Liberal Fascism?

[SolomonVII]

.....
To understand fascism in its full expression requires.... return[ing] to the period Goldberg terms the "fascist moment," roughly 1910-35. A statist ideology, fascism uses politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals into an organic whole. It does so by exalting the state over the individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over debate, and socialism over capitalism. It is totalitarian in Mussolini's original meaning of the term, of "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." Fascism's message boils down to "Enough talk, more action!" Its lasting appeal is getting things done.

In contrast, conservatism calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone.
Goldberg's triumph is to establish the kinship between communism, fascism, and liberalism. All derive from the same tradition that goes back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution....


http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5355


From a conservative Christian perspective, it is Christ who has bought our freedom at a dear price. Beware of those who would have you sell out your freedom to the state for all the benefits that the state has to offer.

 

[Anglian]

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5355[/URL]


From a conservative Christian perspective, it is Christ who has bought our freedom at a dear price. Beware of those who would have you sell out your freedom to the state for all the benefits that the state has to offer.

Very interesting, and for the most part I find myself in agreement.

But your 'conservatism' is, to a European conservative, very like liberalism. Individualism and democracy have no necessary connection to historic European conservatism which is founded on an alliance between bishop and king. Capitalism, which subverts a traditional landed aristocracy which supports the Church and the monarch, was a subversive force in nineteenth century Europe.

Christ was not a democrat, Heaven is not a democracy. Nor is there any necessary connection between Christianity and individualism and capitalism.

These secular things are certainly preferable to communism and fascism - but we must not mistake them for God's will.

But then a republic founded upon a revolt against legitimate authority is not, perhaps, the obvious place to find real conservatism?

Just a provocative thought.

Anglian

 

[Rhamiel]

Fascism is liberal in so much as it demands quick change and strong government,

 

[SolomonVII]

Very interesting, and for the most part I find myself in agreement.

But your 'conservatism' is, to a European conservative, very like liberalism. Individualism and democracy have no necessary connection to historic European conservatism which is founded on an alliance between bishop and king.

The thing about the ancien regime, is that it no longer exists in Europe or anywhere.

Capitalism, which subverts a traditional landed aristocracy which supports the Church and the monarch, was a subversive force in nineteenth century Europe.

One of the more famous statements of conservatism was made by a libeal, an Edmund Burke if I am recalling correctly. He recognized that change was inevitable, so did not need to be encouraged.
Instead conservaism understands change as growing organically fromwhat came before.

Christ was not a democrat, Heaven is not a democracy.

Christ was definitely not a fascist either. and heaven is only as autocratic as a place can be if those that are last here come first there. It is the authoritarianism of being led by a child, so to speak.

Nor is there any necessary connection between Christianity and individualism and capitalism.

On the contrary, Christianity was intricately involved in creating the kind of society that has evolved out of Christendom.

These secular things are certainly preferable to communism and fascism - but we must not mistake them for God's will.

Just as impprtantly, we must not denigrate them as not being of God's will.

But then a republic founded upon a revolt against legitimate authority is not, perhaps, the obvious place to find real conservatism?

The article though was more about the connection between liberalism and fascism than about conservatism and the American revolution.
I guess I am just not sure where you train of thought is leading to.

Just a provocative thought.

Anglian

I guess so. I am just not sure what you kind of response you are intending to provoke though.

Personally , my train of thought would lead somewhere along the lines of how it is a liberal establishment and a liberal Human Rights Commision that is leading the charge against free speech in Canada in the case of Ezra Levant and the Mohammed Cartoons.

Understanding the fascist roots that run through liberalism gives a better understanding of this, which on the surface would seem to be rather paradoxical.

There is a hsitory behind why we shouldn't assume liberal regims will protect our liberties. Fascism comes from the left too.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Liberal and Conservative are completely relative terms, as far as their values.

What is liberal in one society or one time, may easily be conservative in another.

For example, liberals from 200 years ago would be raging conservatives today. Conservatives today would be radically liberal 200 years ago.

On the topic of individualism, I think we need to distinguish between individuality, and individualism.

Individuality is based in the idea that the individual is central, as opposed to the state. The individual has rights, and is not simply owned by the collective, or a tool of the collective. The individual exists for their own ends, not the ends of the state.

Individualism, is the idea of individuality run wild. Taking it to the extreme where the individual is responsible only to themselves.

Individuality is Christian, individualism is not.

