Well, the same is true of "social conservatives." I figured they voted republican because all things being equal, they would prefer lower taxes, smaller government, and to vote for politicians who show less animosity toward religion. I wouldn't call them right-wing, tho. I'd call them motivated by their religious beliefs.
I said nothing about Richard Nixon. With your big '79 election map, you demonstrated nothing toward what we were actually talking about.
All white people are racist? I'm trying to figure out exactly what point you are trying to make then.
No. That all racist affiliations and groups therein are living under the big tent that we like to collectively call the American Right Wing. This includes the American Nazi Party, and the KKK. I suppose you could disagree with that, but the proof is there for you to see, and have seen.
What I see is some people LIKE TO collectively call it the right wing, correct or not. What is accurate is the Nazis in America are a tiny minority of all the people, while people aligned with what we call the left wing are much more closely aligned with the worst of the worst of the left wing. That is, Bush or Cheney or Tom Delay or any mainstream person you'd consider right wing are much further from Hitler's ideologies than Obama or Clinton (pick one) or Pelosi are to Stalin. In fact, I've shown those mainstream Democrats are closer to Hitler's ideology. I've supported my arguments with facts, while most of what I've seen on the other side of the argument are anecdotes. Like "I said nothing about Richard Nixon. With your big '79 election map, you demonstrated nothing toward what we were actually talking about." (the election results from 1968 and 1976 are facts).
ROTR; When you do get Liberal Fascism just look at the Nazi agenda/platform towards the end of the book. I agree that the NeoCon philosophy shares many fascist tendencies. You have to ask yourself what is a NeoCon? It is a Liberal who orginally was anti Soviet Union. Now, they are big spenders and a "Hawk" in terms of National defense & Foreign relations. Much like Lieberman & Hillary?
Wow. Actual conservatism (vs. neocons) is a 3 legged philosophy: libertarianism, traditionalism, and anti-communism. Neoconservatism seem to be only interested in the traditionalism part of conservatism, and then it's a religiously motivated traditionalism. I think it's a big mistake to suggest neocons are anything like conservatives... Barry Goldwater was a real conservative, and he was pro choice.
Where has our republican white house and congress (2000 -2004) brought us in terms of spending? What is our deficit look like now and 9 years ago? Who authorized the spending? where did that money get spent? Did the left wing spend that money?
Goldwater was senator from Arizona. McCain won Goldwater's seat when he retired. Goldwater ran for president in 1964, and was victim of one of the worst (and most famous) smear jobs in US political history (democratic party ad suggesting he'd use nukes).
That poster is a garbage right wing deflection, for sure. The actual, and relevant items of Nazism: anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism, anti-communism, and totalitarianism where opposition to economic liberalism is the only thing that is uniquely common to the US left wing. You have yet to refute that.
The "poster" is the salient parts of the German Nazi Party Platform of 1920. You have yet to refute that Univsersal Education is not only left-wing, it's a prominent part of the Democratic Party Platform (they're left wing, right?) You have yet to refute that Guaranteed Employment is not only left-wing, it's also a prominent part of the Democratic Party Platform (look for, the union label, how about those minimum wages?, govt. is the biggest employer of all!). Welfare for the elderly? Whoa, that's the holy grail of left wing politics in the USA. Nationalization of industry? Well, the left isn't ready to start mass murdering our entrepreneurs yet, so they'll settle for windfall profit taxes. Elevation of National Health. LOL. It was called Hillarycare in 1993, but it's still a big plank in the Democrats' platform. Now, I'll address your points. The US Left Wing, if they had their way, would have no opposition party. That's anti-parliamentarian. Heck, the way the party has turned major cities and some states into political machines is further proof. That they'd sue after losing the presidential election is anti-parliamentary. Racism? They demonize the middle class (calling them rich) and especially the upper class. Big oil is bad! That's akin to racism enough. The whole point of Nazi racism was to find a demon to rally the people against. Eugenics? See abortion. See stem-cell research. Antisemitism? See all the anti-Israel rhetoric the party and faithful spew (I quoted you some already). Anti-free trade is equivalent to Pan-Germanism. Totalitarianism? The only president to have served from first election until death is the hero/icon of the left - FDR. But the big push this election is to win 60 seats in the senate and control the White House. That would be as dominant a control of the government as can be.
