NPR Teabags America
A pretense is made that Republican congressional members like John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, and Eric Cantor were bought by the health care industry via campaign contributions, which implies that no other justification for GOP representatives opposing a ginormous increase in the size of the Leviathan is plausible.
This charge answers itself. Had the cartoonist ever listened to one of his foes, he would intuit that, as a rule, every legitimate Republican opposes state expansion. Furthermore, Democratic Senator Max Baucus received “nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008” from health care industry sources, an amount that far exceeds what was obtained by those GOP members cited.
Moreover, the most blatant case of lobbyist manipulation is that of the trial lawyers. Their massive bankrolling of the Democrats ensured that no caps for medical malpractice made their way into either the House or Senate version of the health care bill. Mr. Fiore failed to notice this eventuality.
Accusations of paranoia are then levied. It seems that those of us who fear bureaucrats coming between ourselves and our doctors are disturbed. Not surprisingly, evidence suggests otherwise.
The Oregon Health Plan is a precursor to Obamacare and, in 2008, its functionaries turned down cancer sufferer Barbara Wagner’s request for doctor-prescribed medication which she hoped would save her life.
Their rejection letter stated, “Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan.”
Well, there it is. They did charitably offer to finance her suicide, though, thus revealing the disinterested nature and lack of accountability inherent to your average government bureaucrat. Of course, this sort of thing happens all the time in Europe, so worrying about a statist health care takeover is “logical” as opposed to “paranoid.”
The animation closes with a mock recommendation for speaking “teabag, because other languages are just too hard.” Mr. Fiore sincerely seems to believe that anyone with a different opinion is a barbarian, ignoramus, corporate stooge, and/or agent of the Devil.
Here again, the left fabricates and then assassinates. How ironic it is that individuals diametrically opposed to tolerance would disseminate a motto like “respect diversity.” They respect nothing and disrespect those who refuse to parrot every one of their talking points.
While not officially a linguist, I’ll be happy to teach a little TeaPartyish to our enemies. The following questions are often posed by our members:
Why is it that even when home prices drop property taxes continue to rise? Why should those who don’t want health insurance be fined and jailed as a result? If you wish to “stimulate” an economy, why not give the people their money back so they can spend it themselves? And how can we call ourselves a nation if we refuse to secure our own borders?
Note that these queries contain no whining, isms, or hysteria. Our objections to the recent federal mania are rational, concise, and sensible, which is precisely why NPR and its radical associates wish to bury us with invective.
Without straw man and ad hominem fallacies, the left would have nothing with which to defend the malignant emotion that constitutes its political platform.
James Bowman, writing in this month’s issue of the New Criterion, sums up the left’s tactics exquisitely. They “argue not with the merits or otherwise of one’s opponents’ case but with the claim that the opponents themselves are stupid or insane or corrupt and so can have nothing to say of any interest.”
They also fathom that if independents ever gave conservative ideas a fair hearing, they would be finished.
Of secondary importance here is that the video appeared at NPR. This is problematic. Unlike Fox News, NPR is taxpayer-supported and refuses to acknowledge its political slant. Given how far to the left this cartoon is, one has to wonder why the citizenry continues to donate a single cent to those radicals.
The activist station claims to receive only “one to two percent” of its funding from government largesse, but another source estimates that “the federal government’s portion of NPR’s budget is significantly higher than two percent, and the total government expenditure is higher still.”
The advent of the Obama administration bodes well for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which owns NPR and PBS). Washington, D.C.’s new guardians will preserve their grip over public funding come hell or a Republican Congress.
As the unscrupulousness of NPR elucidates, our Democratic leaders produce even more corruption than carbon dioxide. Now that they are in power, whatever benefits their party is paramount and will be prioritized over the nation’s defense or financial solvency.
Last year featured some episodes of unforgettable fraudulency, such as the charade that is ACORN, the proliferation of White House czars, and Anita Dunn’s Mao fetish, but none was more memorable than the political left’s ongoing refusal to accept that many Americans disapprove of its policies for reasons authentic, serious, and legitimate.
..this is sort of old news, this cartoon having been done about a week or so ago, I believe. Nonetheless, it’s good to see this taken down by commentary.
The cartoon itself was typical of the plodding, unfunny attempts at lampooning the right made by “big city” liberals, reminiscent of the Dodgeball anti-hero and his abortive zingers.
Well, that is weird.
Your logical argument about ‘Nazi’ seems to go goes like this
1 The film claims that conservatives have called Obama a Nazi.
2 Conservatives don’t do that. Democrats call US Nazis.
3 And anyway, Nazis are left wing and Democrats are socialist as in ‘National Socialist’ without the ‘National’.
4 And then a final “conservatives don’t do that kind of thing.”
You see what you did there? You refuted your own argument at step 3, which is dispointing; logical argument being a particular strength of conservatives.