Facism, Communism, and Nazism are all based on the same ideological framework, with a slight change made in what is the motive principle.

In communism, the class is all important and individuals are subject to the interests of the class.
In Facism the nation state is all important and individuals are subject to the interests of the state
In Nazism the race is all important and individuals are subject to the interest of the race.

In all cases, morality is relative to the success and preservation of the motive principle.

In communism, economics is a core doctrine, in facism and nazism, economics is not a core doctrine, but merely an expediency.

Technically a republic is not a form of government, but rather a motive principle. A republic can have any form of government, but it is a government which is devoted to the principle that the interests of the people are the paramount interest of the state.

It derives from the latin res publicae "things of the people".

In the ancient world republics tended to be non-individualistic in that the people were seen as a collective entity, something like a family, or a clan etc, and the individuals were subject to the larger collective of "the people".

The modern republic, first seen in Montesque, and first actually done in the USA, is an individualistic republic where the people are not a collective entity, but rather are a group of individuals, thus the interests of the individual, are the interests of the people.

 

[SolomonVII]

.....Personally , my train of thought would lead somewhere along the lines of how it is a liberal establishment and a liberal Human Rights Commision that is leading the charge against free speech in Canada in the case of Ezra Levant and the Mohammed Cartoons.

Understanding the fascist roots that run through liberalism gives a better understanding of this, which on the surface would seem to be rather paradoxical.

There is a history behind why we shouldn't assume liberal regimes will protect our liberties. Fascism comes from the left too.

Here is a little more clarity on just where the meeting point between between fascist ideology and today's liberalism lies.
http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=545
...
Not content with dealing with legitimate grievances about housing and employment - which was their original mandate - these parasitical commissions have wildly increased their scope to be the lap dogs of gay militants and Islamic activists in seeking to muzzle freedom of expression and thought which is absolutely critical to the survival of any western democracy.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I think half the terms used here as arguments are distraught and biased. No offense. Last time i checked conservatism's defense to the foundation of capitalist society does not enforce anything individualist at all, as some have pointed out.

Nor does one have to become a facist state entirely upon the contents of the radical left. The facism of Iraq under Saddam was built upon the conservative philosophies of Islamic theology. And the government of Pakistan in recent years reflects such a view again.

To those who associate the left to communism and thus Stalin, they misunderstand the concepts proposed by the very massive varieties that compose the liberals. Communism is in no way facism, such as socialism is in no way a lesser-communistic ideology. Democracy, just as any other system of government, can yield from it facism, from an oppression that exists within both political boundaries of the extreme right and radical left.

 

[SolomonVII]

I think half the terms used here as arguments are distraught and biased.

No doubt there is bias towards conservative belief in a conservative forum.
But I am still trying to picture what a term might do when he becomes distraught.

No offense.

none taken.

Last time i checked conservatism's defense to the foundation of capitalist society does not enforce anything individualist at all, as some have pointed out.

The greater defense of individual rights to life, property, and the freedoms of association, speech, etc. etc. now tend toward those on the right side of the political spectrum.
This is not necessary according to either history or ideology, but to the extent that conservatism and liberalism now define two opposing political cultures, this is just the way things have been going.
It is somewhat of a paradox really, in terms of ideology. It is as Christopher Hitchens often states, "It is not that I left lleft, but they left me!"

Nor does one have to become a fascist state entirely upon the contents of the radical left.

Not at all necessary! It is a bit or an anachronism really.
But the link shows on Ezra Levant shows just exactly how this state of affairs is coming about!

The facism of Iraq under Saddam was built upon the conservative philosophies of Islamic theology.

I would rather strongly disagree. Islam was a mere afterthought to the likes of Saddam. His fascism was much more modelled on the totalitarianism of states such as Nazie Germany and Stalinist Russia. Islam was just an afterthought to him, and was more a response to the rise of Islamofascism in the region in general.

And the government of Pakistan in recent years reflects such a view again.

A bit of a stretch.

To those who associate the left to communism and thus Stalin, they misunderstand the concepts proposed by the very massive varieties that compose the liberals.

The left has by and large associated itself with the communists, then a Castro, now a Chavez. This is just the nature of the beast.

Communism is in no way fascism, such as socialism is in no way a lesser-communistic ideology.

Fascism was socialism too however, as the name National Socialist party would imply. It encouraged group-think, just as the left tends to today.

Democracy, just as any other system of government, can yield from it fascism, from an oppression that exists within both political boundaries of the extreme right and radical left.

