Ibn Warraq
Banned
The media's support for John McCain evaporates the instant the nomination is decided. They decide to dredge up the Keating Five.
They haven't dredged it up now, why would they do so then?
The media's support for John McCain evaporates the instant the nomination is decided. They decide to dredge up the Keating Five.
Exactly. McCain the Moderate is a media myth. He is "moderate" or "liberal" on a select few issues such as abortion or the environment, but when you ignore his stance on global warming, illegal immigration, and an assortment of wedge issues (phony issues that exploit the religious interests of segments of the population), then you realize what a hard right authoritarian McCain is.
On social and cultural issues he may be "moderately conservative" he is somewhat to the "left" of a few Democrats on some environmental issues (being one of the few Republicans in favor of initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions) and he is in favor of amnesty for illegal immigration. On economic issues, McCain is by no means a fiscal conservative in the Old Right sense, but then again, very few Republicans are fiscal conservatives in the older sense. McCain, like the rest of his party, is just as Keynesian as the Democrats, albeit in a different way. Democrats can be called "left-Keynesians" as they are in favor of the welfare state (even though most Democrats nowadays are really not that far left), while the present day Republican Party can be called right-Keynesian. The neoconservative GOP is largely corporatist.
By the standards of the New Right, John McCain is slightly to the right of his party. The only true fiscal conservative to run for presidency in 2008 was Ron Paul. But McCain is no liberal or moderate on economics. He is a corporatist whose first loyalties lie with the military-industrial complex. His opposition to the Bush tax cuts was not for left-liberal reasons but because cutting taxes is not feasible in time of war.
No, I reject the media opinion that McCain is some sort of moderate or worse still "independent" though I conceded that he is more moderate or liberal than his party on a select few issues, many of which are completely irrelevant in practice. All in all, John McCain is a power-hungry authoritarian, and a hard right (notice I did not say "far right") one at that. I stand by my statement that he is fascistic (though certainly no Hitler or Mussolini). Despite his stance on illegal immigration or global warming, or even his bipartisanship, John McCain is an unapologetic war mongerer. You will not find a more neoconservative candidate than him. (Also, one need not be far right on economics to be fascist. In fact very few fascists were economic right-wingers except for Pinochet. Hitler and Mussolini were Keynesian corporatists.)
Originally Posted by Reylance
I will be interested in seeing what President Clinton or Obama will propose "for your own good," and the reactions of the posters on the forum to those proposals.
Originally Posted by Zajir
TemperalRenegade,how was Emperor Hirohito a fascist,the man was supposed to be above politics?
Originally Posted by Zajir
And Theodore Roosevelt a fascist?
Originally Posted by Timmy811
You obviously not only do not understand what Fascism is
–noun 1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. 2.(sometimes initial capital letter
) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism. 3.(initial capital letter
) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.![]()
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary:n.
- <LI minmax_bound="true">often Fascism</FONT minmax_bound="true">
- <LI minmax_bound="true">A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
- A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
- Oppressive, dictatorial control.
noun
a nationalistic and anti-Communist system of government like that of Italy 1922-43, where all aspects of society are controlled by the state and all criticism or opposition is suppressed
nouna political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.
Originally Posted by Timmy811
...you don't even understand what the word moderate means in American political parlance. A Republican who is to the left on his party's center on issues such as abortion, illegal immigration, global warming is by definition a moderate. Just as a Democrat who is to the right of his party's center on those issues is by definition a moderate.
Which they are, for the most part.By labeling these issues "wedge issues" and thus artificial
Originally Posted by Timmy811
you insult the tens of millions of voters on both sides for whom they are vitally important.
Originally Posted by Timmy811
If you simply dismiss abortion or illegal immigration as important political issues in the American context it merely demonstrates your own ignorance.
