Indeed, I think American liberalism suffers from just such a dynamic. The way liberals formulate arguments on a host of fronts, particularly in the realm of economics, remains fundamentally unchanged since the Progressive Era. This is largely because – with the exception of eugenics and hard racism – progressives never did a particularly rigorous self-inventory of their intellectual baggage precisely because they don’t have much interest in such enterprises. They cherry pick slogans, heroes, morality tales and the like from their past without asking hard and serious questions about the broader context of that these self-serving vignettes emerged from. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton explicitly invoke the Progressives as their lodestars. But I have seen not an iota of evidence that they’ve pondered what that means.
The rest of the reply is very, very good.
And in reply to that:
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjhhMjk3MDZkZDEwOWY1NzQ4N2E0ZDU0OTNkNjhlZjQ=
The reason we should be on guard against Fascism is because it is opposed to the free expression of individual liberty as we lead our lives. Fascism in all its forms attempts to put us in a straight jacket, always and everywhere “for our own good.” It not only tells us an innumerable number of things we can’t do, but also tells us an equally long list of things we must do. That is not the concept behind the founding of America. In fact, it is a subversion of the American ideal.
Sounds... very.. familiar.
But if we remove the taint from Fascism by implying that Fascism is morally neutral, are we not making the same mistake that apologists for Communism have historically made: that it’s a great concept that really has not been tried yet?
Seems almost like I've read something like that before. :)
For them, all past Revolutions were hijacked by unscrupulous men, and we should try it again with better people in charge.
Good books! I have not yet read the P.J. O'Rourke one however.
Another book I want to get is called "Counterknowledge" about false history, bogus medical advisers, delusional self-appointed "experts" - all the rafts of pseudo-knowledge floating around out there and the people attracted to it.
I can totally sympathize with you on the allergies. Juniper season has rendered me unable to fully wake up in less than six hours and without the aid of three different antihistamines and decongestants.
The wife and I just finished BG/S3. Just in time for S4 to start on Friday.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/04/sorry-about-lack-of-posting.html (4 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWI4NjNjNTQzOWMwYmQ1MTY4Y2E0MmUzNzk0YTYwZGI=
Indeed, I think American liberalism suffers from just such a dynamic. The way liberals formulate arguments on a host of fronts, particularly in the realm of economics, remains fundamentally unchanged since the Progressive Era. This is largely because – with the exception of eugenics and hard racism – progressives never did a particularly rigorous self-inventory of their intellectual baggage precisely because they don’t have much interest in such enterprises. They cherry pick slogans, heroes, morality tales and the like from their past without asking hard and serious questions about the broader context of that these self-serving vignettes emerged from. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton explicitly invoke the Progressives as their lodestars. But I have seen not an iota of evidence that they’ve pondered what that means.
The rest of the reply is very, very good.
And in reply to that:
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjhhMjk3MDZkZDEwOWY1NzQ4N2E0ZDU0OTNkNjhlZjQ=
The reason we should be on guard against Fascism is because it is opposed to the free expression of individual liberty as we lead our lives. Fascism in all its forms attempts to put us in a straight jacket, always and everywhere “for our own good.” It not only tells us an innumerable number of things we can’t do, but also tells us an equally long list of things we must do. That is not the concept behind the founding of America. In fact, it is a subversion of the American ideal.
Sounds... very.. familiar.
But if we remove the taint from Fascism by implying that Fascism is morally neutral, are we not making the same mistake that apologists for Communism have historically made: that it’s a great concept that really has not been tried yet?
Seems almost like I've read something like that before. :)
For them, all past Revolutions were hijacked by unscrupulous men, and we should try it again with better people in charge.
And HARDER! HARDER! You forgot HARDER!
Good books! I have not yet read the P.J. O'Rourke one however.
Another book I want to get is called "Counterknowledge" about false history, bogus medical advisers, delusional self-appointed "experts" - all the rafts of pseudo-knowledge floating around out there and the people attracted to it.
I can totally sympathize with you on the allergies. Juniper season has rendered me unable to fully wake up in less than six hours and without the aid of three different antihistamines and decongestants.
The wife and I just finished BG/S3. Just in time for S4 to start on Friday.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>