Weak democracies may. To the extent though that a democracy calls for limited government individual freedoms, private ventures, and leaving its citizens alone, fascism will have a very hard time getting a foot in the door.
Today the weakest link is from the left.
And again, it is not so much a measure of the possiblities of the ideology, but it is just hwo the liberal culture has been evolving.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

All of this is in reference to political liberalism of course.

I do agree that modern liberalism or social liberalism bears a remarkable degree of similarity to Mussolini's ideology, having the same collectivist and socialist roots.

I am myself a classical liberal, that is a liberal in European terms. In American politics, that would be a sort of moderate libertarian. It would also be fair to call me a Goldwater conservative. There are numerous factions of American conservatism, but there don't seem to be many European-style American conservatives.

I've found this essay by F.A. Hayek, Why I Am Not a Conservative, to be very illuminating.

 

[Anglian]

Very interesting, and for the most part I find myself in agreement.

The thing about the ancien regime, is that it no longer exists in Europe or anywhere.

Indeed, but since the forces of liberalism, nationalism and individualism contributed to its destruction, that makes me, as a conservative, wary of them. They are not, of necessity, allies to Christianity.

In the UK, for example, the state can insist that Church schools teach something called 'faith' which treats Christianity and Hinduism as equal. For a liberal that is fine; but if one believes Christ is the Revealed Truth of God, it isn't. No reason a liberal society should accept what Christians say and give it special treatment; but liberalism can be used to undermine the whol concept of The Truth - and often is.

One of the more famous statements of conservatism was made by a libeal, an Edmund Burke if I am recalling correctly. He recognized that change was inevitable, so did not need to be encouraged.

Yes, that's so. But the job of conservatism may be to make the process so unpleasant for the advocates of change that they will be wary of proposing it too often. In our modern western societies change is constant and fast; conservatives too often go with the flow?

Christ was definitely not a fascist either. and heaven is only as autocratic as a place can be if those that are last here come first there. It is the authoritarianism of being led by a child, so to speak.

Absolutely. His kingdom is not of this world, and the best we can ask of it is that it does not interfere with our duty to God.

On the contrary, Christianity was intricately involved in creating the kind of society that has evolved out of Christendom.

I know what you mean, but in Russia and parts of eastern Europe Orthodoxy did not naturally lead in that direction, and many Orthodox have a real problem seeing capitalism as somehow 'of God'. The Catholic Church has also been critical of capitalism and individualism. Perhaps these things are more prominent in Protestant-influenced societies?

I guess I am just not sure where you train of thought is leading to ... I guess so. I am just not sure what you kind of response you are intending to provoke though.

I guess it was that American conservatism looks pretty like liberalism to many of us in Europe, whilst neo-conservatism looks like neo-liberalism. The idea that you can intervene in someone else's civilisation and force them to be 'democratic' is quite a dangerous liberal notion.

Personally , my train of thought would lead somewhere along the lines of how it is a liberal establishment and a liberal Human Rights Commision that is leading the charge against free speech in Canada in the case of Ezra Levant and the Mohammed Cartoons.

Kudos and support here, as, actually, elsewhere.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

No doubt there is bias towards conservative belief in a conservative forum.
But I am still trying to picture what a term might do when he becomes distraught.

Doesn't bias exist everywhere? We are not spared from the grips of scrutiny!

The greater defense of individual rights to life, property, and the freedoms of association, speech, etc. etc. now tend toward those on the right side of the political spectrum.
This is not necessary according to either history or ideology, but to the extent that conservatism and liberalism now define two opposing political cultures, this is just the way things have been going.
It is somewhat of a paradox really, in terms of ideology. It is as Christopher Hitchens often states, "It is not that I left lleft, but they left me!"

Political boundaries are horrid either way. But would you not say the so called 'individualists' who are almost always associated with the anarchists and libertarians, are based upon the leftist spectrum? Christopher Hitchens is a tricky fellow, but not in the least a bad one. His alternating viewpoints are a standard to the capibility of individuals to change their ties with agenda.

Not at all necessary! It is a bit or an anachronism really.
But the link shows on Ezra Levant shows just exactly how this state of affairs is coming about!

Quite so. But to put that blame upon the liberalism of America would be harsh. There is a possibility though that, do to the variety of folks who flock to the leftist margin, that there are those who have intents that go beyond the banner in which they represent.