But hey, you just got carried away becuase the slur was so unfair. Conservatives never call Obama a Nazi.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-new-berlin-venue-another-bad-choice/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-it-a-conspiracy-theory-to-warn-of-obamas-authoritarian-tendencies/
http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2009/04/03/this-is-the-stupidest-thing-you-will-read-all-week/
(from Google: obama nazi site:pajamasmedia.com, about 3820 hits)
You’re suggesting that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — and its subsidiaries (PBS and NPR) — aren’t adhering to the federal requirement that, as beneficiaries of public largess, they are required to remain politically neutral (or, at the very least, balanced)?
I’m shocked, shocked!
CPB has long hewed to a leftist worldview. It has also shamelessly colluded with other media outlets (print and broadcast among them) in an attempt to persuade — rather than to inform — the public.
See: Ideology Streams http://emmeffemm.com/id82.html
NPR has already posted a response to the criticism. This all seems a little bit behind the ball:
http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2010/01/loud_protests_on_nprs_tea_part_1.html
“Second, the Nazis were leftists, not rightists”
Er, no. Not at all. The arguments from people like goldberg are juvenile and ridiculous. Nazis did have “socialist” in their name – but they were no more socialist than the people’s republic of korea is democratic.
Yes, some nazis liked the great outdoors and rumor even has it that hitler was a vegetarian. But he also had a mustache – and that doesn’t make everyone with a mustache a nazi. The nazis particularly hated socialists (real ones). They killed them, remember – german ones, and that was BEFORE the war started. Socialism and communism were part of the great jewish conspiracy, in case you’ve forgotten what the man himself said – I think hitler himself made it pretty clear which side of the political spectrum he favored.
They had a concept of a worker’s paradise, absolutely. But it was reserved for the “volk” – which was defined by racial purity, not any sort of “to each according to his need”. And what of the communist international? Ha! There was nothing international about nazis – they were for germany first, last and everything in between.
They certainly weren’t CONSERVATIVE, absolutely not. Real conservatives don’t go killing millions of people just because their eyes are too close together (or whatever it was). But they sure as heck weren’t “leftists” or “liberals” either.
And therein lies the stupidity of simplistic labels. Stalin and hitler were both psychopathic dictators (well, ok, technically they probably weren’t psychopaths, but they weren’t very nice). But their politics were completely different. If that hadn’t been the case, they probably would have been allies.
Another thing you could do is a google image search on:
tea party nazi
Some of the placards calling Obama and his policies Nazi are very well produced. Nice layouts and graphics, very professional.
…or you could read this, where a tea party organiser defends the use of Nazi imagry and explains why it is justified.
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/battle-within-tea-party-movement-roger.html
Why do you suppose they call it National Partisan Radio…? Does anyone else cringe when assaulted by their “reporters” use of ex-Ag-er-at-ed inflection when delivering their “news” stories? It’s like I’m back in Mrs. Klasing’s 3rd grade class again, listening to her Em-pha-siz-ing all the most im-Por-tant points of the lesson.
And there was the book by whatsisname, the guy with a beard who ate all the pies: Liberal Fascism. That also seems to be equating liberal politics with Fascism. I don’t know whether the author is a tea party supporter or a even conservative or not though. Maybe he is just crazy.
Uh, excuse me, Mr. Chapin.
You’re a wee bit late to the game.
A certain small blog had this story over 10 days ago.
However, your commentary is welcomed… we need all the exposure of this stuff we can get.
Page 2 or Saul Alinski manual for “Progressive Liberals” is mock, smear, attack, accuse the opposition of sinister motives. Bought and paid for media and “artists” just echoing their leaders wishes. Only a matter of minutes before they start their smear on all Christian and Jewish religious institutions as manipulators of all Republicans. Accuse the oppositon of being mind-numb robots led by mind-numb robots a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. Will be fun to see how well Scott Brown does in the Senate race this Tuesday in Massachusetts with all the “help” the Democrat’s are sending in by way of Acorn, Chicago style Union “volunteers” to get out the vote living, illegal or dead.
I thought the first few t-bag protests were actually very interesting. I remember seeing some of the first video.s of the protests and the members were polite and really sincerely concerned about the way, they felt, the country was heading. The President had been sworn into office and you could sense these folks were really unhappy about the election results and what they were witnessing. Much of the country felt their pain. However, some time later, they I saw another documentary and there were very disturbing placards being carried, some of the participants were brandishing firearms and some of the comments were very, very disturbing indeed. However, I really feel those folks were in the minority and most were not directly threatening to the national security…just over-zealous, as they say. Bless those that really do care !!
Sorry to revert from the article’s declaration about conservatives not using “isms”, but I DO believe Liberals are practicing a form of progressive Nazism. It is identical to the old in it’s general philosophy, but projected anew on the auspices of a historical perspective; they’ve learned from the past – a single nation is not enough, and the world will not tolerate a hostile takeover. This equates to a New World Government (with pantheistic Evolutionism as the established “faith” -mindset- standard bearer), and their ostensible projection of peace and apparent tranquility (see: Obama’s smile), while they affect to mute the significance of the size of government with their soapy and emotional rhetoric. In their equations, government is neutral, and therefore can be grown exponentially without showing blood or fear in any actual political direction. Liberal credence is predicated on a false conception of neutrality: that they are so, and rightfully.
