Burnt Orange Report

Kudos to Carter. Bush, Inc. is looking a lot like Mussolini's Italy these days and I am glad someone has the courage to castigate its supporters.

As an aside, I recall a quote from a Southern woman that says a lot about Carter and the Nation in its reaction to him. She said, "I voted for Carter in '76 because I thought he was a Christian. I voted against him in '80 because I knew he was a Christian."

While Carter may not have been the greatest leader, he was perhaps the most decent person ever to occupy the White House.

P.S. Carrying on with the Mussolini reference, you know what the difference between Bush and Mussolini is? Answer: Mussolini was elected.

Whoyou,

Don't you see how ridiculous that is. Bush is a centrist to moderate Republican, abandoning his base on: not expanding the welfare state (stupid $%@!* drug entitlement), in general reducing the size and scope of government, and in particular reducing (any) spending, signing CFR after campaigning against it, free trade, expanding the federal role in education, huge increases in foreign aid, etc. etc. Sure he has done some good, conservative things like cut taxes, cut taxes again, trash Kyoto and the ABM, and appoint a few strict constructionists to the courts, but on the whole he is a moderate to center-right republican (by national, not NY Times, standards). Comparing him to Mussolini is simply ridiculous. If he were such a fascist, why isn't he coming full out in support of socialist economic policies (yes, fascists are by definition socialists, and in particular you can check out Mussollini's writings on the proper role of the government in the economy), and politically, why are we having an election next year? If he truly were an evil dictator, why bother with the inconvenience? Come on, you know how ridiculous that your accusations are, and they only make your side seem hysterical.

And Byron, I have to say that I am somewhat offended, labeling Bush as " ...the most partisan right-wing Republican President of our generation." Seriously, Reagan was a truly the best President of the past 100 years, and was clearly both more partisan and more of a right-wing true believer than Bush II. Come on, I know you hate W., but you don't have to minimize Reagan's role in rolling back the welfare state in order to demonize Bush. Even if he didn't undo most of what FDR accomplished, he still made great strides in that direction, and reversed the entire course of the political climate in the country. If it were possible to reverse age Reagan twenty five years or so, and temporarily ammend the constitution, virtually every conservative in the country would rather have 8 more years of Reagan than 8 years of Bush.

Sherk

"Seriously, Reagan was a truly the best President of the past 100 years, and was clearly both more partisan and more of a right-wing true believer than Bush II."

Better than Teddy???
Better than FDR???
Better than Truman???

Please. A fair ranking would put Reagan in the McKinley range. An important President, but not among the greats.

Central to Moderate? Are you sure your are talking about the same Bush? Jesus Christ under what rock did you come out of?

BTW: The only thing Regan will ever be is an old man who was a puppet for the right. It was his best performance who always had the best scripts (Hell, better than his "B" movie scripts). I think it was Oscar worthy in the 80s.

Jimmy Carter is never shy about speaking his mind on various issues, but he seldom makes remarks as "partisan" as his comments about Zell Miller. It's too bad former Gov. Barnes didn't appoint Carter rather than Miller to the Coverdell vacancy a few years ago.

You really have to question the credibility of anybody who seriously considers Reagan to be,
"truly the best President of the past 100 years"
Like Dubya, he was essentially just a front man (albeit an effective one) for a coalition of Republican right wing interest groups.
During much of Reagan's second term, his wife and staff rigidly controlled his access to the outside world to prevent anybody from discovering his (then) small but growing mental impairment. Even Margaret Thatcher famously commented, "Poor dear. There's nothing between his ears."

If you want a good Republican president, don't underestimate Gerald Ford. He brought the country together after the Watergate scandal and the resignation of "unindicted co-conspirator" Richard Nixon. As a member of the House for 25 years, he knew how to get along with Congress. His only appointment to the Supreme Court was John Paul Stevens, not some fundamentalist ideologue. In an era of high inflation, he was able to bring the rate below 6% in 1976 without relying on half-baked economic theories.
Gerald Ford was lucid as president and he's lucid at age 90, bless his soul!

A Republican as decent, honorable, and moderate as Ford could never get his party's presidential nomination these days.