I would rather strongly disagree. Islam was a mere afterthought to the likes of Saddam. His fascism was much more modelled on the totalitarianism of states such as Nazie Germany and Stalinist Russia. Islam was just an afterthought to him, and was more a response to the rise of Islamofascism in the region in general.

Possibly, and I noticed this argument against my own as I was typing it. Saddam still had to maintain a disguise then, but even then it seems he was successful in basing his government upon a statement such as the 'mandates from heaven' and 'god wills it!' by the chinese and western monarchies.

A bit of a stretch.

Possibly, but it's undeniable to ever assume the government policy now in Pakistan is nothing more than a mask hiding beneath its own agendas. Alliance with the US? Give me a break.

The left has by and large associated itself with the communists, then a Castro, now a Chavez. This is just the nature of the beast.

This is tricky, very, very tricky. The communisms of Chavez and Castro were supposed to be different, just as the 1917 revolution in Russia was supposed to better the workers, not oppress them again. Communism has shown to hold beneath it a trend in which the leaders of the revolution are instated, and, as it has also revealed, these leaders fall away from the communistic message Marx laid out in his manifesto. The mass death associated with Chavez's revolution was not something he intended, and his message, atleast in the beginning, was clearly for the better of the collective whole....sadly though, things didn't work out as planned.

Fascism was socialism too however, as the name National Socialist party would imply. It encouraged group-think, just as the left tends to today.

I realized too that this point would bring itself forward....and there is no underlying rebuke to say you're wrong. But you also have to recognize that most forms of government now, in the contemporary age, are hybrid systems. The United States, just as most other democracies and republics, is economically socialist in its over-all market. The definition of socialism yields such conceptions forward because of how horribly vague it is.

Weak democracies may. To the extent though that a democracy calls for limited government individual freedoms, private ventures, and leaving its citizens alone, fascism will have a very hard time getting a foot in the door.
Today the weakest link is from the left.
And again, it is not so much a measure of the possiblities of the ideology, but it is just hwo the liberal culture has been evolving.

I have to strongly disagree here, most definately.

It seems that the conservatives are those who preserve the government, the institution, and the entire system as a whole together. It seems, and this happened just as it did preceding the Revolution of 1776, that the left is merely challenging the stakes and claims that the right manages and holds dear. If conservatism is incapable of acknowledging and properly rebuking these questions of 'why does it have to be so?' and 'what is there to base you upon?'....then you may as well classify the founding fathers who, after deliberately challenging and disobeying the traditions, rules, and foundations to the english tyranny, then we never of become a nation.

But it seems, just as all other revolutions, ours failed in one distinct feature that classifies most into ruin....we institutionalized. So long as there are those who preserve tradition and keep constant basis, there will be other challenges, other arguments to find them incorrect in their defense. If conservatism exists in defense to tradition and consistency, who is to say there will never be another revolution? It happened to Britian in it's own civil war....the radical policies of parliament won...and then fell beneath preservation instead of questioning and understanding....becoming in-itself conservative. Why can't we stop this trend?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Political boundaries are horrid either way. But would you not say the so called 'individualists' who are almost always associated with the anarchists and libertarians, are based upon the leftist spectrum?

I wouldn't say so. Most of the 'individualists' and 'libertarians' I know, and some of the 'anarchists' came to it from the right side of the spectrum. When I first became politically aware, I was conservative, but grew more and more libertarian as I educated myself, eventually becoming an anarcho-capitalist before swinging back to a more moderate libertarian position. I would now call myself a conservative libertarian (yes, with conservative being the adjective). Through nearly all of that journey I've considered myself an enemy of the left and at least an ally, if not always a member, of the right.

Christopher Hitchens is a tricky fellow, but not in the least a bad one. His alternating viewpoints are a standard to the capibility of individuals to change their ties with agenda.

I like Hitchens, but he was always a lefty, and he still is. But he's become a hawkish lefty, same way the original neocons started out. Maybe that's the direction he's going.

I have to strongly disagree here, most definately.

It seems that the conservatives are those who preserve the government, the institution, and the entire system as a whole together. It seems, and this happened just as it did preceding the Revolution of 1776, that the left is merely challenging the stakes and claims that the right manages and holds dear. If conservatism is incapable of acknowledging and properly rebuking these questions of 'why does it have to be so?' and 'what is there to base you upon?'....then you may as well classify the founding fathers who, after deliberately challenging and disobeying the traditions, rules, and foundations to the english tyranny, then we never of become a nation.

