Our Orwellian Future

[maxiep]

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081709.html

August 17, 2009
Our Road to Oceania
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

In George Orwell's allegorical novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the picture of "Big Brother" appears constantly in the adoring media.
Perceived enemies are everywhere — supposedly plotting to undo the benevolent egalitarianism of Big Brother. Citizens assemble each morning to scream hatred for two minutes at pictures of the supposed public traitor Emmanuel Goldstein. The "Ministry of Truth" swears that the former official Goldstein is responsible for everything that goes wrong in Oceania.

In Orwell's Oceania, there is a compliant media that offers "Newspeak" — recycled government bulletins from the Ministry of Truth. "Doublethink" means you can believe at the same time in two opposite beliefs.

America is not Oceania, but some of this is beginning to sound a little too familiar.

We see Barack Obama's smile broadcast 24/7, in a fashion we have not seen previously of earlier presidents. A Newsweek editor referred to Obama as a "god." MSNBC's Chris Matthews claimed physical ecstasy when Obama speaks. A Washington Post reporter swooned over Obama's "chiseled pectorals."

Former President George Bush — our new Emmanuel Goldstein — remains a daily target of criticism. Diplomats continue to discuss the need to hit a "reset" button that will erase the past. Last week, the president said those in the past administration caused our present problems — and so should keep quiet and get out of his way.

Bush is somehow culpable for the newly projected $2 trillion annual deficits. Bush caused the new unemployment levels to soar to nearly 10 percent. Bush's war on terrorism failed. Bush is responsible for the most recent trouble abroad with Iran, the Middle East, North Korea and Russia.

There are similar Big Brother attacks on recent critics of the Obama administration's healthcare initiatives. Once-praised dissent has become subversive. Protestors are a mob to be ridiculed by the government as mere health-insurance puppets. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is suspicious of the nice clothes the protesters wear. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., used a few isolated incidents to claim that the healthcare dissidents are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that" to compare Obama and Democrats to the Nazis.

At a meeting with Democratic senators, Obama's deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, urged them to "punch back twice as hard" against these critics, according to two people who were in the room. An official presidential Website now asks informants, in Big Brother style, to send in emails and Internet addresses that seem "fishy" in questioning the White House healthcare plans.

Doublethink is common. Presidential sermons on fiscal responsibility tip us off that deficits will soar. Borrowing an additional trillion dollars to manage healthcare is sold as a cost-saving measure. Racial transcendence translates into more racial identity politics, reflected both in rhetoric and presidential appointments.

The government wants to determine how some executives should be paid. The administration assures millions of citizens it will now intrude into everything from buying homes and cars to how they go to the doctor.

If some Americans chose to purchase a roomy gas-guzzler rather than an uncomfortable but more efficient compact car, a kindly Big Brother will now "correct" that bad decision and buy the "clunker" back. If we bought a house for too much money, the government will assure it was not our fault and redo the mortgage. If our doctor wants to conduct a procedure, a government health board will first determine whether it is cost-effective and in the collective interest.

Despite the absence of another 9/11-like attack, we are still told by the new terrorism czar, John Brennan, that the old war was largely a Bush failure. Administration officials keep inventing euphemisms. Some have dubbed the war on terror "an overseas contingency operation."

We were once told that military tribunals, renditions, the Patriot Act and Predator drone attacks in Pakistan were George Bush's assault on the Constitution rather than necessary tools to fight radical Islamic terrorists.

Not now. These policies are no longer criticized — even though they still operate more or less as they did under Bush. Guantanamo is still open, but no longer considered a gulag. The once-terrible war in Iraq disappeared off the front pages around late January of this year.

George Orwell, a man of the left, warned us that freedom and truth are not just endangered by easily identifiable goose-stepping goons in jackboots. More often he felt that state collectivism would come from an all-powerful government — run by a charismatic egalitarian, promising to protect us from selfish, greedy reactionaries.

Orwell was onto something.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Didn't Mr. Orwell correctly predict flat-screen televisions? Are we sure those things don't work both ways?

 

[Idog1976]

Unless this person also criticized the Bush Admin I don't really care what they have to say. I'm sorry but Republicans complaints about a totalitarian government fall on cynical ears in my case. I was completely against the Bush Admin's assault on civil liberties and many aspects of the war on Terror. I am equally appalled by the lack of roll back of these programs (Patriot Act, 2006 Military bill that stripped Habeus Corpus, NSA wiretaps, Guantanamo etc.) from the Obama Admin. I also am horrified by the increase in spending under Obama. That said I can't help, but get more then a little indignant when a Republican suddenly cares about the Constitution.

Um, WHERE THE !#%^ were you when Bush was destroying our nation (Not you personally Maxiep)? I mean all of a sudden free speech is a cherished right guaranteed by the Constitution whereas just a scant few years ago war protestors were labeled traitors or that they were aiding and abetting terrorism.

There is no question the Federal Government is wildly out of control. What I have seen from most Republicans however is a desire to wield dictatorial powers against their domestic enemies (all non-lock step republicans) and crush dissent. When the tables are turned suddenly they back the constitution. That to me is simply disgusting.

