The Long March Through FAIR: How Big Can the Tent Become?

[_EAllusion]

By "far right" I mean basically you Droopy. (Or the many of the sources you frequently appear to be cribbing from.) They are extremely authoritarian and nationalist/xenophobic to the point of self-parody. You know when you turn on the news and see 37 different American flag motifs throughout the design space? And the "news" is about fighting Sharia in American courts? That's what fascism looks like. There is creeping fascism occurring within a segment of American conservatism you belong to since 9/11ish. It's ironic that you are here trying to subvert history and standard political science by defining fascism as necessarily leftist. You have to do this because fascism is synonymous with bad and all things bad have to be labeled "left" in your mind. You take the etymology of the word sinister very seriously, it would seem.

If you want some examples of how that manifests itself, look to the Islamaphobia, deference to militarism, sweeping national security state, torture, uber-patriotism with the flag, songs, and such, anti-intellectualism, corporate cronyism, expansion of police powers, etc. popular among a certain group of people.

[_Droopy]

By "far right" I mean basically you Droopy. (Or the many of the sources you frequently appear to be cribbing from.)

So, you define "far right" as me and the various scholars, intellectuals, academics, and pundits I have traditionally used, and by so doing, place yourself right back where you began - without a definition. Good show, E.

They are extremely authoritarian and nationalist/xenophobic to the point of self-parody.

Examples of each please.

You know when you turn on the news and see 37 different American flag motifs throughout the design space? And the "news" is about fighting Sharia in American courts? That's what fascism looks like.

I see. So, the well known and rather pervasive ideology among a substantial minority of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, the overwhelming Wahabbist orientation of most North American mosques (in the U.S., some 80% of mosques are owned and operated by clerics partial to Wahhabist Islam, which does not, of course, mean that all of their worshipers are necessarily so inclined) and the stated intention (and in some cases, already an accomplished situation in a de facto sense) of numerous leading clerics in the West of ultimately imposing Sharia law in designated areas (parts of London, Paris, Belgium, various Scandinavian countries etc, etc.) and of creating different tiers of law within western law, those for Muslims and others for indigenous citizens, is evidence of "fascism?" This assures me, yet again, that you have no real understanding of what fascism is nor its intellectual patrimony.

There is creeping fascism occurring within a segment of American conservatism you belong to since 9/11ish.

CFR.

It's ironic that you are here trying to subvert history and standard political science by defining fascism as necessarily leftist. You have to do this because fascism is synonymous with bad and all things bad have to be labeled "left" in your mind. You take the etymology of the word sinister very seriously, it would seem.

As your dancing and prancing above is indicative of a clear lack of substantive understanding of just what the term means, I will point out again what I just said above, that:

Fascism, as initiated and delineated by Benito Mussolini, was a phenomena of the Left and a school or sect of socialism and socialist thought. The problem with fascism is that, beyond its small body of core concepts or tendencies, its rather a kind of sponge that is capable of absorbing any number of ideas and emphasis while still remaining "fascism."

The idea that fascism is the far pole of classical liberalism (modern conservatism) and "capitalism" (free market economic relations) is little more than just silly, as a substantive intellectual and historical matter, and is nothing more than leftover Soviet/Comintern/fellow traveler propaganda from a bygone era diffused throughout the popular cultural imagination and the 20th century academic subculture. As I can already see that you yourself are quite reticent about definitions, but strong on polemical passion, unless you can actually engage in some specific examples of conservative principles or beliefs that can be associated with fascism, it would appear that this is just another typical sally into traditional leftist fable gatekeeping.

