View Full Version : The paranoid style in American politics
(Does anyone here on the OM resemble the kind of thinking noted in this editorial?)
http://www.economist.com/images/20060107/D0106US0.jpg
Lexington
The paranoid style in American politics
Jan 5th 2006
From The Economist print edition
It's back, updated for a new generation
Richard Hofstadter's classic essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”, was aimed at the American right (it was published in November 1964 in the wake of the Goldwater insurgency). But it is hard to read it these days without first thinking of the other side of the political divide.
Hofstadter argued that the “paranoid style” expresses itself in three habits: “heated exaggeration”, “suspiciousness” and “conspiratorial fantasy”. Victims of the paranoid style have attacked shifting groups throughout American history—from international bankers to freemasons, from the Illuminati to effete liberals—but today they are targeting the White House.
Begin with the fuss over wiretapping. According to Robert Byrd, a Democratic senator from West Virginia, George Bush has assumed “unchecked power” that is “reserved only for kings and potentates”. Barbara Boxer of California says there is “no excuse” for Mr Bush's actions. A growing chorus of outrage, including Congressman John Lewis and John Dean (of Watergate fame), has suggested impeachment. Over at the Nation, Jonathan Schell argues that “Bush's abuses of presidential power are the most extensive in American history”. The administration “is not a dictatorship”, he concedes, before adding that “it does manifest the characteristics of one in embryonic form.”
And the proof of dictatorship? On more than 30 different occasions, Mr Bush authorised the tapping of telephone calls made by American citizens. Tapping domestic telephone calls without getting a warrant is illegal. But Mr Bush claims that his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief allowed him to do so because all these calls were international ones. He maintains that going to the courts would have been cumbersome and that his first priority was to prevent another terrorist attack.
You can pick at this reasoning—for instance, there are retrospective warrants that might have done the trick. But it is hard to claim that Mr Bush is being outlandish on any of these scores. John Schmidt, an associate attorney-general under Bill Clinton, thinks Mr Bush has the constitutional power to approve such taps; General Michael Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence, has argued that the programme “has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States”.
That assertion is for Congress to probe, but the real argument here is surely one of nuance: it has to do with how much freedom you should reasonably curtail in the name of security. Mr Bush may have crossed a line, but he has hardly smashed through it. Most European countries have more intrusive surveillance regimes than America's. As for impeachment, the prospect of having to defend Mr Bush against the charge that he went a tad too far trying to avert a terrorist attack is the sort of thing Karl Rove salivates about.
Moreover, the paranoid style is finding an ever larger home in popular culture. In 2004, American cinema-goers trooped off to see Michael Moore's “Fahrenheit 9/11”, a fearless exposé of the hidden forces behind the war on terrorism, and an update of “The Manchurian Candidate”, the quintessential paranoid film. Now they are crowding to “Syriana”, an analysis of American policy in the Middle East, featuring George Clooney. The villains vary: “Fahrenheit 9/11” went for the Carlyle Group, the Saudi royal family and virtually anybody who had met Mr Bush; “The Manchurian Candidate” attacked big business; “Syriana” dislikes oil firms and the CIA. But they all agree that America is run by a sinister cabal that will stop at nothing.
Paranoid optimism
In one way, paranoia is one of America's great strengths—part of its long-standing suspicion of government. America was born in a revolution against George III's tyranny. Hostility towards central government has been a constant of American history. Most periods of heightened executive power during wartime have been followed by sharp reactions. Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus, was accused of dictatorship and his Republican Party lost seats in 1862; Richard Nixon's abuses of power spawned a host of reforms, including the wiretapping-oversight system that Mr Bush has tangled with.
But there is something less healthy at work on both the left and the right. Hofstadter argued that the politics of paranoia is fuelled by a sense of dispossession—by fury at your loss of relative power to rising groups. In the 1960s, the right was driven by a sense that it was being eclipsed by cosmopolitans and intellectuals. Now the left thinks it is losing power to businessmen and suburbanites. It cannot believe that the north-east—the vortex of civilised America—is losing influence to the South and the West, to people who believe in God and guns, to Mr Bush.
