I have written about “class warfare” and the misuse of this term by the American Conservatives quite a bit in the past. The issue reared its head up again over the current economic debates in Washington recently. Yesterday, Paul Ryan stated:
Class warfare may make for good politics, but it makes for rotten economics. We don’t need a system that seeks to divide people. We don’t need a system that seeks to prey on people’s fear, envy and anxiety.
While he is correct about class warfare not necessarily being good politics, his statement is one of misdirection. President Obama finally stated, “This is not class warfare. It’s math.” He is completely correct, on most accounts. But, I’m not really focused on President Obama’s speech today or his new fiscal proposals. I’m really focused on the rhetoric, tactics and aims of the GOP, especially the Tea Party.
Class warfare is taken from the title of a book of interviews with Noam Chomsky in 1996. Prior to this publication, the term was “class conflict.” Class conflict is a Marxist term. There are several forms of class conflict: direct violence, indirect violence, coercion, or ideology. All of these ideals are concerned with poverty, labor conditions, union power, starvation, government propaganda, and similar themes. All of these ideals are concerned with the wealthy forcing the less wealthy to support their system of power.
Even this whole “Big Government is the problem” ideology is antiquated and unsubstantiated. The Tea Party and their candidates continually insist, “the government is the problem.” Or that “Big government is the problem.” They constantly claim that taxation should be minimal. So, they want a nonexistent government and almost no taxation? They are seriously advocating that the United States be run like Somalia?
As of July 2003, Somalia had no national government. In 1986, income tax in Somalia was between 0% and 19%. In 2003, the sales tax rate was 10%. Really? This is the nation we want to aspire to be? Somalia?
They also claim that National Health Care is oppressive and destroys freedom and financial growth. They claim that unions and labor organizations stifle the economy. They claim that outsourcing labor is responsible for the destruction (or erosion) of the middle class.
There is a country that has no “at will” employment. Employees are guaranteed 24 paid vacation days per year, though most get 4 to 6 weeks. Maternity leave and working conditions are legislated at a high level. This country also opened up six more factories in a cheaper country this year, so far. Germany is hardly the same picture as Somalia. They make cars that automatically avoid accidents (if the driver isn’t paying attention) and parking lots that automatically stack cars underground. Germany also has 6.1% unemployment.
Are we really to believe that there is “sound reasoning” behind the GOP/Tea Party ideology? And back to the Conservative rhetoric: Class warfare? Really? They also claim to be against “Big Government” – yet, they want the government to legislate who can get an abortion, who can get married, what religions are valid – and they want the state to execute people. How much more power can you give the government over the right to take people’s lives? The point of all this is not to turn the American Democrats into saints, or even to validate them as effective or even validate them as valid… only to point out that the American Conservatives are full of empty rhetoric.
A few weeks ago, the American Conservatives claimed that Congresswoman Waters advocated violence by stating, “The Tea Party can go straight to hell...” in response to a Tea Party members’ statement that the Democrats were plantation overseers. On Sunday, Andrew Breitbart stated that the American Conservatives/Tea Party were armed and ready for conflict with the “Liberals” – and claimed American military would support them.
I’m under attack all the time. They call me gay, there are death threats… There are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’ Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns… I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with.
….
And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, ‘Thank you for what you’re doing, we’ve got your back.’ And, so … So…
They understand that. These are the unspoken things we know, they know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHslkhZWzUQ
Just to be clear… Breitbart elaborates more here:
He says, “… to be clear … I’m talking about civil war … ”
If American Military officials are telling him they will support an armed insurrection against American citizens, they are committing high treason. If he is complicit in the act, he should be tried for it, too. This is a high crime. One of the highest. And this guy is an asshat. He edited videos that destroyed community service organizations and sabotaged Shirley Chisholm’s career, by selective editing. He is not a journalist, he is a propagandist.
When Breitbart states that military officials have confided in him that they would support an armed insurrection, where is the support of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security procedures that the Tea Party so consistently endorses? I think Dick Cheney should Waterboard Breitbart until he names every single military officer that confided in him to endorse high treason.
At the very bottom of it all… the Tea Party and the GOP are all empty rhetoric. We already know they hate science, so there is no science behind their claims. They hate half of America, at least. They consistently espouse Marxist rhetoric to condemn Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and even most forms of Capitalism… really, the Tea Party prove more every day that they are nothing but contemporary, American Fascists.
