LIBERAL FASCISM REVISITED
The hearing of the Hobby Lobby case by the Supreme Court this week inspired Kevin Williamson to meditate on the deeper currents running through it. Williamson’s NRO column is “The right not to be implicated” and I commend it to your attention.
Williamson notes how the dramatic revision of public orthodoxy that moves us “from forbidden to compulsory in record time, and vice versa.” He invites us to consider the case of the legal and social standing of homosexuals:
Until just over a decade ago, homosexual intercourse was a crime in many jurisdictions. Then in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned the sodomy laws inLawrence v. Texas, which was in my view a bad decision with a good outcome. That same year, California considered a civil-union law, which was the source of some controversy. Opponents argued that it was a step toward the much more serious issue of gay marriage, and Democrats rejected that as a red herring: “Nobody is talking about gay marriage,” said John Longville, a Democratic assemblyman, “except the people who are trying to wave it around as a straw-man issue.” Within five years, that straw man was flesh and blood. Along the way the conversation changed from whether states could legalizegay marriage to whether states could prohibit it, and from whether the federal government should recognize same-sex marriage to whether it could refuse to do so. The Democratic governor of Kentucky says that he desires the Supreme Court to “bring finality and certainty to this matter,” which, given his party affiliation, is a way of saying without saying that he wants a national legal mandate for gay marriage. And the matter already has progressed to the point at which we as a nation, having only recently legalized gay marriage, are debating the question of whether bakers and photographers should be locked in cages if they decline, for their own moral or religious reasons, to participate in gay weddings.
Williamson observes: “It is a perversion of the English language that our so-called liberals are the least liberal faction in our polity. American liberalism is the creed that you are entitled to think as you like and entitled to do as you are commanded.”
But liberals want to control our thoughts too. They seek to stigmatize heterodox thought as bigoted or criminal or otherwise beyond the pale. They seek to destroy those with whom they disagree.
Jonah Goldberg wrote the book on Liberal Fascism. “It is my argument,” he writes, “that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion.” In a related column, Jonah explains:
According to contemporary liberalism, the government is the control room of society, where problems get solved, where institutions get their marching orders, where the oceans are commanded to stop rising. Each institution must subscribe to the progressive vision: All oars must pull as one. We are all in it together. We can do it all, if we all work together. Yes, we can.In my book, Liberal Fascism, I called this phenomenon the “liberalGleichschaltung.” Gleichschaltung is a German word (in case you couldn’t have guessed) borrowed from electrical engineering. It means “coordination.” The German National Socialists (Nazis) used the concept to get every institution to sing from the same hymnal. If a fraternity or business embraced Nazism, it could stay “independent.” If it rejected Nazism, it was crushed or bent to the state’s ideology. Meanwhile, every branch of government was charged with not merely doing its job but advancing the official state ideology.Now, contemporary liberalism is not an evil ideology. Its intentions aren’t evil or even fruitfully comparable to Hitlerism. But there is a liberalGleichschaltung all the same. Every institution must be on the same page. Every agency must advance the liberal agenda.
The liberal Gleichschaltung underlies Obamacare, as one can see in the Hobby Lobby oral argument itself. “One religious group could opt out of this, and another religious group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal, and nothing would be uniform,” Justice Kagan complained, and we can’t have that.
The political syndrome about which Williamson writes reflects liberal fascism at work, and it is not any (or much more) sympathetic to free thought than it is free action. Thus the parade of liberal organizations seeking to enforce the liberal Gleichschaltung and to stigmatize disapproved thoughts. Williamson rightly observes: “It is a perversion of the English language that our so-called liberals are the least liberal faction in our polity.”
AND FOR SOME THOUGHTFUL RESPONSES:
- Mark Adams · Top Commenter · London, United Kingdom"Now, contemporary liberalism is not an evil ideology. Its intentions aren’t evil or even fruitfully comparable to Hitlerism."