That does not let the president off the hook. Put simply, a man who claimed he would unite the country has given his enemies far too much to be paranoid about. There may well be a case for wire-tapping people in contact with al-Qaeda; but what about refusing to reveal who is on the energy task-force, let alone the (possibly legal but ghastly) treatment of inmates at Guantánamo? There may be a case for asking people to rally around the flag at a time of war; but how does that square with Mr Bush using terrorism to divide his opponents and advance his party's political interests, as he did in 2002 and 2004?
Hofstadter argued that the paranoid style “has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content”. The problem for America's left is not the lack of justified complaints about Mr Bush. It is that their paranoid style—with its propensity to exaggeration and conspiracy-mongering and its inability to distinguish between justified complaints and hysteria—means that their cries are seldom listened to except by people who suffer from the same affliction. Which is sometimes a pity.
Copyright © 2006 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Dizlexus
01-08-2006, 08:50 AM
This author sounds like a Party guy right out of Berlin 1934, telling us that: "die Nazi's ist actualy good folk, ya, nothing to fear, all that stuff du hearst ist just conspiracy fantasy". "Our detractors are just jealous politicos, nevermind vhat happened at dem Reichstag, est war only a few "rogue elements" vithin die party, ist be taken care of vill".
Yeah, right Himmler.
I should summarize my sarcastic position. I dont think it is about paranoia. I think it is about reality. The author cites "paranoia" as a strength but he is coming at it all wrong. The current Adm deserves far more criticism than they recieve. They deserve more endictments than they recieve. Smart people are becoming very worried about the errosion of the economy, civil libertys, of our image abroad, about the very short term future. They would be stupid not too feel that way. THAT is what this author has noticed -- not paranoia.
I say poo on these near right authors! This is where centrism sucks -- namely, when the truth has a liberal bias.
Pathetic, Dizlexus.
"The problem for America's left is not the lack of justified complaints about Mr Bush. It is that their paranoid style—with its propensity to exaggeration and conspiracy-mongering and its inability to distinguish between justified complaints and hysteria—means that their cries are seldom listened to except by people who suffer from the same affliction. Which is sometimes a pity."
Does that sound like a Nazi?
Geezus, you're not helping yourself or your ideology with the remarks you're making.
Spider
01-08-2006, 08:55 AM
Pathetic, Dizlexus.
"The problem for America's left is not the lack of justified complaints about Mr Bush. It is that their paranoid style—with its propensity to exaggeration and conspiracy-mongering and its inability to distinguish between justified complaints and hysteria—means that their cries are seldom listened to except by people who suffer from the same affliction. Which is sometimes a pity."
Does that sound like a Nazi?
Geezus, you're not helping yourself or your ideology with the remarks you're making.
LOL , I know this is will be answered with somthing Clinton did in the past , but can you give us an example of hysteria ?
Dizlexus
01-08-2006, 09:03 AM
Where are the exagerated complaints? In my reality they don't exist. In the paradigm of a rightest, any complaint is over the top. But the fact remains that no complaint cited above is "paranoid" in light of what we all know about this Adm's creditability.
Moreover, REAL, parallels exist between this Adm's power grabs and the rise of fascism in Europe, including Nazism, whether you like it or not. Call me a lunatic, I'll call you a poor historian.
Dizlexus
01-08-2006, 09:17 AM
I must admit that the Reichstag analogy is clumbsy. Who REALLY started that fire anyway?
Dizlexus, does this describe you?
"But they all agree that America is run by a sinister cabal that will stop at nothing."
If so, then the only people convinced of your views are the choir; preach to someone else.
BTW, an Objectivist (libertarians on steroids) made the same "the US is going fascist" arguments 20+ years ago, long before the Bush administration.
See http://www.peikoff.com/op/home.htm
The current Adm deserves far more criticism than they recieve.
They certainly do - but one of the points of the editorial was that adding all the extra paranoiac hysterical baggage obscures the argument:
"It is that their paranoid style—with its propensity to exaggeration and conspiracy-mongering and its inability to distinguish between justified complaints and hysteria—means that their cries are seldom listened to except by people who suffer from the same affliction."
Do you agree?
Dizlexus
01-08-2006, 01:50 PM
I just don't see the exaggeration. They are a kabal of criminals bent on their own ends and it does look more and more like fascism (corporate plutocracy up the ass of the military/industrial complex, prepetual war, executive privledges bypass governing bodies) every day despite what someone thought 10 years ago. We might just have to disagree.
