I have done it myself, but I don't think calling people fascists helps the cause of freedom. Steve Forbes gives us a model of how to argue against the liberty grab that is going on:
One hesitates to bring up the economics of Benito Mussolini and his ilk because fascism means ugly nationalism and racism, as well as mass murder and aggressive war. So let's label the economic part of that ideology as neosocialist, corporatist, statist or--to be sophisticated and use a French word--dirigiste.
Under the corporatist state, private companies exist but take their direction from government. Competition is seen as wasteful and destructive and therefore must be "managed." There is a basic hostility toward small businesses precisely because there are so many of them, making them harder to regulate and more apt to do things without government permission.Next Up T.R. Fehrenbach explains how business is undermined by greedy politicians:
Statism certainly creates a facade of stability...
The majority of Americans work and therefore eat and pay taxes because they are involved in some sort of surplus-producing private business, from industry to sales to finance to science and agriculture. Enterprises such as charities, education, and government — non-profits in general — are utterly dependent on profit-making business for funding. You'd think people would grasp this when things get rough.We are dependent on business, not government, to create wealth
There are many reasons for this. Business is always being undermined by the demons inherent in democracy: greedy politicians and populist programs that gut it. By and large, educators and clergy, who create no wealth, put other callings first.
Bright people are urged not to go into business and make money but to serve their fellow man. The problem is, nobody can serve anybody without the wherewithal. Many people who live off donations and taxes affect to despise the source, much in the manner that clean-handed lords despised their grubbing serfs.Required Reading: George Will's Cato Institute Speech
It is too brilliant to excerpt here. Go read the whole thing
Peter Ferrara offers a quick economic history of the 20th Century.
He explains how supply-side, pro-growth policies worked not Just for Reagan, but for Kennedy and Harding as well. Read it, understand it, bookmark it. This is essential information for those of us who routinely argue with delusional liberals who claim Reagan wrecked the economy.
13 comments:
"Under the corporatist state, private companies exist but take their direction from government. Competition is seen as wasteful and destructive and therefore must be "managed." There is a basic hostility toward small businesses precisely because there are so many of them, making them harder to regulate and more apt to do things without government permission.
Statism certainly creates a facade of stability..."
This sounds so eerily familiar..
Steve Forbes nails it. Instead of pointing a screaming "fascist!" at the statist Democrats, we need to dissect them and their motives as Mr. Forbes has done.
Time to dismantle the progressive machine.
Silver,
While I fully undestand your point I also believe in "Calling a spade, a spade".
People are waking-up and it is time for them to see reality for what it is.
Fascism is exactly the proper term and I for one will continue to use it. One does not need to "scream" the term but rather use it and explain. Forbes did so but under a term most will not know therfore not fear as should be the case.
Christopher:
People go back and forth on this, so I consider it a useless argument. Obama is not a dictator, he's not marching people off to gulags and death chambers, Obamism lacks the nationalistic and religious egoism and the military component.
Central-planning tendencies and turning private companies to the will of the state is about all they got.
Fascism, like nazi and racist, is a loaded word that detracts from the central argument and derails the debate.
Central planning vs. the free market, government control vs. personal liberty is where the fertile ground in this argument is.
Name-calling doesn't win debates or sway the undecided.
Power of the state vs. power to the people is a winning argument every time.
Fascism is not name calling it is a political ideology/system as Forbes alludes to by mentioning Mussolini.
What Hitler did was not related to Fascism but rather his own, repeat own insane, evil mind.
If one adheres to Fascism or in National Socialism (Nazi)political ideology then they must be called to the carpet on such in a country historically opposed to such anti-freedom agendas.
Again, call a spade a spade. There is no good reason to sugar-coat it.
If you exclude Hitler, then you are using the narrow, original definition of Mussolini's Italy.
Other than central planning, what exactly are the parallels you cite to justify your position?
Umm, I did not realize I needed anymore examples other than central planning?
There is a thing called STATES RIGHTS or more simply put THE PEOPLE. This runs counter to central planning or more simply put FASCISM.
As the shallow end of the Forbes gene pool puts it:
"One hesitates to bring up the economics of Benito Mussolini and his ilk because fascism means ugly nationalism and racism, as well as mass murder and aggressive war. So let's label the economic part of that ideology as neosocialist, corporatist, statist or--to be sophisticated and use a French word--dirigiste.
But one only hesitates for a moment then cheerfully drags Mussolini into the discussion in the hope, subsequently proved, that Mussolini will lead to Hitler etc. etc.
Well done!
Thank you Arthur for helping me out. I am sincere in my gratitude.
See Christopher? A genuine progressive shows up and he immediately zooms in on the fascist charge.
Central planning is but one characteristic of fascism.
Here is the flaw in your logic: Murderers use guns, so everyone who uses a gun is a murderer.
I don't need a lecture on states rights and the rights of free people, I've written about these topics many times, including this month.
Ii appreciate your zeal, Christopher, but we must zero in on the root of the issue, and based on Hayek, I believe it is this:
If the statist central planners can't incentivize, bribe or coerce us into cooperating with their plans, then what?
That is the point where the the statist must either see his plans fail or enforce it with an iron fist.
I said nothing of it leading anywhere (besides the obvious economic ruin) to Hitler or iron fist but both the 'progressive' and you did.
All I am saying is the the core of fascism as an political ideology is central planning and that in of itself runs counter to the pronciples this nation was founded on, period.
At the risk of being repetative call a spade a spade,fascism and that is exactly what Hussein and the current politburo are creating i.e. finacial, health, auto, higher education, internet, immigration, news media, unions and on and on
Gentleman, could it be true? A discussion and disagreement without name calling..
WMUR: Indeed. Could it be that we are not all the knuckle-dragging slanderous nazis from Hicksville that the left thinks we are?
I see goodwill and candor all over Right Blogistan. We're discussing ideas while most of Left Blogistan is foaming at the mouth and tuned to the government propaganda spewing from MSNBC.
It's a battle of ideas, and we are winning.
Christopher and I agree on about 99% of the issues, so why get mad over slight differences?
Well said Silver, well said!
Post a Comment