Liberals Are Leading America Into Fascism

Start Thinking Right ^ | April 3, 2009 | Michael Eden

[Michael Eden]

More and more, we are seeing our country moved not just toward European socialism, but toward fascism (which, of course, is also European). As this longtime trend now dramatically picks up speed, we should first realize a couple of critical points: First of all, socialism, communism and fascism are kissing cousins, intimately related to one another. "U.S.S.R." was an acronym for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." "N.A.Z.I." was an acronym for "National Socialist German Workers' Party."

Second, both communism and fascism are products of the left. Ask yourself this: if we had a "National Socialist American Workers' Party," does it sound to you like something that would be more in line with conservatives and Republicans or with liberals and Democrats?

I personally began to understand the link between modern American liberalism and fascism by way of my own study of postmodernism. This connection began with my readings of Gene Edward Veith's books, Postmodern Times and Modern Fascism. As a result of my readings I wrote an article, "How Postmodernism Leads to Fascism" - consisting of three parts (part 2; part 3) - exploring the relationship of the ideas underlying postmodern thought and fascistic thought. I subsequently came to discover that others had had similar understandings (e.g. see George Crowder's review of Richard Wolin's book, The Seduction of Unreason: the Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism entitled, "Are post modernists fascist?"

I must here hasten to add that neither Gene Edward Veith nor the aforementioned writers directly attempted in their projects to connect fascism with liberalism or with the Democratic Party. But in my readings I could not help but repeatedly hear striking similarities between the positions I was seeing inherent in postmodernism and fascism with the ideas coming out of the mouths of prominent Democrats.

My point is that when you study the presuppositions, the worldview, underlying postmodernism, and do the same thing with fascism, you begin to see far too many similarities to simply dismiss. It is fair to say that "postmodernism" is a philosophical perspective, and that "fascism" is the resulting political expression of postmodern thought. And the Democratic Party, in buying into postmodern thought, are increasingly buying into fascism.

If I had truly had an original idea in seeing a connection between modern American liberalism and fascism, Jonah Goldberg beat me to its examination in his thought-provoking work, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini tot he Politics of Meaning. While my studies had focused primarily upon philosophy and underlying worldviews, Goldberg's book is a solid study of brute history.

Goldberg doesn't merely assign pejorative labels to people and groups he doesn't like. Rather, he painstakingly explores - through original sources and through the works of influential historians - the thoughts and policies of fascists such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and then demonstrates the clear connection of their thoughts and policies with the thoughts and policies of American progressives and liberals such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and others. Even George W. Bush - with his "compassionate conservatism" and his "No child left behind," is discovered to be connected with certain fascist tendencies (see page 23).

Nor does Goldberg set out to use his terms such as "fascist" and "totalitarian" as a harsh, negative, politically-charged charged accusation. For instance, of "totalitarianism" he says:

"But what do we mean when we say something is "totalitarian"? The word itself has certainly taken on an understandably sinister connotation in the last half century. Thanks to work by Hannah Arendt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others, it's become a catchall for brutal, soul-killing, Orwellian regimes. But that's not how the word was originally used or intended. Mussolini himself coined the term to describe a society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside; where truly no child was left behind" (p. 14).

And he then leaves it up to the reader to decide whether "totalitarianism" - now properly understood in its historical context - is actually more compatible with the philosophy of conservatism or liberalism. And in the same way Goldberg does not set out to attack liberals by comparing them to Hitler, but rather to contrast the fascism of Hitler from the fascism of American liberals:

"This American fascism seems - and is - very different from its European variants because it was moderated by many special factors - geographical size, ethnic diversity, Jeffersonian individualism, a strong classical liberal tradition, and so on. As a result, American fascism is milder, more friendly, more "maternal" than its foreign counterparts - "smiley-face fascism." Nice fascism. The best term to describe it is "liberal fascism." And this liberal fascism was, and remains, fundamentally left wing" (p. 8).

But he demonstrates in the body of his book that the shoe - in this case the label "fascism" - clearly fits the modern American left - and NOT the right.