Matthew@4: On a political spectrum that runs left (fascism) to right(anarchy-no government) communists (marxists), socialists and statists fall to the left of center approaching fascism. Our original government was a republic and fell between center and right-limited government and state’s rights. Today’s government (the messiah, pelosi and reid) and leftist who run it are taking it closer to fascism than ever before. In this case lables do apply.
Hitler hated Stalin and distrusted him more and he also hated communists. Hating the jews was ethical more than political. Nevertheless, hitler was a fascist. He and his government controlled the economy-all production was dictated by him and the needs of his government; he controlled the media, schools, and the freedoms we take for granted. So did Stalin but as a communist he used a socialist dream to get the people to work for the government.
I also disagree about their politics being different: both hated the US, hated western freedoms, wanted government control over their economies, freedoms and liberties, controlled their media and education and sought to take over the world. I’d say it was a good thing their personal animus kept them from being allies.
As for simplistic labels that has been a trade mark of the left-democrats for generations. Just because the left is embarrassed by the label means it is not correctly applied.
the left uses word association and the first thing that comes to mind for them when hearing the word tea is bag. i wasn’t familiar with the phrase until i heard it in a movie. but now every time they refer to the tea party they use the word bag with the phrase, marketing techniques used to brand an item. it comes as no surprise that Rachel Maddow would be familiar with the term.
P.S. anytime i hear someone use the teabag phrase i know they are on the left, how’s that for branding.
lots of good points – “Moreover, the most blatant case of lobbyist manipulation is that of the trial lawyers.” and how do you leave the labor unions out of that claim??? they OWN the Democrat Party.
some of you should do more than watch documentaries if you want to understand the Tea Party movement…like attend a rally maybe. Otherwise you’re stuck with posts like these that display ignorance. And maybe you need some education on just what fascism really is because there are significant parallels between what the bojangles admin is doing and true fascism. study up before you speak.
Please update this article. The government no longer has three, but four branches, including Labor.
@4 Matthew: “The arguments from people like goldberg are juvenile and ridiculous.”
No, they’re not. But you can assert that they are all you like, since maintaining the pop-culture-bolstered fiction that NAZI = Conservative “right-wing” works in your (no doubt “progressive”) ideological favor — having one of the most monstrous, dictatorial regimes in modern history as a comparative target is convenient for demonizing your ideological enemies, right? And a grossly oversimplified mischaracterization of Goldberg, et al’s theses also aids your cause — a thorough reading of their works reveals ample substantiation, which you fail to refute. All you’ve done is present an assertion to the contrary to be taken at face value. Excuse me if I’m not convinced.
Beyond that, as a “progressive” (which your post suggests you to be) with what parts of the official NAZI Party Platform would you disagree: Would it be:
- the demand “that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood”?
- the contention that “No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all”?
- the notion that “all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished”?
- the concept that “all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people”?
- the “nationalization of all trusts”?
- the demand for “a generous increase in old-age pensions”?
- “the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose”?
- the idea that “the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people”?
- that The State “has the duty to help raise the standard of national health . . . by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics”?
- that “Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed”?
- the demand for “the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations” culminating in the concept of, “COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD”?
‘Cause those specific points all sound like typical left-wing collectivist nanny-state notions to me…
What else did you expect from National Progressive Radio?
“Hitler wanted fries!”
That pretty much sums it up.
Yes, there are multitudes who view Tea Baggers that way.
And this statement is why . . “First off, it was Nancy Pelosi who played the Hitler card last summer. She hallucinated in public, charging the protesters at town hall meetings with carrying “swastikas,” yet I never saw one — at least not displayed by someone on my side — when I attended such gatherings.”
Manifestly false. Worse yet is the “at least not displayed by someone on my side.” Characteristic of the right’s chronic aversion to accountability.
And finally, the best delusion of all – “Juvenile name calling is integral to radical strategy. Conservatives don’t do that sort of thing. Logical argument is a hallmark of the right while “ism” flinging is a staple of the left.”
Really?
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912210015
What is really amusing, were it not so sad, is that you can tell some ones proclivities by the terms they so readily adopt. That the liberals so quickly and completely adopted the term “teabagger” is more an indication and indictment of their desires than an aspersion cast upon us.
Actually, the NAZI’s were socialists from a government control perspective. They wanted all the central government control of everything including police powers, art, and yes, even health care. Their thought was, you live for the state & if you cost us money you are a burden. The NAZI socialist perspective was a corrupt view of Hitler’s insane idea’s. So, they were not
‘socialists.
None of our elected officials are NAZI, so the point is moot, no matter who casts the aspersion. However, many of our officials do think the world should be governed by a one world government. That was expounded on at the Copenhagen Conference recently where the United Nations & all sorts of other speakers, spoke of how terrific hat idea would be. The Un is trying to find all sorts of ways to develop unlimited & lucrative funding that is not dependent on any one nation. They want the money but they do not want to have to comply w/ the desires of those whose money they are using. A UN w/ lots of money will become the world’s worse example of corrupt & dangerous government. The petty jerks, unelected jerks I might add, would guide the UN into a tyrannical state of operation & she would surely attack America, because we are capitalists who make money. They envy our successes. And yes, we are successful. We make mistakes, but that is usually due to excessive government interference. In short, once government regulators get in there they screw up the works. NOT because of regulation. But, because their regulations generally amount to idiotic plans, details, policies, demands, bass-ackwards calls for actions that are counter to real life.
