The prescient Huey Long
Bookworm on Sep 15 2008 at 9:38 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
I found this in a book of anecdotes written in 1944:
Somebody once asked the late Huey Long if he thought we would ever have fascism in the United States. “Sure we will,” predicted Long, “only we’ll call it anti-fascism.”
And if that doesn’t make sense to you, hie yourself to the local bookstore or library and pick up a copy of Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
Email This Post To A Friend
38 Responses to “The prescient Huey Long”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Huey Long was supposedly one of the motivations behind Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here” and was the inspiration for Robert Penn Warren’s “All the Kings Men.”
(Before his death in 1989, Robert Penn Warren predicted that the day might come when an America president would possess too much power. “Well, it’ll probably be someone you least expect under circumstances nobody foresaw,” he said. “And, of course, it’ll come with a standing ovation from Congress).
If you’ve never read It Can’t Happen Here, I higly recommend it but in this case, the fascism arises from the right — following the rise of charismatic Senator Buzz Windrip who claims to champion the common man, but is in the pocket of big business (i.e. Corpos), is favored by religious extremists, and though he talks of freedom and prosperity for all, eventually becomes the ultimate crony capitalist, neutering the Supreme Court, before stripping people of their liberties and installing a fascist dictatorship.
It’s a fictional depcition which draws upon historical truths.
I know you believe that fascism is mostly the province of the left, but that’s not true. And if you think people on the right dont have scary, authoritarian tendencies, Bill Moyers’ recent look at hate radio serves as a grim reminder:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09122008/watch.html
On the right, there are plenty of us who still believe in limited government. Limited government is the only mechanism that guarantees that fascism can never rule us.
On the left, there is no one advocating limited government. Perhaps that is why fascism typically keeps arising from the left.
While I will of course admit that the threat to fascism can come from anywhere, even from the right, it does seem clear that the threat from the left – the use of government to control the individual, indeed, that the individual exists to serve the state – the threat from the left is more pronounced.
Oz equates facism to authoritarianism. I don’t think they’re the same. In fact, I’m not sure I know what authoritarianism is.
We also have the concept of Statism in here.
Maybe we should discuss what we mean by such terms.
I _think_ I came away with the idea that socialism is the philosophical parent of both facism and communism, with facism being the nationalist version, and communism being the global version. I don’t think I know where Statism and authoritarianism fit into the mix.
Feel free to disagree – I plan on reading Liberal Facism again…it’s a bit much to absorb in one reading.
On the right, there are plenty of us who still believe in limited government. Limited government is the only mechanism that guarantees that fascism can never rule us.- Mike
I totally understand this sentiment; it’s traditional Conservative ideology which I tend to agree with, as opposed to Nanny State ideology, which is authoritarian in nature.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t match the reality. Has government gotten smaller over the past 8 years?
Thomas Jefferson said that all governments eventually turn to tyranny.
When you only look at “the left” for the warning signs, you’re missing half the picture.
Oz equates facism to authoritarianism. I don’t think they’re the same. In fact, I’m not sure I know what authoritarianism is.- suek
I think that “left vs right” arguments are outdated, and that things boil down to liberatarian vs authoritarian trends instead.
Tyrnany and authoritianism go hand-in-hand.
And fascism, whether it generates from the left and/or right, does not leave much room for liberty.
Ozzie, you actually said something that I can agree with there.
It’s a fictional depcition which draws upon historical truths.
Since that’s wrong to begin with, all the other conclusions derived from it doesn’t even need a refutation.
It’s a fictional depcition which draws upon historical truths.- Me
Since that’s wrong to begin with, all the other conclusions derived from it doesn’t even need a refutation. – ymar
How is that wrong?
For example, here is but one bit of dialogue from the book:
“Remember our war hysteria, when we called sauerkraut ‘Liberty cabbage’ and somebody actually proposed calling German measles, ‘Liberty measles?’And wartime censorship of honest papers?. . . Remember when the hick legislators in certain states, in obedience to William Jennings Bryan, who learned his biology from his pious old grandma, set up shop as scientific experts and made the whole world laugh itself sick by forbidding the teaching of evolution?”
