Jim posed the question of what I consider to be extremist views on the Far Right side of the political spectrum, and that got me to thinking (thanks for the question, Jim!). I wouldn't call this an exhaustive explanation, but I think I can give a few points that outline my own admittedly VERY subjective views on what is extreme. These are in no particular order, though I think the first clearly defines the person as an extremist:
1. Belief in the myriad conspiracy theories floating around the Right Wing blogosphere. Here a few examples, by no means all of the craziness out there:
The "birther" conspiracy. Whether it's the insistence that the perfectly legal short form birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii is a fake, to trumped up documents of a Kenyan birth, it's quite clear that believing that Barack Obama isn't an American born native citizen is not a mainstream belief. And the idea that numerous Hawaiian State agencies, Illinois State agencies, and Federal Elections Committee working groups ALL colluded to put one over on the American people strains the patience of those in the center or left.
The DREAM Act is President Obama's way to "steal the election in 2012". What this conspiracy theory seems to ignore is that once upon a time, when there were actually moderate voices within the Republican caucus, immigration reform was a bipartisan attempt at fixing a broken systems. If fact, before Sen. John McCain was challenged by a Tea Party favorite and tacked completely to the right, he was actually one of the loudest voices on the Republican side of the aisle for immigration reform. And that reform generally included some sort of way to integrate illegal immigrants that were already here into the process, whether you call it "amnesty" or not.
The Muslim community is trying to create Sharia law in the U. S. Forget the fact that there aren't enough Muslims in the U. S. to be able to move any legislation forward (and only one Muslim in Congress). This one just seems to ignore the reality of our democratic process...
2. Belief that the Constitution is an infallible document to be frozen in time and revered as such, not unlike considering the Bible the "literal Word of God". If you're going to a Constitution study group, much in the same way that you're going to a Bible study, you fall on the extreme side of this equation. Most of us in the center believe that our founders did their best to compromise their very different opinions and views, and created a negotiated document that even they very quickly realized needed to be amended. Hence the First Amendment, a fairly significant addition, considered to be one of the hallmarks of American democracy. Once again, the point is that we live in a world that is evolving and one that is not simple black and white. What would the founders have thought about regulating the Internet, laws for automobiles, and other 20th and 21st century technologies? Tough to know. Maybe considering it a living document might make more sense?
3. Agreeing with most everything that Glenn Beck says. I know this will get me in trouble with all you on the far right, but Beck is not equivalent to Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or most of the other commentators on Fox News (nor is he the mirror-image equivalent of Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews). While Hannity and O'Reilly are profoundly to the right, Beck is a throwback to the radical extremist views of the 1950's and 1960's, to the days of the formation of The John Birch Society and the roots of the Cold War mentality of that era. He positions himself as less of a commentator and more as an "educator", but he uses as his sources older texts that have been widely shown to be fallacious and discredited within the circles of serious scholarship. W. Cleon Skousen and Robert Welch, Sen. McCarthy and the Communist conspiracy, "The 5,000 Yearl Leap" and 'The Naked Communist". Fortunately, during that era, you had intelligent voices of true conservatism that modified the conspiracy theorists, people like William F. Buckley Jr. and the National Review. Buckley was concerned that the extremism of the far right at that time would lead to Fascism, and he was at the forefront of the conservative movement that brought Ronald Reagan to power. Who is that moderate voice now? Moderate voices were voted out in 2010. I would highly recommend that anyone interested in the historical background of Glenn Beck's politics read an excellent New Yorker magazine article titled "Confounding Fathers: The Tea Party's Cold War Roots".
4. And that leads to this: identifying with the Tea Party and the drumming out of the moderate voices within the conservative movement. While I don't want to paint them with too broad a brush, as the tea parties do not appear to be a coordinated group with a definitive political philosophy and agenda, there's one thing that seems to be occurring with their rise within the 2010 election cycle: less and less variation within the thought processes of the Republican Party, and the near death of the "moderate Republican" within the halls of Congress and the Senate. For those of us in the center, this is a truly disturbing trend.
