American Politics: Fascism Vs. Marxism?
I watched John Dean talking to Jon Stewart about his new book (Dean is a former Nixon Administration guy, you know, like Chuck Colsen). Anyway, his point was regarding the Conservative Movement's swing toward fascism, and the danger that poses to our nation. It was mentioned how there is a root of fascism at the core of modern conservatism and one of marxism at the heart of liberalism. So, deep down, that means American politics is really Hitler vs. Stalin. That scares the shit out of me, mostly because there is an element of truth to it. We have so lost sight of the lessons of history that we seem doomed to repeat its mistakes. The demonization of corporate America by the left certainly has anti-capitalist sentiment at its core, and that is because our regulation mechanisms have so failed Americans, it appears to the average liberal that the free market is to blame when our markets are anything but. We live in the land of monopolies, and it's killing us.
I've made my beliefs regarding the Trinity Administration widely known, so I won't comment on the comparison of the ascendency of the modern Republican party to the rise of the Third Reich. I think I already did :)
I've made my beliefs regarding the Trinity Administration widely known, so I won't comment on the comparison of the ascendency of the modern Republican party to the rise of the Third Reich. I think I already did :)
Tags:
posted by Paul at 8:57 PM
5 Comments:
Paul, even though we are friends I feel it necessary to refute many of your well meaning, but ultimately erroneous arguments. In your previous post, "R.I.P Democracy and Freedom" you make many allusions to a failing democracy that has gotten worse in the past decade. While I agree that President Bush is a terrible president, he was elected by our system of electoral college, and thus did not need the popular vote in order to win. Which brings me to my next point, because of this system of rule via representation, I take issue with your constant use of the term "Democracy" in such a broad sense. The architects of our government used the system of Democracy taught by Greek political minds as a starting place or reference in order to create our system of Representative Republic. The way you are referring to democracy is closer to the outdated "direct democracy" often called "town-hall democracy" where all people (eligible to vote) are voiced. This does not work for a multitude of reasons, mostly because the majority of the country is far too ill equipped to handle such a lofty responsibility. This problem has been recognized not only by early american founders, but also by outsiders studying the political processes of America. In his reflections on America French Author Alexis De Tocqueville made this observation in regards to the electoral system in America,
"Whenever a nation gathers in arms in the public square to choose a leader, it runs risks not only from that very method of election but also from the dangers of civil war which such an election entails[1]."
In reference to your most recent post, "American Politics: Fascism Vs. Marxism" I have merely an observation. For one to paint with a brush as broad as the one used to compare the conservative party (read: Republican?) with the Nazi party and the Liberal Party (read: Democrat?) with that of the "Socialist rule of Stalin" (read: Communist?) is like using a house brush to replicate monet. When speaking of social and political liberalism it is important to remember that the core beliefs were founded before the advent of true Marxism, the focus lies on group rights and the progress of the human condition. The underpinning of anti- corporatism comes more form individual belief than institutionalized political platform, and has little to do with the overall focus of the party. Where this comes into play is when a corporation abuses the rights of people or places.
As I had stated before I am not a fan of the administration, but I do recognize the difference between a fascist dictator, such as A. Hitler and G. W. Bush. Even though they were both elected in a democratic election, Hitler campaigned on a platform of eradication of democracy, where Bush campaigned on one to push Democracy on others.
Obviously it is fun and easy to make a quick comparison between the two, but past joking the argument falls apart fairly quickly. I feel it necessary to point out the holes in your argument not to be mean, but because I feel it is important to hammer out one's passionate argument with researched fact. Hopefully my views either reaffirm your own views, or in some way change you thought process slightly.
-J
by the way that quote was from Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville p.154
I appreciate your scrutiny, Jordan. It's true that I often make many assumptions that are perhaps not clearly stated. Allow me to break it down: of course America is a republic, and everyone should by now understand the electoral college system. I am attempting to expand the discussion past this anachronism. While direct democracy may be an outdated ideal, there is a difference between a fairly-constituted republic and one whose structure violates the most basic democratic principles. Total direct democracy may not work, but what we have in America is the majority being held hostage by the minority.
We'd be remiss to neglect the REAL reasons for the implementation of our electoral college system. Let's not forget that there was a battle over slavery and who would count as a voter. It's nice to speak about De Tocqueville and Locke and Rousseau, and it's true that our founders were conversant in all their main arguments, but the root of our system came from the reality of slavery. Southern states, with their fewer number of voting citizens, were purposely given equal footing with the more populous states for the purpose of maintaining the unity of the new nation. Fast forward to today, to the plight of the New York voter, whose vote does not carry the same weight as his North Dakotan counterpart. We can wax philosophic all we want about the meanings of Democracy, but surely you cannot advocate one person's vote being more powerful than another's, especially when the only good reason is a historical anachronism that was meant to justify human rights abuses for political purposes.
When I ask "This is Democracy?" after criticizing the election of a President who lost the popular vote, I am criticizing a system that gives some votes more weight than others. This is un-Democratic, under any definition you'd like to propose. Coupled with the jerry-mandering, and the blatant contempt the Trinity Administration shows for the rule of law, and expressly for the ultimate rule of law, our Constitution, it portends Very Bad Things.
As for this current post, you really have to had watched the show to get the context of the discussion, and I gave short shrift to qualifying my comments. The author was lamenting the slide towards fascism taking place in the modern conservative movement, and making the point that many of the hallmarks of a slide toward a Third Reich-ish regime are indeed in place. That's John Dean's analysis. My point was that with the continuing polarization of our political system, one can begin to feel that American politics are being driven by the ideologues on both sides. With the mainstream parties being controlled by their most extreme elements, that in essence boils down to a choice between Hitler and Stalin.
I was not trying to say that Howard Dean, the current DNC chairman, is Stalin. I'm referring more to the extreme grassroots movement that is in many ways making a positive impact on the Dems, but that in other ways has some troubling ideological positions (think Common Dreams).
Paul,
Okay I understand your point, but I still disagree with many of your arguments such as your allusion to the 3/5 compromise and the direct connection to Civil War.* With regards to the gerrymandering situation, I agree that many representatives are abusing the redistricting privilege, but in some situations this aids the minority voice in equal representation. Anyway I am not trying to pick a fight here, I just get worked up on occasion.
-Jordan
* While compromises such as the 3/5 clause (ratification conference, 1787) were seen by many southern politicians as an aggressive policy to deny the southern vote, most agreed that elections based merely on population were bloated and inaccurate. The American Civil War had more to do with the South's unwillingness to change old ways. With the Industrial Revolution booming over seas and in Nor-Eastern cities, many plantation owners feared for their very well being and the future of Southern culture (which of course did involve slavery).
I wasn't referring to the Civil War really, and I may again be being less than precise in my language. It may not be fair or accurate to say slavery was the primary issue in the small states vs. big states battle that took place over the way in which the issue of representation was handled and ultimately established.
My main point is that I do not think our Republic is being well-served by our current system. I think that each state should get only one elector as their Senatorial representative (in other words, each state would continue to have two actual senators, but they would only have one elector in place of the two they currently have in the Electoral College). This would go a long way towards balancing out the system, making it much more equitable.
My proposal for jerry-mandering is equally simple. All district borders must be made with right angles, with a limit of 5 corners. Period (obviously the natural contours of the state's own borders are excluded). As demographics change, the only thing that needs to be updated are the proportions between the districts, not their shapes.
And I hope I don't sound like I'm fighting :P
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home