While the dialogue is fictionalized, it’s based on real events from American history…..
So, in recent history, “french fries” were replaced by “liberty fries,” replacing the WWI legacy of referring to sauerkraut as ‘Liberty cabbage’
And the theory of Evolution has once again come under fire .
When I wanted to read “It Can’t Happen Here,” I had to hunt it down on the Internet and pay a hefty price, as it had long been out of print.
But the demand grew so high, after years of non-interest, that it’s now available in paperback.
Ozzie: To argue that the right, or conservatives have been in power the last 8 years is mistaken. Bush is not conservative. I agree he is right of center. But true conservatives want to eliminate the Dept. of Education, not double its size, as Bush has, for example.
Further, fascism is inherently a leftist property. Rightists abhor state-imposed secularization, governmental meddling in markets, government-run education, top-down environmental mandates, and the host of leftist policies which are all defined as fascism.
I get your point about the left/right terminology, and you could be right about that. But by definition, the right cannot be fascist. The right is about individual liberty — the same as what classic liberalism promotes.
How is that wrong?
For one thing, the truth that fascism comes from conservatives or the right, is wrong. Fascism first requires a disruption of the current social order, in order to convince people that they are their saviors. This actually requires social revolutionaries fighting for social justice through disrupting the status quo and the confidence of the nation. Fascism, thus, requires Leftism and socialism as a pre-requisite.
A totally conservative society that doesn’t want to change anything, could not become fascist. That would require change. Given that Khomeini was fascist to begin with, it didn’t matter how pro status quo he was.
And wartime censorship of honest papers?
Democrat actions from a Democrat, supported by Democrats and Republicans for patriotic and national security reasons.
If you have a problem with that, ask FDR and his socialist policies on it.
So, in recent history, “french fries” were replaced by “liberty fries,” replacing the WWI legacy of referring to sauerkraut as ‘Liberty cabbage’
So suddenly individual actions, that harm no one, is now verboten simply because you want the narrative of the truth to be about government censorship? Not valid, Oz.
But the demand grew so high, after years of non-interest, that it’s now available in paperback.
The demand for NOstrodamus stuff was also getting high as the new millenium approached.
Doesn’t really mean anything when people are afraid, uncertain, and looking for a savior.
But the demand grew so high, after years of non-interest, that it’s now available in paperback- me
The demand for NOstrodamus stuff was also getting high as the new millenium approached.
Doesn’t really mean anything when people are afraid, uncertain, and looking for a savior.– ymar
I’m not sure who the savior would be in this case. I started looking for the book in 2004, without a savior in mind, and it wasnt re-issued until 2005, so I dont think 2001 had anything to do with. The Patriot Act, the wiretaps, the criminalization of dissent, etc, yes, but savior-seeking?, I doubt it.
The Boston Globe called it right when they said:
“It’s an unsettling read, especially in a day and age where wags and politicos on both sides compulsively accuse one another of plotting to destroy America.Other such books, most recently Philip Roth’s ”The Plot Against America,” ask whether a fascist dictatorship can happen here. But whereas Roth manipulates history in order to show what could have happened, imagining an America so blinded by celebrity adulation that it elects an isolationist, anti-Semitic Charles Lindbergh president, Lewis suggests that it already has happened, in little pockets all over America: in bridge club meetings, Rotary luncheons. No invading army will be needed to turn America fascist. Instead, the catalyst will come from within, and when it does it will speak colloquial American, and it will come waving the Stars and Stripes ”
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/12/18/public_enemy/
I get your point about the left/right terminology, and you could be right about that. But by definition, the right cannot be fascist- McLaren
By old standards, I agree with you.
But today, the defintions of right and left dont seem to mesh with reality.
And neither political party seems to stand with whatever it is people say they stand for.
You can make a case for the 2 parties not adhering to what they have traditionally supported. And in that context, I see your larger point.
Now:
What specifically in the Patriot Act resembles fascism?
Who is being wiretapped, and why?
