RNC Post-Liveblogging II § Unqualified Offerings

« « Quick RNC Post-Liveblogging | Main | Junk DNA is pretty handy » »

September 5, 2008

RNC Post-Liveblogging II

Oh by the way: "Country First" is a fascist idea. There ought to be a fairly large number of people, things and groups that are more important to you than your "country."

Posted by Jim Henley @ 12:04 am, Filed under: Main

Comments (100)

« « Quick RNC Post-Liveblogging | Main | Junk DNA is pretty handy » »

100 Responses to “RNC Post-Liveblogging II”

Comment by Ian —
September 5, 2008 @ 12:51 am

Things like The Land? How about The People?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 5, 2008 @ 12:51 am

I try to avoid comparing Republicans to fascists because they’re so used to getting and dismissing that insult. For a while, the Bush era had a cult of personality that I found vaguely Commie. He could do no wrong in the eyes of so many, so in Hit and Run comments I took to calling him the Dear Leader. However, McCain is so totally about the patriotism thing that I may have to dust off the f word and call him a fascist.
Comment by Sean T. Collins —
September 5, 2008 @ 7:00 am

I’m glad I’m not the only person who’s been thinking this.
Comment by Nancy Lebovitz —
September 5, 2008 @ 8:45 am

It was an altruism wankfest. I wonder how Objectivists who default to being pro-Republican are taking it.
Comment by gil mann —
September 5, 2008 @ 9:43 am

Phylum phirst!
Comment by kid bitzer —
September 5, 2008 @ 9:55 am

“phylum phirst!”

no, no: to avoid all charges of speciesism, my slogan is:

“one cell, one vote!”

sure, i do worry about voting blocs of blue-green algae. but each one of us gets a *lot* of votes.

(even more if we can strong-arm our intestinal flora into voting with us, though mine sometimes stage violent uprisings.)
Comment by solarjetman —
September 5, 2008 @ 10:10 am

To be fair, communism was basically a combo platter of fascism & socialism. Instead of the Jews, the capitalists. Instead of The Leader or The Nation, The Revolution.

And a central theme to both is that if you oppose the Leader or the Party, you are a traitor. That’s the offensive thing about this generation of Republicans that I’m irrationally hoping will be removed via electoral defeat: they really want to be a one-party state.
Comment by jmc —
September 5, 2008 @ 10:20 am

We need to have a handy list of things that (most people think) come before country:

- Your right to Life
- Your right to Liberty
- Your family’s Well-Being
- Your commitment to God
- Your commitment to Telling the Truth
- Your commitment to Not Commit Murder
- Your commitment to Not Lie/Cheat/Steal
- Your commitment to Protect the Weak
- Your commitment to Help those in Need

Etc., etc.

Hey John McCain, if you lived in South Carolina in 1864, what did Country First mean?
Comment by mds —
September 5, 2008 @ 10:34 am

Hey John McCain, if you lived in South Carolina in 1864, what did Country First mean?

I think that would be a question better put to the Palins.
Comment by Leonard —
September 5, 2008 @ 10:55 am

“Country first” is a nationalist idea, not a fascist idea. Unless you want to claim that all nationalism is and must be fascism. But it is certainly possible to imagine, in theory at least, a species of nationalism that does not synergize with socialism. This might look, for example, something like the early republic. Of course they were a military minor power at best, so it made sense to stay out of the affairs of the giants. Still, one example is all that is necessary here.

Inasmuch as the Republicans are all about democracy, and of course democracy qua democracy is a species of socialism, there may be a bit more to argue here. Certainly the convention as I saw of it (very little; Palin’s speech and some of McCain, and a few snippets of others) had zero mention of the Constitution or any kind of limits on government, other than popular ones. Still, it seems to me that fascism can never be really democratic; the leader principle cannot be squared with supreme power in the people. So, to me your claim that the Rs saying “country first” is fascist suggests that you believe they don’t really believe in democracy, but are just using it to promote the new FÃ¼hrer, President-for-life Palin. Not completely improbable, but call me skeptical. The democracy meme is a deep one in this society. Ever served on a jury?
Comment by Tom Scudder —
September 5, 2008 @ 12:28 pm

To be fair, communism was basically a combo platter of fascism & socialism. Instead of the Jews, the capitalists.

In fact, at least by the time of Stalin, it was both/and. (See also, “rootless cosmopolitan”).
Comment by joe —
September 5, 2008 @ 1:25 pm

sure, i do worry about voting blocs of blue-green algae.

We’ll just tell the blue algae that the green algae took their places in algae school.
Comment by joe —
September 5, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

To be fair, communism was basically a combo platter of fascism & socialism.