Goldberg is quite wrong on this. Abortion, euthanasia, control of the media, brain-washing of children, plasticizing human nature, the Warmist superstition and all its discontents, und, und, und.......these are all totalitarian, diabolical, overt aims of contemporary liberalism.- Jeff Johnson · Top Commenter · Senior Fellow at Cockaponsett InstituteI think you're right, Mark. As Williamson implies, the road to fascism is undertaken in small steps, as if walking on a playground teeter-totter, until the tipping point is reached. None of the single steps along the way seem particularly dangerous, but the sum of their affect is rapid and complete change. Regardless assurances along the way that no single step is other than fair, the end is totalitarianism.
- Larry N JoAnn Hogan · Follow · Top Commenter · Marion High SchoolJeff and Mark: There was a time when it was considered wrong, and somethimes evil, to lie publicly. Yet we see that every day from certain 'leaders'. It no longer 'spin'. It is flat out bold faced lying.
That is evil and needs to be called evil. One lie, occasionally maybe even inadvertently. But this has become some 'leaders' modus operandi.
What makes it evil is the intent of the lie. And I think we know the intent.
"I am not a crook." resulted in an impeachment proceeding.
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." results in late night talk show jokes. - Thomas Martin Isaacson · Top Commenter · Huntingtown, MarylandJeff and Mark - I tend to agree too. That statement struck me. Look at the fundamentals of the liberal agenda. In addition to what Mark identified, add to that the support of the breakdown of the family unit for political purposes. Is it the intention of modern liberalism to break down the family because single mothers need government and vote democrat? I think one could say yes to that. Obama in answer to Bill O'Reilly's question could not positively support strong families. I would urge a restatement: "contemporary liberalism may have some intentions that on the surface can be articulated as sounding not evil, but the results of the ideology on the lives of individuals and families is clearly negative and arguably evil."
- Roger J. Buffington · Top Commenter · Attorney at Buffington Law Firm, PCFreedom used to be accurately defined as the freedom to largely be left alone by the Government. No more. Now the Government tells us what kind of toilets we may have, how much of our income we may keep, what kind of healthcare insurance we must buy, and that we must, in fact buy it. Endless invasions of one's liberty by the Federal Government (and many State Governments like California's) are the order of the day. King George would not have done these things. As Mel Gibson said: "an elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as the King can." Here in America we are long past that. We have ten thousand tyrants ten miles away...
- Rob Bennett · Top CommenterI've met a lot of liberals recently, and I'm here to report that they don't see themselves as illiberal in any way. In fact, they see conservatives as the fascists and themselves as the freedom fighters. This is why the NSA programs have caused significant cognitive dissonance among that narrowing class of liberals who pay attention. Sure, they superficially write it off as a Bush Era holdover that the One hasn't gotten around to dismantling just yet, but below the surface BS it's done a lot of harm to their self-image.
- Glen Biegel · Follow · Top Commenter · University of Alaska AnchorageHate the Fascism Label, but the comments in the last paragraph by Kagan are very revealing.
- Kelly McMahon · Top Commenter"It’s highly ironic that liberals have compared a baker choosing not to bake a cake for a gay wedding to slavery and Jim Crow laws. After all, the Christian businesses are the ones that are being forced into involuntary servitude for ungrateful, vicious masters....
If the Westboro Baptist Church were to one day decide that they wanted to sell “God h*tes F***” t-shirts on my website, should I be forced to sell it ad space even though I consider its beliefs to be repugnant and incompatible with my faith?"
http://www.conservativeinfidel.com /uncategorized/ 5-reasons-christian-busines ses-shouldnt-legally-force d-support-gay-weddings/ - Jeff Johnson · Top Commenter · Senior Fellow at Cockaponsett InstituteKelly, the obvious answer is that you can turn down Westboro because you are not discriminating based on their sexual preference. But the problem I have is that I cannot find any reference to sexual preference in the Constitution.