And where and when has dissent been criminalized?
This according to Roger Griffin, author of “The Nature of Facism”.
Facism was an ideology whose birth came in opposition to expanding Communist influence, in my opinion. Whatever form new ideologies take, they will not be classical facism, although Obama’s vision of America may be closer than anything coming from conservatives (I’m talking about legitimate movements with substantial bases), with his new call for service to the state and his rather grandiose public displays.
>>The Patriot Act, the wiretaps, the criminalization of dissent>>
Without getting into specifics – which McLaren is asking about, it’s really only reasonable to expect additional layers of security when you become aware that someone is out to get you. Now perhaps you discount the intent of the islamic facists to destroy Israel and the USA. If so, then there’s no way to come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. If you agree that indeed there are bad guys out there trying to get us, then it’s unreasonable to require that we do nothing to protect ourselves as a nation. Putting a time limit on that protection is reasonable – it’s reasonable to be concerned about the government making such security a permanent feature, but that’s a slightly different issue. Related, yes, but still different…
Philip Roth?
Ozzie, really?
Brian…
Read “Liberal Facism” by Jonah Goldberg. Plan on reading it twice, but once through may change your perception of this: “Facism was an ideology whose birth came in opposition to expanding Communist influence.” There _is_ agreement that the two were in opposition, but from the standpoint that both were competing for the same market, so to speak.
I am reminded of Tom Wolfe’s remark that the “dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.”
What specifically in the Patriot Act resembles fascism?- Mc
Some of the provisions in the original Patriot Act caused John Dean to note that the right to dissent was in jeopardy, with protestors being lumped as terrorists. National Lawyers Guild president Michael Avery said that the Bush administration was “trying to criminalize dissent, characterize protesters as terrorists and trying to intimidate and marginalize those opposed to its policies.”
I was reading such charges, along with a host of other concerns which arose when Congress passed the second Patriot (such as the provision which could make “breaching security perimeters” at any “special event of national significance” a felony, which will make certain that protetors stay in out-of-the way free speech zones ) and decided I wanted to read “It Can’t Happen Here.”
Who is being wiretapped, and why? -mc
The FBI is wiretapping U.S. citizens (i.e anti-war activists) just like they did in the 1960s. I think they want to intimidate people and suppress dissent
And where and when has dissent been criminalized?- mc
According to John Dean, the language in the Patritot Act defines “terrorists” so losely, that protestors can be considered terrorists, as well.
In St. Paul, police stormed into young adults homes, and made preemptive arrests, charging some with “conspiracy to riot,” which, according to the lawyer interviewed, was a charge he’d never seen used.
. The Patriot Act, the wiretaps, the criminalization of dissent, etc, yes, but savior-seeking?, I doubt it.
When people are doomsdaying, what do you think they are demanding, anyways? A savior. If they don’t think they can be saved, they’ll find somebody that will tell them that salvation is in accepting death. Great nihilism, anyways. Either, people win by being reassured.
As for the other issues I have raised. Obviously you cannot even argue them, if Nostradamus is what you choose to highlight first. He came last in my comment. Why is he first in yours?
Suek and BrianE, let me make it simple: communists and fascists – same thugs, different gang colors.
When people are doomsdaying, what do you think they are demanding, anyways? A savior – yamr
Maybe a wider audience? And better book sales? Thomas Jefferson siad that tyranny is the natural tendency of all governments, so maybe Lewis was just picking up that?
I’ve never read any interviews about why he chose to write this book, and would not presume to know..
“Nostradamus is what you choose to highlight first. He came last in my comment. Why is he first in yours?”- Ymar
Because you cited him in conjunction with book sales after 9/11, and acted as if It Can’t Happen Here was reissued due to that.
As to why I dont answer most of your other charges? I’ve already told you. When you make things about me personally, (and what you believe my personal philisophy to be), I find it odd and not worth addressing.
Ozzie:
“the right to dissent was in jeopardy, with protestors being lumped as terrorists.” – nope, it wasn’t – ever!