Communism came first. If anything, the fascists learned totalitarianism from the communists, and applied it to old-fashioned racist and nationalist movements.
Comment by Spoker —
September 5, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

Just found this site. Think I’ll keep on the radar for a while.

Perhaps the history I learned is a bit off. I thought that the founders created the country first and then those same founders wrote the rules on how to govern and protect the rights of those which are governed by the country which they founded. And isn’t one of those rights the right to choose to decide for yourself what you wish to put first along with the freedom to freely choose who to associate with, and that the majority rules. And if the majority freely decides that it is in their best interest to put the interests of the country first so that rights and freedoms established by the founding fathers can continue to be guaranteed, are they not free to do so? If this is not true, do we really have the rights and freedoms so many think we do?

The right to not put country first is available to all. However, the choice to do so brings to question all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our country including the right to choose not to put of country first.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
September 5, 2008 @ 2:10 pm

Spoker, you’re inadvertently demonstrating why “putting one’s country first” is an incoherent idea. Which version of the country is one putting first? You’re saying that we should put country first because it gives us rights and freedoms, but what if the darn thing decides to take some of those rights and freedoms away? Do I get to put some other thing first then?

All this is beside the point. All Republicans mean is that you have to buy into their jingoistic notions or you are a traitor. No need to get into amateur philosophizing.

It’s also odd that a bunch of self-proclaimed Christians think country comes first. Though here I’d sympathize with their dilemma a bit–when a Christian in politics does say that God comes first (as a Christian should say), then generally people start worrying about theocratic tendencies. (Not that I blame them–I’m Christian, but I’d just as soon see a moratorium for a generation or two on any mention of one’s faith in a political setting. Maybe after 50 years someone can tentatively broach the subject and if people don’t start using their religion as an excuse to bomb some Middle Eastern country or infringe on other people’s rights, we’ll lift the ban.)
Comment by mds —
September 5, 2008 @ 2:37 pm

But it is certainly possible to imagine, in theory at least, a species of nationalism that does not synergize with socialism.

Yes, it’s quite easy to imagine. For instance, fascism is such an example, no matter how much the fuckwitted Goldbergian “argument” is bandied about in an attempt to turn rabid right-wing corporatist anti-communist nationalists into “leftists.”

Now, if you were advancing the argument that the modern Republican Party is “socialist” because it is joined at the hip with Big Business in anti-free-market governance, I might be willing to grant that. But then we’re back to nationalism + socialism anyway.
Comment by First Little Pig —
September 5, 2008 @ 2:51 pm

What was it that Jon Stewart said the other day about Palin? Ah yes:

“She’s a Democrat! She must prove she loves America, as opposed to Republicans who everyone knows love America, they just hate half the people living in it!”

Which strikes a chord…. “country first” must include those members of the citizenry who are liberal …. but the Republicans have demonstrated in recent years complete contempt for those not of their ilk.

Are they only putting first the country of their own imagining? What is it that they imagine? They no longer seem to care about the Constitution (which is arguably the one thing that most stands for our country) so what is it … the dirt?
Comment by kid bitzer —
September 5, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

dirt indeed.

i believe the traditional phrase is
“Blut und Boden”
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 5, 2008 @ 3:10 pm

Spoker, perhaps I could understand your argument better if you could explain to me what you mean by “the country” and what you mean by putting it “first.” I am genuinely unclear on this. I’m sure it means different things to different people.
Comment by First Little Pig —
September 5, 2008 @ 3:45 pm

I must have VPILF on the brain… Stewart was talking about Michelle Obama….
Comment by Bill —
September 5, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

All this is beside the point. All Republicans mean is that you have to buy into their jingoistic notions or you are a traitor. No need to get into amateur philosophizing.

Absolutely. That is the essence of the modern Republican party.
Comment by Leonard —
September 5, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

mds, the left is a set of people, the organized cultural descendants of liberal christianity. Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned by the state. These concepts are quite distinct, even though the former have long advocated the latter.

Goldberg is wrong not in arguing that fascism was socialist — it was. Rather he is dead wrong in the argument that it was “left”, which it most emphatically was not. The left is fervently antinomian, being culturally descended from religious antinomians, and thus can never accept the furherprincip, or any kind of top-down organization, which I think is an important aspect of any fascist state. (That the left stole some ideas from fascism, or vice-versa, is not shocking or even surprising.)

Yes, the modern Republican Party is socialist (though hardly purely socialist), albeit slightly less so than the Democrats. That’s why I chose to extend the criticism to para 2, even though para 1 was minimally adequate.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 5, 2008 @ 5:38 pm

Leonard-

I think your characterization of left and right by cultural and social factors rather than purely economic factors is a good one. Yes, certain economic elites may find the cultural and social coalition of the right more useful or less distasteful or whatever, and certain economic ideas may be more or less popular on one side or the other, but both fundamentally advocate a heavy state involvement in the economy. What divides the camps is more cultural than economic.
Comment by Idi Amin's Last Meal —
September 5, 2008 @ 5:49 pm

Pshaw! Everybody knows fascism did not arise until Kriss Kross. They will make you jump, jump.
Comment by John —
September 5, 2008 @ 6:04 pm

The joining of Big Business and Government at the hip in order to benefit both is fascist, not socialist. “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.” (Mussolini.)