Again, I'll stress that these are a few of my admittedly very subjective views of extremism on the Right. Maybe we should discuss extremism on the Left at some point too, huh? :>)
A conversation about politics, government, and the media: from the center, with hopefully a little less of the irrational "heat" and a little more logical thinking applied. Yeah, call me crazy....
I believe Jim asked for a definition of "far right," not "right-wing extremism." There are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. I would define those as being beyond those who are either to the far right and far left. Could you please provide your definition now of "far right" without including the extremists? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteJohn McCain is not a far right politician. Most conservatives consider him a "RINO."
ReplyDeleteFederal legislation is not necessary to create adherence to Sharia law in certain communities. It has actually been attempted in some communities. It hasn't worked, but you might want to take a look at what's happening in England before you think this is some wild and crazy conspiracy theory.
Considering the Constitution a living document is in no way a centrist view. It is a liberal/progressive point of view. Have you read much about how the Constitution was written? What the founders and the ratifiers of the Constitution had to say? Did you read the notes people took at the Constitutional Convention? It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you are providing the "party line" about the Constitution and that party is in no way a right leaning party.
I also sense that you never watch Glenn Beck's show, so I have to wonder where you get your information about him, certainly not from right-leaning sources. What does that leave? Could you please supply me with some evidence that the books you mentioned "have been widely shown to be fallacious and discredited within the circles of serious scholarship"? I found one article, but it was so stupid, it doesn't bear mentioning, but then it didn't seem to be a scholarly source.
@ Fred - Given the current state of American politics, it's hard to separate "far right" from "right-wing extremism". That's kind of my point.
ReplyDeleteThe center, in terms of Republican politics, is disappearing, as the 2010 mid-terms have shown us. The current status of Sen. McCain is a good example of this stratification. He, in the past, has been willing to think outside the box, to find consensus (which is kind of how governance works), and come up with solutions to problems that will work. He's not a far right politician, but he HAS moved dramatically to the right in order to win re-election. Your referring to him as a RINO is yet another example of this stratification.
And Fred, I'm not sure what you think a centrist is supposed to be. If considering the Constitution to be a document that has the ability to change to take into consideration circumstances that didn't exist at it's signing is a "liberal/progressive point of view", well, there you go! On some issues, I imagine that you can say that about me (I also believe that it's a travesty for American children to go to sleep hungry, a travesty for the elderly to die penniless and destitute, so sure, call me "liberal" on those particular social issues, if you like). And I've done my far share of reading the words and thoughts of our founders. I imagine that we happen to think differently about it. I think I'll have to consider a post to compare "born-again Christians" with "born-again Constitutionalists": there appears to be a lot of similarities... :>)
And lastly, I've watched more Glenn Beck than I've cared to, read more transcripts of his shows, and heard more soundclips from his radio show than is good for my high-blood pressure.... :>)
Did you read the New Yorker article I linked in my previous post? It's not a "scholarly source", but the editorial quality is very good, i.e. fact checked and vetted. The magazine in general is what I would call of a very high literary quality, one of the few left that publish short stories and poetry by emerging writers, and a number of their investigative articles have broken serious stories that we all need to know of (Abu Graib, etc.). It's worth the 20 minutes.....
@ Fred - Given the current state of American politics, it's hard to separate "far right" from "right-wing extremism". That's kind of my point.
ReplyDeleteThe center, in terms of Republican politics, is disappearing, as the 2010 mid-terms have shown us. The current status of Sen. McCain is a good example of this stratification. He, in the past, has been willing to think outside the box, to find consensus (which is kind of how governance works), and come up with solutions to problems that will work. He's not a far right politician, but he HAS moved dramatically to the right in order to win re-election. Your referring to him as a RINO is yet another example of this stratification.
