Apparently, no one is paying attention. Learn from history, or you are destined to repeat it. Here we go again!
Readers who object to characterizing liberal Republicans and Democrats as fascists simply don’t understand the meaning of the term.
Our debased educational system teaches students to apply the term fascist indiscriminately to any object of loathing. I am instead using the term to describe the specific characteristics of a class of economic and political thought.
The most basic dividing line between sociopolitical outlooks in the Western world is regulation and control vs. limits and balances, collectivism vs. individualism. American liberalism is based on the former. Our Constitution, on the latter, expressed by Jefferson’s aphorism that the best government governs the least.
Fascism is not a unique phenomenon. It is a logical conclusion to one of the two basic conceptions of social order. If one believes that, without the guidance of government, most people are incapable of knowing their own best interests and of doing the right thing to further their interests, then he is already moving in the direction of Fascism, albeit with the best of intentions.
Hence the liberal social-welfare, nanny-state, summed up by President Clinton’s press secretary Dee Dee Myers, who said that only the Federal government has the power to improve people’s lives.
Liberals, both Republicans and Democrat/Socialists, cynically keep reciting socialist fairy tales to a public, which unfortunately, believes them.
Megalomaniacal President Franklin Roosevelt in the New Deal created the myth that government can manage the economy as if it were a single private business. Bureaucratic planners, operating under Fascist-style collective powers to control agriculture and business, wrapped the economy in red tape.
Everything. however, boiled down to the proposition that problems in the economic cycle could be fixed only with large doses of government deficit spending.
It failed to work – in fact, made matters far worse – from 1929 until 1941.
It still doesn’t work.
Read the recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Of Jobs and ‘Stimulus.’
The New Deal Would Have Worked, If…
Liberal-progressive-socialists again eagerly anticipate returning to the disastrously failed economic policies of Franklin Roosevelt. Apparently religious faith in socialism outweighs rational consideration of evidence.
The standard liberal-progressive-socialist litany is that socialism, in the New Deal and subsequent years, would have succeeded, if only the government had spent more money for a longer time.
Many liberals lament that the New Deal didn’t go far enough in socializing the economy. That was a major reason for the savage antagonism between the liberal establishment of the 1960s and the New Left student radicals like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the spiritual parents of president-elect Obama’s educational policies.
In addition to blind religious faith in the secular religion of socialism, liberal-progressives are beset by ignorance. For three generations, students have been taught a completely false version of the Depression’s causes and of the actual results attained by President Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Truth, Lies and In Between 