paul stood out among Republicans because his view of the war on terrorists and terrorism was even more radically irresponsible than that of Obama.
Report comment to moderator
The school prayer example (as portrayed) is unhelpful for illustrating the theoretical distinction that Bradley is discussing. Conservative views are far more varied and nuanced across the board on such issues than the popular construction of them would imply. Many conservatives think that local communities should be free to make their own public prayer policies without interference from the feds or judges. No policy can make every individual happy but conservatives want local values and freedoms to be applied on such issues as school prayer and less limitations on our local freedoms from the top down.
Conservatives actually read and understand the First ASmmendment.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS #11. Would you like to give an example of that?
Report comment to moderator
That’s pretty low-hanging fruit, Scroop, but I’ll let her answer.
Report comment to moderator
Re: school prayer: Many conservatives think that local communities should be free to make their own public prayer policies without interference from the feds or judges.
Which would lead to governmental establishment of religion in areas where religious people could pack the school board. In some areas, there would be school boards comprised of non-Christians who would force Christian children to dance around pentagrams before history class, or face Mecca and pray loudly 5 times a day.
Reading the First Amendment AND the Establishment Clause together is necessary to a fair resolution of this issue.
By insisting that nonChristians participate in school prayer, arrogant Christians ruined if for everyone, including other Christians.
Prayer – of any type – is valuable. It is not necessary to the process of education except at religious schools.
Report comment to moderator
15. Abortion.
Report comment to moderator
Welfare rolls full of single mothers, foster homes full of the children of drug addicts, government run STD clinics. The left has been pushing sexual freedom for 40 years all the the while blocking any kind of abstinence teaching. Leftist Hollywood glorifying sexual irresponsibly at the same time portraying conservatives as heartless monsters when they balk at being forced to pick up the piece of the irresponsible behavior we tried to warn you about. Enough examples?
Report comment to moderator
Providing welfare assistance to mothers, foster homes for neglected children, and treatment for STD are all responsible policies.
It turns out that abstinence education is irresponsible.
Don’t Evangelicals have the highest divorce rates in the country?
Hollywood stories (i.e. “blockbuster” stories) almost always punish vice and reward virtue. Puritanical characters have been figures of fun ever since Shakespeare, KBELLS. You can’t blame that on leftists.
Don’t forget, Democrats helped build the largest prison system in history. Candidate Clinton “sent a message” with the gratuitous execution of an imbecile in Arkansas.
Report comment to moderator
A prayer in a school and/or the freedom locally to decide on that matter will NOT lead to governmental establishment of religion anywhere.
Check your U.S. history, Thomas. America actually had that freedom in full force for centuries and at no time was any religion established by the gov’t in America.
Report comment to moderator
Agian, it is conservatives who actually understand the First Amendment. Wasn’t it Rahm Emmanuel who once told a reporter that the First Amendemnt is “over-rated”? (I have just a vague recall of him saying that).
NonChristians need not participate in school prayer, if they don’t want to. But they have no right to insist that others (individuals or local communities) renounce their freedom to express their faith in public.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP
RE ABSTINENCE EDUCATION
If you have a LIBERAL TEACHER teach an abstinence class, do you REALLY think that they will teach TRUE ABSTINENCE without a snicker and a wink?
Report comment to moderator
The gov’t says
separation of CHURCH and STATE, NOT separation of God and State
God IS NOT A CHURCH.
Report comment to moderator
GAGING people from using prayer in the workplace is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Bradley
when you say,
“there are some American conservative cultural traditions that America has benefited by extinguishing.”
Would you elaborate on the extinguished list?
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Bradley
“Conservatives want to conserve their own traditions and institutions even if that means trading off innovation and progress.”
Liberals say this about us, but I disagree.
Take evolution for instance. Animals changing from one species to another is NOT FACT, but it is taught in schools as fact because the powers that be agree with each other that it is fact. And you are NOT allowed to question or put doubts in a student’s mind.
To me that would be like me going to a doctor and he tells me what he has decided is wrong with me and that all doctors agree with him so any other opinion would be wrong. And that any doctor that disagrees with the majority opinion is not a doctor. And they aren’t a doctor because they don’t publish in THE doctor magazine–of which they have barred him publishing because he has disagreed with the majority.
Yeah, that’s liberty for you–the Socialist way.
Report comment to moderator
It seems that Bradley (or the author of which he speaks) feels a bit more free to traffic in cheaper stereotypes about conservatives and conservatism than about liberals and liberalism. Just my take.
Report comment to moderator
“liberals see no place for prayer in that setting, or even the idea of public schools.”
That is the kind of liberalism I can support. Let parents fund their own children’s education. Let parents decide about prayer in the schools they pay for. Let Christian’s rise to the occasion and set up schools in neighborhoods for those who cannot afford expensive private schools. They could charge a small fee…..hey when we no longer pay for taxpayer funded education, people should have at least some money available to pay for their own children’s education.
If Christian’s would take up the ministry of educating the children of the lost in a setting where they are not restrained by the government from sharing the Christian worldview, there is hope for the future.
Report comment to moderator
20. I am all for helping the kids but at the same time we are paying for this we are forbidden to suggest that maybe the parents need to change their ways.
“Hollywood stories (i.e. “blockbuster” stories) almost always punish vice and reward virtue.”
Yes, if you sleep around and have a child out of wedlock you will be punished by waking up looking like Rachel Green or Murphy Brown in a lovely New York apartment and never miss a day of your glamorous job and still have time to hang out with your fiends and make fun of your frumpy unhappy virgin friend.
