April 17, 2008


ERODING OUR FREEDOMS ONE CRISIS AT A TIME

Filed under: 2008
By Joel L (Email) @ 2:29 pm

I am about thirty pages from finishing Jonah Goldberg’s fascinating book “Liberal Fascism” and I have to say that this book is one of the most important books I have read in probably the last 10 to 15 years. If you have not read this book you should put down whatever book you are currently reading and run, not walk, to your local book store and buy this book.

In “Liberal Fascism” Mr. Goldberg points out that one of the traits both the jackbooted fascists of yesterday share with their kinder gentler cousins among today’s liberals is the regular use of so called “crises” to mobilize the masses and centralize power. Furthermore, the responses to these crises are often described in martial terms, such as a war on poverty.

A perfect example of Mr. Goldberg’s point was on display this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough. Today Mr. Scarborough interviewed Rick Stengel, Managing Editor of Time Magazine. Mr. Stengel unveiled the cover for Time’s forthcoming environmental issue which will feature the historic Iwo Jima flag raising photo with the American flag replaced with a tree. The cover story will be “How to Win the War on Global Warming.” Mr. Stengel explained how Time magazine in this issue would eschew a merely descriptive approach towards reporting on global warming in favor of a prescriptive approach. In short, the issue will be one big editorial promoting various environmental schemes.

I have a problem with all of this. Aside from the poor taste in doctoring an iconic Marine Corps image of heroism I am troubled by the description of the theory of global warming as not only an irrefutable fact but as a crisis of the same magnitude as war. First of all, there is no consensus in the scientific community as to the existence of global warming or, assuming it exists, what causes it. Furthermore, there is a wide divergence of opinion as to what, if any, long term impact global warming might have on the planet. Consequently, what is needed is more research in this area, not fear mongering.

However, a prudent and measured approach to the issue of global warming is the last thing the environmental activists of the left want. They want government action, lots of it, right now. That is why they want to describe the issue as a war that must be won. I have no doubt that framing the issue in this way is intended to frighten/motivate the citizenry to acquiesce to a whole host of new regulations and laws that will erode our freedoms and diminish the sphere of individual choice.


Trackback/Pingbacks:

The trackback URL for this post: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/2499/trackback

  1. Pages tagged "liberal fascism"

    2. [...] liberal fascismOwn a Wordpress blog? Make monetization easier with the WP Affiliate Pro plugin. ERODING OUR FREEDOMS ONE CRISIS AT A TIME saved by 12 others     sasukegirl55547 bookmarked on 04/17/08 | [...]

26 Rebel Yells to “ERODING OUR FREEDOMS ONE CRISIS AT A TIME”

  1. Centinel Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    This article on the Iwo Jima survivor’s view of the Time cover is priceless. My favorite quote:

    “[W]e’ll stick a dadgum tree up somebody’s rear if they want that and think that’s going to cure something.”

  2. Rebunga Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

    Dont get me started. The whole reason for being a liberal is so you can reinterpret the law in a way that suits you. This allows you to project power over your fellow citizens without using the political process.

    Suppose you feel strongly that the constitution “should” protect a right to privacy that doesn’t exist. Poof! Penumbras ahoy! Right to privacy curtails the right of the people to make abortion illegal.

    Suppose that you think crazed college students mass murdering their classmates is a “crisis.” You want to ban firearms, starting with handguns. Problem is there is an explicit right to firearms in the constitution. No problem! Poof! Just interpret the right to bear arms out of the constitution.

    In short, liberals have no problem with curtailing YOUR liberty, if doing so solves their perceived crisis. The problem with the relativistic approach is that it can be easily abused and it cuts both ways. Departure from teh rule of law and arrival at the Rule of men. Stalin is same as Hitler, etc. etc.

  3. publius Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    the regular use of so called “crises” to mobilize the masses and centralize power. Furthermore, the responses to these crises are often described in martial terms, such as a war on poverty.

    um… do i really need to say it? you know what i’m going to say, right?

  4. Joel Leggett Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    Publius,

    Let me see.. Maybe, “Your right Joel and I see the terible potential consequences of this approach.” Or maybe, “I have seen the error of my ways and I will now adopt a conservative world view.” ;)

  5. Jay Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    Right, but the difference is, all my crises are real, and all the other sides’ crises are contrived just to gin up fear and allow a police state. Does that clear things up?

