Has Senator Byrd...

[impressive]

I will make a bet with you though. If, Iraq manages to form a stable government with representation for its citizens and If the palestinians and israelis can reach an accord. I'm willing to bet GWB is hailed by future historians as a great statesman and visionary, who saw what needed to be done and did it, despite the waffeling of lesser men. It may not be fair, but I suspect he will get the credit, as Regan got the credit for bringing down the soviet union.

I'm sure he would get the credit if that came to pass. However, I'm willing to bet it will NOT come to pass.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm sure he would get the credit if that came to pass. However, I'm willing to bet it will NOT come to pass.

Hard to foretell on that one. Syria is pulling out of Lebanon. Israel is pulling out of the Gaza. Despite the doomspeak, Iraqis came out and voted.

Things are more hopeful there than they have been since Sadat & Began. It may all go south again, in fact, the smart money says it will. On the other hand, there is cause for hope. Arafat's passing has opened a lot of doors to dialogue that were closed. I'll stay cautiously optomistic on the overall situation in the mideast.

 

[Kassiana]

I love Bob Byrd these days. I don't agree with everything he's ever done or said (though apparently most of the Senate has by their refusal to call Trent Lott on the carpet for his racist remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday party). I admire the fact that he was one of the only senators who refused to give Bosh carte blanche for the Iraq war. Anyone catch any of his speeches? Agree or disagree, the man has passion and gives a powerful speech.

I'm glad we have at least one senator who's willing to get up and say Bosh is wrong.

 

[BlackShanglan]

If it makes just one sleeping sheep WAKE UP and break from the herd, it'll be well worth it.

But it doesn't. All it does it eventually wring all meaning out of the phrase. When language and references are regularly used in hyperbole and missapplication, they don't give meaning to things they describe. They simply lose meaning, until people are tossing around "like Hitler" with roughly the same level of emotional response we now have to phrases like "avoid it like the plague." I'm with Colly on this one. Hitler's evil is too terrible and too important to be reduced to convenient political shorthand for "people I don't like."

No, Bush has not engaged in genocide, yet.

But he, more correctly his backers, are using the letter of the law to subvert its intent.

Thank goodness we've never had to deal with politicians doing that before. How innovative of Bush et al to break new ground in that area.

Frankly, I feel that even the "methods" comparison is rather silly. There really aren't that many ways to gain political power, and they've all been tried in the past. Work by changing legislation? Nazis. Work by gaining support of the populace? Savanarola. Work by gaining favor with others in the system? Machiavelli. All methods of gaining political power have been used by some scary bug-a-boo in the past. They've also sometimes been used by good people.

The only rational way to deal with this is to look at serious arguments based on facts, reason, and analysis. Dragging in comparisons to ugly past regimes adds no real information to the argument. It only tells people that you are upset; it gives them no reason to agree with you.

If it makes just one sleeping sheep WAKE UP and break from the herd, it'll be well worth it.

The only real way to do that is to give information, not shock-tactic language or comparisons that fall apart under any real scrutiny. I've been listening to the Nazi comparisons for years now, and they do nothing but convince me that the speakers are self-obsessed and overly emotional. You very well may not be, but that's the impression I get when someone compares a reversal in a democratic two-party system to the deaths of millions of innocent people. On the other hand, the factual information I've recently encountered re: mercury pollution decisions, CIA "renditions," and suppression and modification of research at the EPA has had a serious effect on my perception of the people and party currently in control. More of that will help; more comparisons to Nazis will only excite those who already agree with you, but annoy and offend those who don't. The latter are the ones who need to be convinced.

Shanglan

 

[shereads]

Saddam Hussein was called Hitler by George W. Bush, who was careful not to mention that we created this particular Hitler. "We" meaning Bush's father and Ronald Reagan, who helped him gas Iranians at his northern border.

Most Americans have happily ignored the fact that Saddam Hussein was our creation, like the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. So there's no doubt in my mind that most Americans will just as eagerly forget the price that's been paid for Bush II's adventure in the middle east.

As for what historians will say, it will start in the history books we put in our public schools. You can bet that GWB will be painted a hero, no matter what the outcome in Iraq. It can't be harder to rewrite history than to rewrite science, can it?

Saddam isn't immortal and was a contained threat. Bush shortened his reign by a decade or so and paid for the privilege with currency he had no right to use: America's right to call ourselves a peaceful superpower; our credibility; our right to criticize other countries for human rights abuses against prisoners; $200 billion and counting that we might have used to secure our borders against terrorism and bring Bin Laden to justice.

