Comments on: Dear Teabaggers, I’ve got some questions.

By: JLW

JLW — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 03:57:53 +0000

Rusty, think of a continuum of political/economic ideologies. On one end you have absolute freedom, i.e. anarchy, absence of government. On the other, an all-powerful government that controls everything (not actually possible, but the USSR came close enough). All the ideologies above, fascism, socialism, and communism, would be clustered toward the “all-powerful government” end of the spectrum. The early US, a constitutional republic with a weak central government, was toward the “freedom” end of the spectrum (ignoring slavery for the moment). Seen in this view, fascism, socialism, and communism are not opposites at all. As I stated above, they are variations on the same theme: that the government should have extensive control over the people. Yes, there are differences, but they are all very opposed to a free society. Increases in government power take us in the direction of all 3. Where we end up, as I said above, is anyone’s guess, but I don’t want any of them. I prefer freedom, thank you. Unfortunately for me, we are already considerably fascist. Hoover and FDR gave us a big push in that direction, and Bush and Obama have pushed ahead further still. And with the bailouts and more government ownership of industry, we have partial socialism as well. So, the tea-baggers name calling may not be super-precise, but so what? They have the basic idea correct. Obama (like Bush before him) is taking the country away from freedom, and pushing it toward government control.

Just a couple of additional comments to help you. 1) The term “heavily-regulated capitalist economy” is an oxymoron. 2) You say, “I’d also think we’d agree that history has shown that when businesses run without regulation, it is almost always at the expense of the public welfare”. actually, it is when business is run WITH much regulation, it is done at the expense of the public welfare. In a democracy (which we have been since the Constitution died, well over 100 years ago), big businesses buy the regulations they want via campaign contributions and lobbying. These regulations are generally designed to hinder competitors. Of course, they always have some pretense about “protecting the public”, but this is almost always nonsense. Ok, enough.

By: Rusty Shackleford

Rusty Shackleford — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:39:40 +0000

Thanks for the comments. I think, though, that you’re still a little confused on political ideologies. The Nazi party ran Germany as a socialist state. There’s no such thing as “Naziism” per se.

Fascism can take many different forms. In Italy, for example, Mussolini established a one-party state and quashed opposition but still maintained a heavily-regulated capitalist system.

Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy allowed for private industry based on capitalist principles (supply and demand, etc.) Obviously Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were horrible governments, but to say they are branches of the same ideals is completely false.

Communism, as we saw in the former USSR and now in Cuba, had an economies entirely dictated by government leaders. Economists in the capitol would tell each factory how much to produce, how much to pay their workers, etc.

Sparing you the economics lecture, suffice it to say the main difference between socialism and communism is that one allows for private (yet regulated) industry while the other does not.

Now, I think we can all agree that we don’t want a Nazi-style socialist government here. I’d also think we’d agree that history has shown that when businesses run without regulation, it is almost always at the expense of the public welfare. So the question remains, where is the middle ground?

By: JLW

JLW — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:38:45 +0000

Answers:
1. I’m actually very surprised anyone would say that. Socialism and communism are not “completely different”, they are variations on the same theme. So are fascism, and Nazism. They all are about government having enormous power over the economy and people’s lives. They differ in degree, but are certainly not opposites. Obama’s policies push us in the general direction of all those ideologies. Where we will end up remains to be seen. Probably not total communism. But we already have an economy with (too many) elements of fascism and socialism.
2. During times of war it is MORE important to criticize Presidents than any other time. I did for Bush. Most Republicans did not, you correctly point out.
3. I applaud anyone showing up armed at such events. The government needs to be reminded that their power is not unlimited. I have not heard of anyone threatening the President’s life.
4. Yes, the birthers are whacko. “why haven’t you, as a group, come out and said so?” Because there is no group hierarchy here. These are events with all sorts of individuals attending, for different reasons. No one speaks for the “group”.
5. This is the first I’ve seen any racist sign or statement at any rally. I hereby denounce it. We good?
6. I criticized Bush in very harsh terms for his spending. But I am more of a libertarian than a Republican. But Obama is Bush on steroids, fiscally.
7. Obama is extremely charismatic, an excellent speaker (as long as the teleprompter is running). He can really work a crowd. His supporters I know seem to have no understanding that he is bankrupting the country. Where is the money coming from? But yes, the personality cult exists amongst Republicans as well.
7. Czars are unnecessary and dangerous, no matter who is President.