  6. Joel Leggett Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    Ok, I’ll bite. I am assuming you are talking about the Global War on Terror. The differences between that and the war on global warming are many. To begin with we have the verifiable fact that on 9/11 terrorists flew two planes into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. As I pointed out in my post, there is NO scientific consensus that global warming even exists. Nevertheless, left-wing environmental activists are pushing a never ending flood of regulations and laws that will simultaneously expand the size and scope of government and diminish individual freedom and choice.

    If that does not work for you then I would just point to the campaigns of both Obama and Hillary. Everything is a crisis demanding a government solution; health care, housing, income disparity, race relations, the environment, you name it. Then look at the McCain Campaign. His big issue is foreign policy and Iraq, none of which are mandating huge new government bureaucracies.

    You may not like the war in Iraq. However, it does not affect your domestic situation. In fact, that has been one of the criticisms many on the left level at Bush, that he is fighting a war without making the rest of the nation sacrifice through higher taxes. You may think that the Patriot Act is intrusive. However, many of its provisions have to be regularly reviewed and voted on by the legislature to continue. That is a far cry from the nationalizing of entire industries and the creation of new bureaucracies that will have a half life to great to even compute.

  7. Jay Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    I agree that the left is responsible for this kind of thing in a lot of areas (and even more responsible for the corresponding idea that the government can/should solve such crises, even if they do exist). One place the right is surely as guilty, though, is the war on drugs–Jack Shafer at Slate often points out the regular cycle of media hysteria over various “new” drug epidemics, like meth or painkillers, despite the frequent lack of supporting evidence. I’m inclined to think this is somewhat true of crime in general, which always works well as a campaign issue for whoever can propose the most draconian new measures.

  8. Joel Leggett Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Jay,

    You are absolutely right regarding the so called war on drugs. As Mr. Goldberg points out in his book, Republicans are not immune from such temptations.

  9. TomO Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    You have to be kidding me. Forget the war on terror for a moment, as while I think that your side has definitely gone crazy there it is, indisputably, a military conflict.
    But
    War on Crime, War on Drugs, War against Christian values, War on Christmas?!?!?

  10. TomO Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

    also not specifically using the war term but certainly adopting an overall martial imagery Defense of Mariage and referring to illegal immigration as an invasion.

  11. Joel Leggett Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Tom,

    Please tell me what conservative or Republican is proposing a war against Christian values or Christmas for that matter. Our side is generaly considered the family values crowd and it would be inconsistent, to say the least, to wage war against Christian values and Christmas. Your side may be proposing such a plan but not the Right.

    Furthermore, the use of the term “defense” in the Defense of Mariage act is no more martial than than that word’s use in the title criminal defense counsel.

    When some Republican or conservative proposes a “War on immigration” then I will buy your infrence regarding the use of the word invasion in describing the human wave that has flooded over our southern border. However, in light of the Senate Republican’s weak “comprehensive Reform” package I would have to say you are out to lunch if you think there is anything remotely fascist in the use of the term invasion.

  12. TomO Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    Joel,

    I don’t see why using martial imagery as a way of describing your opponents is somehow less “fascist” (in Goldberg’s ridiculous bastardization of the term). And republicans clearly describe the the secularist position as a war against them. Conservative marriage rhetoric is consistently laced with martial rhetoric, and while no one is proposing a war on immigration conservative comenters have certainly called it an invasion which is pretty martial.
    And this also rhetoric only - its not like Democratic Senators have enacted aggressive reform against global warming - hell Kyoto lost 95-0 in the show vote.
    Attempting to pretend that the Dem party is more “fascist” than the GOP because of militarization rhetoric on political questions is on face ridiculous given the above examples. You can disagree with us without engaging in that idiotic, and offensive, insult.

  13. publius Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    In fairness, I haven’t read the book, so I’m limited on that front.

    My point though is that fascism is traditionally associated with vast expansion of hte executive branch, usually coupled with an intense militant-focused nationalism defined in opposition to an external enemy.

    Now I don’t like throwing the term fascist around b/c I think the nazis deserve their own special place in hell without me lumping people with them.

    but that said, the iraq war and expansion of executive authority in response to terrorism is about as textbook example as you can get.

  14. KM Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 11:47 pm

    Joel,

    I think Tom was suggesting that your side gins up the so-called War on Christmas and War on Christians in order frighten/motivate the citizenry, not that you are calling for such wars.