It bad regulations that got us, not regulations. Its excessive regulations that got us, not regulations. Its government regulation that got us, corrupted by those suspiciously influential special interest groups whose agenda have little to do with us & more to do w/ them getting power & money for their operations.
The correct response to the use of the term “tea bagger” is the term “Barack Sucker.”
I’ve done it, and believe me, the recipient was stunned.
They turned red and said, “But…but..all of you guys are…”
I interrupted and said, “There’s something in your hair.”
They stammered and I soothingly said, “You love him, don’t you?”
Skeezix said: “And finally, the best delusion of all – “Juvenile name calling is integral to radical strategy. Conservatives don’t do that sort of thing. Logical argument is a hallmark of the right while “ism” flinging is a staple of the left.”
Skeezix also said this (before pointing out the “delusion” regarding juvenile name-calling):
“Yes, there are multitudes who view Tea Baggers that way.”
Skeezix is the perfect example of a delusion in action.
#24 Loved your response. LOL.
You’re all absolutely right. Teabaggers are much funnier than this. He really didn’t do their short-circuited thought process justice. That’s government funding for you. Waters down everything to the pc level. They even took it off the website because so many offended teabaggers called in. I’m with you guys, this PC big government thing has to end!
24. baal:
The correct response to the use of the term “tea bagger” is the term “Barack Sucker.”
Gee, baal, that’s kind of gay. The tea bagger thing, you’re stuck with it. Just like the birther thing. Stuck. I suggest you redirect your focus to this idea of name calling . . . ooh, maybe not.
Matthew #4:
““Second, the Nazis were leftists, not rightists”
Er, no. Not at all. The arguments from people like goldberg are juvenile and ridiculous. Nazis did have “socialist” in their name – but they were no more socialist than the people’s republic of korea is democratic.
Yes, some nazis liked the great outdoors and rumor even has it that hitler was a vegetarian. But he also had a mustache – and that doesn’t make everyone with a mustache a nazi. The nazis particularly hated socialists (real ones). They killed them, remember – german ones, and that was BEFORE the war started. Socialism and communism were part of the great jewish conspiracy, in case you’ve forgotten what the man himself said – I think hitler himself made it pretty clear which side of the political spectrum he favored.
They had a concept of a worker’s paradise, absolutely. But it was reserved for the “volk” – which was defined by racial purity, not any sort of “to each according to his need”. And what of the communist international? Ha! There was nothing international about nazis – they were for germany first, last and everything in between.
They certainly weren’t CONSERVATIVE, absolutely not. Real conservatives don’t go killing millions of people just because their eyes are too close together (or whatever it was). But they sure as heck weren’t “leftists” or “liberals” either.
And therein lies the stupidity of simplistic labels. Stalin and hitler were both psychopathic dictators (well, ok, technically they probably weren’t psychopaths, but they weren’t very nice). But their politics were completely different. If that hadn’t been the case, they probably would have been allies.”
Define “right wing”, and then explain how National Socialism fits that definition.
Why are the Nazis supposedly “right wing”? Because their racist? Why does the right have a monopoly on racism? Remember the Black Panthers?
Right wingers are universally for small government, low taxes, and individual freedom. Nazis are for big government, the necessary high taxes to support big government, and a restriction of individual liberties (gun control, smoking bans, etc). Nazi Germany had universal health care (for white Germans of course).
At their core, Nazism and Communism are two sides of the same coin. Nazis want Nationalistic enclaves for each specific group of people. The BNP in England want England to be only for White Englishers, there are even Brazilian and Japanese Nazis; you don’t have to be white to be a national socialist, you just have to be a racial supremacist. They achieve their goal by stoking the racial hatred of the common folk.
Communists, on the other hand, want to destroy borders and create a society that consists of a single class, rather than a single race, hence Communism stokes class conflict.
Aside from that, they were both, at their core, tyrannical movements that want to subjugate the individual to the will of an all powerful, authoritarian state. There is nothing “right wing” about that at all. Do you think that Mussolini and Fascists are “right wing” as well? Or that the current economic crisis was caused by Free Market policies?
You know it was an excellent argument when the trolls rush in full force slingin their usual crap. They are soooo sure that the tea party crowd is chanting “Nazi” while carrying high gloss signs and you know what? They would know because everytime one shows up it turns out to be yet another weak attempt to smear conservatives. The liberal plants at these events are obvious and hilarious.
My question to them is this: what are u sooo worried about? we are just a bunch of lunatics bumbling around in the dark, misinformed with no leadership. Why are u afraid?
What’s hilarious is that they are insulting us by using one of their constituents. And, of course, name-calling is basically due to the fact that you have no argument.