Most significantly, he paid with the blood of innocent people who hadn't asked for his help, and whose lives were normal in many respects. Their kids played soccar in the streets, their daughters had rights under the law that are denied to women under Islamic regimes. The majority of Iraqis were simply minding their own business when Shock and Awe made its television debut. Those of us who got an up-close look at what happened to tens of thousands of them, saw it only because we searched for information at sources like Salon, who published photographs of the carnage that had appeared on the front pages of newspapers in every developed country except our own.

If you want someone to define evil without using the name of Hitler, ask the surviving family of the Iraqi child whose sleeping face was photographed lying on a Bagdad sidewalk minus its head and body, courtesy of a nighttime bombing run under the command of President George W. Bush.

It doesn't matter a whit to that child's family that Bush thinks he wasn't motivated by hate, and Hitler knew he was.

Whatever happens in Iraq, there are at least two generations of survivors who will not forget that George W. Bush caused the deaths of tens of thousands of their parents, grandparents, children and neighbors and friends, and that Americans shrugged off their deaths as collateral damage while crowing about the gift we were giving them in exchange for their blood.

 

[davidwatts]

Let's not forget the distinguished Senator's past as a former member of the Klan. Remember them? Those good old boys who terrorized, murdered, and tortured black people?

Byrd is a senile old moron who makes the late Strom Thurmond seem enlightened by comparison.

Glad I read this before I wrote it.

He's a slug, and a prime purveyor of pork, second only to Ted "Sleazebag" Stevens of Alaska.

 

[Liar]

Scuse me, why can't he compare Hitler's way to institutionalize his power position to GWB's way to institutionalize his power position?

It's one perspectine that doesn't have to adress other issues. Hitler was a genocidal maniac, which Bush is not. That doesn't mean that their politic tactics can't be compared. Politic tactics that Hitler had an imprtant role in designing in Nazi Germany.

However, since it is bound to be taken the wrong way, and people, upon hearing the name Hitler is going to focus on his greatest atrocity, a comparison of any sorts with Hitler on any subject is often quite un-tactful to do. Critics will do what critics did in this thread, and the strongh connotations with the name will make the common man react with scepticism.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Scuse me, why can't he compare Hitler's way to institutionalize his power position to GWB's way to institutionalize his power position?

It's one perspectine that doesn't have to adress other issues. Hitler was a genocidal maniac, which Bush is not. That doesn't mean that their politic tactics can't be compared. Politic tactics that Hitler had an imprtant role in designing in Nazi Germany.

However, since it is bound to be taken the wrong way, and people, upon hearing the name Hitler is going to focus on his greatest atrocity, a comparison of any sorts with Hitler on any subject is often quite un-tactful to do. Critics will do what critics did in this thread, and the strongh connotations with the name will make the common man react with scepticism.

I agree with what you've said at the end, but would add that such negative connotations are intentional and clearly the point of the Hitler comparison from Bush's foes. It's all very well to say "his attempts to gain power through legislation are reminiscent of Hitler" and then defend one's arguments as having nothing to do with Hitler's more notorious actions, but then why not choose Oliver Cromwell, or some dim figure from the past of the US? The speaker is well aware that Hitler has those powerful emotional connotations, and seeks to incorporate them. I don't believe Senator Byrd is quite so unaware of such weighting to have chosen Hitler randomly. I'm sure that if he was looking for a description of someone's hair style, or speaking glowingly of someone's charisma, he would not choose to reference Hitler. The choice clearly intends to reference Hitler's other qualities; it's unavoidable when his name is so powerfully associated with them.

Given, then, that a comparison to Hitler will, for the general population. inevitably incorporate those associations, and given that Senator Byrd is aware of this fact - then I think it inappropriate. He's trading on a terrible crime against humanity for some cheap political point-scoring.

Shanglan

 

[shereads]

I agree with what you've said at the end, but would add that such negative connotations are intentional and clearly the point of the Hitler comparison from Bush's foes. It's all very well to say "his attempts to gain power through legislation are reminiscent of Hitler" and then defend one's arguments as having nothing to do with Hitler's more notorious actions, but then why not choose Oliver Cromwell, or some dim figure from the past of the US? The speaker is well aware that Hitler has those powerful emotional connotations, and seeks to incorporate them. I don't believe Senator Byrd is quite so unaware of such weighting to have chosen Hitler randomly. I'm sure that if he was looking for a description of someone's hair style, or speaking glowingly of someone's charisma, he would not choose to reference Hitler. The choice clearly intends to reference Hitler's other qualities; it's unavoidable when his name is so powerfully associated with them.