Finally, what ever happened to Sarah Palin? I know I shouldn’t care… but Palin quotes are the gift that keeps on giving.
The President was elected by 537 votes in the deciding state for electoral votes and stopped the manual recount that was to decide if he actually did win the election. He was appointed to office by a U.S. Supreme Court decision. He actually received 543,895 votes less than his opponent.
The President and Congress passed a bill that opened up ability for government surveillance, restricted rules on opening bank accounts or transferring money, gave the government more access to private information. (Expanded government control over civil rights.)
The United States was attacked under the watch of this President.
This President ran on a platform of limited international involvement and less bi-partisanship. The same President went to war with a foreign nation on false pretenses. Congress was actually lied to before approving the war.
This President said “Bring It On” to people who were trying to kill American soldiers.
This President that claimed to be “bi-partisan” in his campaign made statements such as “you are with us, or against us.”
Enron.
This President gave large tax breaks to the wealthy, claiming it would help invigorate the economy.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%. (Lower than had been in the past 50 years.) The DOW Jones Industrial Average dropped from 10,587 to 7,949. “Adjusted for inflation, median household income dropped by $1,175 between 2000 and 2007, said Elizabeth Warren, professor at Harvard Law School, in written testimony before the Joint Economic Committee.“ (Resource) In the last year of his office, the U.S. entered the longest post-war recession since WWII, due to a housing market bubble, mortgage crisis, and high oil prices. (Reuters, Xinhua)
This President passed an educational bill known as the No Child Left Behind Act, which has so many criticisms, they cannot all fit in one passage, but included underfunding and increase in access for military recruitment, and most importantly, increased segregation in public schools.
There are a lot of terms flying around today, especially in the political sphere. They include, but are not limited to: Socialist, Communist, Racist, Nazi, Fascist, Lib, Liberal, Teabagger, and Thug. These terms are seemingly used by any, and everyone, with reckless abandon. The problem is, that when you actually have a reason to use one of these terms, it gets dismissed. I have noticed a lot of attention on Goodwin’s Law. The concept that, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.“ This is quite humorous. At the same time, this does not mean the comparisons are not valid. I find a strong correlation between Fascism and the New Right. (The Conservatives of today, be they Tea Party, Tories, or National Front.)
Sometimes the Left does propose Socialist ideals, or at least borderline socialist ideals. “Universal healthcare” could be considered more Socialist than Capitalist. There is no secret that I think they should stop pretending. I personally think they should say, “We aren’t concerned with who developed this idea. We are concerned with something that works. This isn’t a new concept, and the countries that use it are doing quite well with it.” Farther, they should point out, “As Americans, we should be trying to do it better than other nations, not avoiding it.” On the same hand, while I am not a big fan of Fascism, I do not contend to use “Fascist” in this entry as an epithet. The New Right has Fascist ideology and Fascist goals. Fascism is also not democratic. So, in some way, I am claiming the New Right are anti-democratic.
I want to reiterate, that I am not claiming the New Right are Fascist to drive a farther wedge. The goal here is to really examine what is going on.
There are a few things that strike me as odd with the rise of the New Right in the past year or so. When Barack Obama was elected President, a new wave of protest swept through the nation. There are tangible threads that weave through this new tapestry that seriously concern me. Especially as the numbers are growing. Just last night, the Tories in England got back a large portion of British Parliament. So, let’s look at Fascism and see how it relates to American Conservativism. (Fascism is quite complex as an ideology. This is not an academic journal, so I am just using Wikipedia as my reference for any information on Fascism that are listed here. I do not believe that Wikipedia is the absolute authority on the subject, or even the best authority, but I’m trying to keep this as short as possible, so… I accept that flaw for the time being.)
First we have the basic ideology of Fascism:
Fascism is a “radical and authoritarian, nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as a political system and the economy.“
If you were to go to a Tea Party website, such as the Tea Party Patroits‘ website, you would see, their “Core values” are “Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets.” – “organize the nation on corporatist perspectives, values and systems such as political system and the economy.”
Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. . . . They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism. In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety. They advocate the creation of a single-party state. . . . Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists’ nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.
That’s a long block, I know. I felt it was spelled out better than I could reword it.