If you want some examples of how that manifests itself, look to the Islamaphobia,

CFR

deference to militarism,

CFR

sweeping national security state,

1. Hardly evidence in and of itself of fascism or any other particular form of government.

2. A situation just as prevalent in all revolutionary socialist societies of the 20th century as of fascist or quasi-fascist (Nazi Germany) forms, as is racism, ethnocentrism, militarism, and the worship of the total state.

torture,

CFR (good luck with this old trope, E).

uber-patriotism with the flag, songs, and such,

CFR (if, that is, you can possibly extract an intellectually useful example from your own subjective emotional bias here).

anti-intellectualism,

Try Marxism. Try postmodernism. How do you define "intellectual?" Anti-intellectualism, per se, is and has been found among all the authoritarian/totalitarian systems of the Left, of which socialism (communism), fascism, and National Socialism are all sibling sects. Attempting to pin "anti-intellectualism" as somehow unique to fascism (whatever that is) is, itself, an anti-intellectual pursuit and indicative of an intellectually sloppy approach to the subject.

corporate cronyism,

This virtually defines democratic socialism and the relations of corporations to government in all socialistic/interventionist/statist systems. Its hardly unique to fascism. Oh, and by the way, you might want to take a good look at much of what Obama has done along these lines.

expansion of police powers, etc. popular among a certain group of people.

CFR

[_EAllusion]

There is essentially zero threat of Sharia law having a meaningful, broad impact on US law. It as about as classic of a case of trumped up fear of the "other" as there could be. That sort of fear is exactly the kind of thing you see in fascism.

The idea that fascism is the far pole of classical liberalism (modern conservatism) and "capitalism"

It's not, you bleeding idiot. Likewise, anarchism and Soviet communism are extremely different, and yet both are on the left side of the spectrum (unless we are talking about anarcho-capitalism). Such is the limitations of the dipole continuum. Fascism has traditionally been placed on right. My point is that this speaks to the limitations of that continuum, as actual examples of fascist governments tended to blend traits we see on both left and right. One notable trait of fascism, xenophobia, is something we normally consider right-wing. Look at where the harshest anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy proposals come from to see why. Yet unions tend to be very anti-immigrant as a consequence of their protectionism. That doesn't mean unions are right-wing. It means that the simple political spectrum has its limitations.

I think what I was referring to is obvious in my examples. If you want to play coy - miilitarism? whatever do you mean? - that's your prerogative.

I will say I'm not sure why you are baffled by my anti-intellectualism reference. I mean, I know why. You don't know much about fascism. So, I guess I can helpfully point out that this is considered to be a hallmark of fascism as it is related to the tribal, authoritarian mindset that produces it. By itself we aren't talking about fascism; it's one trait of many. Anti-intellectual populism on the right these days tends to be couched in anti-elitist terms, but you see it more explicitly when "Harvard professor" is used as an eptithet and such. Here's Rich Land saying Rick Perry would be offended if called an intellectual. Whyever might that be? Since the rightwing talk model began to dominate conservative discourse, virtually all national Republican candidates have to try and appeal to this anti-intellectual populism. Here's Mitt Romney, a Harvard grad,playing the "pointy-heads at Harvard" card.

[_Gadianton]

EA is right. And this is one of the odd contradictions of Droopy, his insistence on describing himself as an "intellectual." I'm not saying Droopy isn't an intellectual, in fact, the irony of ironies is that Droopy is an intellectual in exactly the way his circle of freedom fighters use the epithet to reference "liberals".

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

EA is right. And this is one of the odd contradictions of Droopy, his insistence on describing himself as an "intellectual." I'm not saying Droopy isn't an intellectual, in fact, the irony of ironies is that Droopy is an intellectual in exactly the way his circle of freedom fighters use the epithet to reference "liberals".

+1,000,000,000,000,000.00

[Guest]

Fascism has traditionally been placed on right.

Yes, by the Soviets and their fellow travelers and dupes in the West after, and only after Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, before which all three totalitarian systems were allies against classical liberalism, liberal democracy, and free market capitalism. Mussolini identified himself as a proud and dedicated socialist throughout his entire life, and fascism was formulated as a specialized version of socialist theory and practice. So was Nazism.

Many libertarian and conservative thinkers have never put it there, save for some, such as Jean Francoise Revel, who places it on a "right" but then places liberalism (modern conservatism) outside both the Left and the Right.