And Fred, I'm not sure what you think a centrist is supposed to be. If considering the Constitution to be a document that has the ability to change to take into consideration circumstances that didn't exist at it's signing is a "liberal/progressive point of view", well, there you go! On some issues, I imagine that you can say that about me (I also believe that it's a travesty for American children to go to sleep hungry, a travesty for the elderly to die penniless and destitute, so sure, call me "liberal" on those particular social issues, if you like). And I've done my far share of reading the words and thoughts of our founders. I imagine that we happen to think differently about it. I think I'll have to consider a post to compare "born-again Christians" with "born-again Constitutionalists": there appears to be a lot of similarities... :>)
ReplyDeleteAnd lastly, I've watched more Glenn Beck than I've cared to, read more transcripts of his shows, and heard more soundclips from his radio show than is good for my high-blood pressure.... :>)
Did you read the New Yorker article I linked in my previous post? It's not a "scholarly source", but the editorial quality is very good, i.e. fact checked and vetted. The magazine in general is what I would call of a very high literary quality, one of the few left that publish short stories and poetry by emerging writers, and a number of their investigative articles have broken serious stories that we all need to know of (Abu Graib, etc.). It's worth the 20 minutes.....
I fail to see how your point was that the far right is the same as the extreme right. The fact that you have the two terms confused in your mind does not automatically translate into a thesis for what you've written. If that was your main point, you should have said so, or at the very least, written your post with that thesis as the guiding principle. You did neither, however. You simply used the terms interchangeably. That is not a thesis; that is an error.
ReplyDeleteIf the center is disappearing, how do you explain the popularity of Sarah Palin and the growth of the Tea Party movement? To you, those are extremes, but those are people who represent the right, not the extreme right. Your idea that these people are on the extreme right shows how confused people have become about what constitutes the center. McCain is not an example of any stratification. He does not think outside the box. He thinks like a liberal in many ways - that is most definitely not thinking outside the box. It's just the wrong box for a conservative to be in. He was leaning too far to the left, and so he is now moving toward the right, which is where conservatives are supposed to be. My referring to him as a RINO is not an example of any stratification. It is an example of a conservative not sticking with conservative values.
And Dirty, I'm not sure what you think a centrist is supposed to be. If you think that considering the Constitution as a living document is a centrist view, you are no centrist.
ReplyDeleteThe Progressive Party Platform of 1912 said this:
"The Progressive party, believing that a free people should have the power from time to time to amend their fundamental law so as to adapt it progressively to the changing needs of the people, pledges itself to provide a more easy and expeditious method of amending the Federal Constitution."
The founders intended it to be difficult to amend the Constitution. They were quite purposeful in putting the amendment process together. Over the years, progressives have gone from stating they wanted to provide an easier and more expeditious method of amending the Constitution to just bypassing the amendment process altogether and claiming that the Constitution is a living document. That eliminates the need to go through the amendment process, but it sure does make it easier to "change" the Constitution.
If you think that believing the Constitution to be a living document is a centrist view, then one of two things is true: you do not understand the progressive ideal of the Constitution or the media's presentation of America has shifted so far to the left that the left looks like the center and the center looks like the far right. I suspect both to be a partially true. The latter is also why people like you see the Tea Party to be full of right-wing extremists.
You say you have done your "far [sic] share of reading the words and thoughts of our founders." Okay, so which of their words and thoughts suggest that they believed the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted rather than amended?
Also, since you've done all that reading, can you tell me the basis for our Constitution? What is the idea it is based on? What is the primary role of the federal government, according to those who wrote and ratified the Constitution? From the writings of which philosophers/writers did our founders base the idea for our Constitution?
I look forward to your answers and to your post comparing born-again Christians to "born-again Constitutionalists." The use of the second term itself is full of problems that will weaken any comparison.
Dirty, if you actually watched the Glenn Beck show, you would not consider him an extremist. You might disagree with him and even find him distasteful, but he's hardly an extremist. That is the view of the far left websites. Soundclips don't count, not for any commentator. They are too often taken out of context.