That said I have grave concerns about the erosion of our soverignty under all presidents of the past 30 years the 12 years of Bush I (come on who was really running the show after Regan got shot?), 8 Years of Clinton and Bush II "Mr. Charisma for the low brow set" and now Mr. "Charisma for the intelligentsia" Barak Obama.

Look into the Bank of International Settlements. I will probably post on them later. That's the real concern. The death of the dollar and being folded into an international government/currency. People think it's conspiracy theory, however they are OPENLY calling for this on European financial news outlets (I will link later I'm at work on a break).

P.S. Democrats and Independennts, sadly we have to stick up for Republicans now, even though they failed to stick up for Independents and Democrats when they were in power. To do anything less is unamerican. I will however say that Republicans really REALLY drive me nuts with their hypocrisy (Worse then Dems which is pretty incredible seeing as Barney Frank is a Dem!)

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Uh, Idog1976, it's the libs that proposed legislation to silence AM radio types who have differing views. It's our Prez who calls all people opposing him as "un American"... I do not disagree that under Bush's administration some rights were withheld from people in various prisons, but the current congress and administration has openly assaulted civil liberties of the US citizenry in a fashion unheard of since WWII when Roosevelt placed americans in internment camps.

I'm not left or right, but if this doesn't raise a few concerns of people who consider themselves Americans first, and their political affiliation second, then there's a real disconnect there that places the state above the people and they have to openly admit (unless they are liars) that government of the people, by the people and for the people is disappearing.

 

[bluefrog]

How about a facist future?

 

[Idog1976]

Uh, Idog1976, it's the libs that proposed legislation to silence AM radio types who have differing views. It's our Prez who calls all people opposing him as "un American"... I do not disagree that under Bush's administration some rights were withheld from people in various prisons, but the current congress and administration has openly assaulted civil liberties of the US citizenry in a fashion unheard of since WWII when Roosevelt placed americans in internment camps.

I'm not left or right, but if this doesn't raise a few concerns of people who consider themselves Americans first, and their political affiliation second, then there's a real disconnect there that places the state above the people and they have to openly admit (unless they are liars) that government of the people, by the people and for the people is disappearing.

I have no disagreement with you on the point that liberties are disappearing. I'm saying Conservatives are LATE TO THE FIGHT! Unfortunately, alot of Democrats went right back to sleep after Hopey won the election. I don't like Obama nor do I trust him. The last president I liked at all was Clinton (although I disliked him more as I got older) even Reagan (ugh) seems fantastic compared to these last two clowns. What I'm saying is there is an assault on our liberty coming from BOTH parties. That's what should worry people. It shouldn't be that one side or another is a champion of liberty clearly neither party is. In my estimation our last truly honest president was either JFK (maybe) or Eisenhower. Remember Ike's farewell address? Pretty damn prescient. He just needed to add the Intelligence Industrial Complex and the Financial Industrial Complex.

I strongly support the Constitution. There is no comparing Obama (thus far) to Bush. He has been worse on two counts, eminent domain and spending. Bush though really raised the bar with Patriot Act, 2006 Military funding act that stripped Haebeus Corpus, all the domestic surveillance (Stuff even Ashcroft wouldn't sign for fucks sake!!! ) and the endless spying on various Anti-war and environmentalist groups. I'm sorry if you are feeling hunted now it's because you allowed a "seeming" Conservative to put this apparatus together. Remember Bush's whole Unitary Executive argument? Didn't it ever occur to you guys that a "Liberal" with a nasty streak might get a hold of this monstrous apparatus?

I totally agree that the executive branch is WAY too powerful. I'm saying it would have helped an awful lot if principled Conservatives had spoken out about Bush more forcefully with their fellow Conservatives. If you think Obama is frightening ask yourself why you allowed Bush to create the vast domestic surveillance apparatus and the powers that were seized for the executive.

There is no question that we need to stand united as a people when the government acts in a way that is contrary to the Constitution and it's Amendments. For instance I think any spying on Conservative groups that is occurring now is totally unacceptable and a breach of 4th Amendment rights. It's unfortunate that said groups that are now being treated this way did not stand up for their fellow Americans when Bush was in Power. It seems the people who were oppressed were viewed as dirty hippies, or radicals, or whatever. There was quite a bit of oppression under Bush, it just didn't effect Conservatives almost at all, so to them it was apparently, totally OK and/or invisible.

Divide et impera

Divide and conquer as an idea has been around for a looooong time.

 

[maxiep]

How about a facist future?

"Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline."

Elsewhere, he refines this further as:

"a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Sounds like the Obama Administration so far to me.

 

[Idog1976]

Sounds like the Obama Administration so far to me.

Are you serious? Man I don't get it. Obama has TOTALITARIAN tendencies. Fascist though? That's a really big reach. Other then the banking bailout and arguably GM I don't see it. Isn't he also called a Socialist? Those two are on opposite ends of the pole!

Fascist is high on the totalitarian side and also far to the right on economic matters. Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were Fascists and ROUNDLY considered by historians to be far RIGHT. Also my grandparents with whom I had LENGTHY discussions with about WWII, my English grandmother survived the Blitz and had contact with English Nazi outreach groups before the war, all said it was the far right. My grandparents also loathed Comunists who they said were dangerous far lefty's.

