With Preston’s permission, we may start a Six Meat Buffet Book Club. Any of you Buffet fan(s) interested?
If the French Revolution was the ideological father of modern statist models, it was Otto Von Bismarck’s fascist Prussia that provided the blueprint.
Does this description of Bismarck’s leadership seem familiar today?
You don’t really need democracy? Here, let me give you these shiny beads.
So while today’s liberals railed on about the non-existent “Bush regime”, it turned out that Bismarck’s fascist model was partially implemented the United States. Not surprisingly it happened on a Democrat’s watch. Bismarck fan, President Woodrow Wilson, actually brought fascism to the United States.
Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state. ”
Call it what you like – progressivism, fascism, communism, or totalitarianism – the first true enterprise of this kind was established not in Russia or Italy or Germany but in the United States, and Woodrow Wilson was the twentieth century’s first fascist dictator.
This claim may sound outrageous on its face, but consider the evidence. More dissidents were arrested or jailed in a few years under Wilson than under Mussolini during the entire 1920s.
Mussolini’s critics harangued him – rightly – for using his semiofficial Fascisti to bully the opposition and for his harassment of the press. Just a few years earlier, Wilson had unleashed literally hundreds of thousands of badge-carrying goons on the American people and prosecuted a vicious campaign against the press that would have made Mussolini envious.
Wilson didn’t act alone. Like Mussolini and Hitler, he had an activist ideological movement at his disposal. In Italy they were called Fascists. In Germany they were called National Socialists. in America we called them progressives.
The one common thread uniting all liberals throughout modern history has been their desire for a kind government which not only meets all their needs, it also provides their moral guidance (think social justice).
Over the years and across different cultures, there have been differences in progressive positions on militarism, race and imperialism but in all cases they have been movements of the “people” bent on changing human behavior to make a “better” society.
Speaking for myself, but perhaps from a conservative perspective, I see that people generally seek more power from themselves. You see evidence of this in Cuba, every Sunday on Meet the Press and at your homeowner’s association meeting.
Conservatives recognize this and see government as a “necessary evil” and would like as little of it as possible. Even assuming the best of intentions, millions spent on public housing still ends up financing dozens of Tony Rezko’s and producing very little actual good, for example.
The liberal really believes the opposite. Caring is shown through the government, good behavior is legislated and democracy is truly secondary to having leaders who feel your pain.
A good look at history show how this almost always ends, but it will always be better next time.
Liberal Fascism really shines in the chapters on FDR, the myth of JFK and the real fascists of the 60s. I still recommend you read it. But I’m done posting on this for now.