Report comment to moderator
Why is there such confusion about left and right?
Conservatism isn’t about keeping tradition; it is about clinging to what is good and letting the rest go. They tend to be more ideological, maintaining timeless principles.
If you look at history, liberals keep going further to the left politically and trashing whatever they leave behind, accusing conservatives of clinging to their refuse. Liberals are progressive, meaning they are never satisfied with what is, but always moving toward what could be until Utopia reigns as heaven on earth.
For example, during the early 20th century fascism was all the rage. Progressives praised Hitler and Mussolini until things got out of hand. Now oddly, they’ve succeeded in pasting the Nazi label on conservatives even though Hitler and Mussolini were socialists. The KKK was the militant wing of the southern Democratic party, yet today liberals call them right wing extremists. How do they get away with this?
Anything liberals don’t like is called right wing, even if it was the very thing they praised yesterday.
Report comment to moderator
This piece of unsubstantiated information came out in a poll, which has been widely published – It has been used by liberals LIBERALLY, to tag Evangelical Christians with a high divorce rate. Understanding the average person wouldn’t be able to define the term “Evangelical Christian”.
The 1-4 statements do not reflect any Church I have been affiliated with -
Report comment to moderator
Reactionary conservatives were in love with fascism. Social democrats and communists were just about the only people who opposed the rise of the Nazis. Fascism idolizes private property. Fascism is nationalist, rather than internationalist. Like Palinism, fascism exists to demonize its enemies, the “other.” Socialism is multi-cultural. Socialists were at the forefront of fighting fascism (and racism and imperialism). Literally fighting. They died fighting Franco. They begged FDR to oppose Hitler, until the West left Russia standing alone, at which time Stalin made a pact, in order to buy time to prepare for the expected invasion and the fight to the death.
Report comment to moderator
#33 Scroop. Does it matter to you that none of that is true? You just made that up, didn’t you?
Report comment to moderator
That’s ad hominem, friend. Sure, it matters to me that you say none of #33 is true. No, I didn’t make it up.
But, frankly, it matters more to me that you’ve gone postal. What’s the matter with you? Look, does it matter to you that none of #31 is true? You made it up, didn’t you? You worship the devil, don’t you?
Report comment to moderator
news2me
If you have a LIBERAL TEACHER teach an abstinence class, do you REALLY think that they will teach TRUE ABSTINENCE without a snicker and a wink?
I’m little further to the left than a liberal but I do teach health and I do teach birth control. And yes I teach abstinence and yes I teach abstinence without a single snicker or wink. Honestly, do you actually think I or any other responsible adult is going to teach 14 year olds that abstinence is a silly idea?
Report comment to moderator
Xion
I’ve been through this before with you and Scroop Moth took you to task already but as a historian I become annoyed with bad history.
Fascism as an ideology originated in southern Europe as a conservative Catholic response to the French Revolution and modern capitalism. It sought to adjust cultural conservatism to the modern world. Hence in Spain, Italy, Croatia, Slovakia and to a certain extent Hungry there was substantial Catholic support of fascist regimes. As scoop moth points out, the left (international brigades) fought Franco while the democracies sat on their hands. The Nazi version of fascism is slightly different in that it was less aristocratic or clerical. It originally tried to appeal to the blue collar workers but that remnant (called Strasserism ) was killed off in the Night of the long knives. After which, the Nazi party align itself with corporate interests and the Prussian military caste.
Mussolini and others were originally socialist but in the failure of the left to respond to WWI, many became nationalists and moved to the right.
Report comment to moderator
The two party system in America is partly to blame for some of the confusion in defining conservative or liberal. In many European countries with proportionate representation, one can have a cultural or social conservative party separate from what Americans would call an economic conservative (traditionally referred to as a liberal in Europe) and thus the contradictions and problems between the two groups are apparent and there’s no attempt to merge the two as if it was one ideology.
Report comment to moderator
#20 – “Don’t Evangelicals have the highest divorce rates in the country?”
No, they don’t. One survey that just relied on self-identification and cheap labels found even numbers. But a more reliable stydy found that people who ACTUALLY attended church services regularly had significantly lower divorce rates.
People who simply “say” they are “born again” or “Christian” may divorce as often as others, but divorce is much lower among those who practice their faith by supporting their communities of faith actively.
Report comment to moderator
Also, divorce rates are a bit lower in regions where marriage itself is less frequent and many more people just co-habitate before breaking up (children or not).
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote: “Reactionary conservatives were in love with fascism. Social democrats and communists were just about the only people who opposed the rise of the Nazis.”
Pure falsehood. In one case in particular, Joesph Kennedy (the father of JFK) was particularly weak with regard to opposing the Hitler regime. He was a defeatist, thinking we could not overcome the Germans. He was no conservative either.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I think you are doing bad history. The French Revolution was horrific and thus evoked all sorts of reactions, but fascism was not one of them. One “conservative” reaction to it back then was a return to monarchy. But the impulse to monarchy is just the opposite of what today’s conservatives seek. The definition of “conservative” has changed dramatically over the last 200 years and any attempt to create contemporary conservative coat-tails and/or a link with fascism is real bad history.
Benito Mussolini was the father of fascism and he wedded it early on to his initial socialism. Many liberal progressives of the 20s were enamored with Mussolini
Report comment to moderator
Mussolini never moved to the right. His turn from socialism to fascism was not principled at all. It was practical. He was just moving closer toward the use and abuse of power for utopian and totalitarian political gains.