Stalin was a socialist, well Communist, Totalitarian dictator. Please use Mao or Stalin or if you're bored with those two Pol Pot as your comparison to Obama. They are murders by the millions all! Stalin arguably killed MORE THEN HITLER! But please, can you STOP calling Obama a Socialist and a Fascist? Make up your minds!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology. [5]
Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.[6] Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept

That sounds far more like the rabid right in this country. Not everyone right of center is that way of course, however the rabid FAR right can definitely fit the bill. The Republican party is in my opinion enthralled by that wing of the party. The centrists and Libertarians need to take it back. Likewise the progressive Democrats have a lot of work to do cleaning up their party.

Now you can definitely argue that Obama has Pseudo-socialist and Totalitarian tendencies. What you can't say is Obama hates America and is socializing corporations and blames liberalism and loves America and is corpratist. That sentence is all sorts of messed up. If you said Totalitarian and Pseudo-Socialist I would totally listen. Saying Fascist about a person also defamed as a wild leftist just doesn't make any sense!

 

[chris_in_pdx]

It's our Prez who calls all people opposing him as "un American".

Post proof or retract. I want an actual quote.

 

[maxiep]

Post proof or retract. I want an actual quote.

Must...defend...Obama...at...all...costs...

 

[Idog1976]

Must...defend...Obama...at...all...costs...

I think they are making a reasonable request actually. I haven't heard Obama say that either. It would be fascinating to see a youtube video of it or a news paper clipping. Would lend alot more weight to what you are saying.

Pretty sure Cheney said things along those lines about war protesters...but, uh, I'm too lazy to look it up.

 

[julius]

Must...defend...Obama...at...all...costs...

It's funny that you say that because you're attacking him at all costs, and defending Bush (and the conservative mindset) at all costs.

But seriously, how is what Chris said a thing worth you getting all smart assed about?

Where did Obama say that? Or hell, where did Pelosi ACTUALLY say it (and not get misquoted and repeated enough times that people are too god damned lazy to actually find the actual quote and believe it to be true)?

Nancy Pelosi and the President actually didn't say that. It's just an easy (and fucking lazy) thing that people say because they think it makes them appear witty, when actually it makes them appear flat brained.

You know that if anyone miss attributed Bush with something, you'd get all bent out of shape. For you to act as though that is not true, is being incredibly disingenuous.

It's ironic and funny that the same political people who would call protesters of the war unAmerican (and only stopped doing so after they had been ridiculed by the media and it became a joke), are now wrongly accusing others of doing the exact same as what they ACTUALLY did and said before.

Oh I know, you aren't conservative. You aren't even a republican! You just play one on tv (really really convincingly).

 

[maxiep]

I think they are making a reasonable request actually. I haven't heard Obama say that either. It would be fascinating to see a youtube video of it or a news paper clipping. Would lend alot more weight to what you are saying.

Pretty sure Cheney said things along those lines about war protesters...but, uh, I'm too lazy to look it up.

Nah, Obama didn't say it, at least publicly. If he did, every Republican in the land would have exploded in a simultaneous orgasm. I was just laughing at how quickly someone came to President Obama's defense. A lot of people have invested themselves personally in this President and I get a giggle watching those people defend his every move.

 

[maxiep]

It's funny that you say that because you're attacking him at all costs, and defending Bush (and the conservative mindset) at all costs.

But seriously, how is what Chris said a thing worth you getting all smart assed about?

Relax. You know Obama isn't Jesus. He make mistakes.

Where did Obama say that? Or hell, where did Pelosi ACTUALLY say it (and not get misquoted and repeated enough times that people are too god damned lazy to actually find the actual quote and believe it to be true)?

Nancy Pelosi and the President actually didn't say that. It's just an easy (and fucking lazy) thing that people say because they think it makes them appear witty, when actually it makes them appear flat brained.

I think Speaker Pelosi said something close (drowning out other voices was un-American or some such), but President Obama is too smart for that. He lets others do most of the heavy lifting.

You know that if anyone miss attributed Bush with something, you'd get all bent out of shape. For you to act as though that is not true, is being incredibly disingenuous.

Link? I correct falsehoods, mostly when it comes to the economy or finance. If they happen to be about President Bush, well 'dems the breaks.

It's ironic and funny that the same political people who would call protesters of the war unAmerican (and only stopped doing so after they had been ridiculed by the media and it became a joke), are now wrongly accusing others of doing the exact same as what they ACTUALLY did and said before.

Both Democrats and Republicans are incredible hypocrites when it serves them. I spent plenty of time complaining about the size of government from so-called "fiscal conservatives".

Oh I know, you aren't conservative. You aren't even a republican! You just play one on tv (really really convincingly).[/QUOTE]

I never said I didn't have crossover with some conservative issues. I'm a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, I believe the supply curve is vertical and the smaller the government is, the better for the population. I'm also pro-choice, anti-death penalty and pro-gay marriage and polygamy (although I would prefer if the government got out of the marriage business altogether).