My point is that this speaks to the limitations of that continuum, as actual examples of fascist governments tended to blend traits we see on both left and right. One notable trait of fascism, xenophobia, is something we normally consider right-wing.

Only if you are a dedicated leftist who needs this trope as a cover for your own. Traditional Marxism is loaded with xenophobia, only it is an xenophobia based in intellectual and class categories instead of race or ethnicity (at least, unless you are Jewish or Tibetan).

Look at where the harshest anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy proposals come from to see why. Yet unions tend to be very anti-immigrant as a consequence of their protectionism. That doesn't mean unions are right-wing. It means that the simple political spectrum has its limitations.

Your problem, E, is that you have still as yet not defined what you mean by "right wing," and I'm beginning to doubt your desire or capacity to do so. The real problem for all leftists in making their case here is that most of the traits common to fascism and Nazism are also common, if not definitive, to the economics and class grounded utopian leftist regimes and ideologies of the early 20th century, including ethnic and racial prejudice and discrimination. If the "right" is "liberalism," in its original 19th and 19th century sense, and as still used today on the Continent, then the "Right" is the historic antithesis of the "Left," which has been traditionally hostile to most human and civil rights understood as basic to the classical liberal mind, and in their totalitarian manifestations, hostile to virtually all of them. Call it internationalist, class struggle based socialism, National Socialism, Fascism, Fabianism, or what have you, its all very much of a piece when you go underneath the sheets and look at the strong similarities between all these systems as well as the core origins of their ideas in older Continental philosophy.

I will say I'm not sure why you are baffled by my anti-intellectualism reference. I mean, I know why. You don't know much about fascism.

You are now retreating to bluster, which would indicate to me that you have already lost the argument. As I've already said, you have as of yet not defined either the "Right" or "fascism," and apparently are content to argue your case without any exactitude of definition or concept. A major problem is, of course, finding elements really unique to fascism, or Nazism, that are not also present in socialism/communism. They exist, but their presence in fascism isn't nearly enough to distinguish it as uniquely different in any substantial way from Marxism-Leninism etc. and place it outside the general family of the Left. Even given fascism's unique elements, they aren't nearly enough to erase the strong family resemblance to other similar systems of the Left.

So, I guess I can helpfully point out that this is considered to be a hallmark of fascism as it is related to the tribal, authoritarian mindset that produces it. By itself we aren't talking about fascism; it's one trait of many.

Leftism isn't "tribal" in nature? What is the fasces, E, and why did Mussolini choose it as the symbolic name of his movement? What is multiculturalism if not a collectivist tribalism of the Left?

Anti-intellectual populism on the right these days tends to be couched in anti-elitist terms, but you see it more explicitly when "Harvard professor" is used as an eptithet and such.

In other words, E, you can't provide any substantive examples of just what you mean, or why you believe such statements can be labeled as either "anti-intellectual populism," and how to differentiate principled criticism of western leftist intellectual elites that is not anti-intellectual from that which is.

Here's Rich Land saying Rick Perry would be offended if called an intellectual. Whyever might that be? Since the rightwing talk model began to dominate conservative discourse, virtually all national Republican candidates have to try and appeal to this anti-intellectual populism.

Now you sound like Kevin Graham, pretty much as anti-intellectual as one can get. Rick Perry never was, is not, and probably never will be a part of the conservative intellectual movement. He's a presidential candidate who is likely to disappear soon, in any case.

The threat you feel coming at you from the conservative movement is real, and well deserved, but it is not the likes of Perry you should be concerned about, but the likes of William Buckley, and others like him, who long ago exposed La Trahison des Clercs for what it was, and which work has been continually underway since by other intellectuals who come from an entirely different paradigm than that underlying the corruption of much of our culture and its institutions by "the intellectuals," as meant by scholars like Paul Johnson, Thomas Sowell, Angelo Codevilla etc.

You see, E, there are "intellectuals" and then their are "intellectuals," and not all intellectuality is gold, nor is just having an advanced degree or being "smart" in some usefully (or self servingly) defined way anything near enough.