Report comment to moderator
Like communism, fascism was a utopian vision, involving a totalitarian impulse.
Fascism requires four things to truly qualify as fascism:
1. The dictator (or small group of dictators) has complete power.
2. Strict economic and social rules (gov’t control) come into play.
3. Extreme nationalism exists, often resulting in racism.
4. Violent suppression of all opposition to this government keeps everyone in line.
Nazism fit with all four above. Think about some forms of modern Islam, and you’ll see why many consider them as fascist too.
_____
Report comment to moderator
Elements of fascism gleaned from Jonah Goldberg’s well reasoned book; “Liberal Fascism.”:
1. Everything is political & politics are everything.
2. Race-centrism.
3. Demagogic populism.
4. Militarism (also, mobilizing society like an “army”).
6. “New man” rhetoric.
7. Heavy use of unifying rhetoric & myths.
8. Nationalism.
9. Politics as religion (”Statism” or “Statolatry)”
10. Hostility to individualism.
11. Futurism.
12. Strong control over culture (culture engineering).
13. Strict social & economic rules applied in policies.
14. Suppression of opposition’s voice, influence.
Yes, Goldberg does see such trends on both extreme sides of the political spectrum, but he makes a strong case that it is intellectually disingenuous to apply it primarily to the far right. In fact, he reasonably shows that it often applies more heavily to today’s far left.
Report comment to moderator
Mussolini and others were originally socialist but in the failure of the left to respond to WWI, many became nationalists and moved to the right.
Of course, Marvin Olasky was originally socialist, too. Just like Mussolini!
By the late 20’s Hitler was telling people that putting “socialist” in the name of his party was the worst mistake of his life. If there’s one thing Hitler hated more than the Jews, it was class conflict, and, together, these two antipathies made Hitler the greatest anti-communist of the first part of the century.
From the 20’s straight through the war, Hitler’s second home was the green hill at Bayreuth, the castle of reactionary, anti-modern, anti-liberal German culture. He styled himself as an aristocrat of art; but post-war, de-Nazified Wagnerians question whether Hitler comprehended the first thing about Wagner. Deep down, he preferred operetta.
To my knowledge, the only people who claimed that fascism was socialism were free-market absolutists, who are defunct as a school of economics, but continue to speak here as from the grave.
Report comment to moderator
One of the principal appeals of fascism to the right wing is its usefulness as a tool to oppose socialism. Fascism is a hardening of the political center of the country – a kind of security perimeter around the aristocracy (commerical, military, religious, hereditary). It seeks to end or suppresses class conflict. Fascism agrees with the right wing that differences in wealth and status are healthy. Fascism achieves unity by reinforcing corporatist structures. Institutions and associations are meta-persons a la Justice Roberts. (Hence, Hitler’s medieval nostalgia, which he quaintly but mistakenly thought would inspire the soldiers whom he invited by the thousands to be “guests of the Führer” at performances of Die Meistersinger.)
Hitler’s futurism was futuristic in style, but his future was a return of a mythic, very medieval past. The Nazi revolution was the opposite of the French Revolution. It was a medieval pursuit of the millennium — a sacred order of a thousand years.
Report comment to moderator
#41
You cite Kennedy, I’ll cite Henry Ford and Prescott Sheldon Bush. It proves nothing other than some rich Americans like to make a buck and/or didn’t like Jews.
I think you are doing bad history.
Joel I have a masters degree in history specializing in the history of modern ideas. A crackpot journalist such as Goldberg is not a good source for any legitimate discussion on the origins of fascism.
Given your admiration of Goldberg, I will try baby steps. The Glorious Revolution (English) and the French Revolution originated in the rise of new money. As opposed to the traditional aristocrats of the medieval era, merchants, independent farmers, shopkeepers, tradesmen with their own business, etc were shut out of the traditional bastions of power – parliament, monarchy and church. In England, a civil war followed by dictatorship and then finally a constitutional monarchy succeeded in establishing a regime which established what in Canada is called responsible gov’t and in the US the principle of no taxation without representation.
The French has a similar process just more swings from left to right. The established of the Orleanist monarchy is in French historiography called the “bourgeois monarch”. With a few cultural differences, it wasn’t much different than the Hanoverian rule in England. However, these ideas were threatening to the established order in southern Europe — the aristocracy and the Church.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the medieval centers of power realized they need a new ideology to compete with classic liberalism (JS Mill, Smith etc) and socialism. Fascism was the eventual response. Fascism reestablished the medieval order in a modern context. There’s no individual representation or voice, instead everyone is representation by corporate bodies they belong to (work, church, etc), in much the same manner as the medieval guild. Because of this emphasis on group, culture and tradition were very important, hence the nationalism.
You now have three distinct ideologies — classic liberalism, socialism and fascism. And by 1989, the neo-cons proclaimed classical liberalism the winner. All three, as ideologies, tend toward totalitarianism and/or blind faith and thus its the modified versions that tended to do well for example social democrats not communists.
Report comment to moderator
#45
Goldberg creates a definition and then fits where it wants to put it.
BTW you really don’t want to see what I can do with that list and modern America.
Report comment to moderator
#48 HRW “Joel I have a masters degree in history specializing in the history of modern ideas.”
This is precisely why your understanding of history is so bizarre and unrelated to fact. It is left wing extremist historians who have reinterpreted history from their outlandish point of view.
Nazi means National Socialism. Please explain how socialism is right wing.