I think the author wants to seem more rational than those who are making big noise. By doing so, he appears less rational to me. This is not a time to pull punches. One must call liars, liars, and criminals, criminals. Putting on airs of cool headedness at a time like this would once again be civic lethargy.
I just don't see the exaggeration.
It follows:
They are a kabal of criminals bent on their own ends and it does look more and more like fascism (corporate plutocracy up the ass of the military/industrial complex, prepetual war, executive privledges bypass governing bodies) every day despite what someone thought 10 years ago.
Look familiar?
We might just have to disagree.
Probably.
I think the author wants to seem more rational than those who are making big noise. By doing so, he appears less rational to me. This is not a time to pull punches. One must call liars, liars, and criminals, criminals.
Where have you been over the last few decades, then?
Or does the Bush administration represent the high point (low point?) of political baloney, power-grabbing, unwarranted violations of our rights, and so on?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-09-2006, 12:26 AM
Moreover, REAL, parallels exist between this Adm's power grabs and the rise of fascism in Europe, including Nazism, whether you like it or not. Call me a lunatic, I'll call you a poor historian.
Hole in one, Tiger Woods. :thumbsup:
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-09-2006, 12:28 AM
Where are the exagerated complaints?
Same place as the WMD:
Inside the fantasy world where right-wingers like W*GS dwell.
Blueflame
01-09-2006, 02:23 AM
Dizlexus, does this describe you?
"But they all agree that America is run by a sinister cabal that will stop at nothing."
If so, then the only people convinced of your views are the choir; preach to someone else.
BTW, an Objectivist (libertarians on steroids) made the same "the US is going fascist" arguments 20+ years ago, long before the Bush administration.
See http://www.peikoff.com/op/home.htm
20+ years ago, eh? The Reagan years.... Ha!
There are many significant differences between current times and the Reagan years... changes brought about by 9/11 and the subsequent passage of laws like the Patriot Act have resulted in solidification of unprecedented power in the executive branch along with an erosion of citizens' freedoms. It's not exaggeration to note that this administration shows a willingness... perhaps even eagerness... to sidestep the Constitution's checks and balances and place itself essentially above the law. Given that this president is on record as jokingly (?) stating that it would be much easier if it was a dictatorship as long as he's the dictator, is it really such a reach to recognize that the seemingly-limitless power he currently wields is not dissimilar to that of a despot?
And let's be honest here... editorials don't have to have even a shred of factual evidence to support them; they're one writer's opinion and nothing more. :P
20+ years ago, eh? The Reagan years.... Ha!
Actually, "The Ominous Parallels" was written in 1983, and used far more historical perspective than just the period 1981-1983, to make its claim that the US was on a descent into fascism. Certainly the "New Deal" pushed us far down that slope, in Peikoff's view.
There are many significant differences between current times and the Reagan years... changes brought about by 9/11 and the subsequent passage of laws like the Patriot Act have resulted in solidification of unprecedented power in the executive branch along with an erosion of citizens' freedoms.
I believe that consolidation of political power by the executive has been underway for quite some time - under the guises of the War on Communism, the War on Drugs, the War on Guns, and the War on Tobacco. Presidents (especially since FDR set the high-water mark for expanding the power of the executive branch - heck, he even tried to pack the SCOTUS) have been attempting to move political power away from the legislature and into the executive branch, using all sorts of tricks. I've pointed out several examples from prior administrations - Bush is continuing the trend. That greatly concerns me, but then I've been concerned (and sometimes appalled) for a long time. Those who think Bush's actions are new, or unique, or particularly evil, haven't been paying attention.
It's not exaggeration to note that this administration shows a willingness... perhaps even eagerness... to sidestep the Constitution's checks and balances and place itself essentially above the law.
Name me a President of the last few decades that hasn't.
Given that this president is on record as jokingly (?) stating that it would be much easier if it was a dictatorship as long as he's the dictator, is it really such a reach to recognize that the seemingly-limitless power he currently wields is not dissimilar to that of a despot?
When Bush starts acting like Chavez, then we'll really be in trouble. He's got quite a ways to go just yet.
Blueflame
01-09-2006, 09:56 PM
Actually, "The Ominous Parallels" was written in 1983, and used far more historical perspective than just the period 1981-1983, to make its claim that the US was on a descent into fascism. Certainly the "New Deal" pushed us far down that slope, in Peikoff's view.