Here's Mitt Romney, a Harvard grad,playing the "pointy-heads at Harvard" card.

What I'm getting from you is a deep class consciousness regarding your educational and intellectual background that bristles when its value is questioned by the hoi polloi. That, you see, is part and parcel of the problem with "the intellectuals" or, more precisely, with a specific and dominant class of intellectuals that have come to dominate western intellectual life since the 19th century, but only an aspect of the criticisms relevant to the miasma of damage they have done to humanity over the course of the last century.

[_EAllusion]

I'm not calling all of conservatism anti-intellectual. "Conservatism" as a label refers to a vast coalition of complimentary and competing views. William F. Buckley was an intellectual and was not anti-intellectual at all. But right now there exists a powerful wave in contemporary conservative politics that is anti-intellectual. It's a populist wave. These have existed historically on both the right and left. It just so happens that right now there is a coherent group of people we can point on the right that fit the bill. And those views also correlate with other views like Islamaphobia, extreme deference to the US military and police powers, hostility towards immigrants, flag worship, and so on. Fine someone who went apoplectic over candidate Obama not wearing an American flag pin, and you've found someone who likely sees intellectualism as an insult. Something dirty liberals do. It's the need to appeal to that group that has Mitt Romney's speech writers taking shots at getting advice from the "Havard faculty lounge" despite Mitt Romney being a Harvard grad who counts among his close advisers members of the Harvard faculty lounge.

[_Gadianton]

Hi EA,

I think key to the conservative populist wave you speak of will be Austrian Economics. Eschewing mathematics and statistics and sticking to relatively simple verbal models makes the subject readily accessible to the pleb, and fully arms him to do battle with the false wisdom of the HFL. I've been reading blogs at the Von Mises Institute and I have to wonder if most of these folks -- and I'm talking about those posting the blogs, not just commenting -- could even make through a basic econ course. Not that the movement is without its brains, I don't think this Thomas Woods fellow I recently discovered is a slouch per se, but he's no Thomas Sargent either, none of them are. Sound-byte models that scrutinize history in a politically partisan way, this is how the Austrians "fight evil" it appears. And the pride; the Austrians believe that they uniquely predicted the financial crises of 2008, either way, the failure of mainstream academics and government alike to predict the crises will embolden their cause. If fascism rises in this nation from the right, I will bet you 100$ that Austrian economics will be its guiding paradigm.

[_MCB]

I'm not calling all of conservatism anti-intellectual.... But right now there exists a powerful wave in contemporary conservative politics that is anti-intellectual. It's a populist wave. These have existed historically on both the right and left. It just so happens that right now there is a coherent group of people we can point on the right that fit the bill....you've found someone who likely sees intellectualism as an insult. Something dirty liberals do.

Quoted for emphasis. Anti-intellectualism is very important in current far-right politics. Some of the Republican candidates and Palin have said some things that are just stupid. Right wing religiosity is so closely related to religious fundamentalism and its mind-softening influences that they could be considered functionally synonymous.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I'm not calling all of conservatism anti-intellectual.... But right now there exists a powerful wave in contemporary conservative politics that is anti-intellectual. It's a populist wave. These have existed historically on both the right and left. It just so happens that right now there is a coherent group of people we can point on the right that fit the bill....you've found someone who likely sees intellectualism as an insult. Something dirty liberals do.

Quoted for emphasis. Anti-intellectualism is very important in current far-right politics. Some of the Republican candidates and Palin have said some things that are just stupid. Right wing religiosity is so closely related to religious fundamentalism and its mind-softening influences that they could be considered functionally synonymous.

I think that's an ignorant post. I'm a left-wing socialist/libertarian and don't agree with this particular way to demonize the right. The right has some pretty good intellectuals, along the lines of Milton Friedman and Richard Posner, among others, who can't be tarred with religiosity.

As does the left. I think it is a pretty poor position for leftists to take that the right is a bunch of ignorant superstitious pulpit pounders.

Just because Palin's an idiot doesn't make Barney Frank any more intelligent.