Report comment to moderator
#46 – Scroop Moth wrote; “Of course, Marvin Olasky was originally socialist, too. Just like Mussolini!”
Thank you, Scroop. You made my point well. Olasky did actually turn to the right and if you know his thinking, you know that it is the polar opposite of the way the Mussolini turned.
Report comment to moderator
#47 – “Fascism agrees with the right wing that differences in wealth and status are healthy.”
Nonsense. Differences in wealth and status among any diverse and free population are simply realities of freedom. Fascism is virulently anti-freedom, and thus has little in common with today’s reasonable right.
SM wrote; “Fascism achieves unity by reinforcing corporatist structures.”
No, it does so by using the gov’t to control corporations, by wedding gov’t and corporations. That’s anti-right wing.
The French Revolution was, in part, a reign of terror. So was Naziism. However, I do agree there were many ideological differences between each movement. I do not in any way equate them for modern bias-based purposes. Neither should honest liberals today twist history to try to equate fascism with today’s conservative right wing in any way. It’s intellectually dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I agree with Xion at #50. You may have been victimized by academia. The stench of intellectual dishonesty can be, in many cases, more intense there than anywhere on earth. Leftist blinders are often required to survive in modern academia. I have been there. I was a humanities professor at the university level and I taught history to undergrads. But I certainly don’t use that as if it makes my points more credible.
Report comment to moderator
Nazi means National Socialism. Please explain how socialism is right wing.
Sometimes things are mislabeled. In this particular case the original founders of the party did take both the nationalism and the socialism seriously. However, the Strasser brothers were kicked out of the party and one was killed in the Night of the long knives. When Hitler was achieving power he got rid of the socialist wing of the party in response to the concerns of the corporate elite and the Prussian dominated military.
This is precisely why your understanding of history is so bizarre and unrelated to fact. It is left wing extremist historians who have reinterpreted history from their outlandish point of view
And here lies the anti-intellectualism of America, to be educated means you are wrong. And since I’m educated and a leftist, my opinion is dismissed. So besides the label, what are the facts I’m missing on the nazi party? Lets recall – night of the long knives killed off the SA and the Strasser base of the party which combined antisemitism with a critique of capitalism. In other words, Hitler surrounded himself with yes men and opportunists and then made sure to appease the corporate and military interests (ie the traditional conservative base) by killing off the socialist wing.
At no time did Hitler confiscate private property or nationalize industry instead he jailed trade unionists, socialist and communists. How do you construe his actions as socialist?
Report comment to moderator
#51
Actually by turning from the far left to the far right, Olasky demonstrates that Mussolini’s turn from the left to the right isn’t far fetched.
SM
“Fascism achieves unity by reinforcing corporatist structures.”
Joel
No, it does so by using the gov’t to control corporations, by wedding gov’t and corporations.
As I explain earlier fascism was not about individual representation and rights but rather rights and representation were derived from belonging to groups (unions, corporations, church, ethnicity etc) Thus we have the medieval hierarchy/guild system in modern form. In fascism then the gov’t is used to enforce group discipline.
As you should be able to see this isn’t classical liberalism of individual rights, nor is it the class conflict of socialism. Its fascism. Any attempt to conflate these three is ahistorical and simply bad logic.
Report comment to moderator
Neither should honest liberals today twist history to try to equate fascism with today’s conservative right wing in any way. It’s intellectually dishonest.
I’m not. You are twisting history to try to equate fascism with liberalism or socialism. I’m merely telling you, you are wrong but I’m not calling the conservative wing of the Republican party fascist. However, you may find Umberto Eco’s essay On Ur-Fascism instructive.
Report comment to moderator
You may have been victimized by academia. The stench of intellectual dishonesty can be, in many cases, more intense there than anywhere on earth. Leftist blinders are often required to survive in modern academia.
If I have been victimized by academia its more likely because I’m a working class socialist. Especially in history departments, there is a fair representation across the political spectrum. I’ve taken social history with feminist Marxist and international history from conservative nationalist, in both cases my viewpoint wasn’t always appreciated but as long as a I had a well researched and logically coherent argument I was fairly marked. Probably the most biased course I ever took was modern Christianity in which the prof was a liberal Christian. I guess calling liberal Protestantism theologically and intellectual vacant for its over-emphasis on social tolerance as opposed to logical justification of such policies was not such a good idea.
I usually find those who argue that they were persecuted for their political viewpoints in academia generally were below standard. It was not their opinion but their intellectual opinion which worked against them.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark wrote; “Neither should honest liberals today twist history to try to equate fascism with today’s conservative right wing in any way. It’s intellectually dishonest.”
This is a true statement, HRW, and not a claim that you were or were not doing it. Perhaps thou dost protest to much.
Report comment to moderator
Nobody needs to twist history to find more similarities than dissimilarities between today’s right wing and fascism.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284461/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264375647&sr=1-1
Report comment to moderator
#54 HRW “And here lies the anti-intellectualism of America, to be educated means you are wrong. And since I’m educated and a leftist, my opinion is dismissed.”
America is anti-intellectual? Oh please! You aren’t wrong because you are educated you are wrong because you are a leftist. A review of leftist academia reveals anti-American Marxists, Socialists, 9/11 truthers, Ward Churchill loons, terrorists like Bill Ayers, people who support Palestinian terrorism. And these nuts are rewriting history.