The next perversion that is coming is "self-identification". Wherein a man who "self-identifies" as a woman must be treated as a woman, and vice-versa. After that I think we will have racial "self-identification". The good news is that when we reach the point where we each can self-identify on sex, sexual preference, race, gender, nationality or whatever, there will be no need for affirmative action and discrimination will be, de facto, non-existent.
- John F. Sutherland · Top CommenterOld cliches are cliches because they contain a truth. Example: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Does this not describe our liberal self-appointed "Guardians". (Reference is to Plato, of course.)
- Eric Liskey · Top Commenter · California State University, FresnoIf liberals are willing to crush dissent and steal our freedom in order to achieve their Gleichschaltung, then they are indeed evil.
- Todd Foster · Top CommenterAnd here I thought that trying to tell people that there was nothing more illiberal on this planet than American Liberalism was a lost cause.
- Forbes Tuttle · Top CommenterI think Goldberg's argument (Liberal Fascism and examples from 1930s Nazi Germany) in book form and title serves its purpose very well (I've read it.) But I have my doubts that pressing the same argument in popular media works. As, 1) you'll immediately turn off many people (socialists, progressives) who reject out-of-hand Nazi comparisons, and thus lose the chance to engage them in enquiry and debate; and 2) it's a form of preaching to the choir. The committed and converted already 'get it,' as much as they appreciating the history lesson.
By omitting the reference to the policy approach implemented by German Socialist workers Party, also avoided are the subsequent qualifications that Liberalism isn't evil or comparable to Hitlerism. I think these overt qualifications destroy the effectiveness of detailing the similarities. The argument pressed may be without the power of the Nazi comparison, but it also avoids the landmines which that approach is fraught.
It's a bit like comparing a man to "Clark Gable, but without the halitosis." Those already in the know, aren't particularly overawed--those that didn't know, are somewhat turned off by learning it. It's not a winning analogy. - Arlie Ray Blackshear Jr · Top CommenterLiberalism/progressivism has always been about pure power and control. "Helping" the poor was only a vehicle to buy votes with taxpayer money. Liberal/progressivism isn't any where near what they really want to achieve. If they could outlaw political parties they would. If they could jail priests and clergy they would. If they could physically threaten and injure the people that oppose them they would. If it could "rid them of those troublesome conservatives" the fate of Thomas Becket would befall many. We have lived at a time of great liberty, freedom and economic success and liberals/progressives have opposed all of it with a froth and gnashing of teeth seen only in scorned women(H I L I A R y excepted) in a scene from "Fatal Attraction". It is a seething enmity and when they get their chance at power "you'll see..you'll see and get what's coming to you, we'll teach you" is the underlying motivation. It is unrestrained by ethics, decency or morality with a Potemkin legality serving as fig leaf. Evil indeed.
- James Dill · Top CommenterTo peel another layer of the well written onion above, one common feature of "liberal" (progressive, socialist, Marxist, fascist) beliefs is they are all subversive. They are aimed to subvert society and human nature as we have known it. They attack family, nation, capitalism, science, social order, history, biology, religion, men (unless you are a conservative woman, then Katy bar the door), sports, technology, and economics indiscriminately. I know many of these people, they are not evil, but what they do is evil.
The source, I think, is some deep psychological combination of fear, shame, and loathing of modern life. - Bill White · Top CommenterThough the particulars of the Hobby Lobby case make this seem a Liberal v Conservative issue, I don't think the base philosophical argument divides so neatly. When should religious convictions supercede the law by which other, non-believers must abide? It doesn't take much imagination to think of scenarios involving religions whose tenets one doesn't agree with to illuminate the idea that this line is not an easy one to draw...nor one that will always cut cleanly along partisan lines...and certainly not one on where "fascists" are always on one side and "freedom lovers" on the other.
- Richard Mason · Follow · Top Commenter · Hotel Manager at Norblad Hotel and Hostel“One religious group could opt out of this, and another religious group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal, and nothing would be uniform,” Justice Kagan complained, and we can’t have that".