But it seems, just as all other revolutions, ours failed in one distinct feature that classifies most into ruin....we institutionalized. So long as there are those who preserve tradition and keep constant basis, there will be other challenges, other arguments to find them incorrect in their defense. If conservatism exists in defense to tradition and consistency, who is to say there will never be another revolution? It happened to Britian in it's own civil war....the radical policies of parliament won...and then fell beneath preservation instead of questioning and understanding....becoming in-itself conservative. Why can't we stop this trend?

There are American conservatives who value tradition and try to keep the pace of change slow, but they're a small fraction of American conservatives. That mostly is not what American conservatism is about.

There are essentially three major factions:

1) Social, or 'family values' conservatives (including the 'religious right')
2) Economic conservatives (that's me, mostly)
3) National security conservatives (including the neocons)

None of those three are primarily concerned with tradition for traditions sake or preserving the status quo.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I wouldn't say so. Most of the 'individualists' and 'libertarians' I know, and some of the 'anarchists' came to it from the right side of the spectrum. When I first became politically aware, I was conservative, but grew more and more libertarian as I educated myself, eventually becoming an anarcho-capitalist before swinging back to a more moderate libertarian position. I would now call myself a conservative libertarian (yes, with conservative being the adjective). Through nearly all of that journey I've considered myself an enemy of the left and at least an ally, if not always a member, of the right.

I like Hitchens, but he was always a lefty, and he still is. But he's become a hawkish lefty, same way the original neocons started out. Maybe that's the direction he's going.

There are American conservatives who value tradition and try to keep the pace of change slow, but they're a small fraction of American conservatives. That mostly is not what American conservatism is about.

There are essentially three major factions:

1) Social, or 'family values' conservatives (including the 'religious right')
2) Economic conservatives (that's me, mostly)
3) National security conservatives (including the neocons)

None of those three are primarily concerned with tradition for traditions sake or preserving the status quo.

Yes, i would have to agree with you. But the left is swarming with libertarians, whether you admit it as so or not, and though you may be a member of the other spectrum, most call for a different set of economic rules to govern their contended views.


All three of those varieties are defenders of institution though, are they not? It would be hard to ever classify them to being anything more than defenders to the traditional basis' for this countries preservation. The values that they instate and thus fight for are conceptionalized....and that is no better than a stone block on the side of the road hindering the progress of those walking by.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Yes, i would have to agree with you. But the left is swarming with libertarians, whether you admit it as so or not, and though you may be a member of the other spectrum, most call for a different set of economic rules to govern their contended views.

There are left-libertarians, but I dispute the accuracy of their claim to the libertarian label. The ACLU, for example, is big on civil liberties but cares not a fig for the freedom to produce and trade, or for the right to keep and bear arms. Well, that's only half a libertarian in my book -- you can't legitimately call yourself a libertarian unless you're for individual liberties across the board, and that has to include the right to commit "capitalist acts between consenting adults."

In American usage at least, a libertarian (as distinguished from a 'civil libertarian') is generally understood to be an advocate of strict constitutionalism and minimalist government, laissez-faire capitalism, and strong advocacy for an armed citizenry, along with all the things civil libertarians support. There are of course more radical libertarians who ditch the constitutionalism and minarchism in favor of anarchism, but I would only call them libertarians if they remain advocates of capitalism. Otherwise, they might be some sort of anarcho-socialists, but there's too much coercion in all such agendas for them to qualify as libertarian in my thinking.

All three of those varieties are defenders of institution though, are they not? It would be hard to ever classify them to being anything more than defenders to the traditional basis' for this countries preservation.

That's generally true. All three major schools of American conservative thought help preserve our way of life, even though a slow, stable pace of change is not their deliberate aim.

The values that they instate and thus fight for are conceptionalized....and that is no better than a stone block on the side of the road hindering the progress of those walking by.

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails out of this sentence.