“Lets recall – night of the long knives killed off the SA and the Strasser base of the party which combined antisemitism with a critique of capitalism. In other words, Hitler surrounded himself with yes men and opportunists and then made sure to appease the corporate and military interests (ie the traditional conservative base) by killing off the socialist wing.”
The SA was a paramilitary organization within the Nazi party. Hitler used them as a private militia to intimidate his rivals. They were allowed to run roughshod and destabilized Germany. Hitler moved against his own organization as a move to endear himself to the army and the public. That is hardly squashing socialism, since they were cut from the same cloth. Hitler did whatever he could to centralize power. That doesn’t prove he wasn’t a socialist.
At no time did Hitler confiscate private property or nationalize industry instead he jailed trade unionists, socialist and communists. How do you construe his actions as socialist?
Huh? He jailed and killed anyone who disagreed with him. That says nothing about his ideology which was totalitarian and statist. How is totalitarianism anything like the small limited government of conservatism? Hitler had absolute power centralized in the government. That is the stuff of modern liberalism.
As for taking over the banks, they were all broke after WWI so he started his own bank. He issued his own currency, Labor Treasury Certificates. In other words, the government was the only bank in town. Fascists were ex-Marxists and socialists who were disillusioned by the “crisis of Marxism”. Abject poverty moved them slightly to the right, but they remained socialists and big government statists.
The right wing wants small government. To call fascism right wing is ludicrous.
Report comment to moderator
#59 Scroop. Um, yeah, Christians are fascists? What garbage!
Take a look at Communism, Socialism and Fascism. All are totalitarian regimes with centralized power for distribution of social services. They differ in how much control government has. Hitler and Mussolini began as socialists and remained socialists to the end.
The extreme right wants limited government and maximum liberty with laissez-faire capitalism. You’ll find libertarians and even anarchists to the far right, but how is that even remotely related to big centralized government supplied socialism?
No one has yet explained how socialists can ever be right wing. HRWs answer was that it was mislabeled. As if those who gave their lives for socialism didn’t know exactly what it was.
Report comment to moderator
#55 HRW Actually by turning from the far left to the far right, Olasky demonstrates that Mussolini’s turn from the left to the right isn’t far fetched.
Olasky rejected Marxism. Hitler and Mussolini did too, but as socialists. Mussolini began as a Marxist, but his poverty moved him slightly to the right to Socialism. When he rose to power, it was the Marxists who controlled the Socialist party, so he rejected them too. But he always remained a socialist.
Here is how Mussolini defined fascism, “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
Name one right wing person who would agree with such a statement? But there are many on the left-wing who are pushing in that very direction. While they wouldn’t admit it, it almost looks like the theme of the current administration.
Report comment to moderator
If the extreme right, such as the Libertarians had their way, they would dismantle much of the US government and eliminate nearly every agency that starts with “Department of …”
The Constitutional Party wants government to go back to 1776. Here are the right wing extremists.
How is that anything like totalitarianism?
Report comment to moderator
XION All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. Name one right wing person who would agree with such a statement?
Thucydides: A private man, however successful in his own dealing, if his country perish is involved in her destruction; but if he be an unprosperous citizen of a prosperous city, he is much more likely to recover. Seeing, then, that States can bear the misfortunes of individuals, but individuals cannot bear the misfortunes of States, let us all stand by our country.
St. Paul: Rom. 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. . . . 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Pat Buchanan, and other jingoist, nationalist chauvinists. Senator Sessions would talk as if the military would mutiny if the Senate criticized GWB.
Dana Rohrabacher advocated substituting prison labor for foreign workers. The right’s anti-immigration sentiments are proto-fascist.
Newt Gingrich, who argues that public education is now a matter of National Security, going so far as to suggest that the Secretary of Defense give an annual “State of the Schools” speech.
XION, do you know who Dick Cheney is?
The wonderful man, GWB, was a horrible war monger. The movie Untergang portrayed such a personality as that.
All the brownshirt tea-partiers and anti-abortion vigilantes and militia-paramilitary stormtroops. They might not have the stones to become the USA’s thug caste, but consider Michelle Malkin’s “Gathering of Eagles.” America has got an enormous military sector who are clearly right wing. They aren’t in the mould of working-class louts, but all the worse for their superior pride and sense of entitlement.
Christians are fascists?
Some. Christians more and more see government as a tool for enforcing morality upon the individual and maintaining the traditional order (not changing “definitions” etc.).
While liberals have become less authoritarian since FDR, conservatives and Christians in particular have become more so, so authoritarian that they are are now fascists without the “progressive” window-dressing of the 1930’s fascists.
The Constitutional Party wants government to go back to 1776.
Interesting, XION. That sounds like the “Constitution” Party wants no government, and no Constitution either. As a matter of fact, that sounds like Somalia.
So, are you saying that Thos Jefferson was a secret fascist, with his bundle of rods and his motto, “Insuperable if inseparable”?
XION, the important thing isn’t how big government is, but what it does. Right wingers want it small, because they want wealth and power to be held by the elite – and they do not believe in distribution. The right’s version of extreme anti-government politics masquerades as being against the status quo, but the fact is that eliminating government would reinforce the status quo. It would subject individuals to the total moral and economic control of others.
Report comment to moderator
#64 Scroop. Thanks for the lengthy explanation, but none of that is true. Is truth important to you? You are living in some sort of alternate reality. Sorry, I don’t have time to unravel your imaginary world for you this morning.