One of the reasons leftists have been able to charge the right with being "fascists" is the tendency of conservatives to place a high value on a powerful military - making them "militaristic" and thus fascistic in the minds of leftists. But this charge is simply unfair for two reasons: 1) because most conservatives want a powerful military in order to maintain a deterrent against attack from totalitarian regimes, not to defeat and despoil peaceful countries; and 2) because "militarism" is a mindset that has far larger overtones than merely creating military armies.

Of this second point, Goldberg writes:

"Consider militarism, which will come up again and again in the course of this book. Militarism was indisputably central to fascism (and communism) in countless countries. But it has a much more nuanced relationship with fascism than one might suppose... But for far more people, militarism was a pragmatic expedient: the highest, best means for organizing society in productive ways. Inspired by ideas like those in William James' famous essay "The Moral Equivalent of War," militarism seemed to provide a workable and sensible model for achieving desirable ends. Mussolini, who openly admired and invoked James, used this logic for his famous "Battle of the Grains" and other sweeping social initiatives. Such ideas had an immense following in the United States, with many leading progressives championing the use of "industrial armies" to create the ideal workers' democracy. Later, Franklin Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps - as militaristic a social program as one can imagine - borrowed from these ideas, as did JFK's Peace Corps.

This trope has hardly been purged from contemporary liberalism. Every day we hear about the "war on cancer," the "war on drugs," the "War on poverty," and exhortations to make this or that social challenge the "moral equivalent of war." From health care to gun control to global warming, liberals insist that we need to "get beyond politics" and "put ideological differences behind us" in order to "do the people's business." The experts and scientists know what to do, we are told; therefore the time for debate is over. This, albeit in a nicer and more benign form, is the logic of fascism - and it was on ample display in the administrations of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and yes, even John F. Kennedy" (pp. 5-6).

It's one thing to believe that we need a strong national defense; and quite another to seek to militarize an entire society toward goals chosen by autocrats. The former is simply prudent in a dangerous world; the second is fascist.

Having stated the fact that "fascism" is a species within the umbrella category of "socialism," there are yet distinguishing features that would make a particular "socialist" system "fascist." Sheldon Richman (of the Foundation for Economic Education) provides the distinction in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics in his entry on "Fascism":

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society's economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the "national interest"--that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Appearing on the Glenn Beck television program on April 1, 2009, Richman said:

"Under socialism there was no facade of free markets or capitalism, whatever you want to call it. Everything was just nationalized, and the economy was just a government operation. Under fascism - under Mussolini in Italy and then under Hitler in the 30s with the Nazis - they left intact what looked like private businesses; the government just dictated all the terms. But in both cases - in fascism and socalism - the market was effectively abolished. There was no marketplace. There was no bidding, there was no haggling, there was no market.

And that should give us an important disctinction of what is going on today in the United States. The market has not been abolished in the United States. It is very heavily burdened by government, but that is not the same as abolishing it."

Sheldon Richman acknowledges that we aren't fascist quite yet, but he also says:

"We've been on that road [moving away from our republic and toward a system of fascism] for a very long time. We've been on that road for ages, even into the 19th century. We sometimes take two steps forward, and then one back, sometimes we take one step forward, and two steps back. The GM and the AIG situations are more like fascism than socialism."

Jonah Goldberg likewise argues that the left has - to various degrees - embraced fascism since at least the early 20th century. And - in the light of the last few months - it is vital that we note that we have lurched not one or two steps toward fascism, but dozens of steps in what now frankly appears to a headlong rush.

I point out in a recent article that the last president who fired the CEO of a private company was Vladimir Putin. And the Obama administration has not only fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner, but it will not rule out firing other CEOs of private companies, as well. The Obama administration has already spent more and added more debt than every president from George Washington to George Bush - combined. We are looking at unsustainable levels of federal spending under Obama, which the Congressional Budget Office says will result in "an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82% of the overall economy by 2019."

We are watching a frightening takeover of the economy by the federal government in an incredibly short period of time from an administration whose chief of staff and whose Secretary of State have already essentially said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste... it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."

Obama has appointed a global warming czar, Carol Browner, who had been one of the leaders of a socialist group whose position on global governance includes the view that the United States should abdicate its international leadership to international organizations, and that the international community should be the ultimate arbiter of climate change policy.

