Saturday, December 29, 2007

More right wing-nut absurdity

I'm going to have too check out Jonah Goldberg's new piece of trash. It's titled, Liberal Fascism. In it he attempts to argue that 20th century liberals are fascists. It is obvious from the title alone that Goldberg has no clue what he is talking about.

Let's just take the historical perspective: Quick, which culturally liberal society was fascist in the 30s! You know, the ones that burned books, and thought it best to separate the races. The one so liberal that the leading scientists fled the country. Better yet, which ally to the south actually coined the phrase as corporations were allowed to rule the country.

Then lets step forward to today. Since 1980 we've had one Democratically controlled Congress and one Democrat for president, not counting our current Congress. Twenty eight years of Republican rule, and look at the results: a Republican candidate for President saying soft fascism is on our doorstep.

And one would think that Goldberg has no clue what the definition of fascism is. But wait! Maybe that's the trick here. We've all seen how the right wing of this country likes to flip-flop not only policies but definitions of words as well. Take for example an escalation of an occupation, which they label as a "surge" in a "war." They like to label dissenters as "traitors," despite the legislation proceeding from their own kind that actually contradicts our own Constitution. Think Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act here.

So that is possibly Goldberg's game here. Completely alter the definition of the word, "
A system of government marked by centralization of authority(check out job additions largest benefactor lately, think HSD) under a dictator(Bush said this path would be easier, see HJ RES 24), stringent socioeconomic controls,(that benefit a minority) suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship(media conglomeration), and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism(support our troops) and racism.(Listen to Mike savage or Ann Coulter talk about Middle Easterners.)"

And let's not forget, "a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism) ."

So Mr. Golberg, care to compare Presidential candidates for 2008? Hmmm, I see a similarity on the Republican side. All the viable candidates are white guys. Mr. Keyes hardly counts as he barely made the one debate in Iowa. And listen to what he said! Could this be just an example of institutionalized racism? Or look at the smear attempts by the right with Obama's name.

Goldberg's book won't make it into a high place on my reading list. I'm sure that nut jobs like O'Reilly will , and Hannity, mostly so they can continue to count on someone else's words for them to try and look original with. But any seriously educated person knows that Goldberg, who if he is has forgotten his education, is simply a right wing shill and smoke screen on this issue.

Just ask Ron Paul, the Republican candidate for president who happens to be raising the most money.


Post a Comment

<< Home