ReplyDeleteI did not read the New Yorker article since I don't see any links in your previous post, other than the one to the Nolan chart website. How do you know the article is fact checked and vetted? I am quite familiar with the New Yorker, and I would expect the editorial quality to be good. That does not mean that it does not have a political slant to it, nor does it make it a scholarly piece of work. Perhaps you'd like to post a link to that article so we can all read it.
@ Fred - The last sentence of section 3 of my initial post suggests The New Yorker article on Glenn Beck and the Cold War foundation of the Tea Party movement. The title is indeed a link and I clicked on it and it took me to the article, so it's definitely working. Don't know why it isn't working for you..... And I've made no claim that the New Yorker article is "scholarly". Frankly, I don't really know that it matters to me whether it is "scholarly" or has had "peer review". If I check on the sources of his information, and do a bit of looking at those that he's interviewed for the story, they seem to be good sources. And sure, there may well be a political slant: as long as the information is not blatantly incorrect or mendacious, I'll do my best to figure out the slant of the author and discount their opinions by that slant. Hopefully, they're a journalist that follows the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. And you've got an interesting mix of ideas, Fred: on the one hand, you're interested in peer review of information and scholarly studies, yet I'll bet your primary source of daily news is Fox. That strikes me as a bit peculiar...
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not certain how the platform of a political party from 100 years ago has anything to do with what people call "progressive" in 2011.
And as to Glenn Beck not being an extremist, I guess that just tells me how far to the right your views are, even though you clearly don't think of yourself in that way. And to call Sarah Palin and Tea Party ideas in the center is ludicrous by ANYONE'S definition of what the center in current American politics is. Do you think that W. Cleon Skousen was not an extremist? Even Ronald Reagan considered him one.....
Mr. GoodBadDirty What do you believe the Tea party stands for?
ReplyDeleteReally, Dirty, you need to stop playing Humpty Dumpty and use words properly. You said the link to the Atlantic article was in your previous post and then you say it was in your initial post. Your initial post is the one you started your blog with, isn't it? There is also a difference between a post and a reply. If you want to be a credible blogger, you really need to learn how to refer to posts. Otherwise people won't know what you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteYou do seem to have a bit of a problem with using words, as you also confuse far right with extremist, which tells me you don't understand what the word "extremist" means. You really can't describe how a group fits a definition when it's your own personal definition, unless your stated point is to demonstrate that your definition is different that the accepted definition of the rest of the English speaking world.
When you want to use your own definitions of terms, it would be very helpful to the rest of us if you would provide your definition so we're all on the same page and don't waste time trying to figure out your meaning.
Dirty, you are the one who brought up scholarly; I was simply elaborating. If you didn't think it mattered, why did you bring it up? Do you know who the article's author is? Did you check on that? He's not a journalist, so he doesn't have to follow any journalist code of ethics - as if that always matters in journalism these days. If you want to adequately "vet" an article's author, you ought to find out who he is. I am interested in scholarly studies and peer reviewed articles in certain circumstances - like when someone tries to pass off a poll as a scholarly study. I do watch Fox News during the day, which is when their news programs air. Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly are not news programs. Why you should think watching Fox News and being interested in seeing that work that passes itself off as scholarly should appear in peer reviewed journals is peculiar strikes me as peculiar.
ReplyDeleteYou apparently missed my point, Dirty, most likely in your zeal to "prove" that I am far right. I could say the same thing about you being on the far left, but that would be completely unproductive. People who think Glenn Beck is an extremist either do not watch his program and get their views from, oh, say, articles in the New Yorker written by left-leaning historians, or they don't recognized that what they are told is the center in America is actually the left. From that perspective the center appears to be the right and the right appears to be far right. Please read that carefully. I realize it might be confusing to some people who have trouble grasping the concepts of right, far right, and extremists.
ReplyDeleteAlso in your zeal to slap that far right label on me, you misread what I said about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. I did not say they were in the center. I said this, "If the center is disappearing, how do you explain the popularity of Sarah Palin and the growth of the Tea Party movement? To you, those are extremes, but *those are people who represent the right, not the extreme right.*" Got it now?