The Tea Party and their cohorts have been extolling the virtues of “What makes America great” and that the “LiberalElite” want to destroy them and make the US culture a multi-cultural, pluralist society that will lead the nation into ruin. Arizona just passed a law that will fundamentally restrict autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups that are not considered part of the nation. It will also penalize anyone who refuses to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. They definitely find immigrants with foreign customs to be an “affront and threat to the nation.“
“Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism for being associated with failures that fascists claim are inherent in the Enlightenment.”
I was just looking at Al-Sonja Schmidt (who I have much to say about in a future time) and there were a lot of references to Marx, Socialism, Black Nationalism and such. To get the whole trifecta, she said that President Obama was influenced by Marx and is a tyrant. (He has a foreign sounding name, is pluralistic, and a product of the Enlightenment.)
I don’t think it is really worth spending much time on how the New Right feels everyone should stay in the Cold War and we need to start the Red Scare back up. I have spent enough time on this ridiculous garbage.
THE CORE TENANTS OF FASCISM:
Nationalism is probably one of the most obvious core tenants of Fascism. I also highly doubt any Conservative would decry that Nationalism is not a massive “core value” of their ideology. Is it even worth examining farther? The real question is if people truly understand the true meaning of Nationalism.
Fascists saw the struggle of nation and race as fundamental in society, in opposition to communism’s perception of class struggle. The fascist view of nation is as a single organic entity which binds people together by their ancestry and is a natural unifying force of people. Fascism seeks to solve economic, political, and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth, exalting the nation or race above all else, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.
(This came up in a comment today, and I have been meaning to address it. So, I will do so now.)
Sarah Palin makes a big deal about the “Elite.” The Media Elite, the Washington Elite, the American Elite. When pressed who she means, she backpeddles and says “it’s about anyone who thinks they are better than someone else.” This is a two pronged issue. (Really, a three pronged issue.) The first is the implication, the second is the actual message. I’m going to start with the second. (And we are going to basically ignore the fact that “Elite” in political science is pretty Marxist in nature.)
Who are these people who think they are better than other people? Are NBA players “Elites”? What about PGA Tournament winners? What about Jeopardy winners? Olympic gold medalists? I mean, they won. Doesn’t that make them the “best”?
If someone obtains a PhD in a subject, they took more then a summer course on the topic at their local community college. Any Doctorate requires intense years of research, study, examinations, and whatever. (I know – “and whatever” – is such a bogus description, but I really don’t want to go into a detailed description of the Doctoral process at University.) Shouldn’t we assume that someone with a doctorate in a subject knows the subject better than those without it? I mean, first you need a primary education, and then throw on 3 to 6 to 8 or more years of study on top of that… intense study. It is not just a piece of paper, it is a lot of work.
I use this example often, because I like it:
When I need to get my car fixed, I find a mechanic. I typically want to find a competent mechanic, one that knows how to repair cars as best they can. I might even use a specialist. Like if I have an accident, I go to an auto-body repair shop, instead of a break specialist.
When I want my teeth worked on, I see a dentist. I want a dentist that knows teeth and knows the best way to fix them. I prefer a dentist that is focused on saving my teeth and causing me minimal amounts of pain.
If I have a brain tumor, I want a neurologist.
If i have a heart attack, I want a cardiologist.
If I am a criminal defendant in court, I want a criminal defense attorney.
If my toilet is broken, I want a plumber.
What I don’t want:
I do not want a dentist repairing my car.
I do not want a mechanic removing my brain tumor.
I do not want a civil trial attorney fixing my toilet.
I do not want a plumber giving me open heart surgery.
Why then do I want Joe the Plumber deciding economic policy over economists? Why do I not want people who study international relations deciding foreign policy? Why do I not want people who have advanced degrees in Constitutional studies deciding what is a violation of the Constitution and what is not?
That is what this “anti-Elite” message says… the innuendo is that these people are the “ELITES” and they are destroying us. Are we supposed to have no specialization of services? Everybody just do whatever you want? I do not think anyone would agree with that. But there are two areas that everyone feels they are an expert, and that experts are idiots… in politics and religion.
