Posted on 01/09/2003 10:17:48 PM PST by missileboy
Well, sure we are - how do you think a large number of folks on Bush Republic vote? One evil is a collectivist more of the fascist persuasion, while another evil is an outspoken, class-warfare practicing socialist. But we can't let the socialist get in, so we vote fascist. Parsing, compartmentalizing and consensus-based dialectic thinking is what these people do best.
The pledge of Allegiance does not say "I pledge allegiance to the current government...", it says: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands..."
That the temporary residents of the White House and the Capitol Building may have forgotten "the Republic for which it stands", in no way impairs my allegiance to the Republic of our founding fathers. That is what the pledge is all about. You may be willing to cede our country, our flag and our Republic to these people by obstinately refusing to pledge allegiance to those things, but true conservatives are not.
And, yes, what your comments do "smack of disloyalty" and much, much more.
--Boot Hill
Though your comment about pledging allegiance to the Republic sounds somewhat reasonable, I suspect that what you have in mind for the Amerikan Republik is markedly different from the ideas set forth by the founders. We can debate specifics if you like, such as the drug war, education, and the income tax.
More importantly, though, there exists a difference between loyalty to a country (which is rooted in not just a love for the principles the country is founded upon but also an ADHERENCE to those principles, as opposed to giving mere lip service to upholding some hollow oath to the Constitution just before passing a prescription drug benefit) and pledging allegiance to a country. The founders spoke often of love for one's country and most definitely recognized the concept of loyalty (treason is certainly a crime). However, you'll find that the idea of pledging allegiance to a symbol was not what they held dear. Above all, they held the idea of a true Republic, which actively defends the liberties of the individual, to be sacred - not some hollow symbol of ideas that once existed. There's a difference, and if you can't see that, then you don't really understand the concept of liberty to begin with.
http://www.pattern.com/bennettj-endcap.html
Corporations and the established wealthy have relied heavily on the power of nation-states to protect them from competition, and most importantly, from the instability of technological change (Schumpeter's creative destruction). One of the most successful public-relations triumphs of the Twentieth Century was the selling of the idea that social democracy was forced on the unwilling rich for the benefit of the poor and working classes. Rather, social democracy has been a device to stabilize society and limit opportunities for upward mobility to narrow, state-administered meritocratic channels.
Massive taxes on new income hurt new startups and upwardly mobile entrepreneurs far more than established wealthy families and corporations. Heavy financial and product regulations cripple new competition and protect established firms. State-mandated labor union rights and lavish mandated employee benefits also present a formidable barrier to entry to new companies. Existing family wealth can usually be sheltered in offshore trusts or other wealth-preservation devices available to those with the large existing fortunes needed to justify the transaction costs of these mechanisms.
Thus, it is no wonder that established wealthy families and their corporate empires have often supported social-democratic politics. The Rockefellers in the US, the Wallenbergs in Sweden, and the entire Tory wet class in Britain have spent much of the Twentieth Century supporting the genteel politics of regulated capitalism and tax-supported redistribution of (some) wealth. They would have preferred that politics be a debate between their parties (the Rockefeller Republicans in the US, the Christian Democrats on the Continent, and the pre-Thatcher Tories, exemplified by Rab Butler, in England) and the more moderate socialists and social-democrats of the Left (Humphrey Democrats, the Social Democratic parties of the Continent, Hugh Gaitskell's Labour in the UK).
It is also little wonder that the political classes, overwhelmingly dependent on large bureaucratic institutions for their incomes, viewed voices outside this consensus with horror. Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher in the political arena, and Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek in the sphere of professional economics all encountered ferocious ridicule and criticism far out of proportion to the impact of the actual policies they advocated or implemented. What sparked intense opposition was their threat to a reigning consensus.
While I agree that this is Bush Republic, (and I'm not too happy about it), Bush is not a fascist. Makes for nifty airheaded sloganeering, but ain't no where near the facts.
"Fascist movements usually try to retain some supposedly healthy parts of the nation’s existing political and social life, but they place more emphasis on creating a new society. In this way fascism is directly opposed to conservatism—the idea that it is best to avoid dramatic social and political change. Instead, fascist movements set out to create a new type of total culture in which values, politics, art, social norms, and economic activity are all part of a single organic national community. In Nazi Germany, for example, the fascist government in the 1930s tried to create a new Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community) built around a concept of racial purity. "
Facsism is an economic and cultural control phenomenon that seeks to prevent conservativism, usurp a nations existing cultural traditions, and hand economic control of the nation to the government, while still 'allowing' private ownership. Outside of loony leftist educational facilities, and the mainstream press, no one equates Republicanism with fascism. In fact the Demonkratic party is much closer to fascism than socialism. It almost exactly fits the course the Demons wish to put us on.
We are developing an American Fascism, but it's the Demonkrats that are running full speed in that direction, the Republicans are merely sauntering.
This part I agree with. In fact, I'm fond of saying America isn't a geographic place, but an Idea.
That is what the pledge is all about.
This part I do not agree with. As the purpose of the pledge, no matter what words it has in it, is to condition the young to support the state.
With that said, I do not use the term like most on "the left" do, labeling the Nazis as "right wing" and calling the Republicans or "the right" Facists simply because they believe in the use of authority. No, the Nazis had much more in common with the collectivist "left" of Amerikan politiks. That much is clear. However, G.W. behaves like a Fascist for all he has done to blend the public and private sectors, such as money to the airlines, federal involvement in education, and some aspects of the T.I.P.S. program. I would equate the Republicans of today with Fascism because they exhibit collectivist tendencies (not for the reasons cited by "the left"). Indeed, the Republikans are now actively taking us to hell, not just merely sauntering.
To me personally, it matters little how we classify collectivism or even who between the Republicrats and the Demicans is advancing collectivism slower or faster. I care about the inevitable end result of collectivist politics. I think you've given the Republikans WAY too much credit on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.