Pardon me, Mr. Standard X, but are you on crack? First off, authoritarian, as with its antonym, libertarian, is a relative term denoting the degree of state power or governmental authority over the individual or society, orthogonal to the economic left-right axis. Basically, I am using the Political Compass terminology as even liberals and small-government conservatives would be "authoritarian" relative to an anarchist, though they are libertarian relative to the center. But even in the sense that authoritarianism includes but is not limited to totalitarianism, many of those statesmen would certainly qualify.Originally Posted by Standard X
Whoever wrote this claearly doesn't know what he is talking and knows little about American government and history.Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson do even remotely compare to the likes of Pilsudski, Attaturk, the Shah or even Juan Peron. They don't even come close to authoritariansim. In fact they could even be compared the PRI presidents of Mexico from the 1920's the begining of the millenium The 1904, 1908,1912, and 1916 presidential elections were relatively free and competive. and were certainly not marked by voter fraud. More importantly, the winner of these elections did not the 70-95% vote margins as one would normally get in authoritarian regimes. Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson never suspended the Constitution to rule by decree. Not even during the height of WWI! You're comparing apples with oranges.
Ouch. Things goes political. Long debate on prez Harding.At least Harding didn't bog down the US in any unwinable wars. It would be fairer to compare Bush Kennedy/LBJ for the Vietnam thingy.
I find it funny, Standard X, that you would say I know little about Amercan government and history then your stupid ass makes a moronic statment like, "Wilson never suspended the Constitution to rule by decree. Not even during the height of WWI!" even though that can not be more incorrect. You remind me of my morbidly obese cousin who will argue a point even though it is dead wrong, but insist she is correct, though never providing a logical reasoning (which is beyond her limited capabilities), instead claiming it should be believed while providing, at best an incoherent attempt at argument or a non-sequitur. She reminds me of Rush Limbaugh or a fat Ann Coulter, especially the way she gets all worked up and excited, talking loudly, rapidly, and repetitively, flapping her fat mouth, but never knowing what the fuck she is talking about.Originally Posted by Standard X
Whoever wrote this claearly doesn't know what he is talking and knows little about American government and history.Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson do even remotely compare to the likes of Pilsudski, Attaturk, the Shah or even Juan Peron. They don't even come close to authoritariansim. In fact they could even be compared the PRI presidents of Mexico from the 1920's the begining of the millenium The 1904, 1908,1912, and 1916 presidential elections were relatively free and competive. and were certainly not marked by voter fraud. More importantly, the winner of these elections did not the 70-95% vote margins as one would normally get in authoritarian regimes. Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson never suspended the Constitution to rule by decree. Not even during the height of WWI! You're comparing apples with oranges.
Call Me Unaccountable: Woodrow Wilson and George W. BushTo understand the Wilson presidency, you have to understand WWI. To understand WWI, you need to understand that there is nothing to understand about WWI. WWI is what happens when an entire continent is left under the control of a bunch of cousin-kissing slackjawed aristotards. It makes no sense. It wasn't a war; the word "war" implies that one nation's interests are being advanced at the expense of another. It was a pointless bloodbath that wiped out a generation of Europeans.
It was also the first great failure of military (pseudo)science. France and Germany had their plans, could pretty well guess each other's plans, were able to see the core weaknesses of their plans, and went ahead and used them anyway. Modern trench warfare is born!
In the face of such bullshit, there is no good response. Wilson attempted to moderate between the Central Powers and Allies, but they would have none of it. The leaders of Europe were apparently happy with their war, and every death in the trench is one less potential proletarian revolter to deal with when hostilities ended. Both the Germans and the English expanded the war to gruesome new lows: The English with their naval blockade preventing shipments of food to Germany, and Germany with their unrestricted submarine warfare. When Americans started getting killed in English ships, that sealed it.
It was a genius act of timing. Both sides were nearly exhausted and perhaps prepared to negotiate some sort of peace, but news of American involvement emboldened the Allies and perhaps prolonged the war.