Yes, I stand by the Bush / Mussolini comparison. The sine qua non of facism is not the conservatism that the National Review espouses. It is a melding of the State with the dominant corporate interests in the country. Whether its Cheny's secret energy policy, the Halliburon / Bechtel war in Iraq, Boeing bribing the DOD, big Agriculture writing our farm policy, plundering of our National natural resources for pennies on the dollar, etc., our government has become a subsidiary of "Corporation, Inc." With all due respects to our penultimate great Republican Prez (TR being the last), we have a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

Essentially, Bush has opened the federal coffers for a raid by big business to get even bigger. (Where is TR when you need him) This may not be George Will / Bill Buckley conservatism, but it sure looks like Benito. If one asks where is the "socialist component" of Bush, Inc., it is the massive spending of the federal government to benefit the few. In a cruel twist of Churchill's statement, "Never have so many owed so much to so few."

And by the way, we'll just see if Bush tries to cancel next years election . . . . .

I dislike Bush as much as the next guy but a comparison with Mussolini is a little harsh- Bush is not genocidal, he works within the constructs of the Republic and while right wing he's certainly not a fascist. Furthermore, I think that its hard to call him a "moderate" or "centrist." He has done what conservatives dream of- slashed taxes, blown up the military and put the government in our bedrooms over and over again. Face it- conservativism is not about smaller government, its about smaller government for wealthy white men and everyone else can kiss their asses. This president is just as, if not more, conservative than Reagan, Hoover and McKinley. I have a little more respect for Reagan than most Democrats- I think that his push for military dominance put the final nail in the Russian's coffins and after a couple of decades of government run amock a conservative outlook was needed to trim the fat off of Washington. Still, I would say that TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and possibly Nixon were all better presidents than he was.

WhoMe?,

That's nonsense. The fascist economic system is nothing like what Bush supports. Your analogy only works if you deal solely in stereotypes and broad brushstrokes. In truth, fascism was about subordinating everything to the state, including private corporate interests. They were only allowed to flourish so long as it was believed they served the state, hence 'national socialism' in Germany.

Fascism evolved out of far-left ideologies, but then eventually came to oppose them. It carved out its own mythical history to gain traditional legitimacy, although it was patently relativistic in terms of morality, and antagonistic towards religion -- anything that could divide people and potentially harm loyalty towards the state. To claim that a modern-day Republican could embody anything resembling these ideas is laugable.

"Fascism evolved out of far-left ideologies"

Nah uh! Someone hasn't being paying attention to their political science classes has she.

"If liberalism emphasized people as individuals, conservatives urge a focus on society and its traditions...

Fascist believe that the class focus on socialism is too divisive, especially because it emphasizes status as either a worker or an owner over a person's national heritage. Fascist leaders emphasize the importance of race and nationality, promoting in many cases a racially pure community of individual who work together without divisions."

page 194
Comparative Politics of the Third World
December Green and Laura Luehrmann
2003 Lynne Rienner Publishers

(if i could put a chart in this, I would scan the chart that shows the different traditions from left to right showing fascism on the far right).

The term facist is volleyed about so often that it often loses its impact, but I again stand by claim that Bush, Inc. is a move towards facism in this country.

This era of corporate takeover is unique to prior examples in our history. In the past, government has been an impediment to corporate takeover. Often government was not very effective in this role, but it had the role nonetheless. Today, the Federal government is the implementing tool of corporate takeover. The Fed. Gov assists mega corps whether it means essentially giving away natural resources on public lands, or innoculating them from any liability when they commit malfeasance.

We have today the following situation: (i) corporate interests dictating federal policy in all spheres; (ii) a foreign policy based on waging war and a militaristic build up; (iii) fierce patriotism coupled with a government that derides dissent as a lack of patriotism;(iv) a "Nationalist" policy of encouring suspicion of those of other (i.e. Mideast, etc.) Nationalities; and (v) the ability of the President to brand someone an enemy of the State ("enemy combatant") with no guiding criteria or review by other branches of government.

George Orwell would be proud.

People often ask how could the Germans have allowed National Socialism to grow and commit the atrocities of the Holocaust? The answer is that such governments do not occur overnight. They come about slowly. Like the lobster that jumps out of the pot of already boiling water, but sits around and eventually boils to death when placed in a coll pot as the heat is slowly ratcheted up.

We have had a tragic national attack, a policy of generic scapegoating (many americans that the middle easterners in general are to blame, hence why a majority of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9-11), a reaction that ignores the link between the peretrators and those blamed.

Sounds like the burning of the Reichstag and . . . well, you all know what happened next.

I think that George W. Bush is an ignorant putz whose administration specializes is helping the truly greedy.
However, I think that wacko statements that imply the administration engineered 9/11, like,
Sounds like the burning of the Reichstag and . . . well, you all know what happened next.
instantly mark the individual as a conspiracy nutcake.