Given, then, that a comparison to Hitler will, for the general population. inevitably incorporate those associations, and given that Senator Byrd is aware of this fact - then I think it inappropriate. He's trading on a terrible crime against humanity for some cheap political point-scoring.

Shanglan

GWB did both of those things: committed a terrible crime against humanity, and used Hitler's name for some cheap political point-scoring. As I recall, he began comparing Saddam to Hitler during the week the story changed from "We have proof that there are WMD and we know where they are" to "The reason we're in Iraq is to liberate the Iraqi people."

You want crimes against humanity? You got 'em. You want your villain convinced that God is on his side? Check. You want crimes on the same scale as Hitler's, and guided by the same motivating factors? No, GWB doesn't qualify there. Neither did Saddam Hussein.

GWB used the most enormous tragedy in the history of this country as a political playing card. He wasted the opportunity to protect us from terrorism, instead choosing the one course that was guaranteed to create more terrorists, by fueling broader-reaching hatred of the U.S. The body count may never be tallied. Will it add up to 6 million? Almost certainly not.

Evil doesn't have to be spectacular. It can be mediocre.

P.S. Living in Miami during the Elian Gonzales fiasco, I lost count of the number of Republican conservatives who compared Fidel Castro to Hitler and said that sending the child to his father in Cuba was no different than returning him to a concentration camp. I'm not aware of any Jews in concentration camps who met there, married, decided to have a family, and eventually divorced, after which one of them escaped with her healthy 6-year-old child who had been concieved and raised at Buchenwald. But conservative Americans agreed with the Cuban exile community that it was a fair comparison.

In other words, their side started it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

In other words, their side started it.

So if the bad guys do it first, it's a good idea?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

GWB did both of those things: committed a terrible crime against humanity, and used Hitler's name for some cheap political point-scoring. As I recall, he began comparing Saddam to Hitler during the week the story changed from "We have proof that there are WMD and we know where they are" to "The reason we're in Iraq is to liberate the Iraqi people."

You want crimes against humanity? You got 'em. You want your villain convinced that God is on his side? Check. You want crimes on the same scale as Hitler's, and guided by the same motivating factors? No, GWB doesn't qualify there. Neither did Saddam Hussein.

GWB used the most enormous tragedy in the history of this country as a political playing card. He wasted the opportunity to protect us from terrorism, instead choosing the one course that was guaranteed to create more terrorists, by fueling broader-reaching hatred of the U.S. The body count may never be tallied. Will it add up to 6 million? Almost certainly not.

Evil doesn't have to be spectacular. It can be mediocre.

P.S. Living in Miami during the Elian Gonzales fiasco, I lost count of the number of Republican conservatives who compared Fidel Castro to Hitler and said that sending the child to his father in Cuba was no different than returning him to a concentration camp. I'm not aware of any Jews in concentration camps who met there, married, decided to have a family, and eventually divorced, after which one of them escaped with her healthy 6-year-old child who had been concieved and raised at Buchenwald. But conservative Americans agreed with the Cuban exile community that it was a fair comparison.

In other words, their side started it.

Hitler was not convinced god was on his side. Hitler was convinced there was no god. His chief jurist and private secretary were both throughly anti-clerical. The only reason he didn't move against the churches until late in his reign was because he neded the church until he could establish his tuetonic cult. He had no belief in that wither. Hitler's only religion was power and his only god was himself.

This should not be construed as a defense of Bush. If he were being burned at the stake I wouldn't spit on him for fear of putting out the fire. It's simply that Hitler's evil is in a very rarified air, certainly not a class of his own, but few people can vie with him for scale. Stalin. Pol pot. The Japanese at Nanking. A few various and sundry psycopaths from earlier times.

Comparing their methodology is even a stretch. Bush had no brown shirts out there intimidating voters. The people elected him without such coercsion. Then to, Bush gained a majority, something Hitler only achieved by outlawing and arresting members of the socialist and communist parties.

In historical persepctive, no one on the world scene today compares with Hitler. Not pinochet, Not the rulers in Sudan. No one in living memory approaches his evil in terms of depth and scale. Invoking his name, for political gain, cheapens the very evil and horror he represents. Invoking his name, for an attempt at a rules change that is no greater than the one you engineered when you were the dominant party is rank hypocracy.

After yesterday, I am in agreement that Bush is evil. But his evil is of the garden variety. A mundane, petty, mean brand of evil that bears little resemblance to the evil of Adolph Hitler.

 

[Somme]

Interesting answers and thoughts from you all. Perhaps throwing the name of Leo Strauss into the ring would further this?

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

 

[Somme]

Fascism, then?

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.



Note

1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

References

Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.

 

[Somme]

...and this too....