My view is that the corporate greed and speculation that caused the 1929 stock market crash would have been far more likely to push us toward fascism than the New Deal....
I believe that consolidation of political power by the executive has been underway for quite some time - under the guises of the War on Communism, the War on Drugs, the War on Guns, and the War on Tobacco. Presidents (especially since FDR set the high-water mark for expanding the power of the executive branch - heck, he even tried to pack the SCOTUS) have been attempting to move political power away from the legislature and into the executive branch, using all sorts of tricks. I've pointed out several examples from prior administrations - Bush is continuing the trend. That greatly concerns me, but then I've been concerned (and sometimes appalled) for a long time. Those who think Bush's actions are new, or unique, or particularly evil, haven't been paying attention.
The PNAC agenda does date back a few decades.
Name me a President of the last few decades that hasn't.
In the "last few decades", all but one has also been Republican, right? ;D
At any rate, operating as if the Constitution was "just a g*ddamned piece of paper"... is easier if your political party also controls both houses of Congress as well as the Supreme Court.
When Bush starts acting like Chavez, then we'll really be in trouble. He's got quite a ways to go just yet.
:spit: That's a matter of opinion....
My view is that the corporate greed and speculation that caused the 1929 stock market crash would have been far more likely to push us toward fascism than the New Deal....
There's a wide array of opinion on the causes of the Great Depression - I favor the monetarist view. Suffice to say that the federal government had been tinkering with the economy for long enough (the Federal Reserve was established nearly 20 years before) that it managed to take what would normally have been a mild downturn and turn it into a horrifying economic disaster via its incompetence. There are valid arguments that claim that the New Deal, rather than saving capitalism from itself, exacerbated and extended the depression unnecessarily.
The PNAC agenda does date back a few decades.
I'm thinking more along the lines of 50 years or more - for example, the hysteria in the 1930s over "reefer madness" and the explicitly racist reasons for the de-legalization of some drugs at that time. During the Cold War, Democrats generally vied with Republicans as to who could be the most commie-hating (certainly the Truman Doctrine is a far cry from the McGovernite limpness of the early 1970s) and all during the War on Drugs, both the GOP and the Dems have done their share to trash our liberties and the Constitution in their doomed attempt to "win" it.
The PNAC agenda is a mere tip of the iceberg.
In the "last few decades", all but one has also been Republican, right? ;D
Start with FDR in 1932 for what I'm getting at.
At any rate, operating as if the Constitution was "just a g*ddamned piece of paper"... is easier if your political party also controls both houses of Congress as well as the Supreme Court.
True - but it's not like the GOP and the Dems don't collaborate when their power-hungry impulses overlap. I generally prefer what the Statists call "gridlock" - a government consumed by staring at its navel, paralyzed by its own self-importance, at the least has less time and energy to treat the Constitution as a "goddamned piece of paper". But alas, such situations don't last long, and when they end, that's when we need to be far more watchful. As a libertarian, I don't give either party a pass - sadly, for others, that's often the case when it comes to "their" party.
:spit: That's a matter of opinion....[/QUOTE]
Blueflame
01-09-2006, 11:46 PM
There's a wide array of opinion on the causes of the Great Depression - I favor the monetarist view. Suffice to say that the federal government had been tinkering with the economy for long enough (the Federal Reserve was established nearly 20 years before) that it managed to take what would normally have been a mild downturn and turn it into a horrifying economic disaster via its incompetence. There are valid arguments that claim that the New Deal, rather than saving capitalism from itself, exacerbated and extended the depression unnecessarily.
I tend toward the position that "the love of money is the root of all evil"; thus from my perspective, greed... both corporate and individual... is primarily responsible for much of the human suffering in the world. I do not believe such a creature exists as a wealthy man who is satisfied (convinced that he has "enough" and no longer needs to employ every possible avenue to further increase his wealth).
The New Deal could realistically have been characterized as "socialist"... which is close to the opposite of "fascist", imo...
I'm thinking more along the lines of 50 years or more - for example, the hysteria in the 1930s over "reefer madness" and the explicitly racist reasons for the de-legalization of some drugs at that time. During the Cold War, Democrats generally vied with Republicans as to who could be the most commie-hating (certainly the Truman Doctrine is a far cry from the McGovernite limpness of the early 1970s) and all during the War on Drugs, both the GOP and the Dems have done their share to trash our liberties and the Constitution in their doomed attempt to "win" it.