I find it funny, Standard X, that you would say I know little about Amercan government and history then your stupid ass makes a moronic statment like, "Wilson never suspended the Constitution to rule by decree. Not even during the height of WWI!" even though that can not be more incorrect. You remind me of my morbidly obese cousin who will argue a point even though it is dead wrong, but insist she is correct, though never providing a logical reasoning (which is beyond her limited capabilities), instead claiming it should be believed while providing, at best an incoherent attempt at argument or a non-sequitur. She reminds me of Rush Limbaugh or a fat Ann Coulter, especially the way she gets all worked up and excited, talking loudly, rapidly, and repetitively, flapping her fat mouth, but never knowing what the fuck she is talking about.
Ian the Admin will probably try to ban me for insulting comments directed at Standard X. BAN AWAY, IAN!
He would have won with alot of independent support. His stock with them was very high at the time. Also McCain's problems with Evangelicals has been overplayed by the media. Once he wins the nomination they'll get behind. Just look at how well he performed at Saddleback last week.I think John Mccain will have problems winning in 2000.
2000 had very low turnout and Dubya's pull on evangelicals helped him get his win (that and finagling at the highest levels, but I digress)
McCain, meanwhile, will have lost that very important base by the time of the election.
I agree with all this except for the environmental thing. Also: a larger invading force of Afghanistan would have lead to the capture of Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora in December 2001. I doubt the Iraq invasion would have happened at all, however - remember that this is McCain circa 2000 and not the present-day McBush pod person.(1) McCain can be a angry man. US initial response to 9/11 in Afghanistan might be quicker, stronger, and more unilateral than GWB, and the "us vs them" rhetoric would be even stronger. McCain might be more likely to see Pakistan as a potential target as well, and develop bilateral relationships with India to threaten and pressure Pakistan to eliminate it's frontier as a haven for the Taliban and AlQaida. However, McCain might be more willing to seek meaningful international coalitions before extending US interventions beyond the Afghanistan/Pakistan area where the actual attackers were based. Although he is now a strong supporter of the Iraq war, it is hard to imagine a realist like McCain would have invaded Iraq if he really knew the intelligence basis on which it was predicated and in face of such widespread international opposition. If he did, I suspect it would be with a larger force, including a force better equiped to occupy, rebuild, and govern Iraq after the initial campaign was successful.
(2) McCain would govern more as the elder Bush in domestic and economic affairs. Lacking a strong affiliation with the social/religious conservatives, he might give lip service to the cause of theirs he might agree with (abortion), but be willing to compromise.
(3) McCain would be more open to compromise with Europe on environmental issues
(4) He would attempt to be a reformer regarding campaign finances and immigration, but would likely fail.
Not as many, though. And it's very likely you'd have President John Kerry being sworn in January 20th 2005 if that happened.But he would have completely dispensed with Bush's farcical, months-long buildup of lies and doctored evidence. McCain would have just said, "My fellow Americans, we're going to invade Iraq. Iraq currently poses little threat to the United States, and it had nothing to do with 9/11. But I bet 9/11 gave Saddam a lot of sneaky ideas, and I'm willing to see a few people die in battle to avoid the off chance that Saddam does something." And you know what? Half the Democrats in Congress would have gone along with it.
Though many Iranians do not like President Amahdinejad and the Islamic theocratic regime few Iranians would want to restore the Shah to power.Pardon me, Mr. Standard X, but are you on crack? First off, authoritarian, as with its antonym, libertarian, is a relative term denoting the degree of state power or governmental authority over the individual or society, orthogonal to the economic left-right axis. Basically, I am using the Political Compass terminology as even liberals and small-government conservatives would be "authoritarian" relative to an anarchist, though they are libertarian relative to the center. But even in the sense that authoritarianism includes but is not limited to totalitarianism, many of those statesmen would certainly qualify.