Obama nominated Harold Koh as the State Department's legal adviser, a man who:

"once wrote that the U.S. was part of an 'axis of disobedience' with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Koh also has long held that the U.S. should accept international law when deliberating cases at home.... Koh also advocates a 'transnational legal process' and has criticized the U.S. for its failure to 'obey global norms.'"

And now we have Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner literally saying he is open to replacing the US dollar with a new global currency:

Geithner, at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. is "open" to a headline-grabbing proposal by the governor of the China's central bank, which was widely reported as being a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar, but which Geithner described as more modest and "evolutionary."

"I haven’t read the governor’s proposal. He’s a very thoughtful, very careful distinguished central banker. I generally find him sensible on every issue," Geithner said, saying that however his interpretation of the proposal was to increase the use of International Monetary Fund's special drawing rights -- shares in the body held by its members -- not creating a new currency in the literal sense.

"We’re actually quite open to that suggestion – you should see it as rather evolutionary rather building on the current architecture rather than moving us to global monetary union," he said.

"The only thing concrete I saw was expanding the use of the [special drawing rights]," Geithner said. "Anything he’s thinking about deserves some consideration."

While Geithner flip-flopped on his "open" positon less than 24 hours after expressing it, all three high level Obama officials reveal a shocking openness - if not an outright call - for a new internationalist order in which we unpeg ourselves from our Constitution and move into international law as the source of our authority.

Which is more quintessentially fascist than anything this nation has ever seen, as former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton explained on the April 1, 2009 Glenn Beck program:

"There are a lot of people, some of whom are now in the Obama administration, who believe that the United States should move into a process of 'international norming,' where we conform our domestic laws to the international consensus - whether it's on death penalty or climate change, or gun control, a whole range of issues - for almost every domestic issue, there's a kind of international counterpart. I think this is fundamentally dangerous because I think ultimately it takes decision-making away from the people and our constitutional system and puts it into the international arena."

We have little enough sway over our own elected officials. Imagine how little influence we would have over unelected global autocrats imposing their "global consciousness" upon us.

And again, this is a trend that is now dramatically increasing in velocity. Liberal Supreme Court Justices have been looking to international law as a source for legitimization of the rulings they have wanted to impose on the American people for years.

Fascism has been coming into our country for decades. It is flooding into our country right now. And it is - and has been - liberals urging it upon us.

More than 150 years ago Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that such a smiley-faced fascist state would mean the death of liberty in America:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

Right now individual citizens as well as major banks and corporations such as AIG and General Moters are trading their freedom for security. But Benjamin Franklin addressed the tradeoff that we are seeing being made more and more often:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Welcome2thejungle]

As far as I can possibly tell, the two main love interests in Hitler’s life were his niece Geli Rabaul, and after her suicide(?), Eva Braun.

[Eva]

My experience was just the opposite. I came to study post modern thought only recently, but I had identified the third way world government as fascism, back during the Clinton administration.

I never even looked into post modern thought until the Duke Lacrosse case brought post modernism into the news.

[Luke21]

“The only question becomes, “Who will American fascism be intolerant of?””

I have a pretty good idea.

[PeterPrinciple]

First of all, socialism, communism and fascism are kissing cousins, intimately related to one another.

---

I think the above is a true statement. The one common factor is 100% governemtn control!

[Michael Eden]

Obviously, you're right about the SA. But the SA thugs p쑰primarily went to and broke up the opposition's rallies. Hitler HIMSELF obviously had his own rallies. In addition to attacking his rivals, he had to establish his own base - and the backbone of that base was working men. Hitler most certainly DID reach out to the working man who had been previously attracted to communism, arguing that under the Marxist class system "workingmen have no country." I'm looking at page 70 of Liberal Fascism, in which Goldberg interacts with Shirer. Shirer says the Nazis aimed first to "destroy the left" before they went after the traditional right. And Goldberg says the reason for the this was that "the Nazis could much more easily defeat opponents on the left because they appealed to the same social base, used the same langugage, and thought in the same categories." Goldberg says on page 72, "In short, the battle between the Nazis and the communists was a case of two dogs fighting for the same bone."