“trying to criminalize dissent, characterize protesters as terrorists and trying to intimidate and marginalize those opposed to its policies.” – not true. Care to cite examples?
“The FBI is wiretapping U.S. citizens (i.e anti-war activists) just like they did in the 1960s.” Not even close – the FBI is allowed to wiretap phone conversations if one party is a known terrorist suspect and if the call comes in or goes overseas.
“n St. Paul, police stormed into young adults homes, and made preemptive arrests, charging some with “conspiracy to riot,” which, according to the lawyer interviewed, was a charge he’d never seen used.”
…and, on that score, do you happen to know what it is they found in those homes Ozzie? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73913
What you cite isn’t facts, it isn’t even allegations, it’s the products of very fevered imaginations that probably need medication.
Ozzie said: “In St. Paul, police stormed into young adults homes, and made preemptive arrests, charging some with “conspiracy to riot,” which, according to the lawyer interviewed, was a charge he’d never seen used.”
In 1999, rioters during the WTO talks cost Seattle businesses $20 million dollars. This was the goal of the protests:
These thugs need to be treated like terrorists, because that’s what they are. They assemble with the express purpose of terrorizing whatever group they hate at any particular moment.
As these criminals continue to mock the constitution, it is inevitable that they will be treated like they deserve. It would hard to mount a justification for their criminal behavior.
Because you cited him in conjunction with book sales after 9/11, and acted as if It Can’t Happen Here was reissued due to that.
Out of all the arguments that rejected your view of fascism and conservatism, Oz, that was the weakest, for it only served to counter the appeal to authority you used in relation to one of your sources.
Choosing the weakest argument while ignoring all the others, is not the correct way to defend your claim of fascism’s origins and methodologies.
When you make things about me personally, (and what you believe my personal philisophy to be), I find it odd and not worth addressing.
Even you, Oz, would find it hard to find something “personal” about you in that comment of mine.
I believe you just made that up, for there’s no truth to such claims and red herrings.
Maybe a wider audience? And better book sales? Thomas Jefferson siad that tyranny is the natural tendency of all governments, so maybe Lewis was just picking up that?
You don’t address the origins of fascism that I have described. You don’t defend your own claims that are mutually exclusive with mine.
No, what you do is to talk about Thomas Jefferson. If you think the origins of fascism, as I have said, has something personal to do with you, then I must admit that that is your own problem, in the end, not mine.
Even you, Oz, would find it hard to find something “personal” about you in that comment of mine- Ymar
I went back and read it, Ymar, and it’s true. I’m just so used to personnal digs from you that I often gloss over comments addressed to me.
I apologize. This time you seemed to be on the up and up.
I often have trouble undestanding where you’re coming from, however, as you seem to be stuck in a left/right mindset that I out-and-out reject.
So I’ll reiterate my points so you can understand where I’m coming from: that Huey Long was the motivation for “All The Kings Men,” and was said to have provide the inspiration for “It Can’t Happen Here; that right wing talk shows inspire unthinking hatred and dehumanization of “the other”; that the Bush adminstration was not really Conservative and created an environment of bigger goverment, more secrecy and less liberty.
Others have argued that fascism can’t come from Conservatives — and my argument is that there is a difference between old-time Conservatives and Bush/Cheney Conservatives, and that “right/left” arguments no longer apply.
So, technically, fascism couldn’t come from true Conservatives or the right as it was once defined. The events over the past 8 years, however, show that Conservatives often come in sheep’s clothing and that Democrats arent the only ones who want bigger government and less freedom for Regular Joes.
These thugs need to be treated like terrorists, because that’s what they are- Brian E
Well, there you have it. All protestors are just like the ones you cited and should be treated as terrorists.
The kids who were arrested in St Paul were arrested in the likelihood that they MIGHT protest. And the items listed on the search warrant, which the police didnt even show to the kids until after they’d shoved them down on the floor and handcuffed them; and searched their house, were regular household items that anyone would have.