I preder to go with the defiinitions that are almost universally held: 1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents> 2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
"Highly concentrated and centralized power structures," in which political power is generated and maintained by a "repressive system that excludes potential challengers" and uses political parties and mass organizations to "mobilize people around the goals of the government";[1]
The following principles: "1) rule of men, not rule of law; 2) rigged elections; 3) all important political decisions made by unelected officials behind closed doors; 4) a bureaucracy operated quite independently of rules, the supervision of elected officials, or concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve; 5) the informal and unregulated exercise of political power";[1]
Leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors"
Authoritarian societies existed since the dawn of human civilization. The iron fist of Hammurabi or the repressive society prescribed in the Old Testament come to mind. The concept of totalitarianism, of the total state, is something related but distinct. Yet even totalitarianism predates Marxism-Leninism and Italian Fascism. The idea of a total state can be traced back to Plato and Hegel. Plato can properly be called the Father of Fascism. Don't believe me? Try reading On the Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper. That is, assuming of course that you are literate enough to do so... I'm well aware of this, and can you knock it off with the ad hominems, ok?
Perhaps the only regimes which could be considered Fascist were Benito Mussolini's Italy (the original Fascists), Germany under Adolf Hitler's Third Reich (Nazism being modeled off of fascism), Imperial Japan under the Tojo military dictatorship (why I mistakenly identified Emperor Hirohito as the fascist leader when he was a figurehead, I am not sure), Spain under Generalissimo Francisco Franco, and Greece under Ioannis Metaxas.
[Metaxas was clearly a Fascist, as his regime was virtually identical to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. It seems to be that the only reason why Metaxas did not align Greece with the Axis Powers was because in the interwar years Greece was a protectorate or client state of the British Empire and just as the Brits made a puppet dictator out of the idiot Venizelos, they made a similar puppet out of Metaxas. For this and other reasons, most notably the Metaxas regime's murderous ethnic cleansing of Albanians and Chams, who sought Fascist Italy's protection, Benito Mussolini perceived Greece as an enemy nation, invaded, and failing miserably called on Nazi Germany for assistance. The standing Greek government (Metaxas regime) resisted both Axis nations, but under German occupation, they did not merely surrender like Denmark, but they actively collaborated with the Nazis. It was the Greek Left who provided real resistance during Nazi occupation, just as the Spanish Left fought Franco's Fascist coalition in the Spanish Civil War. The reason why Greece fought with the Allies was more due to petty politics than any ideological difference between the Metaxas regime and the Axis Powers.]
Franco's Spain and Metaxas' Greece would at best be described as semi-fascist.
Other regimes which may qualify as fascist include Ba'athist Iraq under Sadaam Hussein, Taliban Afghanistan, Cambodia under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (who were totalitarians but who were in no meaningful way socialist considering that they attempted to reinstall feudalism), Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, the regime of Idi Amin, as well as some other "Islamo-fascist" regimes. One might also include Cuba under Fulgencio Batista, but that was more about gangster kleptocracy than WW2-style fascism. Augosto Pinochet is often included because he is the only "free-market fascist" dictator to achieve power as every other Fascist dictator and regime was either Keynesian or neo-feudalist.
The Khmer Rouge was definitely Marxist not fascist, and the rest of the examples would be quasi to semi-fascist, if at all.
Of course, not all fascists have attained state power. There were Fascist parties in France during the 20th century, as well as in Belgium, Switzerland, Ukraine, Romania, and Yugoslavia, all of whom collaborated with Nazis during WWII. Even today, in the United Kingdom, a relatively enlightened 1st world liberal democracy, there exists a Fascist party called the British National Party (BNP). Ayn Rand certainly could qualify as a "petty fascist." While Rand was not, by all indications, a Fascist in the WW2 sense, if the definition of fascism is broadened to include right-totalitarianism (as opposed to left-totalitarianism, i.e. Communism) Ayn Rand certainly qualifies as fascist in ideology, being idelogically alligned with Pinochet, but not in practice as the "Objectivist" cult never attained state power. [However, Randian ideology beneath the libertarian smokescreens and window dressings was thoroughly totalitarian. Read The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker for more info.]