I'm not surprised that you aren't certain how the platform of a political party from 100 years ago has anything to do with what people call "progressive" in 2011. I would guess that you know very little about the history of the progressive movement and how many of its goals and philosophies have been adopted by the Democratic party. If you understood that, you'd understand the connection. Have you forgotten that Hiliary Clinton claimed to be a proud progressive in the tradition of the progressives of the early 19th century? Show me where you see people in the center claiming that the Constitution is a living document. That is a position of the left, which is where progressives lie on the political spectrum.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you avoid answering the questions I posed about the Constitution? Those questions made up the most significant part of my replies. For your convenience, I'm repeating what I said in one of my earlier replies:
"You say you have done your "far [sic] share of reading the words and thoughts of our founders." Okay, so which of their words and thoughts suggest that they believed the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted rather than amended?
Also, since you've done all that reading, can you tell me the basis for our Constitution? What is the idea it is based on? What is the primary role of the federal government, according to those who wrote and ratified the Constitution? From the writings of which philosophers/writers did our founders base the idea for our Constitution?"
Fred:
ReplyDeleteOffering Glenn Beck as a source positions you as a right-wing extremist, like it or not. He is often factually inaccurate; hell, he's a liar on a regular basis, and feeds into paranoid delusions about American politics. No real argument of fact and logic can be made using him as a source.
The rest of your arguments are sophistry at best, ignorance at worst. I suspect you're geting your info/opinions from the John Birch Society, and their lack of real knowledge of the constitution is appalling.
Parsing, arguing over nit points is hardly making your case, IMHO.
Labeling an opinion or idealogy as 'extremist' is a key practice in the art of the smear. For instance, one could be moderately healthy or extremely healthy. Would one infer that the extremely healthy person was dangerous or deranged or out of touch with reality?
ReplyDeleteYeats said the center cannot hold. I say there never has been in reality a center...I reject the left/right paradigm because it is a mental box we have accepted to help define the limits of what we are allowed to think. Who's further left of the furthest left guy you can find, what is the farthest to the right you can go? There is no objective definition.
Kurt:
ReplyDeleteFrankly, that's just silly. Extremism can be quantified, unless you're not comfortable about such things. Where the line of demarcation from L or R changes into extremism can be debated, but that doesn't mean such a transition doesn't exist.
And L & R are not just box, any more than French or English speaking is. There are defined traits and beliefs held by both L & R, to greater and lesser degrees, which is where the whole discussion got started.
If you want to hold yourself above the fray, that's fine. But it's also uncommitted as well.
Steve, show me where I used Beck as a source. Read again what I said about Beck. Sophistry? Really? Show me where my reasoning is faulty and/or invalid. Show me, too, where you get the idea that I am ignorant. Of what? The Constitution? What did I say about it that indicates I am ignorant. As for arguing over nit points, it's called refuting. It is showing where and how a person's claims and reasoning are at fault. Your reply to me consists of nothing but logic fallacies. There is not a single thing in your reply that refutes a single thing I said. Would you like to try again, this time pointing (accurately) to things I've said and then showing how what I said is wrong?
ReplyDeleteSo Steve, you agree with me and disagree with Dirty in the view that there is a difference between the far right and the extreme right? Dirty claims it's all the same.
ReplyDelete@ Kurt - I respect that you choose not to think in the "left/right" box. The truth generally is that people's political viewpoints are more complex than that. On the subject of being in the center, I make no claims that all of my viewpoints are centrist in nature: I would acknowledge that I agree with "liberals" on some social issues, libertarians on some issues of personal freedom, and conservatives on fiscal matters in general. That doesn't make me any less a centrist, regardless of what some may say....
ReplyDelete@ Fred - To your last point, I would say that in the last few years the "far right" has become extremist in nature. I don't believe that this has necessarily always been the case, but it appears to be now. The American political landscape has stratified and is, quite frankly, broken. No one talks to each other: we just YELL. And no one can govern when all that many want to do is lecture on who's purer than whom, or call each other names and attempt to smear their integrity. It's a truly sad state...
