Triumph of the Authoritarians

[zoosermom]

<p>Weenie posted: “zoosermom:
Unfortunately a lot of true (dare I say old-fashioned?) Conservatives are looking askance at the goings-on of this administration – and have been for awhile.”</p>

<p>Add me to that list. I vehemently disagree with the administration on some big, big issues. But going through the list that you posted, I (me, personally) don’t think the vast majority of points apply to the administration. I believe the administration is arrogant, short-sighted and out of touch, but not fascist. I really have a problem with that word (as with Nazi), but you’re entitled to your opinions and you are polite about posting them, so I can’t quibble.</p>

[ag54]

<p>weenie, interesting posit. I think your list describes in some part our current administration, but I honestly don’t think it would be any different with the “other” party in power. It would just be the characters that would change, the people being discriminated against, the cronies being sucked up to.</p>

<p>And #6 is off, because Bush definitely doesn’t have control of the mass media, because they bar b que him every chance they get! Except Fox of course ;)</p>

[cheers]

<p>texdad, thanks for posting food for thought. Tarhunt, I appreciate your point about the unintended irony and mixed message in Dean’s late penance.</p>

<p>weenie, Given Rumsfeld’s status at the Pentagon, I don’t believe the the US military can be defined as a fascist organization. Also, politely, I’d also disagree with such extreme labels for the US. I don’t believe mini when he says Iran is a better democracy than the US and I don’t believe the US is anything like a fascist state.</p>

<p>I’ve thought about the issues Dean outlined as I have watched my father sink into a meanspirited, anti-democratic,( ie closeminded and positively allergic to divergent views) political outlook, aided not by live discussion or intensive readings but by the usual talking media heads. Once a named Big 10 BMOC and President of his fraternity council, my dad is a great guy with a huge heart and a lovely sense of humour. His venomous political evangelism, however, has made him so angry, so anxious and so isolated. </p>

<p>He’s part of a social phenomena of our time, I’d say. </p>

<p>On the ohter hand, after seeing her in a BBC interview, I’ve read Doris Lessing’s novel “The Sweetest Dream”. Essentially a novel about broad post-WW II psychological damage, the social impulse toward ‘dreamy’ liberalism which rose out of that suffering and the consequence of those too-utopian ideals. Lessings message also resonated in a personal way after my recent dinner with a friend who went to school with Bill Clinton.</p>

<p>Lamenting the positions of the current administration, she noted that the current administration is full of the same Young Republicans she went to school with. The trouble is, the Young Democrats did not stay on the rails. In her opinion, the majority of young Democrat talent of the 60’s abandoned ‘dreamy’ ideas of public service for fame and fortune and now find themselves frustratingly locked out. </p>

<p>In any event, I believe Lessing is on to something. I believe there is corresponding social phenomena associated with the liberal movement and it’s current status.</p>

[mini]

<p>“I don’t believe mini when he says that the Iran is a better democracy than the US.”</p>

<p>It’s a DIFFERENT democracy, with significantly wider variation in the viewpoints and actual governance, without, however, a history of republican institutions in its history (thanks to the United States and its overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953), or values (again, at least partially due to U.S. training of Iranians in represssive institutions, starting with the torturers and secret police.)</p>

<p>Just part of the price of American “democracy”.</p>

<p>(Subtlety counts. ;))</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>Does FS ever actually say anything or just critize those that do…ah, iz just did that</p>

<p>When I read, well, at least they hae resolve, at least they don’t change their minds, we have to trust them…</p>

<p>If anyone dares, read the book Whose Freedom by Lakoff, and before oyu blow it off or whatever</p>

<p>It talks about freedom and liberty and the different way people look at both…and yes, Lakoff is a progressive, that does not mean his insights don’t deserve discussion and debate</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Mini, your subtle as a mack truck sarcasm puts my husband’s to shame. I used to think he had the market on it, but now I am not so sure.</p>

[mini]

<p>I’m driving down the price (but gaining market share. ;))</p>

[iloveagoodbrew]