Paul declared Christians to be citizens of another country and essentially ignored the state except when he was forced to testify. Same for Christ and all the apostles. None of the others you mentioned were totalitarian. Your paranoia about Cheney is pure fiction and delusional. Thomas Jefferson a fascist? Oh please. Hamilton was the Federalist. Jefferson wanted almost no government at all.
XION, the important thing isn’t how big government is, but what it does. Right wingers want it small, because they want wealth and power to be held by the elite – and they do not believe in distribution.
At least here you admit that right-wingers want small government. Small means limited power for government, which means the power resides with the people who can then enjoy liberty. As for distribution, the right believes that should be voluntary, which works fairly well in most cases.
Communists, socialists and fascists all believe in distribution of wealth by the state. These end up oppressing the people and stifling liberty and the economy and lead to failure and the demise of the state. Modern liberalism is self-destructive.
Report comment to moderator
XION, Everything you say is untrue, but I only have time for these refutations:
You asked for the name of one right-winger “who would agree with that statement.” Thucydides and St. Paul are right-wingers, and their quotes are congruent with fascism. Regarding the others, their notorious policies and proposals betray their lip service to “small government.”
Example: From the perspective of the 4th Amendment, Bush and Cheney are totalitarians. We can argue all day about whether the surveilance they executed was “reasonable.” Even if was (for the sake of argument), reasonableness satisfies one part of the constitutional requirement. In addition to behaving reasonably the government must preserve our “security” against unreasonable searches. Bush & Cheney revoked our “security”. It’s like they removed the “fence” around your property. Even if they never set foot on it in an act of trespass, the removal of the fence was a totalitarian act. We’re supposed to have a guarantee of security against unreasonable search & seizures. Removal of the guarantee is just as bad as the trespass.
At least here you admit that right-wingers want small government.
Right wingers want small government, politics of. They may want small government rhetorically, but what difference does that make? Right wingers don’t want to be the ones to cut government. They wouldn’t even eliminate the Department of Education, or any other “Department of” that the average person knows about.
The right wing focus on what people “want” is a big factor in their politics of demonization, which reminds us of aspects of fascism.
Report comment to moderator
#54 HRW – “And here lies the anti-intellectualism of America, to be educated means you are wrong.”
1. What I would say is that being educated simply means you CAN be wrong. Any disagreement on that, HRW?
2. On the more controvertial side, I think that the worst form of anti-intellectualism is with the so-called “intellectuals” in Western academia. They tend to be overly biased, alarmists without basis (as in the Global Warming ideologues), closed-minded, and blind (even hostile) to other points of view besides their own.
The contemporary art world is one classic example. Many modern “artists” put out utter nonsense and the aesthetic intelligentsia use incredibly obtuse rhetoric to justify it. Real open-minded people can see it is nonsense outright. Being open-minded does NOT mean you have to accept everything as equally valid. Real intelligence informs us that everything is NOT “equally valid.”
Report comment to moderator
#66 Blech! Massive eye roll!
Scroop! We aren’t even using terms that are within a square mile of each other. You are using the term fascist in the typical liberal sense, which is to malign and smear, completely ignoring the fact that it is an economic system that means something.
To call Paul a fascist is hyperbole of astronomical proportions. It simply amounts to slander and name calling, which is what people resort to when they’ve lost the debate.
Report comment to moderator
You’re very confused today, XION. I didn’t call Paul a fascist, I called him a right winger. He’s an example of a right winger who says things that are congruent with things that you claim only fascists say.
If you don’t like that example, I named other conservatives who talk and act like fascists. The governor of TX is talking about renting out prisoners, a la Schindler’s List.
Report comment to moderator
XION – stop arguing until you’ve looked at Chris Hedges’ book and Naomi Wolf’s book about the GWB induced shift toward fascism:
http://www.amazon.com/End-America-Letter-Warning-Patriot/dp/1933392797/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264455055&sr=1-9
Report comment to moderator
Here is a little thought experiment Scroop. Did you read George Orwell’s book 1984?
Would you say Orwell’s Big Brother (i.e. big government) was to the left or right?
Report comment to moderator
Great question at #71, Xion.
Report comment to moderator
Big Brother is Joseph Stalin, not government, big or small. Orwell was a democratic socialist, defending socialism from betrayal by totalitarian oligarchs.
Orwell thought that any political movement could be overtaken by totalitarianism, if not fought against. That includes your political movement, XION.
In the last 50 years leftists have become far less authoritarian. Conservatives have become more so. Look at the 1984 themes that apply to the proto-fascist GWB.
oligarchy – secret meetings with oil barons to remap the middle east, Halliburton, Ken Lay
perpetual war –
surveillance – the removal of the right to security against unreasonable search & seizure
privacy – Evangelical right wingers argue it’s not a right because the word doesn’t appear in the Constitution (how’s that for Newspeak!)
thoughtcrime – Rightwing policing of speech
mind control – theological totality of the Evangelical right.
I applaud your citation of a work of the imagination to construct your argument, XION. Such thought experiments are valid and useful. Of course, I’m biased. I think that our strongest literary and artistic accomplishments favor my P.O.V on balance.
A more topical dystopia for today is Atwood’s “A Handmaid’s Tale”, which has been made into a pretty good opera. Sorry, it’s about y’all.
Report comment to moderator
“Big Brother” is indeed over-sized oppressive government, not just one particular person. Don’t miss the bigger picture lessons that Orwell sought to convey.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “That includes your political movement, XION.”
How so??? What has Xion ever written that would lead you, Scroop Moth, to claim that Xion’s political movement could, if unopposed, be overtaken by totalitarianism?