Curiously, both the fringe left and the Bushies find common ground in trying to link Iraq and 9/11.

It's true that Bush & Co. saw an opportunity after 9/11 and jumped on it. George Soros makes that point in the December 2003 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/12/soros.htm

But there's not the slightest shred of evidence that there was an administration conspiracy behind the 9/11 terror attacks. Though it's obvious that a major breach in national security took place during the Republicans' watch.

Tim,

If my analogy suggested that I believe that Bush had anything to do with causing 9-11, I did not intend for it to do so. I can see how the analogy implied something that I did not intend it to do so.

Although I agree with your view that Bush bears some responsibility because the event took place on the Republican's watch. Part of the reason it did so is because the Bush National Security team made anti-terorism initiatives, a priority of the previous adminsitartion, tale a back seat to missle defense, the new administration's top defense priority. Of course, this is ineptidue on his part, not malice.

Nonetheless, Bush took horrible advantage of the situation, and used it to move our country in a very perilious direction.

By the way, the ad hominem attack (" . . . . . instantly mark the individual as a conspiracy nutcake.") is the weakest rhetorical device. Maybe they don't teach rhetoric anymore?

Mike,

Nah uh! Someone hasn't being paying attention to their political science classes has she.

#1 - I'm not a she.

#2 - It is an indisputable fact that fascism did evolve out of left-wing ideologies. Prior to conjuring up fascism, Mussolini was in socialist intellectual circles. Moreover, Mussolini wrote in many far-left ideas into fascism, such as moral relativism, atheism, and so on.

Today, fascism is generally considering right-wing by scholars simply because it is racist and militaristic (I would dispute those being right-wing values, but that's the reasoning). However, it proceeded from the leftist intellectual tradition.

WhoMe?,

You're a nut, and you don't even understand what fascism is. You've gotten the whole system backwards.

Sorry about the gender mix up, It happends. Well, i guess i spent 1800 of the government money to get the wrong information of facism. Darn those scholary people who actually study this years and years to come up with a defintion.

Owen,

I need remind you too that the ad hominem attack is the weakest rhetorical device. ("WhoMe?, You're a nut ..")

Facism defies a simple definition as having "left wing origins." Many a commentator have described the facist phenomenon in Italy as a bourgeous rebellion in which the more prosperous middle class (the shopkeepers, professionals, etc.) started the movement as they feared slipping down into the ranks of the working classes. Hence, the "populist" base, but certainly not left wing. Of course, the middle classes were being duped as the movement never supported their financial interests.

Very reminiscient of the contemporary American suburban middle class folks who resent those "below" them on the social ladder out of fear that they are one generation themselves removed from a working class background, and who are convinced to vote against their economic self-interest because the Right has scared them into believing that the "culture war" is about to destroy "their way of life."

Of course, there are several "shades" of facism, and no two countries in which the crucibles of facism are born, are entirely alike (1920-30s Italy and contemporary American have many differences). "Roma Facista" and National Socialism (pre / early Hitler) and Nazism ("late" Hitler) all have their differences, but have common elements. Is the facist direction in which Bush, Inc. taking us
identical to Mussolini's regime? Of course not, but the similarities in the melding of corporate & state identity are very close. I suggest that you put down your rigid definitions from your college history text and think for yourself.

If we are comitted to believing that facism can never happen in America, then it most certainly will.

For those of you who are convinced that facisim came out of a left wing ideology why then did Franco, a facist dictator, wage war on the socialist Spanish Republicans? Why did Hitler jail and murder socialist and communist labor activists? Why did Stalin, a communist with facistic flair, murder and commit thousands of socialists to the gulag? Sure, Mussolini was a socialist before he became a facist, so was Hitler. Big deal. Zell Miller is democrat in name only because now he sounds like a facist and he certainly does not sound like any democrat I've ever heard. Michael Savage (Weiner) was a liberal Marin County Jew, probably a democrat once. But now he reads like a facist. As I drove home from my farm in Idaho last night, I listened in shock as I heard the frothing at the mouth from Zell Miller and the GOP going wild over his antics at the GOP convention, I knew then, there are many people among us who if given the opportunity, would sell their souls to a Republican Facist State where there is no tolerance of opinion. I believe those same people are the kind who could be convinced in a facist state to rat on their progressive friends and neighbors in the name of security and divide their land and posessions in the name of "opportunity and freedom".

john