 

[tulc]

The ACLU, for example, is big on civil liberties but cares not a fig for the freedom to produce and trade, or for the right to keep and bear arms

I'm confused. Does the National Rifle Association help street preachers in Las Vegas have the freedom to preach? When Churches in a town were denied a permit to hold a prayer meeting in the towns park did the Stock Exchange haul the city government in to court and sue them for denying their right to free speech? The ACLU only deals with one thing: peoples right to free speech. Seems odd to denigrate someone for trying to protect your and everyone else's free speech.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm confused. Does the National Rifle Association help street preachers in Las Vegas have the freedom to preach? When Churches in a town were denied a permit to hold a prayer meeting in the towns park did the Stock Exchange haul the city government in to court and sue them for denying their right to free speech? The ACLU only deals with one thing: peoples right to free speech. Seems odd to denigrate someone for trying to protect your and everyone else's free speech.
tulc(just a thought)

I didn't say the ACLU were wrong to do what they do. They pick a niche and they stick to it. Nor is the NRA wrong to stick to defending gun rights only. The Stock Exchange trades, and that's all. They don't even advocate for capitalism. But the Chamber of Commerce does, and think tanks like the Cato Institute do.

But the fact remains that many on the left (and the ACLU, by and large, was founded by and is made up of lefties) defend civil liberties while caring nothing for other types of individual liberties... and that those who pick and choose constitutional rights and defend only certain ones, do not deserve to be called libertarians... at least not if that's the only liberty they believe in. A real libertarian (just hypothetically) might contribute to the ACLU and the NRA and the Cato Institute and maybe even NORML.

That's my point. I used the ACLU as an example, but picking on them wasn't my intention. I once worked for a gun rights lobby (not the NRA, but another similar group), and though my cause was consistent with libertarianism, working on that issue alone would not have qualified me as a libertarian. But I was also a member of the Libertarian Party, and I would say that did.

 

[SolomonVII]

...!

Political boundaries are horrid either way. But would you not say the so called 'individualists' who are almost always associated with the anarchists and libertarians, are based upon the leftist spectrum?

The anarchists certainly cluster toward the left of the spectrum.
But no, I was somewhat surprised too to discover that libertarians find themselves a better home on the right side of the spectrum. Less government interference, less intrusions into the pocketbook of the taxpayer and therefore less government programs forming our lives-these are ideas that find better expression by people who tend towards the right.
Even as many libertarians will value the same liberties and equalities that the left pronounces, there is much less of a desire to impose those values on the society through programs and laws and government intrusions.

Christopher Hitchens is a tricky fellow, but not in the least a bad one. His alternating viewpoints are a standard to the capibility of individuals to change their ties with agenda.

He is a good example of a leftist who rejects much of the current left's agenda precisely because of the fascist trends that are developing there. This is part of a larger trend that includes many neo-liberals and neo-conservatives.

Quite so. But to put that blame upon the liberalism of America would be harsh.

The intent is not to point fingers, but to aquire perspective. Certainly ties between the right, and European Christians and the Catholic Spanish and Yogoslavian churches have demonstrated that they can develop a fascist state of mind.
But the opposite of fascist is not liberal. Totalitarian identity is best opposed by strong individuals and strong families who are able to effectively oppose and disdain encroaching state power. Unfortunately, the lure of government money and cradle to grave care is a siren call to those who value their bellies more than their independance, or whose families and foundation for values have been torn asunder.

It is useful to remember though that what the state pays for the state owns.

Possibly, but it's undeniable to ever assume the government policy now in Pakistan is nothing more than a mask hiding beneath its own agendas. Alliance with the US? Give me a break.

The whole of the Moslem world is being absolutely rocked by the advent of a fascism of the Islamic variety. This is a totalitanarianism that Islam has never known to the extent that it is now being propogated.
And with the Islamofascism creeping in everywhere throughout the region and within the Islamic diaspora, fueled as it is with Saudi petro-dollars, there is no easy solution.
Of course, just by using the term Islamofacism, the group-think of the left will have such user labelled racist, thereby ending any debate before it even begins.

This is tricky, very, very tricky. The communisms of Chavez and Castro were supposed to be different, just as the 1917 revolution in Russia was supposed to better the workers, not oppress them again.

To the extent that the state is promoted at the expense of the individual, the final result cannot be any different. The only effective counter against totalitarianism is the individual and the family. And the best way to destroy the rights of the individual and the family is to destroy their responsibilities and initiatives through giving benefits at every step of the way.

Communism has shown to hold beneath it a trend in which the leaders of the revolution are instated, and, as it has also revealed, these leaders fall away from the communistic message Marx laid out in his manifesto.

Even worse, they hold fast ot his message. All the institutions that prevent the state from taking over become destroyed through Marxism.

The mass death associated with Chavez's revolution was not something he intended, and his message, at least in the beginning, was clearly for the better of the collective whole....sadly though, things didn't work out as planned.