Scroop Moth wrote; “In the last 50 years leftists have become far less authoritarian.”
I disagree. The left has increasingly grown more authoritarian over my lifetime. The size of gov’t has steadily increased due to the influence of the left and more and more authority is needed to “slove” more and more of our needs qand problems and create a dependant class in America. Leftists want more authority to enforce environmental measures. Leftists want more tax money to decrease the power of the private sector and increase the power and authority of gov’t. Leftists want more authority to regulate business, use the force of law to force businesses to pay certain wages that gov’t decides they should pay and give more benefits that gov’t demands they provide, speech and entitlements. Leftists want the gov’t to take over more and more authority to run our helath care system. Leftists want the authority to legally force a redefinition of marriage, to ban all states from making their own abortion policies, and to use the force of law and the judiciary to ban prayer and other expressions of faith from public arenas.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL: “Big Brother” is indeed over-sized oppressive government, not just one particular person.
Not quite. The American colonists regarded England as over-sized oppressive government, but Imperial England wasn’t what Orwell has in mind. His model is Stalin. He says that model of totalitarianism can take over any political movement. Size isn’t Orwell’s primary consideration, nor is compulsion, in and of itself. The problem is what government does and how it does it, not how big it is, nor the fact that it forces compliance. Orwell was a democratic socialist. He wrote both against totalitarianism and for socialism. He supported the Labour Party’s installation of the British welfare state after WWII.
Report comment to moderator
How so???
Orwell thought that no people are “better” than another, therefore no less susceptible to totalitarianism. He was afraid it could happen in Britain as it happened in Russia. By extension, he warned it could happen in any political system. That would include Xion’s party as well as my party.
This is a vital point. Since the 1950’s the right wing has misinterpreted Orwell as a targeted critique of leftism. It’s a critique of totalitarianism and a defense of socialism, not a defense of conservatism. Southern Baptists in the 1950’s, not the best interpreters of text, banned 1984 as communist propaganda.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, you wrote; “Big Brother is Joseph Stalin, not government…”
Nonsense. It’s not an either/or equation (as you stated it was). Orwells’ 1984 was parabolic. ‘Big brother’ may include Stalin (in Orwell’s mind) but it represents far more than one particular historical person. It’as an obvious point. But argue with the obvious all you want, Scroop.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth claimed: “Orwell thought that no people are “better” than another, therefore no less susceptible to totalitarianism.”
I don’t claim to know specifically what Orwell thought, but if he thought what you claim he did (above), then he was profoundly ignorant. Remember, I said “if…”
The notion that no people are better than another, is by far the most stupid notion to ever enter a mind overdosing on theory, divorced from actual human reality.
A particular people who justify a slave trade are basically worse than a people who promote freedom and equality under the law. A particular people who actively promote mass-murder through terrorism are certifyably WORSE than a people who fight against such evil. A particular people whose deepest value is that the government owes them a living will be fundamentally worse than a people who believe in personal responsibility and seek to honestly earn their way in the world and use their earnings to help others.
Report comment to moderator
It is common sense that some value systems (namely, those that promote liberty and the consent of the governed) employed by a people who are willing to protect that system, will indeed render them less susceptible to totalitarianism. Some people are less susceptable than others.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL, was Orwell mistaken to fear that the British were as susceptible to totalitarianism as the Russians had been?
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps the British were susceptible, but you were saying that Orwell went a step further into the nonsense that no people are “better” than another, and that no people are “less susceptible to totalitarianism.”
My point is not that some people are truly invulnerable, but that they may well be “less vulnerable” than others. See the diff?
Perhaps you overstated what Orwell believes on this score.
Report comment to moderator
Big Brother . . represents far more than one particular historical person
OK, but the point that I can’t get JOEL MARK to acknowledge is that “Big Brother” isn’t a critique of “big government,” per se. It’s not trivial that Orwell’s model was Stalin rather than FDR. The novel isn’t an argument for cutting the size of government. Orwell wasn’t an anarchist. He supported the Labour Party as it tried to make government bigger. What he opposed was a specific quality and implementation of government — exemplified by stalinism in particular — that was totalitarian.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL – I see what you’re saying at #82. I’m pretty sure Orwell didn’t think one people better than another. Maybe I can find some quotes for you — if you want.
Anyway, how many nations could be less susceptible to totalitarianism than the British with their magna carta, Glorious Revolution, parliamentary democracy, great Bibles, prayer book (Orwell had himself buried with the Anglican rites), Shakespeare, Blake, Dickens, GBS and their “habit of self-government”? Etc.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, You are right that Big Brother was the party leader, a hidden Stalin-like figure. However “Big Brother is Watching You!” can’t mean a single person since he was not omniscient. It included the vast government network of surveillance and control.
But you are still dodging the main issue. By size of government we mean its power and pervasiveness into every aspect of our lives. This should have been a very simple question.
Your characterization of evangelicals and conservatives isn’t remotely true. In #73 you characterize evangelicals as saying there is no right to privacy or promote mind control through theological totality. All I can say is “Huh?”. You just made that all up, didn’t you?
Listening to Pelosi, or Obama or Obermann or Maddow is like listening to Baghdad Bob who was in complete denial. It is a world of opposites. It is the doublethink.
The Ministry of Peace promotes war. Obama says people who try to kill us are from the Religion of Peace. In the US Homeland Security says that there are no terrorists except for people who disagree with the president.