Propaganda has also been around a long time... FoxNews certainly didn't invent it although they have nearly perfected it (labeling themselves "fair and balanced" when they in truth are nothing of the sort).
The PNAC agenda is a mere tip of the iceberg.
God help us if you're right about that...
Start with FDR in 1932 for what I'm getting at.
Please elaborate further...
True - but it's not like the GOP and the Dems don't collaborate when their power-hungry impulses overlap. I generally prefer what the Statists call "gridlock" - a government consumed by staring at its navel, paralyzed by its own self-importance, at the least has less time and energy to treat the Constitution as a "goddamned piece of paper". But alas, such situations don't last long, and when they end, that's when we need to be far more watchful. As a libertarian, I don't give either party a pass - sadly, for others, that's often the case when it comes to "their" party.
Since '01 we're a long ways from "gridlock"... "rubberstamp" is more how I'd characterize Congress throughout the BushII years. Whether that's due to DeLay controlling the purse strings (read: Abramoff $$$) or ineptitude on the part of the "opposition" (or minority, if you prefer) party, the end result is still near-imperial power for an administration that is... by its own admission... not hesitant to use its "political capital".
alkemical
01-10-2006, 08:13 AM
W*gs,
The fed reserve is an issue all it's own. Ezra Pound found out. :)
I tend toward the position that "the love of money is the root of all evil"; thus from my perspective, greed... both corporate and individual... is primarily responsible for much of the human suffering in the world.
Interesting take, since the people most responsible for the most suffering weren't motivated by an accumulation of wealth. I'm thinking of Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, Pol Pot, etc. Cases of individuals getting richer just to get richer are relatively rare - almost all the time, the effect of their accumulating wealth has a positive effect on the remainder of society too. I can't think of any big exceptions to that.
The New Deal could realistically have been characterized as "socialist"... which is close to the opposite of "fascist", imo...
Well, not quite the opposite - both promise a large government that controls much of the society. Socialism promises to be democratic (although some left-wingers call Castro a "socialist") whereas fascism isn't democratic. However, both tend to fall apart because societies tend not to be controllable to that extent and no nation lives in isolation from the rest of the world (with the possible exception of North Korea, but its attempts at autarky are rather pathetic).
Propaganda has also been around a long time... FoxNews certainly didn't invent it although they have nearly perfected it (labeling themselves "fair and balanced" when they in truth are nothing of the sort).
It depends on the subject as to whether a member of the MSM is propagandistic or not. For a specific example, some years ago TIME magazine decided it could no longer be objective about the RKBA, and pretty much since then it's ignored the benefits of widespread gun ownership and has only editorialized for more and more strict gun control. They've conceded that their views on the RKBA are mere propaganda.
Folks from across the political landscape (not just liberals, but Greens, far-lefties, conservatives, libertarians) believe the MSM is more propaganda than fact, so singling out Fox News isn't really fair.
God help us if you're right about that...
The PNAC agenda isn't unforgivably pernicious, IMHO.
Please elaborate further...
You originally said:
It's not exaggeration to note that this administration shows a willingness... perhaps even eagerness... to sidestep the Constitution's checks and balances and place itself essentially above the law.
Since 1932, we've had 40 years' worth of Democratic Presidents, 33 years' worth of Republican Presidents, so it's not even 50/50, really. You can look up to see the breakdown of when the Congress has been under control of one or the other party - suffice to say that only until relatively recently has Congress not been run, in total, by the Democrats.
Think back before GHWB, and all the various power grabs by the executive over that time. Bush is hardly acting without precedent.
Since '01 we're a long ways from "gridlock"... "rubberstamp" is more how I'd characterize Congress throughout the BushII years. Whether that's due to DeLay controlling the purse strings (read: Abramoff $$$) or ineptitude on the part of the "opposition" (or minority, if you prefer) party, the end result is still near-imperial power for an administration that is... by its own admission... not hesitant to use its "political capital".