As far as the rise of populist dictators go, Chavez doesn't seem particularily unusual. The desire to destroy the institutions that stand in the way of totalitarian power is the same for all of them. the only thing that varies is the rate and the ruthlessness through which they go about bringing that goal about.

I realized too that this point would bring itself forward....and there is no underlying rebuke to say you're wrong. But you also have to recognize that most forms of government now, in the contemporary age, are hybrid systems. The United States, just as most other democracies and republics, is economically socialist in its over-all market.

The US is becoming more socialist with each passing generation. To the extent that socialism is unsustainable, this trend will not continue indefinitely.

I have to strongly disagree here, most definitely.

But you have gone along with every step along the way so far, leading to the conclusion.

It seems that the conservatives are those who preserve the government, the institution, and the entire system as a whole together.

The basic iintent of conservativism is to conserve, yes.

It seems, and this happened just as it did preceding the Revolution of 1776, that the left is merely challenging the stakes and claims that the right manages and holds dear.

As you say though, even the US is a hybrid on the way to a form of socialism. In Europe certainly, and in Canada now, and increasingly in the US as well, it is the liberals that have become the establishment.
Through ngo's and expert opinions and legal review boards, the liberals have effectively taken over the institutions of country after country, without ever needing the mandate of an election!
It is not expecially true that conservatives are particularily endeared to preserving such a state of affairs. Conservatism has in many respects become reactionary, perhaps even nostalgic in lamenting all that has been lost.

If conservatism is incapable of acknowledging and properly rebuking these questions of 'why does it have to be so?' and 'what is there to base you upon?'....then you may as well classify the founding fathers who, after deliberately challenging and disobeying the traditions, rules, and foundations to the english tyranny, then we never of become a nation.

The founding fathers of America realized something very basic when they acknowledged that there are just some truths that are self-evident.
For most of our history, mankind has been enslaved by tyranny. That individual rights, and decisions through reasoned debate, and the ability to own property and be protected from the tyranny of government are a better way is a value statement.
Like all value statements, it is the heart that decides-or in the case of this steadily encroaching socialism, the belly.

But it seems, just as all other revolutions, ours failed in one distinct feature that classifies most into ruin....we institutionalized.

It is Marxism that desires the constant revolution. The American Revolution was about freedom from tyranny, and developing institutions that divided expression of power in order that power would never be centralized.

So long as there are those who preserve tradition and keep constant basis, there will be other challenges, other arguments to find them incorrect in their defense. If conservatism exists in defense to tradition and consistency, who is to say there will never be another revolution? It happened to Britian in it's own civil war....the radical policies of parliament won...and then fell beneath preservation instead of questioning and understanding....becoming in-itself conservative. Why can't we stop this trend

Tradition has never been the enemy. Tyranny is the enemy.
In fact, within Christian tradition, there exists the antidote for tyranny. And even within Christianity, it took us hundreds of years to reach a point when freedom for 'the least amongst us' seemed to be a real possibility.
However, freedom takes hard work and constant vigilance. It takes gratitude and appreciation and constant valuation of the traditions that have won for us the freedoms that some of us at least still value and cherish.

And that is why the trend is not being stopped. Nihilism is the easier response. The cyncism that nihilism is based upon requires no great leap of faith into holding some values as being self-evident.

To the extent that the traditions that contained the seeds of freedom within them are no longer valued, our freedom itself becomes bankrupted.

 

[tulc]

I didn't say the ACLU were wrong to do what they do.

Ahhh! Sorry, after re-reading what you wrote I see I was being defensive and I apologize.
tulc(bad tulc! no doughnut!)

 

[Simon_Templar]

hmmm,

I don't see how a leftist could realistically be classed as a libertarian. Libertarian by definition are governmental minimalists, where as leftists, pretty much by definition are big government supporters.

I think leftists confuse wanting to remove traditional morality from government with not wanting government involvement.

For example, a leftist doesn't want the government to make abortion illegal because they see this as an infringment of a woman's rights. However, they have no problem having government enforced sex ed programs, or affirmitive action programs etc.

Its not really a question of having less government involvement, if anything they want more, its just they want a diferent morality than the traditional values.

 

[tulc]

I think leftists confuse wanting to remove traditional morality from government with not wanting government involvement.

...or seen another way: some leftist don't want the government deciding for them what's moral or immoral? Gay marriage would appear to be one of those issues. Why should someone else's discomfort with it determine my right to marry who I love?
tulc(see my point?)