[Michael Eden]

Obviously, you're right about the SA. But the SA thugs p쑰primarily went to and broke up the opposition's rallies. Hitler HIMSELF obviously had his own rallies. In addition to attacking his rivals, he had to establish his own base - and the backbone of that base was working men. Hitler most certainly DID reach out to the working man who had been previously attracted to communism, arguing that under the Marxist class system "workingmen have no country." I'm looking at page 70 of Liberal Fascism, in which Goldberg interacts with Shirer. Shirer says the Nazis aimed first to "destroy the left" before they went after the traditional right. And Goldberg says the reason for the this was that "the Nazis could much more easily defeat opponents on the left because they appealed to the same social base, used the same langugage, and thought in the same categories." Goldberg says on page 72, "In short, the battle between the Nazis and the communists was a case of two dogs fighting for the same bone."

[SonOfDarkSkies]

Yes, those are the only two love interests noted. However, there were minor dalliances mentioned by Shirer and others.

Here's what Shirer has to say on this matter...

"Contrary to the general opinion, he liked he company of women, especially if they were beautiful. He returns to the subject time and again in his table talk at Supreme Headquarters during the war. "What lovely women there are in the world!" he exclaims to his cronies on the night of January 25-26, 1942...

Heiden has recounted some of his romantic yearnings of the early days: for a Jenny Haug...for the tall and stately Erna Hangstaengl, sister of Putzi; for Winifred Wagner, daughter-in-law of Richard Wagner.

Shirer, Rise and Fall..., p.131

[SonOfDarkSkies]

"In short, the battle between the Nazis and the communists was a case of two dogs fighting for the same bone."

Germany at that time was a wild mishmash of parties all fighting for votes. To ignore any large constituency was simply out of the question if the goal was victory. The workers were important, but they were merely a small piece of a much larger puzzle.

The pillars of Hitler's strength came from his alliances with the Military and Industrial establishment.

[Vaduz]

Problem:More and more, we are seeing our country moved not just toward European socialism.
Cure?

[Welcome2thejungle]

A few years ago, I saw a German made movie, Down Fall, about Hitler’s final days in the Bunker. It was positively one of the most realistic portrayals of Hitler and his entourage during the final days of the Reich in Berlin. And, yes, Hitler did seem to prefer the company of his young female attendants, particularly his personal secretary, Traudl Jung, from whose viewpoint the story is told. In fact, Down Fall, is based upon Traudl Jung’s recollections and she passed away just several years ago. Since Fraulein Jung spent just about every day with Hitler from 1942 until his suicide in the Fuehrerbunker, I think her eyewitness account of the Hitler’s final days was quite accurate. If you don’t mind seeing a foreign language film with English subtitles, go rent Down Fall.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

I actually enjoy foreign films with subtitles.;-)

I'll try to locate it. Thx!

[Michael Eden]

As to your point that Roehm’s homosexuality wasn’t the main reason behind the Night of the Long Knives, I wouldn’t disagree. I was merely citing something I saw on the History Channel. They clearly established that the SA was filled with homosexuality; the other stuff was posed as possible theories (including the idea that Hitler had himself participated in homosexuality).

Most of what you’re saying strikes me as a solid understanding of history.

But I would submit (to clarify, if nothing else) that Hitler basically seized power, and THEN the German industrialists came to him versus the idea that they helped him get to power.

It is important to realize that Marxist scholarship - which influenced MANY American academics - went to great lengths to demonize the Nazis and fascism as being the polar opposite of communism. And a lot of writings tried to support that notion, even though it is demonstrably NOT the case.

One quote helps show how misguided this project was:

Patrick Leigh Fermor, a young Briton traveling in Germany... met some of these men in a Rhineland workers’ pub, still wearing their night shift overalls. One of his new drinking buddies offered to let Fermor crash at his house for the night...[and Fermor] found “a shrine to Hitleriana.”