I know it's difficult for someone so tied up in a party label as you, but it's possible to not care about the person or the party but rather the policy. If Barack Obama champions a cause I agree with, I'll support him on that one issue. However, he's pretty much been my policy opposite.

 

[LOTBfan]

I think they heard that he said that on Hanity or Limbaugh in the same speech about granny killing death panels, they are the preferred news outlets for the recently outnumbered afterall.

 

[LOTBfan]

I never said I didn't have crossover with some conservative issues. I'm a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, I believe the supply curve is vertical and the smaller the government is, the better for the population. I'm also pro-choice, anti-death penalty and pro-gay marriage and polygamy (although I would prefer if the government got out of the marriage business altogether).

Silly Jeffersonians!

 

[Denny Crane]

Are you serious? Man I don't get it. Obama has TOTALITARIAN tendencies. Fascist though? That's a really big reach. Other then the banking bailout and arguably GM I don't see it. Isn't he also called a Socialist? Those two are on opposite ends of the pole!

Fascist is high on the totalitarian side and also far to the right on economic matters. Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were Fascists and ROUNDLY considered by historians to be far RIGHT. Also my grandparents with whom I had LENGTHY discussions with about WWII, my English grandmother survived the Blitz and had contact with English Nazi outreach groups before the war, all said it was the far right. My grandparents also loathed Comunists who they said were dangerous far lefty's.

Stalin was a socialist, well Communist, Totalitarian dictator. Please use Mao or Stalin or if you're bored with those two Pol Pot as your comparison to Obama. They are murders by the millions all! Stalin arguably killed MORE THEN HITLER! But please, can you STOP calling Obama a Socialist and a Fascist? Make up your minds!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism



That sounds far more like the rabid right in this country. Not everyone right of center is that way of course, however the rabid FAR right can definitely fit the bill. The Republican party is in my opinion enthralled by that wing of the party. The centrists and Libertarians need to take it back. Likewise the progressive Democrats have a lot of work to do cleaning up their party.

Now you can definitely argue that Obama has Pseudo-socialist and Totalitarian tendencies. What you can't say is Obama hates America and is socializing corporations and blames liberalism and loves America and is corpratist. That sentence is all sorts of messed up. If you said Totalitarian and Pseudo-Socialist I would totally listen. Saying Fascist about a person also defamed as a wild leftist just doesn't make any sense!

Once you figure out that Fascists were Socialists, your confusion will go away. Once you figure out that hindsight and study of the actual policies and actions of the Fascists flies in the face of the historians' view that hasn't changed in decades (while the world has), your confusion will go away.

The Totalitarian thing is what really counts. How they achieve their ends depends simply on the nature of the society/nation. If the nation is industrial, then it's middle class populism. If the nation is less industrialized, then it's lower class populism. These last two sentences are the only distinguishing things between what you call right and left. The socialists in an industrialized nation like Germany had to use the established apparatus to achieve their policy goals; they partnered with the leaders of industry before absolutely directing their operations. The socialists in a less industrialized nation like Russia had to rally the lower class to rebel against the small but elite ruling class.

 

[Idog1976]

Once you figure out that Fascists were Socialists, your confusion will go away. Once you figure out that hindsight and study of the actual policies and actions of the Fascists flies in the face of the historians' view that hasn't changed in decades (while the world has), your confusion will go away.

The Totalitarian thing is what really counts. How they achieve their ends depends simply on the nature of the society/nation. If the nation is industrial, then it's middle class populism. If the nation is less industrialized, then it's lower class populism. These last two sentences are the only distinguishing things between what you call right and left. The socialists in an industrialized nation like Germany had to use the established apparatus to achieve their policy goals; they partnered with the leaders of industry before absolutely directing their operations. The socialists in a less industrialized nation like Russia had to rally the lower class to rebel against the small but elite ruling class.

Can I ask a question? Is it possible to have a right wing Totalitarian government in your eyes? Or is being Right Wing in and of itself at an essential level one that can only be good? That seems to be the argument you are making. Was Pinochet right wing? Imelda Marcos? Anyone historically? Or are they all lefties? Was the Roman Empire left wing?

I agree that Totalitarian is the only thing that matters. I STRONGLY disagree with your appelation of right wing vs left wing. I feel the extremes of both wings are dangerous. Unfortunately, our country according to none other then Barry Goldwater prior to his death, had shifted so far to the right he considered himself to be left of center even though none of his political ideologies had changed.

I think you are getting suckered in by right wing apologists for Hitler who try and reframe him as a Socialist. I remember in College a few left wingers who tried to cast Stalin as a right wing type. I think the thing is people don't want to see Totalitarianism in a group they identify with. The important thing is too look for limitations to liberty both legally and economically. It seems those on the right see only the later clearly and those on the left only see the former. That is too say right wingers by and large thought the Patriot Act was ....well Patriotic even though that Orwellian name hide a vast usurpation of civil liberties. Likewise Obama followers see nothing wrong with some of his more socialist manuevers such as GM being seized. It's alarming to me how both parties seem to only have one eye when it comes to encroaching totalitarianism and miss the big picture.