The Ministry of Truth promotes historical revisionism. In the US, Democrats keep trying to revive the “Fairness Doctrine”, vetoed by Reagan and Bush. Historical revisionism occurs in left-wing academia. The left uses the First Amendment to censor political and religious speech.
The Ministry of Plenty was about rationing. In the US, the health care bill isn’t about health but money, which will lead to rationing. Ezekiel Emanual, Obama’s health Czar wrote the book on rationing. Energy independence is about taxing energy and hindering production.
The Ministry of Love is about rounding up dissents and forcing them to love Big Brother. Obama created a snitch line to turn in friends and neighbors who disagreed with him. Pelosi calls anyone who disagrees with the President unAmerican. Homeland Security calls them domestic terrorists.
Report comment to moderator
I would agree that if Obama acted without due process against anybody for their speech (as opposed to arguing back at them) he should be impeached, removed, and prosecuted.
Why the gratuitously antagonizing language, I want to know? It’s an insult to people who really have lived through authoritarian regimes (McCarthyism, for example).
Obama set up a line to notify the White House political operation about false information that Obama needed to answer. There’s nothing wrong with that. Snitch lines are for reporting crimes. The president has to make a case for his policies, because he’s not a dictator. He has to persuade. In order to persuade, the president has to hear his opposition. No matter what one’s party or ideology, Americans should be glad that a president answers critics. The alternative is antidemocratic.
Report comment to moderator
#86 Scroop Why the gratuitously antagonizing language, I want to know? It’s an insult to people who really have lived through authoritarian regimes (McCarthyism, for example).
I disagree with the McCarthyism as such, but was McCarthy wrong? Communists really had infiltrated the US government. These days Communists are given cabinet positions.
As for the snitch line, the White House is required to keep a record of all correspondence. And so someone could turn his neighbor in and their name would go on an official government list and whatever they said would be publicly addressed. Remember that at the same time, anyone who disagreed with the president was called unAmerican and a domestic terrorist by the government. Who wants to be on any list by that kind of administration?
Obama and Rahm (dead fish) Emanuel went further. They declared war on Fox News, which in a poll today is considered the most trustworthy and most watched news source in the country. Obama publicly attacked Chamber of Commerce for a slight disagreement. He attacked the Democratic governor of Virginia for not doing exactly as the White House demanded.
The message was, “You dis us and we’re coming after you”.
Report comment to moderator
. . was McCarthy wrong?
No, the people he fingered really were in or close to the Communist Party USA. Many tens of thousands of Americans were involved with the CP in the first half of the century.
. . was McCarthy wrong?
Yes. I can’t blame you for not understanding the injury McCarthyism did to 14,000 Americans who lost their jobs and the long-term harm to our political system. The damage still hasn’t been assessed. We know enough to know it was wrong. Eventually the drudges at Harvard will publish a 2,000 page book about it.
Report comment to moderator
My Thoughts:
I think one of the major underlying sore points in our current political standoff is the rich. There appears to be two distinct opinions regard the taxation of and government control of the rich (and the corporations they control).
The conservative view holds that our form of government not only “allows” a person to become as rich as they desire, but any person can aspire to and have the opportunity to accumulate as much wealth as they want, no matter what their current status in life. Conservatives also believe that not only is this a great attribute of our government, but allowing those few driven individuals to rise to the top of the economic chain brings along with it jobs for others, increased gross national product, competition resulting in better consumer pricing, as well as role models for others who can aspire to become successful themselves.
The more liberal side of our population holds that the more money the rich accumulate, the less money there is for the rest of us. Liberals believe that becoming rich is always achieved on the backs of others less fortunate. Liberal theory holds that there are only so many resources to go around and a few privileged should not be allowed to posses the majority of a countries’ wealth. Liberals also hold that if left unchecked, corporations have too much power and can (and will) commit all kind of atrocities.
What I find so cool about our form of government is that we are a Democratic Republic. Our constitution not only emphasizes freedom, but it also takes great pains to maintain balance in its economic and political systems. You see this in every aspect of its design; from our multi-party system, to our freedom of speech rights. From our copy right laws, to our anti-monopoly laws. We allow ANY person to aim high, but we try and keep the playing field fair so that all have the same opportunity. We have such a flexible form of citizen-based government, that we role into modern times with relative ease compared with other countries. Our form of government works very well, as evidenced by our success over the last 200+ years. We rarely see a war or coup in this country, because there are built-in processes for opposing views to work out their differences. It is embedded in our constitution.
My point: As we debate topics such as more taxing of the rich and wealth re-distribution, I hope that people keep in mind what actually works in our system. We need to separate emotion from logic. We need to take an honest look at why we vote the way we do and not tear down this country with over reaction and a need for constant “change for change sake”. Life is hard and we as humans tend to always look for an easy way out. This is also true in attitude towards government. I hope we take a “hard” look at what is best for our country, just as we do for our children. Being or aspiring to become “rich” is not bad. Becoming rich on the backs of others is. Large corporations are not a bad thing. Some do act badly and should be kept in check, just as our system commands. Taxing the rich more than the rest of us is always a bad idea, as it discourages success and will ultimately hurt the rest of us. Allowing the rich to not play by the rules also damages us. We need to act like adults and know the difference. Enough with the class envy, the racial biases, the “loop holes” in our tax codes. Humans have enough trouble learning to get along peacefully. Democracy is the best system in the world, period. If we take an honest look at all the examples history has given us, we will know the truth. Socialism and Communism will never work in this country. Unbridled capitalism also never works. For God sake, please learn the difference.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!