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1034

 

[cantdog]

The case is much stronger for fascism. The fascists are in, my mother knows that, and she saw the news reports on the other ones. Fascism is slippery to define, not an ideology but a technique. Scholars fall back on lists of their characteristics, taken across the countries involved. That those lists correspond closely with the characteristics of this regime is undeniable.

But even this exercise suffers from some of the same weaknesses, rhetorically, as a comparison to Hitler. The left in this country in the 'sixties and 'seventies drove the phrase "fascist pigs" into the ground, and they were only talking about Nixon, Kissinger, and Hoover, for Christ's sake.

So caution is needed in using the identification. It hardens opposition. Thus, in the political arena, it solves nothing to identify the fascistic flavor of this cabal now solidifying its hold on power. If any of you does plan to act against these fellows, do not base your attack on such an identification, but concentrate rather on what you want to see for the world, or for the country.

A positive vision of a return to greater influence by the people on their government, a freer and more effective press, an end to secret surveillance of political enemies, a rejection of secret trials, extrajudicial exeutions, torture and the like, an affirmation that the government should be setting limits to the corporations and not the other way around-- tell people that the things they need, peace and prosperity, an end to empire, are achievable. Leave the name calling to the historians.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The case is much stronger for fascism. The fascists are in, my mother knows that, and she saw the news reports on the other ones. Fascism is slippery to define, not an ideology but a technique. Scholars fall back on lists of their characteristics, taken across the countries involved. That those lists correspond closely with the characteristics of this regime is undeniable.

But even this exercise suffers from some of the same weaknesses, rhetorically, as a comparison to Hitler. The left in this country in the 'sixties and 'seventies drove the phrase "fascist pigs" into the ground, and they were only talking about Nixon, Kissinger, and Hoover, for Christ's sake.

So caution is needed in using the identification. It hardens opposition. Thus, in the political arena, it solves nothing to identify the fascistic flavor of this cabal now solidifying its hold on power. If any of you does plan to act against these fellows, do not base your attack on such an identification, but concentrate rather on what you want to see for the world, or for the country.

A positive vision of a return to greater influence by the people on their government, a freer and more effective press, an end to secret surveillance of political enemies, a rejection of secret trials, extrajudicial exeutions, torture and the like, an affirmation that the government should be setting limits to the corporations and not the other way around-- tell people that the things they need, peace and prosperity, an end to em to empire, are achievable. Leave the name calling to the historians.

Now really, was that last line neccessary?

us poor historians get enough bad press as is

 

[ishtat]

Perspective needed

This debate is extra ordinarily inconsequential except for one thing.

Bush's misadventure in Iraq is distracting the USA at a time when by far the most important issue in the World is the rise and rise of totalitarian China.

The death announced today of George Kenan would one hopes return some sanity to US Foreign policy. It may remind us that it was he in 1947 who single handedly developed the policy of containment but ongoing debate with the USSR. Do you know what US policy on China is or will the US wait until it is overtaken as a great power?

Score cards of evil are a waste of time all we need to remember is that Hitler was not unique. Stalin almost certainly killed more than he did and Mao Tse Tung deliberately starved 40 million of his own people to death in 1959.

The Russian Empire collapsed from within (nothing to do with Regan) .The question is how, when and whether the Chinese and American Empires collapse and what should be done to cause or prevent either. American foreign policy needs to concentrate on major long term strategy not a short term stuff up. Iraq will be a footnote to history eventually, similar to Korea and Vietnam. Yes they were unimportant diversions. In the long run how much difference did it make to the USA as a whole whether those wars were fought or not.

 

[cantdog]

Now really, was that last line neccessary?

us poor historians get enough bad press as is

Actually, Laura came in needing a ride to her job interview, and I was cut off in mid rant. I'd have stated it less baldly, as, "...to the people who will evaluate this era in fifty years."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This debate is extra ordinarily inconsequential except for one thing.

Bush's misadventure in Iraq is distracting the USA at a time when by far the most important issue in the World is the rise and rise of totalitarian China.

The death announced today of George Kenan would one hopes return some sanity to US Foreign policy. It may remind us that it was he in 1947 who single handedly developed the policy of containment but ongoing debate with the USSR. Do you know what US policy on China is or will the US wait until it is overtaken as a great power?

Score cards of evil are a waste of time all we need to remember is that Hitler was not unique. Stalin almost certainly killed more than he did and Mao Tse Tung deliberately starved 40 million of his own people to death in 1959.