You exaggerate. If Bush was so overarchingly powerful, why have his various domestic agenda items been left a shambles? How does Bush's bypassing of the FISA court compare to Clinton's bypassing of Congress (in favor of the judiciary) with his de facto regulation of the tobacco industry? How does either compare to various Presidents' (Truman and Nixon, for example) mucking with certain sectors of the economy?
enjolras
01-10-2006, 11:13 AM
Think back before GHWB, and all the various power grabs by the executive over that time. Bush is hardly acting without precedent.
This is always where I lose your argument. It may be a precedent, but its a bad precedent and Bush is largely taking new hit to new heights.
I do agree with the premise of the article. It is clear that politics right now has completely dissolved into more to do with Paranoia than anything else.
For the right its gun control, terrorism, and a perception that the left wants to destroy their religion. For the left its the expanding influence of religion and a widespread belief that its fundamental culture (intellectualism/urbanism) is under attack.
Look no further than this board for proof. The almost irrational statements from the religious among us about how christianity is being 'persecuted' to our left-leaning friends consistent attacks on the culture of the right. Both of these are motivated by a perceived threat, and both I feel are completely wrong.
What gets lost in this is the real issues. It shouldn't have taken a prison scandal and long-term war effort to expose the fundamental flaws in the Iraqi war. All of the warning signs where present, but Bush enjoyed broad support for the war. Not because it was the right thing to do, but because being for Bush means being against those scheming liberals wanting to take religion/guns/or whatever away. To these people Bush represents a buffer to protecting their most vital interests, and how he chooses to use that power was largely irrelevant.
It took things going MAJORLY wrong for that support to erode and it shouldn't have.
Its the same phenemenon that sees support for Delay to stay relatively strong. A crooked buffer is better than no buffer at all.
Of course the left isn't immune to it.. Support for Clinton never waned even as he was lying to a grand jury. Its not that people on the left are FOR lying, it's that they fear the alternative.
Paranoia is a dangerous thing, it allowed the Nazi's to come to power and saw an entire people complicitly allow the destruction of an entire race. I hate to see it become such a big part of the modern American political landscape. (although, as W*GS will undoubtedbly point out it really isn't that different than the decades before).
Blueflame
01-10-2006, 12:56 PM
Interesting take, since the people most responsible for the most suffering weren't motivated by an accumulation of wealth. I'm thinking of Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, Pol Pot, etc. Cases of individuals getting richer just to get richer are relatively rare - almost all the time, the effect of their accumulating wealth has a positive effect on the remainder of society too. I can't think of any big exceptions to that.
The cited persons were motivated by the lust for power, not necessarily wealth, but wealthy individuals most assuredly bankrolled them. Hitler, for example, was aided by $$ from American businessmen like Prescott Bush.
I can't think of any examples in which a society benefitted from the concentration of the assets being in the hands of a few aristocrats. Normally when a tiny percentage of society controls all the wealth, a revolution follows (ex: the French Revolution)
Well, not quite the opposite - both promise a large government that controls much of the society. Socialism promises to be democratic (although some left-wingers call Castro a "socialist") whereas fascism isn't democratic. However, both tend to fall apart because societies tend not to be controllable to that extent and no nation lives in isolation from the rest of the world (with the possible exception of North Korea, but its attempts at autarky are rather pathetic).
Nonetheless, to characterize the New Deal as a step toward fascism is, in my opinion, inaccurate.
It depends on the subject as to whether a member of the MSM is propagandistic or not. For a specific example, some years ago TIME magazine decided it could no longer be objective about the RKBA, and pretty much since then it's ignored the benefits of widespread gun ownership and has only editorialized for more and more strict gun control. They've conceded that their views on the RKBA are mere propaganda.
Folks from across the political landscape (not just liberals, but Greens, far-lefties, conservatives, libertarians) believe the MSM is more propaganda than fact, so singling out Fox News isn't really fair.
FoxNews is by no means the only propaganda outlet in existence... however, it is the most egregious example that came to mind. Whether it's "fair" to single them out or not, they made the choice to label themselves "fair and balanced" while the content they disseminate is the polar opposite.
The PNAC agenda isn't unforgivably pernicious, IMHO.
I think it is.
Since 1932, we've had 40 years' worth of Democratic Presidents, 33 years' worth of Republican Presidents, so it's not even 50/50, really. You can look up to see the breakdown of when the Congress has been under control of one or the other party - suffice to say that only until relatively recently has Congress not been run, in total, by the Democrats.