[I have already discussed on the Left in the United States is really pretty "center Right" in the global scheme of politics. But for the sake of this piece, we will consider the Democratic Party the "center Left." Although I find this problematic, I just have to accept it. Considering the Right (GOP) is farther right then the DNC, we will consider the Democratic Party to be "Left."]
Yesterday, I mentioned that I was not happy with Adsense, displaying ads such as Newsmax and anti-minorities links. I logged into Facebook yesterday, and there was an advert to “remember in November” to “stop Obama and Obamacare.” I don’t have a problem with allowing the Conservatives to advertise their views. Quite contrarily, I agree with it. Everyone should be given a venue to espouse whatever concept they wish. (I did go to UC Berkeley, and even enjoyed the elderly, black man that would scream “Jesus wants you to be a racist!”, the man who would scream about the Jewish Armageddon that was about to descend upon us, or the man with the anti-petrol sign that would just say to everyone “Your mother loves you.”) But, I see these massive campaigns against the Democratic party, and all leftists. Someone is feeding the Tea Party a steady stream of propaganda (Fox). On the left, there is no cohesion.
You have the center-Left Democrats, that support a more Keynesian economic platform, than a Hobbesian “Free Market.” You also have various Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Anarchists, and whatever other “Left” leaning ideology you can imagine. None of these groups work together. The Democratic Party wants no association with Ultra-Left ideology. So, everyone left of center ends up a “marginalized fringe.”
Farther, there is no cohesion within the Ultra-Left. The Socialists won’t work with the Marxists or the Communists. The Black Nationalists won’t work with any other Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Anarchists, etc. It all goes on, because everyone gets hung up on minutia.
The problem with this is that many of the primary goals of ALL of these groups is the same. Fair labor rules, fair market regulation, equality under the law, equality in the workplace, elimination of poverty, healthcare for every citizen. (These are just key issues, but I find there are many, many more commonalities.) Do the Marxists want to marginalize the Latinos in America? Surely not. If anything, the Marxists and Socialists care just as much about fair labor rules for Latino/Chicano laborers as any other group, maybe more. Do the Marxists or the Socialists promote racism? Obviously not, how is that equality under the law? Do the Anarchists support any inequalities at all? Not in my experience. Do the Democrats want more social stratification? Less aid to the poor or impoverished families? Does the DNC want less fair workplace environments, hiring policies and legal treatment? I highly doubt it.
All of these groups have a common “enemy.” I do not use “enemy” as a loaded term. This is not a war. This is not about violence, or any physical means of attack. Its an ideological enemy. Conservativism believes in aristocracy, class stratification, unfettered corporate progress and a “free market.” EVERYONE on the left opposes these things. Why can’t everyone on the Left stand against these things? Why can’t the DNC ask the rest of the Left for support? Well, there is one reason.
McCarthyism, and the Cold War in general, did a number of the American psyche and created memes against keywords. As soon as the word “Socialist” or “Communist” is espoused, the Tea Party loads their guns. The pundits on Fox and Friends decide to launch an all out attack to tear them down, and the DNC ultimately loses votes. I understand this problem and empathize with it. But, I really need to say, “so what?”
Pay for advertisements to explain that you don’t care if it is considered “socialist” to do something, because it is what is fair. Explain that your goal is govern, not run a business. Our rights are not a corporate “mission statement.” There is no profit motive for guaranteeing equal rights under the law, the freedom to assemble, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, etc. Get the Anarchists and the Socialists and the Communists and everyone else in the Ultra-Left to support you. Any Socialist or Marxist can explain plenty of things FOR you. They will be the first to point out they are anti-fascism. (Fascism is far right – this is a fact, and as debatable as gravity.) They will also be the first to point out they are not Left Liberals. They also can be valuable allies.
To everyone else on the Ultra-Left: Stop fighting over ideological bullshit while your primary goals are being squandered. If you truly believe you are right, would you rather convince the Democrats that you are right, or a Tea Party rally? Who is going to benefit you more? If you want to promote Black Nationalism, is that ever going to happen with the GOP in power? With the Tea Party roving around Virginia with loaded weapons? If you are a proponent of a Socialist economy, are you ever going to convince the Far Right this is plausible? Would you rather they be in charge? Your lack of support for the Democratic Party is only hurting you, and everyone else. Your fragmentation only farther marginalizes you and makes you irrelevant. You are becoming your own worst enemy.