 

[maxiep]

Can I ask a question? Is it possible to have a right wing Totalitarian government in your eyes? Or is being Right Wing in and of itself at an essential level one that can only be good? That seems to be the argument you are making. Was Pinochet right wing? Imelda Marcos? Anyone historically? Or are they all lefties? Was the Roman Empire left wing?

I agree that Totalitarian is the only thing that matters. I STRONGLY disagree with your appelation of right wing vs left wing. I feel the extremes of both wings are dangerous. Unfortunately, our country according to none other then Barry Goldwater prior to his death, had shifted so far to the right he considered himself to be left of center even though none of his political ideologies had changed.

I think you are getting suckered in by right wing apologists for Hitler who try and reframe him as a Socialist. I remember in College a few left wingers who tried to cast Stalin as a right wing type. I think the thing is people don't want to see Totalitarianism in a group they identify with. The important thing is too look for limitations to liberty both legally and economically. It seems those on the right see only the later clearly and those on the left only see the former. That is too say right wingers by and large thought the Patriot Act was ....well Patriotic even though that Orwellian name hide a vast usurpation of civil liberties. Likewise Obama followers see nothing wrong with some of his more socialist manuevers such as GM being seized. It's alarming to me how both parties seem to only have one eye when it comes to encroaching totalitarianism and miss the big picture.

I happen to believe the terms "right wing" and "left wing" cause more confusion than clarity, and I'm guilty of using it all the time. I think a better description of the linear progression is Anarchy on one side and Totalitarianism on the other. I tend to be closer to Anarchy than Totalitarianism.

 

[BlazerWookee]

I tend to be closer to Anarchy than Totalitarianism.

Anarchy Rules!

 

[Idog1976]

I happen to believe the terms "right wing" and "left wing" cause more confusion than clarity, and I'm guilty of using it all the time. I think a better description of the linear progression is Anarchy on one side and Totalitarianism on the other. I tend to be closer to Anarchy than Totalitarianism.

Well said +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

[Denny Crane]

Can I ask a question? Is it possible to have a right wing Totalitarian government in your eyes? Or is being Right Wing in and of itself at an essential level one that can only be good? That seems to be the argument you are making. Was Pinochet right wing? Imelda Marcos? Anyone historically? Or are they all lefties? Was the Roman Empire left wing?

I agree that Totalitarian is the only thing that matters. I STRONGLY disagree with your appelation of right wing vs left wing. I feel the extremes of both wings are dangerous. Unfortunately, our country according to none other then Barry Goldwater prior to his death, had shifted so far to the right he considered himself to be left of center even though none of his political ideologies had changed.

I think you are getting suckered in by right wing apologists for Hitler who try and reframe him as a Socialist. I remember in College a few left wingers who tried to cast Stalin as a right wing type. I think the thing is people don't want to see Totalitarianism in a group they identify with. The important thing is too look for limitations to liberty both legally and economically. It seems those on the right see only the later clearly and those on the left only see the former. That is too say right wingers by and large thought the Patriot Act was ....well Patriotic even though that Orwellian name hide a vast usurpation of civil liberties. Likewise Obama followers see nothing wrong with some of his more socialist manuevers such as GM being seized. It's alarming to me how both parties seem to only have one eye when it comes to encroaching totalitarianism and miss the big picture.

As I see it, it's left-wing (in your way of thinking) guys trying to paint the right with Hitler and Nazism. He was demonized by the press and generally by our culture.

Yet the Mao did worse to his people. See:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2073

Chairman Mao, as he became known to generations of admiring Western leftists, is arguably the greatest mass murderer in history, eclipsing even the murderous Joseph Stalin in this regard. Some 70 million Chinese, along with countless Tibetans, Mongolians, Manchus, Koreans, Hmong, Uyghurs, and other nationalities, perished at his hands during his long and brutal reign.

You have to admit that Hitler gets the "most evil" label, and by far. In all of WW II, including the genocides, "only" 55M people died.

I'm good with saying that all those guys (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc.) were downright evil. I'm no apologist for him; I wish someone put a bullet in his brain in the early 1930s.

True Conservatism is based upon three principles: libertarianism, anti-communism, and tradition. I might be into the first two, but I'm certainly not the third. I do want govt. to stay the hell out of anything and everything possible.

Here's the rub. There is no left/right spectrum. Conservatives in Russia are communists (left wing) and here they're anti-communist. So when is left really left and right really right? Even if you use a US frame for left/right, where do I fit in?

I'm a social liberal. I disagree with the democrats on soooo many things, especially big govt. and taxes and invasion of privacy and anti-capitalism, etc. Yet I agree with them on abortion and gay marriage and a whole host of other social issues. I'm an economic liberal, too. Get govt. out of our business. Kill the IRS and many other huge govt. beaucracies. I lean toward the republicans when it comes to their old mantra of "less taxes, smaller government, equal opportunity." The only regulation I believe in is those put on govt.

Yet neither party suits me. There's so few actual Conservatives around, and none in office.

I figure most moderates are close to my views, or at least have many that are far left (in your view of left/right) and many that are far right. Probably more that are right of center, based upon the polling data I've seen and posted. The left/right thing doesn't fit.