BTW, here's the US Socialist Party Platform of 1928: [FONT=Arial,Helvetica](NOTE: Herewith the economic planks of the Socialist party platform of 1928. The list that follows includes every economic plank, but not the full language of each.) "Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly at Boulder Dam and Muscle Shoals." "A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost." "National ownership and democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication." "An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation." "Immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works ... All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions." "Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery." "A system of unemployment insurance." "The nation-wide extension of public employment agencies in cooperation with city federations of labor." "A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance." "Shortening the workday" and "Securing to every worker a rest period of no less than two days in each week." "Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment." "Abolition of the brutal exploitation of convicts under the contract system and substitution of a cooperative organization of industries in penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents." "Increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pensions and other forms of social insurance." "Appropriation by taxation of the annual rental value of all land held for speculation." [/FONT]
Both sides have some elements of the other items, and some are more drawn into the right than the left. for example, negative eugenics can be coercive. Abortion by "fit" women was illegal in Nazi Germany (Illegal abortions), marriage restrictions (gay marriage). anti-semites - anti-union capitalists racism - by far anti-parliment. Definitely in the right wing agenda.
Hitler's Nazi party boils down to 2 main items. National socialism under a dictator and anti-non Aryan's. Yes, the racial part of that is currently found in the ugly parts of the far right. Now is where it gets tricky. Hitler's version of socialism was anti all of the following: monarchies, social democrats, liberals, capitalists and communists. You can pick any of those (as was done earlier in this thread) and argue that he was far left or far right. Of course none of this matters when talking about rhetoric. The main reason why the neocons are termed as nazis is because of their use of propaganda as a way of "controlling" the populace. All in all, it is a giant pile of shit
It seems to me you are confusing the US Nazi Party (and the original Nazis) with anyone but the lunatic fringe minority they are here in the USA. There is no Right Wing agenda, it seems, but whatever "evils" you want to throw out there and claim it's part of it. If anything, the Right Wing agenda is to oppose radical change, and that's about it. In fact, it seems as if the left wing's agenda is to scare people into thinking there is a right wing agenda You know, stuff like "elect republicans and the elderly will starve" or "elect republicans and women will go back to coat hangers for abortions."
Historically, and I'd even say presently, the sort of eugenics adhered to by the Nazis has been part of the left wing agenda. The right is pretty uniformly pro-life. The left was historically right there with the Nazis when it came to sterilization and active "breeding in" of good people and "breeding out" of bad people. If you go back and look at the origins of the various nascent eugenics laws in the US in the first half of the 20th Century, they were inevitably sponsored by Progressives. Likewise, if you look at the origins of and justifications put forth for the various planks on the Progressive economic platform, they explicit arguments were made on behalf of things like the minimum wage laws that they would protect the superiority of white men. Now, I suppose one could make the argument that was all a long time ago, but the funny thing is that the left still pushes the policies it once pushed with explicitly racist arguments. In other words, they've kept up the policies, which do, in fact, seem to perform their previously stated goals, they just don't seem to state the goals anymore. Because... say it together... they don't wanna be called Nazis
The funny thing is that so-called "liberals" become right wing conservatives when it comes to their iconic programs. Change Social Security? Who's opposed to change in that case? Change the way schools work or teachers get paid? Who's opposed to change! I should go dig up my blog post about meritocracy.
Another oddity is that left/right is really relative to where you sit. You'd think a communist is a left-winger, yet in Russia, the communists are the conservatives (don't want to give up communism).