Note that it is not that businesses are controlled by the government, but that they merge with the government. Under a socialist system, those who run Big Business lose control of the businesses, which are then largely run by the government, at least theoretically with the objective of benefiting the people as a whole.

This is why business enthusiastically backed the fascists vs. the communists and socialists.

Claiming that either major party wants to take over big businesses and run them for the good of society as a whole is ludicrous. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are anywhere near socialist. It’s pretty obvious, though, that the Republicans are more Corporatist than the Democrats. Whether they are Corporatist enough to be labeled “Corporatist” is another question, but I personally think they are hindered mainly by the Constitution and the courts in this regard.

And as for the religious aspects of the Republican right, Mussolini, although quite possibly an atheist (he argued in favor of atheism some time before coming to power), strongly supported the Vatican, talked about the importance of religion in the state, and lavished funds on it, all in order to get it to support his programs, which it did. Sound familiar?
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 5, 2008 @ 6:09 pm

“Corporate” in fascist lingo did not mean what you think it means.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 5, 2008 @ 6:14 pm

Specifically, “corporatism” in fascist and pre-fascist thought was an organic theory of the state, a conviction that the state was best viewed as a single body whose constituent parts were its organs and whose subjects (started to type “citizens” but backspaced over it) amounted to – cells.

This is by no means to suggest that in actual existing fascism, owners of large business concerns didn’t do very well for themselves. They did.
Comment by Jaybird —
September 5, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

If “Country First” means “We’re going to stop going into the rest of the world in search of Monsters to slay”, allow me to say that I am 100% in favor of “Country First”.

I suspect, however, it means that we have a responsibility to improve the rest of the world.
Comment by joe —
September 5, 2008 @ 7:49 pm

Leonard,

The state owned the means of production in Germany, Italy, and Spain in the 30s?

Socialism is a theory that people of the same economic class are united in an eternal struggle against people of another social class, and that national boundaries and racial identities are artificial divisions put in place to distract people of the same class from understanding their true solidarity. This class conflict is said to be the driving force of history.

Fascism is a theory that people of the same nation/race are united in an eternal struggle against people of other nations/races, and that class identities are artificial divisions put in place to distract people from the same nation/race from understanding their true solidarity. This national/racial conflict is said to be the driving force of history.
Comment by Leonard —
September 5, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

joe, yes, in fascism the state de-facto owned the means of production. That they did not officially nationalize everything, and allowed preexisting private owners to take a share of profit, and even have some power over the property, does not mitigate the fact that the party, and ultimately the Leader alone, wielded supreme power and everybody knew it. “Ownership” is often discussed as a boolean property; either A owns X or A does not own X. But it’s rather more a spectrum in any sort of political situation.

As for your definitions of socialism and fascism, well, words mean whatever I mean them to mean. My definition of socialism is the textbook definition, and one I think is good because it clarifies things. When the state owns stuff, we know what that means: the state decides how the things are to be used.

By contrast, I have two criticisms of your Marxist definition. First, it leaves a lot of grey area, and in any case by no means defines anything. My bicycle, for instance — who decides whether I can ride it? In socialism-per-textbooks, the answer is clear: the state does. It may allow me “own” it, of course, as secondary property of sorts. But ultimately the state can take the bicycle at any time, for any reason. I have no recourse, and I should have no recourse, because the state is the owner. What does Marx’s class theory tell me about who can ride that bike? Nothing, so far as I can tell. Maybe I can if I am in solidarity with the working class and the capitalists have all been shot?

The second huge problem with your definitions, is that they seem to misclassify things. Historical experience tells us that people are nationalistic, that nation does trump class, and by a mile. This is why in WWI, all the socialist parties sided with their own nation. (Anyone who believes in evolution should not be surprised by this.) Given that, it would seem according to your marxian-socialism that at least within the Westphalian system, socialism is impossible, whereas fascism is not just ubiquitous, but necessary. This is, of course, true — under your definitions. We are all fascists, now, whoopee! But I’d prefer to a little finer grain to my definitions.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 5, 2008 @ 10:41 pm

I think what Leonard is saying is that in a fascist state your ability to do as you please with your business, your money, and your land depended on whether you were in or out of favor with the rulers. You can’t very well enjoy the fruits of your labor if you’re behind bars. This is a point I’ve made before in other forums, where various people have tried to insist to me that right-wing dictators were so much better than left-wing dictators because right-wing dictators would respect your economic freedom.

