Certainly we think of Hitler and Mussolini as being in some sense fascist…

Holy cow, I bet someone 5 bucks that nobody could as mind-numbingly, I-grieve-for-the-future, what-do-we-tell-the-children goofy as to utter these words. …some sense…? Really? You’ve read some actual history right? Bueler?

Please, please, please confess that this is some kind of irony signal – a wink-wink if you will – that the review is just a tongue-in-cheek nod to the special “genius” that is Jonah’s ode to redefining seriousness down.

Goldberg shows that it’s difficult to distinguish between the “fascism” of Mussolini and the “progressive” politics of both Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.

Wait a minute, you almost sound serious here. Jeez, there goes the 5 bucks.

Sounds like the Founding Fathers had it right, so very long ago.

Hitler and Mussolini WERE THE DEFINITION of fascists (the latter coined the word “fascism”); they are the “gold standard” of fascism. Whatever comparison anyone wants to make of other leaders, systems, and the like to fascism has to start with these two thugs.

Jeebus. . . .

Nat Turner

Thomas Jefferson OTOH would probably be wandering in 3rd party purgatory – or just oting out of the process altogether – like many of my libertarian brethren.

Common impulses in the human breast underlie all the “isms” and their continuous reemergence and recycling…plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Liberty, personal responsibility, freedom and individual choice are the hard route, the most demanding and the most difficult to sustain.

“Eternal vigilance is the safeguard of liberty.”

It’s difficult to maintain the level of vigilance required to sustain these principles. Especially in these lazy, self- indulgent times we live in in “the west” and under constant fire from those who would assault them in the name of their version of “the good of the people”.

A William F. Buckley observation on the current version of the impulse to collectivism, the impulse to embrace authoritarianism.

“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.”

The traits that you assign to Fascism on the American Right are Authoritarian. The Right are individualists combining reluctantly to defend themselves against the collective actions of the Left.

Worst, given the way politics is, you must start somewhere to effect change. That means if the political battleground has been the domain of the Left for seventy years, you must tolerate collectivist organizations, and sometime cooperate with them, before you can build a consensus to tear them down.

Defending borders and maintaining a military may be authoritarian. But, if the Founders of our country fought wars without becoming Fascists, so can we. Thomas Jefferson, in attacking the Barbary Pirates in 1803, was not acting as a Fascist. He was defending US commerce from Muslim tyrants. He had no autocratic authority; he had to go to Congress to get the funds to prosecute the war.

The point is that while Authoritarianism runs through both parties, collectivism tends to be the domain of the Left. It is the Left who says that individuals don’t matter, that only groups do.

Of course, individual politicians can muddy the waters by “triangulation” the way Bill Clinton stole conservative ideas to gain popularity with the electorate. Teddy Roosevelt was a “progressive” who pretended to be a Republican. And Hoover was an “interventionist” on the right.

The fact is that bad ideas can effect both parties, but ultimately, they get washed out if they are not in accord with the basic principals of the party.

There are many forms of group action which aren’t collectivist, because they are voluntary. Collectivism always assumes the right of the state to “force us” to do what is “good for us.” Collectivism assumes that decisions will be made “on high” rather than locally or personally.