Journalists had their cameras confiscated and Amy Goodman was arrested simply for crossing a barrier, showing that former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts was prescient when he said, (regarding one of the provisions in the new Patriot Act), “We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. ”
And, like the Patriot Act, a new executive order has been so loosely worded, that the government could, in theory, take away the assets of anti-war protestors. Evnthe peaceful ones
And of course, if you attend any antiwar meetings, you might have the FBI reading your e-mails and listening to your phone calls, or, like Naomi Wolf and others who think the government is becoming increasingly authoritarian, end up on a ‘High security” list.
So far, Brian, you’ve argued for neutering both the Supreme Court and the first amendment. You appear to embrace a more authoritarian stance, and I’m assuming that you consider yourself a Conservative.
Ideology seems to break down to right and left authoritarian viewpoints vs right and left libertarian viewpoints.
There, once again, Ozzie, you’re starting to make some sense. I am all for being vigilant against against politicians who favor big government parading as conservatives and this, in fact, is my one big gripe against the Bush administration’s record (both Bush administrations, actually). However, it’s a far cry from accusing them of being “big government” Republicans to accusing them of imagined “fascist” tendencies based upon willful distortions of the truth.
And, please don’t cite talk-show host Michael Savage as a “conservative”. He’s a pot-stirring crank in serious need of medication, as well…not much different from the Air America crowd.
The only truly fascist tendencies that I see today come from the Left, which has its roots in the French Revolution. The term “right-wing” refers to the seating arrangements in the Chamber of Deputies in post-Revolutionary France. The French revolutionaries sat on the “Left”, everyone else (ranging from monarchists to republicans) sat on the “Right”.
“Left wing”, therefore has a clear definition, “Right wing”, therefore, simply means “Not on the Left”.
OZ:
The “kids” in Seattle were self-described anarchists. There is nothing wrong with that. But they also were prepared to kidnap delegates while throwing bombs at police and crowds. You cannot, legally, own pipe bombs without notifying the proper federal authority. You may not own a machine gun w/out a class III firearms license.
Your other points about the Patriot Act and wiretaps and dissent are opinions from some people about what COULD happen under law. Well, under current law, a slew of abuses COULD happen and sometimes do. Does that mean we need to start running red lights to protest the tyranny and fascism of traffic control?
Do you lock your doors at night? Why? If necessary, would you call the police who would bring lethal firearms to your home, order you to stay in your home, and investigate your home and surrounding grounds for evidence of a burglar?
Would you own firearms to protect yourself and your family? If so, why?
Do you own any insurance? If so, is it because you know by experirence that sometimes bad things happen and being prepared is both prudent and logical?
Whether you agree or not, we are at war. Iran has been at war with us since 1979, and the Islamic world has been at war with non-Muslims since the 7th century when Muhammed formed his army in Medina. 9/11/2001 was nothing more than the wake up call to the West that 9/11/1683 was not the end of the Islamic jihad, but just one battle.
On another note: Is there anything funnier than organized anarchists?
Anonymous anarchist 1: OK, you drive and I’ll get the bombs and rope.
Anonymous anarchist 2: Don’t tell me what to do, I’m an anarchist!
There, once again, Ozzie, you’re starting to make some sense. I am all for being vigilant against against politicians who favor big government parading as conservatives and this, in fact, is my one big gripe against the Bush administration’s record (both Bush administrations, actually). – Danny
Yes. That’s my point, Danny. About being vigilent. Always. And not assuming that the opposing political party is the only one that will put the screws to regular citizens.
Authoritarians on the left tend to fall in line with Democratic party and believe all sorts of myths that are simply not true. They will overlook draconian legislation from their leaders, provided that their leaders have a (D) after their names.
Authoritarians on the right fall in line with the Republican party, believing myths that are simply not true. They will overlook draconian legislation from their leaders, provided that their leaders have an (R) after their names.
Left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians don’t fall in line, however, and, from where I sit, prefer Truth over deceit, and want liberty and justice for all.
I see that fading away. And I find it alarming.