Quote: “The walls were covered with flags, photographs, posters, slogans and emblems. His SA uniforms hung neatly ironed on a hanger... When I said that it must be rather claustrophobic with all that stuff on the walls, he laughed and sat down on the bed, and said: Mensch! You should hve seen it last year! You would have laughed! Then it was all red flags, stars, hammers, sickles, pictures of Lenin and Stalin and Workers of the World Unite!... Then, suddenly when Hitler came to power, I understood it was all nonsense and lies. I realized Adolf was the man for me. All of a sudden!” He snapped his fingers in the air. “And here I am!”... Had a lot of people done the same, then? “Millions! I tell you, I was astonished how easily they all changed sides!” (from Burleigh, Third Reich, pp. 132-33, as cited in Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p 72)

[Michael Eden]

I now understand that you are one of those people who raises a trivial point, and then fights to the death to maintain it.

If you want to make a mountain of a molehill, fine. If you want to reject any authority I cite as somehow being inadequate, fine. I frankly don’t give a damn any more.

[Petronski]

I now understand that you are one of those people who misunderstand the meaning of a term, proceed to misuse it, and then insolently protest correction of the error.

I haven’t rejected “any authority” you cite, simply that one on this point. They don’t seem to be very diligent in their understanding of the N.S.A.D.P. [sic], but feel free to cite them if you wish.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

Is the film you mention the one with Bruno Ganz as Hitler--Der Untergang (The Downfall)?

If so, I have seen it and it is great!

BTW, it is available on youtube in 15 parts. See if this is a link to the film you saw...Der Untergang

[Michael Eden]

The pillars of Hitler’s strength came from his alliances with the Military and Industrial establishment.
- - - - - -

You are essentially viewing Hitler as being “right wing” rather than as what Goldberg describes as the “right wing of the far left.”

Let me hit you with another quote, from Nazi ideologist Gregor Strasser:
“We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!” (Roger Griffen, ed., Fascism, 1995, p. 123).

The Nazi Platform:
Point 12: ... we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Point 13: We demand the nationalization of all asociated industries

Point 14: We demand a division of profits of heavy industries

Point 15: We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Does this sound like the system the industrialists wanted? Were the capitalists in all actually profound anti-capitalists? Did they really want to have their assets nationalized? Did they want their profits seized?

It’s kind of like Obama. Did all the major corporations support him and put their weight behind him, or did they simply begin to fall in line after he won?

[Michael Eden]

The pillars of Hitler’s strength came from his alliances with the Military and Industrial establishment.
- - - - - -

You are essentially viewing Hitler as being “right wing” rather than as what Goldberg describes as the “right wing of the far left.”

Let me hit you with another quote, from Nazi ideologist Gregor Strasser:
“We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!” (Roger Griffen, ed., Fascism, 1995, p. 123).

The Nazi Platform:
Point 12: ... we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Point 13: We demand the nationalization of all asociated industries

Point 14: We demand a division of profits of heavy industries

Point 15: We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Does this sound like the system the industrialists wanted? Were the capitalists in all actually profound anti-capitalists? Did they really want to have their assets nationalized? Did they want their profits seized?

It’s kind of like Obama. Did all the major corporations support him and put their weight behind him, or did they simply begin to fall in line after he won?

[Michael Eden]

Sorry for the duplicate. My browser isn’t working very well today.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

I suggest you read Shirer or the authoritative works of biographers like Toland, Bullock, and Kershaw for some meaty detail of the beginnings of Party. I like Goldberg but he is not a recognized authority on Hitler and the Nazi Party.

The Party was socialist as founded by Drexler and envisioned by Strasser. But the nascent party of Drexler was tiny (40 people or so). Despite the intentions of the founders and early members, Hitler seized power (Strasser was killed on his orders) and reformulated the Party in his own image.

There is no doubt that the original German Workers Party, the National Socialist German Workers Party or the Nazi Party were socialist, but its origins are irrelevant once Hitler seized control of it.

[Welcome2thejungle]

Yes, that’s the one. Bruno Ganz gave a remarkable, dramatic, and I think quite accurate portrayal of Hitler. No Hollyweird fluff here. This was the real deal as seen through the eyes of Hitler’s young secretary. I thought it was quite accurate.