But as maxiep pointed out, left/right with anarchy at one end and totalitarianism at the other makes sense. I don't care what you call "left" or what you call "right" -

left <-- anarchy ---------------- totalitarianism --> right

or

left < -- totalitarianism --------------- anarchy --> right

As long as a reference point (one of the other) is agreed upon, discussion is enabled.

So let's use the first left/right reference.

I'm a lefty. Near the far left end of that spectrum. It fits ALL of my positions. As you go right, you get bigger government and less Liberty.

Bush and Obama both are rather to the right on that scale. Both parties are. The government is. The people are left of that. The Social Democracies are even further to the right. Saddam and Kim Il Jung and Hitler and Mao are all the way to the right, not much separates them (in truth). You also have religious governments like the Talliban over to the right (but left of Mao and Saddam). You have a govt. like Iran that has religious leaders yet a lot more individual liberties - they're to the right of us and those Social Democracies, but a bit left of the Talliban. You have monarchies which are to the right of those, depending on how benevolent the king is. And so on.

Some people may find dead-center to be the ideal (moderates). Maybe even right of center (socialists who don't commit genocide).

As I said, I'm not all the way left (I'm NOT an anarchist), but I'm only a smidge to the right of that.

Carry on.

 

[Idog1976]

Looks like it's semantics for the loss. I think where you and I greatly part ways as I've discovered over the past few months is on the concern for the environment. On the scale you mentioned I imagine in your estimation (and probably mine) I'm to the right of you, but probably not too much. I think that with the way in which technology scales up the impact of individual will has changed things greatly from a few centuries ago. I think unfortunately we need more government now then we did in bygone ages. There simply has to be Hobbes "Leviathan" to scare some folks from doing certain things. It's a must for murderers etc. Environmental crimes though are not only allowed they are encouraged.

One of those things that I think has simply got to be taken into the equation is environmental destruction. There is no question in my mind that we have greatly damaged the environment just during my own lifetime let alone the past few hundred years. I have personally witnessed the diminishment of all manner of fish, amphibians and birds not to mention the even more critical Old Growth forests. I believe we have a moral responsibility to future generations as well as utilitarian reason to start pricing environmental cost into the equation. We currently do not price in the environmental inputs in the economy in a way that truly expresses the environmental damage done to extract and refine raw materials into our myriad technologies. With our present, and growing, population we are wiping out certainly a significant portion of "higher" organisms and more frighteningly the bottoms of food chain, things like plankton.

Currently it's first come first serve with resource exploitation and there isn't any limit on take, indeed increasing the amount of exploitation is incentivized for most things. This was all well and good 100 years ago although even then deforestation, in America for instance, was becoming a major issue (We are actually better forested now then we were, just not in Old Growth forests). The point is the "invisible hand" doesn't have the data it needs to price that in. I think we just need to price thing appropriately. Prices of some things would certainly rise dramatically, prices of other things would, relatively speaking, drop in adjusted price. Much as $10 for a movie in Oregon is expensive, that same movie is probably $15.00 in New York. We price in exclusivity (living in NYC), and yet we don't accurately price inputs from nature. This has led to ludicrous practices such as wiping out stands of trees that pray a crucial role in aquifers and prevent mud slides or shipping parts across the ocean back and forth to be assembled in the cheapest labor factories available rather then making them domestically. Something akin to this sort of pricing in of inputs will have to be done in our generation or another.

The reason I think it needs to be sooner rather then later is because, scientists (who include some of my trusted friends) are by and large saying we're screwed if we don't act soon. I'm not saying my idea is perfect but the point about inputs not being priced in is correct. Sure as things get rarer the price rises but this becomes problematic with rare species as is seen with the bush meat trade, illegal ivory poachers etc. I mean how much does a Dodo burger go for? Oh right, they're extinct.

I think it's currently a pipe dream to think we will be able to reconstruct all of these organisms at a later date. What's more the interconnected nature of the environment means that, we might destroy something very important to the overall food chain. When Keystone species die off it can wipe out far more species then one might suspect. Even for utilitarian reasons we would be fools to destroy anymore species then we already have. ALL medicines come from natural sources originally and then are replicated with petrochemicals to be made into drugs (the legal kind).

My point is we aren't pricing the market right. When we do all sorts of beneficial things will instantly become profitable and destructive and foolish things will be prohibitively expensive. Recycling of materials and improved process for refinement that use less resources and create less waste. Figuring out how to turn waste materials into something useful. These things are being done but because we don't price in environmental costs they are always at a cost disadvantage to things created from freshly extract resources. Yes, I realize this means we have to trust one another enough to allow an international scientific team to construct a pricing model. I think that we are all in this together. If we don't get this right then nothing else matters. The only thing I can think of that trumps it in importance is safety of the worlds NBC weapons of mass destruction. That's it.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't buy into the extinction of species argument. Literally, 99.9% of every species to ever live on the earth is extinct. It happened with or without Man.

Now I will stipulate that Man has Intelligence and the ability to think about tomorrow. This is a distinction between us and the rest of the Animals.

People with the best of intents and the advice of Science do the wrong thing all the time. I'm OK with Nature taking its course.

I don't believe the Invisible Hand is the be-all/end-all of Capitalism. As I've pointed out, companies are made up of people, and people do make a difference all the time. As I pointed out: MacDonalds moving from styrofoam containers to biodegradable ones, etc.