<p>So I deduce that the ‘Cult of the Fradulent 2000 Elections’ camps out here too…</p>

[kluge]

<p>Weenie, I may be wrong but that “fascist” list looks like one which was subjected to some pretty interesting criticism on a different thread here not long ago - you might be interested in tracking that down.</p>

<p>Cheers - you make an interesting point with your juxtaposition. Maybe having gotten a lot in life without a lot of personal risk and struggle tends to make people more obsessive and anxious about losing their possessions/status/lifestyle, and fair game for demagogues who preach “be afraid and angry at the ‘others’ who want to take away what you have” whereas living through times of actual risk and hardship tends to make people more community minded? </p>

<p>It’s a concept I’d never thought about.</p>

[mini]

<p>From where did you deduce that? (are we in the Twilight Zone?) Doesn’t stealing elections and stuff only happen in third world “kangaroo” democracies? ;)</p>

[iloveagoodbrew]

<p>Point 14. Had a few cult members in my Government class this year, and this was brought and argued ad nauseum.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>TarHunt,</p>

<p>You are quite the sensitive guy, even going so far as to set up a defense before an offense even presents itself. That is cautious.
In any case, accusing a rather large portion of our political leaders of being “fascists” should take a bit more than an off-hand glance of an excerpt of an article from a book by John Dean, posted on cc. Don’t you think? Perhaps you could restrict your rhetoric to terms like shiftless, maybe corrupt, perchance lazy, decidedly dumb, enormously ignorant…but fascist is a loaded term intended to demonize, not analyze. They teach that too? </p>

<p>I would have thought a social scientist would be sensitive to that; how much more so a highly sensitive and defensive social scientist.</p>

<p>You say,

You supply no data and no refutation of either pure psychological testing or brain imaging.

What on earth does that have to do with calling a class of American politicians “fascists.” Dose someone need to present data and brain imaging to question off-hand accusations of fascism…on a message board?</p>

<p>I take you even less seriously now. </p>

<p>If I say many social-scientists are fascists will you need to present “brain imaging” to prove me wrong. I doubt it. </p>

<p>Get it?</p>

<p>By the way, ever heard this song by Christine Lavin…its posted on another thread. You’ll love it. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2714891#post2714891[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2714891#post2714891&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Tarhunt]

<p>FountainSiren:</p>

<p>I think I explained that the word “fascist” applied to Dean’s description and nothing else. I think you will also find that I qualified the term with the word “many.” You will also find in the same response post that I have the same disgust with both extreme sides of the political spectrum.</p>

<p>My pointed response was to your attack on social science and me in particular. You see, I don’t have your advantages. I wasn’t born knowing things I never studied or researched myself. I’m just a plodding, working stiff, trying to structure useful experiments while surrounded by legion independent variables. </p>

<p>So, I plod.</p>

<p>You, on the other hand, just know things, whether it be the answer to the Theory of Everything or “what’s in its pocketsesssss.”</p>

<p>If you have a problem with the social sciences, then I suggest you do what the rest of us do: publish in peer-reviewed journals. I eagerly await your first monograph.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>“Weenie, I may be wrong but that “fascist” list looks like one which was subjected to some pretty interesting criticism on a different thread here not long ago - you might be interested in tracking that down.”</p>

<p>That is correct. The thread was called “Band of Brothers” and you have to go to post 68 to find the start of the discussion about the Dr. Britt’s 14 points that have circulated so wildly among the KOS-like wannabes garbage dispensers. </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=146137[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=146137&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As far as the 14 points, here is what this walking fraud pretending to be a doctor had to say about his own opus:

"City: Looking at the world right now, do you consider the US a fascist state?</p>

<p>Britt: No. By definition it’s a democracy. My article is a cautionary tale. This is what I’ve researched; this is what I’ve seen; this is what’s happened in the past. You can draw your own conclusions: No, this has nothing to do with the United States; or, there are some disquieting trends here that we certainly have to be aware of, and the powers that be exhibit many of these characteristics, and we’d better damn well be careful."