So to be clear, the United States was NEVER fascist in the original WW2 sense of the term, nor was there ever anyone like Sadaam Hussein, or Robert Mugabe in charge. However, there were some despotic, militaristic, and nationalistic men elected to the highest office.
I find it interesting that Standard X has no problem calling Ataturk, Pilsudski, or the Shah fascist when Theodore Roosevelt and especially Woodrow Wilson fit the bill much better. If never called them fascist but they are definitely authoritarian..
If you ask a Greek, Armenian, or Syriac (Assyrian or Chaldean), they might tell you that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was indeed a fascist. They would likely equate Ataturk to Hitler and the Young Turk Party to the NSDAP while drawing parallels between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. Ask a Turk, and they will declare Kemal Ataturk a national hero. They would consider him the Turkish equivalent of the 17th century French revolutionaries, a classical liberal who brought the Enlightenment to Turkey, who established a secular republic and emancipated women. The Turks will point out that Ataturk was no more fascist than George Washington, who, though somewhat dictatorial in his centralization of power and perhaps more statist than he should have been, sought only to safeguard a fledgling young nation recovering from a revolutionary war for independence from Great Britain. How can the same man be regarded as a proto-Nazi by some and a progressive hero by others? Perhaps Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is the only person in history to fit Jonah Goldberg's oxymoronic term, "liberal fascism."
Likewise, Pilsudski was a military dictator, but perhaps interwar Poland needed such a leader (as opposed to interwar Greece, which fell to Metaxas and his Fascist ambitions and designs). Yes he may have been somewhat aggressive, but Poles seem to view him in a positive light. To say nothing of Polonazis such as Molobo, HurganPL and his avatars, Shade2 from PoliticsForum and TheHistoryForum (who denied being a Slav and is likely an avatar of Hurgan), and other Polish trolls on AH.com, Wikipedia, and other online forums. [Interestingly, they all ascribe to the "Germany sucks, Russia sucks, but Germany sucks even more! Poland is teh awesome! I hate teh Germans!" philosophy, yet their hero Pilsudski allied with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire against Russia during World War 1. Clearly Pilsudski saw the Germans as a lesser, tolerable evil against the greater evil of Russia.] But these Polish trolls and other online Polonazis are not the only ones to admire Pilsudski. Many normal Polish people view him as a first leader and defender of modern Poland.
[In my experience, Poles are generally a pleasant people and do not live a paranoid fantasy nor feel the need to paint Germans as perpetual Nazis out to devour the Polish based on an out-of-context, poorly translated Otto von Bismarck quote; an obviously fabricated Wolfgang von Kries quote from a US propaganda document; revisionist history wherein Poles were the sole targets of Bismarck's kulturkampf (despite the fact that the kulturkampf was aimed at Catholicism, with the goal of weakening its political power and that Polish subjects, being Catholic, were incidentally victims), where the kingdom of Prussia/Imperial Germany had all sorts of (vaguely described) laws against Poles having homes or speaking Polish with their only evidence being a self-hating German named Immanuel Geiss, and where Poles and not Jews or Gypsies were the key victims of the Holocaust.]
Just as Turks admire Ataturk, and Poles admire Pilsudski, I would imagine many Persians admired the last Shah. For all his flaws, Shah Reza Pahlavi was at least a constitutional monarch. Yes he was a bit despotic and repressive in a time of crisis, but the Shah would be infinitely preferable to the Islamo-fascist regime established by Ayatollah Khomeini. I would expect the neocon retards not to be so eager to go to war with the Shah's Iran has they are to attack Iran under the Shi'ite theocracy led by Mahmoud Amahdinejad.
But what do I get in return?
If McCain is elected President in 2000, George W. Bush becomes Commissioner of Major League Baseball and Sarah Palin remains unknown outside of Alaska.