To conclude this post, the "semantic" difference isn't a "semantic" difference at all, but a view of actual Reality. NAZI means National Socialist Party. Literal. See the word Socialist in it? You may cry, "false advertising," but that doesn't change reality.

You might go look up the Nazi Party platform from the 20's and 30's. In it you will find programs like Social Security, National Health Care, the President's Council on Physical Fitness, and other things your favorite party has enacted into Law over the decades. Then you might compare that with the Socialist Party platforms of the same era (from the United States) and you will see the same planks.

So excuse me if I call reality how it is. Obama's takeover of corporations and coercion of them to do things the way he sees fit is more Fascist than the control of Industry has been through regulations over the years.

 

[MARIS61]

I don't buy into the extinction of species argument. Literally, 99.9% of every species to ever live on the earth is extinct. It happened with or without Man.

Utter nonsense.

Would I be wasting my breath to request that you provide any sort of substantiation?

I do remember my JH Science teacher saying more species had become extinct in the 20th Century than had in the rest of the Earth's lifetime, and this was in the 60's before the pace had snowballed so violently.

 

[blazerboy30]

Utter nonsense.

Would I be wasting my breath to request that you provide any sort of substantiation?

I do remember my JH Science teacher saying more species had become extinct in the 20th Century than had in the rest of the Earth's lifetime, and this was in the 60's before the pace had snowballed so violently.

Good ol' Maris; never a bit embarrassed to show his lack of knowledge and intelligence, spouting out completely false assertions.

Extinction, though, is usually a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.[2][3]

link

 

[cloudydays]

fwiw, I was always taught that the Political Spectrum was a Circle, not a line; therefore, Fascists/Socialists are the same thing.

 

[Denny Crane]

Utter nonsense.

Would I be wasting my breath to request that you provide any sort of substantiation?

I do remember my JH Science teacher saying more species had become extinct in the 20th Century than had in the rest of the Earth's lifetime, and this was in the 60's before the pace had snowballed so violently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

Extinction, though, is usually a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/science/extinction.html

Of all the species that have lived on the Earth since life first appeared here 3 billion years ago, only about one in a thousand is still living today.

EDIT:
oops, looks like BB30 beat me to it.

 

[Idog1976]

This quote shows why I think you are wrong.

Although the German public did not complain much when SA activities were directed against Jews, Communists and Socialists, by 1934 there was general concern about the level of civic violence for which the "brown shirts" were responsible.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_long_knives

This quote would seem to support what you said but is evidence of the crazy views that Hitler had which while he called them "Socialist" were very different from say modern democratic socialism such as in Europe. It appears that Hitler called his party "National Socialists" even though their system would come to be called Fascist as distinct from say Stalin's Russia or Mao's China.

Hitler said in 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance.”[73] However, In 1929, Hitler called socialism "an unfortunate word altogether" and said that "if people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism". According to Henry A. Turner, Hitler expressed regret for having integrated the word socialism into his party's name.[74] Hitler wrote in 1930, “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”[75]
In a confidential 1931 interview, Hitler told the influential editor of a pro-business newspaper, “I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State… The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.”[76] Party spokesman Joseph Goebbels claimed in 1932 that the Nazi Party was a “workers’ party” and “on the side of labor and against finance”.[37] According to Friedrich Hayek, writing in 1944, “whatever may have been his reasons, Hitler thought it expedient to declare in one of his public speeches as late as February 1941 that ‘basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same.’ ”[77]

This next quote shows why I think you are wrong to call them Socialists even if Hitler had some confusion himself as to what the term meant really.

The Nazis viewed private property rights as conditional upon the mode of use.[86] If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalized. Government takeovers and threats of takeovers were used to encourage complance with government production plans, even if following these plans cost profits for companies. For example, the owner of the Junkers (aircraft) factory refused to follow the government’s directives, whereupon the Nazis took over the plant, placed the owner Hugo Junkers under house arrest, then compensated him for his loss. While the Nazis transferred public ownership and services in the private spector, they increased state control, regulation, and inference in economic affairs.[87] Under the Nazis, free competition and regulation by the market greatly decreased.[88] Nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to disregard competition and private property.[89] Privately, Hitler stated in 1942, “I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative”.[90] Taxes and subsidies were also used in order to direct the economy. Underlying economic policy was the use of terror as an incentive to agree and comply. Nazi language indicated death or concentration camp for any business owner who pursued his own self interest instead of the ends of the State.[86]

It is often regarded that businesses were private property in name but not in substance. Chritoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner dissent, saying that despite controls by the state firms still had significant freedom in planning their own production and investment activities, though they admit that the economy was state directed.[93]

Many companies dealt with the Third Reich: Volkswagen was created by the German state and was heavily supported by the Nazis; Opel employed Jewish slave labour to run their industrial plants; Daimler-Benz used prisoners of war as slaves to run their industrial plants; Krupp made gas chambers; Bayer worked with the Nazis as a small part of the enormous IG Farben chemistry monopoly; and Hugo Boss designed the SS uniforms (and admitted to this in 1997). There has been some disagreement about whether IBM had dealt with the Nazis to create a cataloguing system, the Hollerith punch-card machines, which the Nazis used to file information on those who they killed.[94] Some companies that dealt with the Third Reich claim to have not known the truth of what the Nazis were doing, and some foreign companies claimed to have lost control of their German branches when Hitler was in power.[95][96]