#30 scottorooni
That’s it exactly. The reason that the trolls appear is because both Pajamas Media and the Tea Party certainly matter. That the truth gets out despite the mainstream media acting as state sponsored media for a terrible administration. These trolls are a good indicator of the fact that the left is being handed defeat by these patriotic forces that they cannot control. The trolls represent a childish sort of desperation.
In their twisted logic they seek to slow the momentum of their oppositions narrative, which isn’t going to be possible today, and their simple presence betrays them. They turn out on most occasions to be their own worst enemies.
Define “right wing”, and then explain how National Socialism fits that definition.
Using a racial hierarchy as the basis for determining merit, letting hyper-nationalism determine a state’s social and foreign policies, promoting war as a social and political motivator, provoking contempt for individual weakness or difference, suppressing any pacifist political elements, worshiping an imaginary “golden age” to justify regressive policies and undermine opponents. How am I doing so far?
“Why are the Nazis supposedly “right wing”? Because their racist? Why does the right have a monopoly on racism? Remember the Black Panthers?”
Racism exists everywhere, absolutely. But when it’s a fundamental political platform of the ruling party, that’s a bit different. I don’t think anyone has ever described the south african apartheid regime or the american jim crow laws as “left wing”.
“Right wingers are universally for small government, low taxes, and individual freedom.”
No, that’s what CONSERVATIVES are for. The term “right wing” has been hijacked to mean something that it has never before meant – right wing does NOT just mean “very conservative”. I really don’t understand why wackos like coulter are so keen to call themselves right wing – there’s absolutely nothing good (or even conservative) about being right wing. Meanwhile, “liberal” is being mistakenly equated with “stalinist” (and stalin was definitely not liberal).
Take another example – were the italian fascists “right wing”? That’s definitely how historians describe them. The italian fascists were installed with the blessing of the monarchy and financial interests. They were the practical embodiment of “right wing” – and they were not at all interested in small government or individual liberties. Fascism was a conscious response to the threat of communism, a way to shore up capitalism with the force of the state. It was backed by conservatives, but only as a desperate alternative to communism.
“Nazis are for big government, the necessary high taxes to support big government”
They also used political and legal pressure to force companies to do the things the nazis wanted them to do. But their interest wasn’t to eliminate capital or private property but to pursue economic objectives and to arm the country.
“and a restriction of individual liberties (gun control, smoking bans, etc)”
The nazis basically left gun laws unchanged – with the one exception (naturally) of banning jews from owning guns. They banned smoking in certain public buildings, yes, but they did on on the basis of medical conclusions that took the rest of the world another 30 years to rediscover. Smoking isn’t just an individual liberty – it’s also a smelly habit that causes irritation and harm to other people. The nazis did not prevent people from smoking in general.
“Nazi Germany had universal health care (for white Germans of course)”
Nazi germany inherited a universal health care system that had been in place for decades. It wasn’t a nazi invention.
“At their core, Nazism and Communism are two sides of the same coin”
They were both extremely interested in power, and they both used similar dirty tricks and stupid policies (farmers took a hammering under both systems). They both lead to corrupted political systems. But apart from that, they were quite different in their goals and motivations.
“Nazis want Nationalistic enclaves for each specific group of people”
I think they wanted racial homogeneity across europe. Any “specific groups” that didn’t fit in weren’t going to get an enclave – they were going to get dispatched (one way or another).
You don’t seem to recognize the difference between what motivates the grab for power and what happens after the system becomes corrupt. Stalin and hitler were both deranged dictators. They absolutely misused their power, but they were quite different politically. They did not share motivations or end goals. They were extremists and political absolutists, but they believed in different “ideals” (if you can call them that). Just because dictatorships end up looking the same does not mean there’s no difference between left and right.
blotto:
“On a political spectrum that runs left (fascism) to right(anarchy-no government) communists (marxists)”
I don’t know where you get your definitions from. You count anarchists as right wing? Huh? Do you even understand what the word means? For pete’s sake, please just pay some attention to what actual communists did and said for a bit before claiming to know what you are talking about. Anarchists (real ones) were just communists who didn’t think the revolution should wait for all of marx’s predictions to come true before abolishing the state – they were ALL marxist. I don’t think you quite realise that anarchists were real people, once. Go read joseph conrad’s “the secret agent”. I think you’ll like it.
“socialists and statists fall to the left of center approaching fascism”
I really don’t think you know what any of those words mean. You’re equating “leftist” with “statist”. Er, no. Cast your mind back to the stuff that fashionable american socialists were protesting about in the 60′s. What was it they were rebelling against? Can you remember? That’s right – the state.
“Our original government was a republic and fell between center and right-limited government and state’s rights.”
Republic has nothing to do with left/right – it just means not headed by a monarchy. What other countries can you think of which call themselves a “republic”
“Today’s government (the messiah, pelosi and reid) and leftist who run it are taking it closer to fascism than ever before. In this case lables do apply”
They might, if you had the foggiest idea what they meant.
“He and his government controlled the economy-all production was dictated by him and the needs of his government; he controlled the media, schools, and the freedoms we take for granted.”