  15. Joel Leggett Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 12:39 am

    Publius,

    I am glad to see that you are willing to concede that the expansion of executive power is at least a characteristic of fascism, because no President in the history of the republic expanded it more than that ultimate liberal hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Nothing President Bush has done even remotely comes close to the revolution in executive authority that Roosevelt established. When President Bush tries something in excess of serving four consecutive terms or tries to adjust the number of Supreme Court justices to pack it with his cronies then you, as a man of the left, will have good standing to complain about Bush. If Bush tries to nationalize an industry or even a factory like that other liberal hero, Woodrow Wilson, then try to tell me about American conservative fascism.

    Nevertheless, given your own definition of fascism I suggest you read Mr. Goldberg’s book. I think you will be startled at what you learn.

    Jay,

    I am not pretending that the American left is more fascist than the American right simply because of word choice. The American left has latched on to fascist solutions to address problems they believe deserve priority. Invariably these solutions involve dramatic expansions of government size and power and a corresponding diminution of individual freedom, i.e. the New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society, etc. My point about language is that the left often uses the language of war to stir up emotions to rouse the citizenry to believe there is a crisis afoot that must be solved immediately through government action.

  16. TomO Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 8:18 am

    Yes, social security the height of fascism - I mean can’t you see it, its spelled SS.

    Calling for ever increasing police power in the war on drugs; so much less relevant, because after all Nancy liked it. The border security fence and calls for a national guard on the border - not at all a militarized response to a “crisis”.

  17. TomO Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 8:23 am

    On a serious note;
    You don’t concede that the Great Depression is in fact a genuine crisis?

    Running for four terms, before the 22nd amendment is somehow caesarist, why?

    Asking Congress to pass a law expanding the S.Ct. size, which they then refused, compares unfavorably to Bush’s assertion that Congressional laws can’t bind him in relation to intelligence gathering within the U.S. or treatment of prisoners, how?

    Also, what modern liberals are heralding Woodrow Wilson? Guy was a bit of a racist and his League was a failure in large part due to his arrogance. I like the UN, but perfectly willing to agree that the man who ordered the Palmer Raids should not rank highly amongst our Presidents.

  18. Daniel S. Goldberg Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 10:04 am

    Joel,

    Jonah Goldberg’s book is pathetically awful. And it isn’t just libruls who think so:

    http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/review.html

  19. Feddie Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 10:17 am

    Daniel-

    I can’t believe you’re talking about your brother’s book that way.

    For shame! :)

  20. Joel Leggett Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am

    Daniel,

    Thanks for providing the link to the American Conservative’s review of Liberal Fascism. I can now say that I have finally read the single worst review of Liberal Fascism. I truly wonder if Mr. Bramwell read the book. I suspect not. I suspect what is at play here is the American Conservative and Pat Buchanan’s ongoing feud with National Review. My advice is to read the book yourself and make up your own mind. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

  21. Daniel S. Goldberg Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Feddie,

    Yes, all us Goldbergs are related.

    Joel,

    I managed to stomach about 300 pages of that book. As I do some graduate work in history, I can say definitively that the book is a complete embarrassment, for reasons that Bramwell and many others note (David Neiwert over at Orcinus — unapolgetically progressive — demonstrated the many flaws in the book in a series of posts). It’s methologically sloppy, conceptually confused, and commits the worst sin for any “serious” work of history: utterly fails to situate its analysis in the relevant historical, social, legal, and political contexts.

    If I were grading it, I would give it a D at best. There is a reason most people who do serious work in history actually do some training in the subject. It tends to improve the work product. Some lucky souls can do impressive historical work without such training. Jonah Goldberg is not one of them.

  22. Daniel S. Goldberg Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am

    Whoops.

    By “definitively” I should have said “in my opinion.”

  23. Feddie Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Daniel-

    At least you don’t have people asking you if you’re related to the owners every time you shop at Dillard’s. :)

  24. Daniel S. Goldberg Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Touche!

  25. CrankyCon Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    It’s methologically sloppy, conceptually confused, and commits the worst sin for any “serious” work of history: utterly fails to situate its analysis in the relevant historical, social, legal, and political contexts.

    As a grad student myself, I found the book to be none of these things, but to each their own. In fact, for a “popular” non-fiction work it’s actually well done and well researched.

  26. CrankyCon Says:
    April 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    I do want to add, in all earnestness, “kudos” to Dan (not Jonah) Goldberg for actually having read the book before critiquing it.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by WordPress