</p>

<p>This was part of a discussion about his fake credentials:</p>

<p>Actually, it’s the unmistakable addenda to the “good doctor” pedigree that attempted to lend credibility to the “original” piece. Oh yes, if the piece was written by a political scientist who happen to be a doctor or a professional in the field, it MUST be good. Would the piece carry the same authority if the author was an admitted lunatic who writes for an obscure rag in Rochester and contributes to a most questionable organization that hides behind a scholarly facade. Was his “research” written on the back of a vodka soaked Aeroflot napkin when waking up from the torpor of his dreams of CIA and FBI persecution? Did he happened to read the Umberto Eco book he just bought at the airport store?</p>

<p>This again demonstrates why the contributions to political blogs are not trustworthy of being called factual evidence -or anything else for that matter. They are merely a repository of collective opinions of dubious origin and unverifiable sources. So, the only yardstick for integrity is minimal: if the opinion fits the daily agenda, the source MUST be good!</p>

<p>Finally, since the gospel words of the “good doctor” are so valuable in forming your own opinion, why not leave it at the quotation that was culled directly from the horse’s mouth … or was it from the other side of the animal?</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>Tarhunt,</p>

<p>I don’t know the first thing about the social sciences, let alone the “Theory of Everything.” I do, however know something about people who try to dress up their opinions with science, social or otherwise. </p>

<p>If I were to say many “New Democrats” are “fascists,” without even a shred of proof beyond a pop-culture book that hints at it without saying so (probably because it would be incredulous to any sane readers), and went on to talk about brain imaging and ladeeda to establish my credibility as a “scientist” after having said that “many New Democrats are fascists,” would you find the post credible? And if not, why is it credible for you to do so?</p>

<p>Should I expect you to present “brain imaging” in your defense to prove that it is outrageous to say that “many New Democrats are fascist”?</p>

<p>This is not even close to science. Shame.</p>

[Tarhunt]

<p>xiggi:</p>

<p>Agreed. Contributions to any forum where the source is anonymous is not trustworthy.</p>

<p>On the other hand, did that thread actually come to a conclusion about the “real” definition of fascism? I’ve tried to find a consensus definition over the years and have been unsuccessful. (I’d really rather not read the whole thread).</p>

[Tarhunt]

<p>FountainSiren:</p>

<p>I reread my post and have no idea what you’re getting at. The reference to “social sciences” was in response to what Dean said, and the reference to an earlier thread about the social sciences (specifically on learning psychology) was a rebuttal to Dean. My point is that social scientists can publish data that are so well done they easily meet the confidence test and still have NO impact whatsoever on ANYONE. This is because so many people already know the truth and cannot be swayed.</p>

<p>I then said that many neoconservatives are fascists. I believe that to be true based on Dean’s definition. By all means, use your own definition.</p>

<p>Your response was simply an illustration of my point. Any cognition that contradicts a closely held pre-cognition will provoke an attack. Which is why all the valid science in the world will change not a thing in human nature.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>So is it wrong to refer to a class of people as fascists based on a book by a discredited politician?</p>

<p>Is it demonizing, or analyzing to do so?</p>

<p>Is it any different for me to say “New Democrats are fascists” provided I find someone somewhere who hinted at it in a non-peer reviewed book and it happens to fit my political disposition?</p>

<p>Obviously it is wrong. For you to have said so, without attacking me for pointing out such an obvious flaw, would have been dignified and fair. </p>

<p>Your responses hint at my disregard for those who cite the social sciences to make political points.</p>

[Tarhunt]

<p>FS:</p>

<p>I find your last post simply unintelligible. Define fascism any way you want. The social science issue is entirely separate. Reread my post.</p>

[kluge]

<p>Tarhunt: I recommend that you desist from any attempt to facilitate a meaningful dialogue here. There are two reasons:
a) What you are seeing is merely Coulter-wannabe schtick. All that really matters for that is style and attitude, so attempting to address substance is essentially irrelevant - by now you should be getting a sense of this. Your participation is limited to providing material to riff on.
b) If you continue you run the risk of having a Little League Mom descend on you for “picking on a little girl”.</p>