I'm otherwise on the team but must say I agree with this. If we're going start holding peoples agnosticism or atheism over their heads, threatening to apply rules to them that we exempt our more pious citizens from then it's time to start filling glass bottles with gasoline. You lovers of Jesus are going to stay right here in this same mess with the rest... (nice try though...) - John J Trainor · Top Commenter · John AdamsWilliamson is right on, Goldberg starts out strong and then wavers. How do you call something fascism and then say liberalism is not an evil ideology? A cop out.
The left in America has waited years, decades, for this moment. The chance to extend control over the everyday lives of Americans, to act out their collectivist and ruinous aggressive lusts. Obama is assuredly the one they were waiting for, vicious, destructive, contemptuous of America and craving the same chaos and pain that has been the heart of the left since at least the 1890's. - Skip Mendler · Follow · Top Commenter · Sole Proprietorship at Skip Mendler Communications"[Liberals] seek to stigmatize heterodox thought as bigoted or criminal or otherwise beyond the pale. They seek to destroy those with whom they disagree."
That's a pretty big jump in logic, I think... from criticism to genocide in one huge honking leap. If this were true, Fred Phelps would not have been allowed to die a natural death. - Kat Gray · Top Commenter · Prescott Valley, ArizonaI read Williamson's article last night...it was great. In light of the times we are currently living in, I especially appreciated the quote from 'The Once and Future King' that, "Everything not forbidden is compulsory." This sums up the amoral Liberal thought police's credo, perfectly.
Scary isn't it? - Brian Stuart · Top Commenter · UC DavisI've stated this many times. We need to force a language change. The current people who call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" are truly neither. They don't want more liberty; they want less liberty. They are not progressive; if anything, they're regressive where they want an elite group to rule over the rest of us.
- Arlie Ray Blackshear Jr · Top CommenterLiberal and progressive labels are euphemisms really. That side's use of euphemisms is massive.."Choice" "Gay" "Freedom of Worship" "Working poor""Overseas Contingency" "Man made Disaster". In our everyday language conservatives must use language that counters and defines concisely what they are obfuscating about. Never say 'choice' when talking about abortion. Stop using the word 'gay' when you're talking about homosexual marriage. Use words like bossy, when someone suggests censorship. Common usage can make change possible just by calling things what they are rather than what liberals/progressives want the rest of us to use euphemistically.
- Phil Clary · Top Commenter · Illinois State UniversityLiberals are circulating a "Facebook Saying" that goes along the lines of " A friend will calm you down when you are angry. But a best friend will skip beside you with a baseball bat singing 'someone's going to get it.'" Not politically specific, but it does appeal strongly to the liberal mind.
- Steve Lodahl · Top Commenter · University of Wisconsin-MadisonAnd here we thought that Obama was a stumbling, bumbling, failure. Look what he and his minions have accomplished, They have turned morality on it's head thru specious legal engineering. He proves that you can fool most of the people. But you cannot fool God. Woe is America.
- William Durnal · Top Commenter · Ball State UniversityJonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" is a masterpiece I read years ago. It should be read by all. Destroying the socialist academic/politician/media cabal should be the ultimate goal of all Americans who love freedom.
- Don Meaker · Top Commenter · Engineer at Northrop Grumman CorporationMy rule of thumb is that contemporary liberalism is evil, uses evil means for evil ends. The people who support it are evil, alas, including my family members.
- Paul Enterline · Top Commenter · Works at Self Employed LawyerI foresee a world where all gender differences are not only rendered moot but strenuously discouraged and I'm glad I won't have to live in that dull world.
- Dan Shapiro · Top Commenter · San Diego State UniversityScratch a liberal and you'll find a Jackbooted Brown Shirt underneath.
- Michael Kennedy · Top CommenterI stopped using the term "liberal" to refer to leftists a long time ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.