“And, please don’t cite talk-show host Michael Savage as a “conservative”. He’s a pot-stirring crank in serious need of medication, as well…not much different from the Air America crowd.” – Danny
I agree with you. Once again, I think they appeal to authoritarian right and the authoritarian left respectively, and are not concered with truth, liberty or justice whatsoever.
“The only truly fascist tendencies that I see today come from the Left, which has its roots in the French Revolution. The term “right-wing” refers to the seating arrangements in the Chamber of Deputies in post-Revolutionary France. The French revolutionaries sat on the “Left”, everyone else (ranging from monarchists to republicans) sat on the “Right”. – Danny
This is where we disagree…
When people on the so-called right think I’m a lefty and people on the so-called left think I’m a Donna Reed throwback, something is amiss. I dont fit into the mold because the mold is broken.
I stumbled across the “policitical compass” years ago, and it made sense to me. Since then, i’ve been mindful of the authoritarian vs libertarian mindsets behind peoples’ views. Authoritarians on the left (the Air American crowd) startle me, as do those on the right (the Michael Savage contingent).
But anyway, from the opening paragraph:
“The old one-dimensional categories of ‘right’ and ‘left’, established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today’s complex political landscape.”
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
The “kids” in Seattle were self-described anarchists. There is nothing wrong with that. But they also were prepared to kidnap delegates while throwing bombs at police and crowds. You cannot, legally, own pipe bombs without notifying the proper federal authority. You may not own a machine gun w/out a class III firearms license. – Mc
Not the ones I saw being interviewed, MC. It was creepy.
“Your other points about the Patriot Act and wiretaps and dissent are opinions from some people about what COULD happen under law. . ” – Mc
Well, it’s not as if i’m citing opinions from Pete from Bud’s bar…The Bill of Rights is being shot full of loopholes, and some (including those who served in Nixon and Reagan admisntrations) are taking note
I’m just saying it’s wise to be vigilent.
But Democrats only see threats from Republicans and Republicans only see threats from Democrats, and because of this, few step back to view the bigger picture: that the laws are being changed to undermine the Bill of Rights, and, as this continues, the U.S. could cease being a Reoublic and become a police state.
If Democrats are in power, that will be fine with the authoritarian left. If Reopubicans are in power, that wil be fine with the authoritarian right.
I don’t care who’s in power: It will never be OK with me.
Yes, it is good to be vigilent. But it is wise to be vigilent about not just tyranny from within, which is critical in defending liberty, but also from the outside. A balance must be found between security and liberty. While it’s possible 535 members of both parties, the president, and the courts all conspired to create some fascist, all empowering law to bring us to our knees, I don’t believe it’s true. Most of the Patriot Act addresses things like updating warrant language from the 1950s including adding computers and cell phones to the existing language of rotary land-line phones.
As for this “Republican” going along with bad ideas because they are offered by another Republican, nothing could be further from the truth. Notice how 30% of the Repub. base sat home for the last Congressional election. That was because rank and file Rs were beyond pissed about their supposed representatives voting like liberals. Most Republicans are libertarian-leaning in one respect or another and vote accordingly.
I don’t see that flavor of dissent on the Left. I could be wrong, but I don’t see it.
As for this “Republican” going along with bad ideas because they are offered by another Republican, nothing could be further from the truth- Mc
I’m talking about authoritarian Repulicans, MC, who I see as a different breed than libertarian-minded Republicans.
I try to steer away from lumping people in Left vs Right/ Democrat vs Republican stereotypes, as such wide-characterizations don’t ring true to me.
“I don’t see that flavor of dissent on the Left. I could be wrong, but I don’t see it.” -mc
The authoritarian left is very scary, I agree.
Anyone who prefers ideology over truth is bothersome, like the “pro-choice people who are actually “pro-abortion,” and the gender feminists who can’t see that, for the most part, men and women are not the same. They’re the ones who insist that all women think and behave according to their own dictates and actually criticize women for not having abortions. (As someone who’s been on the receiving end of their bile, it’s frightening).
I unwittingly become a poster child for the culture wars years ago, and noticed that ideologues on both the authoirtarian right and left put ideology first and empathy and human decency last.