As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism, communism, Democratic Socialism and liberalism.[1] It also opposes certain nations, ethnicities and other groups that are deemed to be enemies of the specific ethnicity to which it is applied. Several political parties other than the Nazis in Germany have used the name National Socialist Party or National Socialist Movement. Maurice Barrès was the first to coin the term "national socialism".[2]

They weren't socialists man. They killed off the real socialist wing early on. That just happened to be the vehicle Hitler used but once in power he continued to have for profit run businesses working with the Nazi's. Stalin and Mao, real socialists, for instance simply absorbed ALL aspects of production into the government. You're right it's not a fine point at all. Talk about the horrors of Socialism all you want just use the correct Mao and Stalin figures. Stalin in my estimation was as bad or worse then Hitler.

Fascism may have some similarities to Socialism but it clearly also has similarities to Capitalism. It is a hybrid in fact a "Merger of State and Corporations" as Mussolini who coined the word said. You are conveniently ignoring the profit making ventures and not recognizing them. My reading of the above is that Socialism is something different from Fascism in general and the Nazi's in particular. That was even their own claim. National Socialism was Hitlers word for his brand of Fascism. This is a WELL known historical fact. Your revisionist history is very strange to me.

As to the environment you are ignoring the interconnected aspect. You are also ignoring the obvious depletion of "useful" species such as Salmon. The difference between wild salmon and farmed salmon is night and day in taste and nutritional value. We aren't so smart as to be able to create natural systems out of whole clothe. I find it staggering that you don't believe the vast body of evidence that shows we are dangerously close to a tipping point on a variety of environmental fronts. I'm putting aside climate change for the moment and saying the destruction of the forests, coral reefs, and various ocean and land systems has reached a point to where it's threatening the majority life on earth and threatens to make our existence very difficult if not impossible. Certainly our "standard of material living" will drop precipitously. This is a virtual scientific consensus! It's mind boggling to me that you value your own musings over the vast mountain of scientific evidence on environmental destruction.

I disagree about the semantics thing. What I was saying is I think that other than the environmental thing and the Nazi thing I agree with most of what you post about politics and economics.

 

[Idog1976]

Good ol' Maris; never a bit embarrassed to show his lack of knowledge and intelligence, spouting out completely false assertions.



link

We are causing currently the 6th great extinction which has happened in the blink of the geological eye. We're on par with Comets hitting the earth. That doesn't disturb you that we are having an effect similar to a catastrophic global disaster?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event

These extinctions are sometimes referred to as the sixth extinction following the previous five extinction events. Between 1500 and 2006 CE, 784 extinctions have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.[1] However, since most extinctions go undocumented, scientists estimate that during the 20th century, between 20,000 and two million species actually became extinct, but the precise total cannot be determined more accurately within the limits of present knowledge. Up to 140,000 species per year (based on Species-area theory)[2] may be the present rate of extinction based upon upper bound estimating.
In broad usage, the Holocene extinction event includes the notable disappearance of large mammals, known as megafauna, starting 10,000 years ago as humans developed and spread. Such disappearances have been considered as either a response to climate change, a result of the proliferation of modern humans, or both. These extinctions, occurring near the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary, are sometimes referred to as the Quaternary extinction event or Ice Age extinction event. However the Holocene extinction event may be regarded as continuing into the 21st century.
The observed rate of extinction has accelerated dramatically since the 1950s.[citation needed] There is no general agreement on whether to consider more recent extinctions as a distinct event or merely part of a single escalating process. Only during these most recent parts of the extinction have plants also suffered large losses. Overall, the Holocene extinction event is most significantly characterised by the presence of human-made driving factors and its very short geological timescale (tens to thousands of years) compared to most other extinction events.

Also this 99.9% of species thing is a WEAK argument. Do you have ANY IDEA how long it takes the Earth to recover from the great extinctions? It takes MILLIONS of years. It's amazing that people can use that as an argument as to why it's no big deal. You know what a lot of those great extinctions had in common? The disappearance of the dominant species as keystone species were wiped out sending shock waves through the whole interconnected ecosphere. You guys blow my mind. You think all these scientists are making it up huh?

I mean seriously what would it take for you guys to believe it? I mean you can see with your own eyes (if you haven't been trapped in an urban hell your whole life) that depletion of fisheries and the devastation of old growth. The decreases in catch on the ocean, the increases in cancers in the industrialized world it just goes on and on. The level of denial required at this point is simply staggering. You really think that YOUR knowledge is superior to the VAST scientific community arrayed against you? That's some pretty amazing confidence in your point of view.

By the way you never responded to what I said in the other thread. I notice your attitude seems to be basically look out for #1. Social and indeed environmental "Darwinism" (which is really a misnomer Darwin commented on how amazing the COOPERATIVE species who lived in tune with their environment were) seems to be the name of the game to you.