Dirty, you are free to express your opinion and if it is your opinion that the far right and the extreme right have become one, that's fine. However, I would expect that opinion to be supported by evidence. Otherwise, it's just bar-room blather. And since I'm here wanting to talk to you, unlike those in the political landscape you describe, I expect more than bar-room blather. So, please explain the position of the right previously, the position of the extreme right previously, and then demonstrate how the two have melded today.
ReplyDeleteBut really, I'm much more interested in your answers to my questions about the Constitution. I eager to hear from someone who's as widely read as you are on the Constitution and the founders on how they intended it to be a living document.
I'm not yelling. I'm sitting here waiting for your explanation.....
Hmm, interesting discussion. I'm confused. Is fascism a product of the left-wing or the right-wing?
ReplyDeleteWell, I'd say fascism is a product of the left, but I'll warrant that Dirty and Steve would see it as a product of the right. I really don't want to get Dirty sidetracked anymore though. I'm quite eager to hear his wisdom on the Constitution and the founding fathers. He's apparently quite well read on the subject.
ReplyDeleteSay, maybe Dirty can create a whole new post on the Constitution and how the founding fathers intended it to be a living document! Why bury that wisdom in the middle of comments on a post about the extreme right? How about it, Dirty? Why not write a whole new post? You could answer my questions in that post. Then we can all focus here on what is the left, the right, the extreme right, the extreme left, and now fascism (unless you'd like to write a new post on fascism). Man, being a blogger looks like it's a lot of work.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, it appears as though Dirty's ideology is still in the formative phase as it not only lacks clarity and substantiative evidence, but rather, is strikingly characteristic of a drunken, rambling stupor. Clarity of thought produces clarity of text, and this is not evident. Identifying whether the left or the right is fascist is often the litmus test in distinguishing a maturity of correct political mechanisms. In doing so, one is able to then either defend or debunk the Constitution against the perspective of supporting the State versus supporting the people.
ReplyDeleteScurry, I have noticed that Dirty's (and Steve's) ideology lacks clarity and substance. I'm waiting to see how Dirty answers my questions about the Constitution and the founders, though, to make any further judgments.
ReplyDeleteWhy are my comments disappearing?
ReplyDeleteLet me translate this for you, Fred, as analysis of leftist debate is a hobby of mine.
ReplyDelete"Offering Glenn Beck as a source positions you as a right-wing extremist, like it or not."
First we accuse you of something of which you are innocent, then we call you a name.
(cont'd)
ReplyDelete"He is often factually inaccurate; hell, he's a liar on a regular basis, and feeds into paranoid delusions about American politics. No real argument of fact and logic can be made using him as a source."
He's a liar, delusional, has no fact and logic, blah, blah, blah. Note, no refuting of facts and more name calling, that's weird. (how am I doing so far? this is quite easy btw)
(cont'd)
ReplyDelete"The rest of your arguments are sophistry at best, ignorance at worst. I suspect you're geting your info/opinions from the John Birch Society, and their lack of real knowledge of the constitution is appalling."
Your argument stinks because I say so.
"Parsing, arguing over nit points is hardly making your case, IMHO"
I can't refute anything you say so you didn't make a good case.
So to sum up he could have just said this and been done with it: You're an extremist that listens to a paranoid liar, Your argument stinks because you didn't make a good case.
Scurryfunge: Fascism is somply the collusion between government and business, and is practiced by both left and right in either side's efforts to either advance a social or a militaristic agenda. Sans the brown shirts and swastikas, FDR's New Deal and 2nd Bill Of Rights mirrored the Nazi Party platform.
ReplyDelete...which begs the question, was Hitler a man of the right or the left?
ReplyDeletePerhaps Dirty can write another blog about fascism. And another blog on his Constitution-as-a-living-document theory, in which he answers my questions. I think that's three new blog entries. Blogging sure can keep a person busy!