He was a dictator. Yes. That’s what dictators do. But he sure as heck wasn’t interested in “wealth distribution” or equality, or a classless society, or workers’ paradise or even a centrally planned economy. He was just totalitarian – he had a plan for where he wanted germany to go and he beat up on anyone who didn’t play his game. Germany did run what was essentially a free market – it was just a very browbeaten one.
“So did Stalin but as a communist he used a socialist dream to get the people to work for the government”
Actually, he inherited that from lenin. Stalin just started killing people.
“I also disagree about their politics being different: both hated the US”
I don’t think that’s true. He saw the US as a military threat, but that’s about all. My impression is that hitler admired the economic and cultural achievements of countries like britain and the US.
“hated western freedoms, wanted government control over their economies, freedoms and liberties, controlled their media and education and sought to take over the world”
That last bit’s a nice touch. “sought to take over the world – therefore leftist”. So the romans were leftist. Genghis khan, leftist.
“I’d say it was a good thing their personal animus kept them from being allies”
I don’t think hitler would have had any problem if the US and britain had backed him. He would have welcomed them as allies – as long as they shared his hatred for jews, of course.
“As for simplistic labels that has been a trade mark of the left-democrats for generations. Just because the left is embarrassed by the label means it is not correctly applied”
I agree about the first bit, but it hasn’t been all one-sided. The second sentence is just silly.
Priority #1c of the new republican/truly conservative party: Defund all of the lefty/socialist organizations whatever they may be. Sorry folks you’ll have to earn a living by actually working. No more nationally funded radio or tv, come on, it was all pretty usless to begin with, admit it. Now the NPR’s, PBS’s are controlled by the drones of the left and virtually everyone knows it. Private money is always going to get you a better product for less. If people want to pay for their own “free speech” fine, even if it’s a crayon on a piece of cardbooard everyone has the opportunity to be heard. Let the states run their own educational systems as they see fit. Let “artists” create something other people want to buy, then they could call it working for a living.
Now that the truth is no where to be found inside the left it’s time to give it all up forever. Let people decide what they want to personally pay for as free individuals, then we’ll see what is of real value to our civil society.
Well, I’m looking forward to someone doing a parody. I wish I had the skills. I can see the cartoon now. Learn to speak “scum bag” and you too, can be a pimp. When life gets complicated, keep it simple, think “scum bag!” You can do scum bag, if you really try. Don’t get confused by ACORN or the Daily Kos, think scum bag. See?
The reason that the trolls appear is because both Pajamas Media and the Tea Party certainly matter. That the truth gets out despite the mainstream media acting as state sponsored media for a terrible administration. These trolls are a good indicator of the fact that the left is being handed defeat by these patriotic forces that they cannot control. The trolls represent a childish sort of desperation.
You idiot. The Teabagging Convention in Tennessee has been basically hijacked by Republican party corrpution monkeys. Palin’s charging a hundred thousand to speak there and the original tea bagging event promoters have dropped out. There’s been a black out about it here. But you can read about this non event. Brilliant. Trust me this guy went easy on you idiots. You’d have a legitimate movement if only your brains functioned properly.
You know, something occurs to me about the tea-baggers. They MIGHT just do a nader, ensuring that obama has a lock on the next election.
“Define Right Wing. Using a racial hierarchy as the basis for determining merit, letting hyper-nationalism determine a state’s social and foreign policies, promoting war as a social and political motivator, provoking contempt for individual weakness or difference, suppressing any pacifist political elements, worshiping an imaginary “golden age” to justify regressive policies and undermine opponents. How am I doing so far?”
Way off. Right wing is little-no state control. Left wing is lots-total state control. The farther right you get, the less power government has. At the extreme end of the right spectrum, we have Anarchy. At the extreme end of the left end of th spectrum, you have marxism, nazism, fascism, etc.
@ Matthew
First let us define our terms.
Fascism:
a political/economic system characterised by heavily centralised political power presiding over a mixed private/state economy. While much property is nominally in private hands, its usage is controlled and dictated by the state. Fascist systems believe the individual is the servant of the state. All man’s efforts must be directed towards to “good” of the state, the collective, the leader. One people, One State, One Leader is the ultimate fascist motto. Many, but not all, fascist states use racism as a unifying social force.
The Political Left:
Collectivism, in all its forms. Imagine a political continuum running from left to right. On the far left you have extreme collectivism – Stalinism, North Korean socialism, Spartanism, Pharoahism, the Incan state, Plato’s beehive, left wing “anarchy” (which in reality is just communism, syndicalism or some other variant of marxist socialism, not the individualist market anarchy the “teabaggers” speak of).
A little closer to the centre-but not much-you have East German Socialism, Nazism, Italian Fascism, modern Chinese communism, Cuban socialism, Iranian theocracy, Putin’s Russia, most of Africa.
Further towards the centre you have the European Union, Sweden, modern South Africa, most of Asia and Latin America. In the centre you have the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the UK. To the right, you once had Thomas Jefferson’s USA, Disraeli’s Britain and 1980′s Hong Kong.