The Russian Empire collapsed from within (nothing to do with Regan) .The question is how, when and whether the Chinese and American Empires collapse and what should be done to cause or prevent either. American foreign policy needs to concentrate on major long term strategy not a short term stuff up. Iraq will be a footnote to history eventually, similar to Korea and Vietnam. Yes they were unimportant diversions. In the long run how much difference did it make to the USA as a whole whether those wars were fought or not.

I'm getting tired of the China as a super power routine. It aint. Don't know how much more simple I can say it. China is a nuclear power, yes. China has a significant number of troops, yes. But a superpower? Since when and how?

China can't even sneak a submarine through Japanese territorial waters without geting caught. They can't bully or diplomacy thier way into getting Taiwan back either. There is a reason for that. China cannot project her conventional military power. A single carrier task force in the south china sea could forestall any move China could make towards projecting power off the main land.

The Mahanian idea of seapower being vital to a nation's prospects still holds. If you are incapable of projecting your military power, you are not a super power. The British, with a comparatively small navy, are more capable of showing force in distant locales than the Chinese.

 

[cantdog]

American foreign policy needs to concentrate on major long term strategy not a short term stuff up.

There are always people thinking long term, even in government. Securing a hold on the world's resources could be seen as a long-term goal, and enforcing the business decisions of multinationals less so, but there are certainly Americans concerned with China and with a rising Europe as well. Not all of them are professors or people who had a read of Art of War; some are in the government right now.

The trouble with preparing for something as big as China is that you don't want to set them on a path of opposing you, as a priority. The more you do toward your goal without alarming them, the better. At this stage, the last thing we need is a huge public debate about what to do about China. Or Europe. For the same reasons. Are your trying to focus their energies against you?

As long as you come to a historical debate with the logic of empire (Here are my rivals, you say) you ought to use the judgement of empire. Surveil, contain, evaluate, but don't act like a threat unless it gets you something.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Actually, Laura came in needing a ride to her job interview, and I was cut off in mid rant. I'd have stated it less baldly, as, "...to the people who will evaluate this era in fifty years."

Works for me, hope her interview goes well

 

[cantdog]

It did. She is employed. Now if they only paid a living wage...

 

[BlackShanglan]

The case is much stronger for fascism. The fascists are in, my mother knows that, and she saw the news reports on the other ones. Fascism is slippery to define, not an ideology but a technique. Scholars fall back on lists of their characteristics, taken across the countries involved. That those lists correspond closely with the characteristics of this regime is undeniable.

But even this exercise suffers from some of the same weaknesses, rhetorically, as a comparison to Hitler. The left in this country in the 'sixties and 'seventies drove the phrase "fascist pigs" into the ground, and they were only talking about Nixon, Kissinger, and Hoover, for Christ's sake.

So caution is needed in using the identification. It hardens opposition. Thus, in the political arena, it solves nothing to identify the fascistic flavor of this cabal now solidifying its hold on power. If any of you does plan to act against these fellows, do not base your attack on such an identification, but concentrate rather on what you want to see for the world, or for the country.

A positive vision of a return to greater influence by the people on their government, a freer and more effective press, an end to secret surveillance of political enemies, a rejection of secret trials, extrajudicial exeutions, torture and the like, an affirmation that the government should be setting limits to the corporations and not the other way around-- tell people that the things they need, peace and prosperity, an end to empire, are achievable. Leave the name calling to the historians.

Deeply sensible bird. Thank goodness. Yes.

 

[rgraham666]

Every form of government is set up to create and enforce limits on human behaviour. And to create wealth and power for the society the government has been given responsibility for.

Aristocratic governments (I use Jefferson's term here. Any government in which only a small number of people have power are aristocratic.) create and enforce limits for those outside the power structure, while gathering wealth and power to themselves.

Democratic governments make some attempt to spread limits, wealth and power to as many as possible.

Democracies tend to be more successful than aristocracies, but humans are generally more comfortable, psychologically, in aristocracies.

Partly this has to do with out nature as apes. Our instincts cause us to organise ourselves into troops with some of us as alphas.

It is also because many people are uncomfortable with thinking. In an aristocracy, thought isn't really required. You play the role dictated by the system you live in. Responsibility, and its attendant emotion, guilt, don't affect you. There are rarely crisises of conscience in an aristocracy.

A democracy requires people to constantly examine their goals and beliefs. This can be very tiring and not often very rewarding. And very often, a person will have to struggle hard with themselves and their fellow citizens. This can be quite depressing.

So democracies tend to devolve over time. The work required to remain free is often more than people are willing to perform.

 

[cantdog]

Yep. You got that right. Freedom is not free. I lay out a lot of money to ACLU and spend a deal of time writing and calling pols and walking around in the streets with a fucking placard.

And they still make the fascists secure in their office.