Think back before GHWB, and all the various power grabs by the executive over that time. Bush is hardly acting without precedent.
Nixon comes to mind... is that the precedent that's best for America? I don't think it is...
You exaggerate. If Bush was so overarchingly powerful, why have his various domestic agenda items been left a shambles? How does Bush's bypassing of the FISA court compare to Clinton's bypassing of Congress (in favor of the judiciary) with his de facto regulation of the tobacco industry? How does either compare to various Presidents' (Truman and Nixon, for example) mucking with certain sectors of the economy?
It's not exaggeration, W*GS... this administration has bypassed far more than the FISA court. And I can't recall any other president who has referred to the Constitution as "a g*ddamned piece of paper".... or pushed through legislation like the Patriot Act that can essentially nullify the Bill of Rights.
The cited persons were motivated by the lust for power, not necessarily wealth, but wealthy individuals most assuredly bankrolled them.
That's not clear at all in the cases of Stalin, Zedong, or Pol Pot. I'll toss in Lenin as well.
Hitler, for example, was aided by $$ from American businessmen like Prescott Bush.
Well, it's not quite the case that Prescott was writing checks to "Adolf Hitler":
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html
I can't think of any examples in which a society benefitted from the concentration of the assets being in the hands of a few aristocrats. Normally when a tiny percentage of society controls all the wealth, a revolution follows (ex: the French Revolution)
True. But does this description really apply to the United States?
Nonetheless, to characterize the New Deal as a step toward fascism is, in my opinion, inaccurate.
IMO, it is. "Socialism" and "fascism" are not opposites.
FoxNews is by no means the only propaganda outlet in existence... however, it is the most egregious example that came to mind. Whether it's "fair" to single them out or not, they made the choice to label themselves "fair and balanced" while the content they disseminate is the polar opposite.
It's safe to say that there's no such thing as truly objective journalism. Whether or not a news organization labels itself "fair and balanced" (when it's not) or doesn't make any claims about objectivity and is biased anyway, is rather beside the point. The truth lies somewhere between what (say) Fox and (say) NPR report. It's up to us as media consumers to figure that out.
Nixon comes to mind... is that the precedent that's best for America? I don't think it is...
All I was attempting to point out was that Bush is hardly the first President to subvert the principle of checks and balances and the separation of powers. Offhand, I can't think of any President that hasn't - perhaps not as obviously as Bush has, but the claim remains.
It's not exaggeration, W*GS... this administration has bypassed far more than the FISA court. And I can't recall any other president who has referred to the Constitution as "a g*ddamned piece of paper"....
I've looked up the provenance of that quote and it comes from one guy, Doug Thompson, who has stated that it's genuine, and that others have corroborated it, but hasn't provided any names. I'll reserve judgment on whether or not Bush actually said that until more evidence comes out.
That said, I believe most recent Presidents have treated the Constitution as toilet paper when it suited their political agenda. Same applies to Congress and even the SCOTUS. I go by actions, not just words.
or pushed through legislation like the Patriot Act that can essentially nullify the Bill of Rights.
Yes, the USA PATRIOT act has the very strong potential to be an abomination, however, the original vote in the House was 357 to 66. Since there were more the 66 Democrats in the House at the time, where were those others who voted for it?
Congress is only pushed by the President if it allows him to do so. Witness the fight over the renewal of the PATRIOT act. I'd take my ire out on Congress more than Bush on this issue.
enjolras
01-11-2006, 08:46 AM
I can't think of any examples in which a society benefitted from the concentration of the assets being in the hands of a few aristocrats. Normally when a tiny percentage of society controls all the wealth, a revolution follows (ex: the French Revolution)
In the historical context it wasn't that wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, it was that the many had virtually no wealth at all. In America we still have a tremendously high standard living for a tremendously high number of citizens. That is hardly the stuff of revolution.
alkemical
01-11-2006, 09:08 AM
However, you fail to also note a social revolution is very possible. The seeds are being planted that things are not right. I feel that if America were to do a social revolution based on non-violent principles and overturn the 'blue meanies' (sorry to go beatles on you) - and focus on doing what's in the best interest for our country and it's people - then we will again hold the golden age for the world.
Until then we will have a slow suffocating demise to be an avg' country who is doing it's best to mimic the worst.