Ozzie says (way up in #4)
I totally understand this sentiment [Limited government is the only mechanism that guarantees that fascism can never rule us.]; it’s traditional Conservative ideology which I tend to agree with, as opposed to Nanny State ideology, which is authoritarian in nature. Unfortunately, it doesn’t match the reality. Has government gotten smaller over the past 8 years?
Ozzie, I said “some of us on the right” believe in limited government. I would not include President Bush in that categorization. He’s definitely a big government conservative. That has been one of my two main areas of unhappiness towards him.
Thomas Jefferson said that all governments eventually turn to tyranny. When you only look at “the left” for the warning signs, you’re missing half the picture.
I don’t look only at the left. I said that fascism almost always tends to rise from the left. I think I also said it *can* arise from anywhere across the political spectrum. I’d add that the most egregious parts of the Patriot Act were expunged relatively early on, within a few years. In particular I’m speaking of the “gag order” provision that gutted the First Amendment. As this librarian, at the time in 2002, commented:
Under normal criminal procedure, the target of the warrant must be someone suspected of criminal conduct. The Patriot Act allows the FBI to search any records it believes may contain information relating to a foreign intelligence investigation, including records of people who are not suspected of any crime, much less terrorism. The Patriot Act also gags any bookseller or librarian, forbidding them to reveal that they have received a court order.
What’s this? Forbidding them, or me, from revealing that I’ve received a court order? That is as un-American an idea as any I’ve ever heard. Frankly, on that provision, the Bush Administration can simply go to hell. And certainly it was one of the earliest – and worst – ideas in the Patriot Act to be discarded.
Fascism has so many definitions as to have none at all. You could even make the claim that all democratic government is fascist, since by having a law passed that applies to all, though not all voted in favor of it, you have created an oppressed class. But to accept that is to say that all of civilization is fascist, and only anarchism is free of fascism. That’s clearly a worthless definition. So I don’t know how fascism can be best defined.
Very well, Oz. Peace to you and yours.
Mike: You make the case about the tyranny of the majority. True democracy is 5 wolves and 4 sheep voting on the dinner menu. Thank the Founders that we live in a representative republic as opposed to said democracy. All the more reason to protect the electoral college.
Fascism has so many definitions as to have none at all. — Mike
I agree, Mike.
Authoritarism is obviously my concern.
While I have qualms about touting Huey Long as a visionary, the Founders definately were.
Some of my favorite quotes:
“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” (12/2/1829) — JAMES MADISON
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” (1778) — THOMAS JEFFERSON
“Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation [of power] first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.” (1821) — THOMAS JEFFERSON
” The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” (Tribune, London) – JAMES MADISON
Ozzie said:
As to being a conservative, I put myself in the camp of conserving traditional values. I’m not against change per se, but believe that changes to society need to be thoughtfully evaluated. This is quite often not how change occurs.
I’m also for small government, believe in the Constitution as written and believe in limited responsibilities of government.
As to neutering the Supreme Court, you should re-read my posts. I didn’t advocate testing Article III, Section 2. I can understand how someone could be frustrated enough to consider it though.
I favored the “gang of 14″ compromise that didn’t test the “nuclear option” by the way.
So my question to you is, is there any limit to the power of the Supreme Court? Is their any hidden “right” the court might find that you would consider to have exceeded the Court’s authority? And what is the recourse if that occurred?
I have not neutered the First Amendment, just reminded you that the issues at hand during the adoption of the Bill of Rights had to do with the favoring of one religious denomination over another.
I would not favor a law making this a Christian nation, since it would demean the gospel, considering the morals of the country. But I certainly would favor an acknowledgement that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
And it still can’t. Whatever conservatives may be guilty of, it won’t be facism.
Also, I don’t know how authoritarian I am, but I do believe in the rule of law. My kids, on the other hand, probably considered me authoritarian.
HA! Parents are supposed to be authoritarians. It just ain’t a bunch of fun when you are a kid.
A couple of my fave Jefferson quotes:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
– Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17,
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
~Thomas Jefferson~