On the far right you would have right anarchy-a stable society with no government at all. A dream, but a very unrealistic one, at least for the next few aeons.
This is how most right wingers here would probably describe the political system.
So on the far left is the total state or total collectivism. The individual is nothing. The collective is all. On the far right you have no state. The individual is all.
By this definition it is easy to see why we class Nazis and fascists as leftists. While the fascists are always fighting the socialists and left anarchists, their differences are only superficially political. They are all collectivists fighting each other for power.
The Yakuza fights the Triads, the Italian mafia fights the Russian mob, Hitler fought Stalin, but can any of them claim they are morally superior to their opponents?
Furthermore, 20th century Fascism invariably came from the traditionally defined political left. Hitler was a National Socialist who recruited thousands of ex-communists to the Nazi Party. “Beefsteak Nazis” they called them-brown on the outside, red in the middle. Mussolini was a Marxist who edited the newspaper of the Italian Socialist Party. British Union of Fascists leader, Oswald Mosley, started out as a Conservative MP, moved to Labour, then even further left to the Independent Labour Party and the British Fabian Society, before adopting fascism. South African Apartheid came from the union movement, particularly the miner’s unions, who didn’t want to see white miners competing with black workers for jobs. Modern Chinese fascism came out of Mao’s Communist Party.
My position is with Jefferson, Disraeli and once free Hong Kong.
I believe in the bare minimum of government. I believe the tiny state should be controlled in the strictest possible manner by a written constitution. I believe in free markets and individual liberty.
I am not a right anarchist, but I am as close as you can get without crossing the line.
The reason we have such a disconnect is because we have vastly, vastly different interpretations of politics at their very core. How can you understand us if you don’t understand how we define politics? I hope I just helped out a little.
Anonymous:
“Right wing is little-no state control”
That’s a modern (and incredibly recent) american redefinition. By your definition, there has never been a single right-wing government in the entirety of human history – I challenge to you name one.
“Left wing is lots-total state control. The farther right you get, the less power government has. At the extreme end of the right spectrum, we have Anarchy”
You have no idea what “anarchy” means. ALL of the real anarchist movements from history have been marxist. Marx came up with a (whacky) theory about how states would evolve from capitalist to communist and eventually to anarchist – hence the famous “communism would bury capitalism” comment from krushchev. Anarchists were the most extreme nutters who thought they could skip the first two steps entirely. There really were actual anarchists. They had leaders, who wrote things down – I’m not just speculating (unlike you)
Frank:
“First let us define our terms”
So you boil down an entire political system ignore anything that isn’t about the level of state control and their economic system. And that’s how you claim to argue that nazi germany is left-wing.
That’s depressingly stupid. So … you’re suggesting that there’s no significant difference between britain under henry the eighth and nazi germany? Or imperial russia and nazi germany? Both had a state that consumed a huge proportion of the country’s economy, both severely restricted individual rights. To you there’s no difference. And all because you want to try to prove that nazi = stalinism, therefore nazis were left wing, just like liberals today.
Here’s a crazy idea – how about looking at the parts of the ideology that actually caused those leaders to do the things they did. Stalin wasn’t a racist nationalist who wanted to impose ethnic purity on europe. Hitler wasn’t trying to export an ideological revolution to diverse populations around the world. One was collectivist – one was just racially supreme.
Like it or not, there really have been actual “right wing” regimes in history. They’ve always been called right wing, and they shared a number of very common features that set them apart as such. You can redefine what right wing means to focus on a couple of features that allow you to claim that they’re really “left wing”, but don’t expect anyone outside the american wingnut movement to accept your definitions. You’re making up words.
And I like the fact that you’ve placed australia in the same category as the US. We have strict gun control laws. We have pervasive (and increasingly so) restrictions on smoking. We have universal health care. Some states have civil unions for gays, and public support for extending those is high. We have overwhelming public opposition to the death penalty (and it’s growing), we’ve decriminalized some drugs and we’re pursuing harm minimization for others. We have intelligence and security laws that make yours look a bit lax. We have national compulsory voting, very strict rules on campaign financing and campaign speech. We have actual, active sedition laws. On paper, compared to you guys, we’re a stalinist hell-hole. And yes, somehow, you don’t think we’re “left wing” (and therefore like nazis). Could it be because of the other things we DO?
Matthew:
In specifics, ie exactly how the economy is regulated, exactly what is banned and what isn’t, who the scapegoats are (nazis used Jews whereas Henry 8th era statists used catholics, masons and… jews)… otherwise, they basically are the same. They are oligarchies led by a cabal of absolute leaders who are above reproach by the common citizen.
You are correct, no true right wing state has ever existed for any extended period of time, just extremely short ones (the 3 I mentioned which you must have missed). The right wing Ideal doesn’t lend itself to existing very long, because the absense of concentrated power creates a power vacuum, and there are always people trying to fill that vacuum. Nature hates a vacuum.
Australia and the U.S are both generally centrist. The specifics, once again, are different. Australia has looser drug laws while stricter gun laws than the united states. Australia is further left then the U.S, but both are centrist states relative to the rest of the world.
