Republicans: still conservatives or just theo-fascists?

Post Reply New Topic

Let's not forget the robocalls. And a "majority" government elected with 40% of the popular vote (not that that is new).

Now, that might describe the Nazis!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Not true. The Nazis were anti-intellectual. Read -Mein Kampf- sometime. Nazis were very big on the passions of Volk und Blut. The Nazis were pro-instinct.

Why do you think the brightest Germans (many who were not Jewish) got out of Germany while the getting was good.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 05 Mar 2012, 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's absolutely true. I was only trying to have a little fun with the cranky old man!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

If right-wing is synonymous with authoritarian (which was roughly it's original meaning), show me a single powerful party in the world which isn't right-wing. The so-called left use right-wing means to bring about their supposedly left-wing ends.

Gone are the days of a true left. The left of Turgot and Bastiat. The real liberals who wanted to wrest power form the state not just because it was populated by reactionaries, protectionists, and blue-bloods, but because the power itself was corrupting and created the evils.

What we have now is pure identity politics with no internal consistency, let alone authenticity. You see yourself as red or blue, and thus you adopt the red platform or blue platform as gospel. People don't choose their candidates; candidates choose their constituents (only a few of which *really* matter *cough* Goldman Sachs *cough*)

Both major party's candidates are authoritarian according to political compass. Obama is in the same clustering on the chart as Sanatorum, Romney, and Newt. The only candidate that isn't is Ron Paul.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Not true.

1- Originally, during the First French Republic, the right included the royalist. It would better describe conservatism, in its primary meaning: an ideology that wants to prevent change, an ideology for the presevervation of the status quo and of the established order. The left (well, la Montagne at that point, but whatever) was in charge under Robespierre, and it was rather authoritarian.

2- It does not mean authoritarian today either. In Canada, our rightmost party favors decentralization.

In the United States, while the right also claims to represent decentralization and "keeping government out of people's lives," that's more a matter of reducing regulations and workers rights. But they certainly have no problem with government charging into the bedrooms and private lives of citizens, if it's a matter of gay rights, putting the rights of religious institutions ahead of those of individuals regarding birth control, and anything else which the right finds "morally" repugnant. Isn't this more of a definition of authoritarianism on the part of the American right?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

What you say is true. However, does it really qualify as authoritarian? It strikes me more as morally and socially conservative.

Even the bit about decentralization would fit conservatism rather well: the United States have been slowly moving towards stronger federalism since Independance, so it could be said that giving more power to the parts would be resisting change. Or maybe not.

But then, conservatism and authoritarianism can coexist. I just don't believe right = authoritarian, or authoritarian = right.

Oh, no, I'm not saying that the right is exclusively authoritarian. It's just that American social conservatism is denying rights to other Americans for moral reasons, while they have a less than stellar record concerning civil rights issues in general. The American federal government, on the other hand, has been the defender of civil liberties.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I was describing the right-wing, not 'conservatism'. You conflate the two in your first sentence! And yes, I'm well aware of the academic definition of conservative, but that isn't here nor there.

Furthermore the "status-quo" was highly authoritarian, not to mention protectionist. We're talking about the Royalists for crying out loud. The third estate wanted the right to own land and the fruit of their labor. Robespierre was instrumental in writing the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Have you read it?



Yea right. They support privatizing where special interests will pick off the valuable bits for pennies on the dollar. Any autonomy they 'favor' for smaller regions is pure lip service.

Say what

What I said is that right would better describe conservatism than authoritarianism. I should have said that the right was royalist at the start.


Of course I did, and of course he was. And he also had several thousand people killed for lack of revolutionnary fervor, in Paris alone, and many more in Lyon and elsewhere.

Also, Louis XVI was the least authoritarian of the last few French kings. He did, after, call for the Estates General (of course, only to resolve financial problems, but still, it was a relatively liberal move -- he could not have done it). The "royalists" were not all insane absolutists, either; they included constitutionalists, etc. Actually, I doubt there was any absolutist in any revolutionnary assembly, because recognizing it would be against absolutism.

What does protectionism have to do with anything, by the way?


While I generally don't have much confidence in Harper, I don't see any reason to doubt his honesty on the question of decentralization. In any case, both the NDP and the Liberal Party are ardent and open centralizers, and the Bloc is meaningless, so... yeah. (However, I did agree that decentralization did not go against authoritarianism.)

Grants of monopoly has everything to do with it. The state IS the monopoly, and seeks to monopolize every function of society for greater revenue and power. I mean, why do you think the politicians are owned ten times over by the time they reach office?

The biggest problem with this article is it paints the division in ideological terms as though that's how politics works. In reality, it's all about getting elected through identity so you can serve the special interests through machinery. Santorum may be an authoritarian nut who thinks freedom is its direct opposite (article I linked to previously), but he would get any support if he wasn't a good lap dog as Senator, which he was. Both to his party and the wider interests that fund this revolving door.

Of course you can BELIEVE in ideology ad that the 'conservatives' in Canada want to devolve power (HA!). That's not what's going to happen unless economic reality forces the government's hand. The only politicians to actually do what they say are exceedingly rare. These dogmatists are labeled kooks and gadflys, and aren't friends to any party. This year the US will lose two of them: Kucinich and Paul. Face it man, conservatism and liberalism are just labels these days, not political doctrines. At least there was no doubting where Robespierre stood.

Proctetionism != monopoly. You said in another thread to be careful about terminology, but I would return you the warning. Protectionism is opposed to free trade as a tariff policy, but that is all its scope.

I would agree that liberalism and conservatism are not what they were 200 years ago, but that does not mean their "spirit" (meh, not a good word) did not survive, though the labels have moved, the issues have changed, and the society and economy have changed. At its core, the left-right debate, meaningless though it is without specific issues given, is between change and status quo, not authority -- even though the status quo may need authority to be preserved, as it it almost always to the advantage of the few and powerful.

I don't see why I would not believe that Harper wants to give more power to the provinces. In reality, it has (somewhat) happened. It is in his own interest, too -- at least, in that of oil-rich Alberta.

Nazi's aside....I dont think the GOP is totally like the Nazi's but yes there are similarities, But the whole thing on the audience applauding that ppl without private health insurance should die is very frightening to me.
Most civilized decent societies have a system to help the poor.
I known people who commit crimes to get into jail so they can get healthcare because even though they work 60hours a week, they cant afford health insurance and their 3 employers dont offer it to them because they work 2-3 part time jobs.

I have also seen dental work done by a mechanic with pliers and whisky because that person could not afford dental care.

While I agree that entitlement programs in the US, dont really work to alievate poverty in the long run, cause as soon as you take away the programs, the people are poor again.
However programs like student aid, vocational rehabilitation, and other programs that help those who are at a disavantage get ahead are really good, but they are often hacked first.

However, nothing is in black and white, some people just cant work due to age or disability, but still have value to loved ones and their community and as human beings....do we condemn these people to death because they cant make their own way, even if they lived a dignified life with much they gave to their part of the world before disability or old age??

However, I noticed that when a republican is in power, education is one of the first things cut. Education should be cut as a last resort. Cutting education, cuts people's access to better jobs. Republicans say to let the market handle it, but then cut the things that help folks into the job market.

What I dont understand is why those who are hurt the most by republican style of governing are the ones who are the far right's strongest voters??

Jojo