ReplyDeleteHey Fred - I would suggest that you write about the subjects that interest you on YOUR blog. I'll write about what interests ME. That's kinda what blogging is about, isn't it? :>)
ReplyDelete@ Kurt - You're going to have to give a bit more detail as to how the New Deal and the Nazi Party mirrored each other! :>)
No need to get testy, dude. They were just suggestions for topics. So lets's stick to what you're interested in. Like the Constitution. Can you answer my questions about it now?
ReplyDeleteGBD: Read various versions of the 2nd Bill Of Rights, announced during the FDR administration and carried on idealogically to this very day. Then read the Nazi Party's platform of stated goals for Germany, written around 1930. Very similar. Obama himself is on record stating that the Constitution and BOR are a 'negative' set of rights (he should be arrested for corruption of language for saying that) in that nowhere did the Constitution promise what government would do FOR you (such as the Nazi Party, the 2nd Bill of Rights, or any statist regime starts out promising) --- Obama doesn't think it's sufficient to have all that stuff about individua rights (in fact, the concept of natural rights are very problematic to liberals) and about keeping the government from infringing on them. No, all statists want to make some people slaves to others, via taxes and regulation, and that is hard to reconcile with the idea of true individual sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteHey Kurt, I'd say this is a pretty decent summary of the history of progressivism, wouldn't you?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politiwonk.com/Politiwonk/PolitiBlog/Entries/2010/10/11_The_History_of_Progressivism.html
It helps make the connection between Hitler and Wilson. It does not explain the connection between FDR and Hitler, although FDR was, like Wilson, a progressive. Similarities between Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR are discussed here:
http://reason.com/archives/2007/09/28/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt
But then Dirty doesn't have to rely on these two sources. This information is quite widely available. All three (four, if you include Wilson) supported a strong national government and were anti-capitalist, favoring workers' rights over the rights of business owners. They also sought to direct aspect of people's lives.
Man, at this rate, I might not get an answer to my questions about the Constitution until next December. Ah well. I guess Dirty just wants to express himself and is just writing what is essentially an electronic journal. Huh. And here I thought he wanted a "conversation." That's what the intro to the blog says anyway. But I guess conversations really take too much effort.
ReplyDeleteYo, Fred! On vacation for a few days (wonderful Impressionist art exhibit at the De Young in San Francisco, so we drove up....), so I promised my wife that I wouldn't spend any time on politics! :>)
ReplyDeleteThat said, why has no one commented on the progressive and Tea Party get-together idea I posted from HuffPo?
Sounds like you had a good few days in San Fran. I for one haven't commented on the get-together idea because I've been gone all day today and I was really hoping for answers to my questions on the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI'm patient. I can wait for answers to my questions about the Constitution. I'll just post reminders every so often.
ReplyDeleteStill waiting.......
ReplyDeleteHuh. I just realized that it's been over a week since I asked my questions about the Constitution. I wouldn't think it would be so hard for someone who knows so much about it to answer those questions. It can't be that Dirty has been too busy since he's posted two additional blogs.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that he really doesn't know the answers to my questions and if he answers me at all, he'll fall back again on his "argument" that this is his blog and he can write whatever he's interested in.
Okay...I wonder what all the other readers will think (all three of them).
Darn! Here I thought that since Dirty was writing on his other posts, I thought he'd have come back here and answered my Constitution questions. Oh well, I'll check back again later. I bet other people who (will maybe eventually) read this blog would really like to know those answers too.
ReplyDeleteHuh. Here it is January 14th and still no answer to my questions. Helloooo????
ReplyDeleteWow! It's been two weeks since I asked my questions about the Constitution. Who would have thought it would take so long for someone so familiar with it to take so long to answer them!
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to conclude that Dirty simply *can't* answer them. Of course, maybe he's just refusing to answer them, but that would be rather strange. I'd think he'd want to enlighten his readers (me) on the Constitution.