The definition I put forth is the only one that works. All other definitions of right and left wing are so vague as to be meaningless. You say racism is right wing, but like I said there are leftists that are just as racist as the nazis. You defend your charge by saying that only right wing movements have platforms based in racism, but that’s complete trollop. The KKK was created by democrats (Jim Crow was definitely advanced by left wing members of the U.S congress, such as the currently serving democratic representative Robert Byrd who was formerly a member of the Klan; at the time it wasn’t described in left-right terms because, like I already stated, no side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on race; it just happened that it was mostly leftists who opposed the civil rights movement and republicans that supported it). The nation of Islam and the black panthers were intrinsically racist but left wing movements. Bush is apparently right wing while Obama is apparently left wing, yet they both support the war in Afghanistan (Obama even supports extending it to Pakistan and Yemen, so he must be right wing, right?), they both oppose gay marriage, they both support the war on drugs. I’m not seeing much difference here! Bush trampled individual rights, yet somehow he is conservative/right wing? Bullshit. Obama and Bush, like Nazism and Communism, are two sides of the same coin.
To people like you, “right wingers” are anyone who opposes your specifically preferred version of tyranny
So it’s fair to say you’re not a fan…
Matthew:
“In specifics, ie exactly how the economy is regulated, exactly what is banned and what isn’t, who the scapegoats are (nazis used Jews whereas Henry 8th era statists used catholics, masons and… jews)… otherwise, they basically are the same. They are oligarchies led by a cabal of absolute leaders who are above reproach by the common citizen”
Yet politically they’re indistinguishable? That’s ridiculous.
“You are correct, no true right wing state has ever existed for any extended period of time”
Righto. So Franco wasn’t right wing. Pinochet wasn’t right wing. Mussolini wasn’t right wing. Hitler wasn’t right wing. You claim that even royalists are indistinguishable from the left wing. By equating imperial russia with nazi germany, and nazi germany with stalinism, you claim that there was no difference in the politicis of russia before and after the revolution. I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. 2 + 2 does not equal 11.
You ignore most of what makes a group’s politics distinct and try to boil everything down to the level of central control, just so that you can throw all the dictatorships and despots in history into one bucket – conveniently labeled “left wing”. It has to be called left-wing because (you claim) there has never been a right-wing government.
“The definition I put forth is the only one that works”
No, it’s just the one that happens to let you get away with claiming that black is white. The term “right wing” has had a perfectly good definition for decades – and you’re ignoring it so you can deliberately misrepresent the history of modern political parties.
“All other definitions of right and left wing are so vague as to be meaningless”
I gave you examples of right wing characteristics – racist ideology, nationalism, traditionalism, jingoism, suppression of pacivism, demonishing the “weak”. You can’t see how any of those qualities vary between socialist and facsist regimes?
“You say racism is right wing, but like I said there are leftists that are just as racist as the nazis”
Sure, but there were no nazis (or klansmen) who would ever sign up to the leftist/liberal equality agenda.
“You defend your charge by saying that only right wing movements have platforms based in racism”
I said that right wing movements use race as a basis of merit. The australian union movement once had an anti-immigration position (but it wasn’t alone – the “white australia policy” was actually developed by a conservative government). Primilarily, the unions were trying to protect the pay and conditions of australian union members – but that also happened to include protecting the conditions of foreign-born australian union members as well, so the policy wasn’t primarily about race. Race will crop up in a lot of politics, but the right is singular in its use purely for social, political and economic discrimination.
“The KKK was created by democrats (Jim Crow was definitely advanced by left wing members of the U.S congress”
*yawn*. Nice try. Yes, the KKK was founded primarily by democrats – but they weren’t modern “left wing” democrats. The membership of the reps and dems have changed over time. Back when democrats played that race card, they owned the south. Now the reps own the south, because the democrats stopped supporting that agenda. The southern democrats didn’t like the way the democratic party changed its position on race, so they switched alliegance. On that score, the modern democrats do not mirror their old position on race in the 50′s and 60′s.
“it just happened that it was mostly leftists who opposed the civil rights movement”
Rubbish.
“and republicans that supported it)”
You need to read a bit of history about the american communist and union movements. You’re claiming something that’s patently ridiculous.
“Bush is apparently right wing while Obama is apparently left wing, yet they both support the war
in Afghanistan”
What – so that makes them politically indistinguishable? I don’t think so.
“I’m not seeing much difference here!”
That’s not something that I’d be proud of.
“Bush trampled individual rights, yet somehow he is conservative/right wing?”
I distinguish between conservative and right wing, as I’ve pointed out already. You use a made-up definition of right-wing that means you can ignore what everybody else in history has ever understood it to mean. It’s no surprise that we don’t agree.
“To people like you, “right wingers” are anyone who opposes your specifically preferred version of tyranny”
Er, no. I think I’ve already said plenty that should make that clear.
You’re just playing word games. Sorry, but this argument has become tedious now.
Hey Frank:
Here’s an interesting take on the whole left-right thing. I think it’s useful – so I expect that you’ll reject it
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
Matt.