However, while control of and benefit from resources depends on proximity to power in dictatorships of both the left and the right, there are some differences. Dictators of the right are more likely to include existing property owners in their elite, whereas dictators of the left would redistribute more property upon taking power. This results in societies with different pathologies.
Comment by joe —
September 5, 2008 @ 10:56 pm

That they did not officially nationalize everything, and allowed preexisting private owners to take a share of profit, and even have some power over the property, does not mitigate the fact that the party, and ultimately the Leader alone, wielded supreme power and everybody knew it.

The fact of power is not the only question; there is also its use. “Had ultimate power” is an irrelevancy; Dear Leader had ultimate power in the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany, but they did different things with that power. Hitler had the power to collectivize agricultural a la the Ukraine, but the fact is, he didn’t.

Nor did the fascists persecute industrialists, or even deprive them of their property. You say their power over their affairs was infringed on in the operation of their businesses; it was infringed on a heck of a lot less than that of other people. As a matter of fact, those industrialists’ employees had their autonomy infringed on not only to a greater degree, but in the service of those industrialists’ operations.

This was most certainly not how things worked under any variety of socialism that has ever existed. The fact that one state takes your bicycle and the other decides to give you great latitude in how you use it, because of who you are and how someone like you is viewed in that society, is a meaningful difference.

And no, the text books most certainly do not define fascism as socialism. The text books define socialism as a movement of the left, and fascism as a movement of the right. When the text books talk about the state owning the means of the production, they’re not talking about the relationship between the Third Reich and Krupp. Krupp owned Krupp. Jonah Goldberg does not write text books.

The second huge problem with your definitions, is that they seem to misclassify things. Historical experience tells us that people are nationalistic, that nation does trump class, and by a mile. That’s a fine argument against someone advocating for socialism, but not really so much as an argument about the definition of socialism. Are you telling me that the socialist model is actually workable? I agree.

Your last paragraph is a strong of statements that bear no relationship to each other than conjunctions, building towards an absurdity intended to reflect, somehow, on my argument. As such, I’ll pass on critiquing that bit.
Comment by joe —
September 5, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

Thoreau,

Who gets thrown behind bars, and for what, and who gets elevated or maintained in lofty positions, is pretty integral to the understanding of a political ideology, if you wish your understanding to go beyond “it’s bad.”

Yes, it’s true that both Hitler and Stalin put some number of industrialists in prison or to death; they both put some number of gypsies to death, too. There are meaningful differences in those numbers, which are not coincidental. They are, rather the direct consequences of the ideological platforms of Communism and Naziism.
Comment by joe —
September 5, 2008 @ 11:03 pm

In other words, a meat-eating farmer and a lacto-ovo-vegetarian farmer both have the power of life and death over their cows and chickens.

The preceding observation tells us nothing about the ideological differences between the two farmers.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 5, 2008 @ 11:48 pm

Fair point, joe.
Comment by Consumatopia —
September 6, 2008 @ 7:33 am

â€œone cell, one vote!â€

Not good enough. By Landauer’s Principle, true equality is not achieved until every chunk of energy greater than Boltzmann’s constant times the natural log of the number of possible ways to fill out your ballot times the temperature of the voting booth gets a vote. All life may end with the heat death of the universe, but democracy lives on.
Comment by abb1 —
September 6, 2008 @ 8:42 am

What Joe said in 29.

Leonard is wrong in thinking that The Government is always the epicenter of power, that is rarely the case. In most cases the government is merely a tool for one segment of the population to oppress the rest of the population. And the composition of this most powerful segment determines the most suitable ideological label.
Comment by Jason —
September 6, 2008 @ 10:00 am

By all means, you guys keep on with your solipsistic blatherings.

But let’s take a quick common sense time out and consider the context. If any single one of you had watched his speech, you’d know the reference is to those who put their own careers/individual status (Obama, Kerry) or their own party (nearly every Republican who has served in Congress over the last decade or so) ahead of country.

It’s within that context that “Country First” was uttered. Not above family, not above God, not above all. Keeping hunting those bugaboos though, you revolutionary heroes.

Even the most gung-ho group of pro-American knuckledraggers (in your likely estimation, not mine), the Marines, would tell you country does not come before all. It’s “God, Country, Corps”.

OK, carry on, geniuses.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 6, 2008 @ 10:10 am

Right, Jason. Because you can look into the hearts of Obama and Kerry and “nearly every” Congressional Republican and demonstrate that their careers reptresent putting their own individual status first in a way that McCain’s political career does not.
Comment by Jason —
September 6, 2008 @ 10:15 am

Hi Jim,

Show me the part of my post that mentions John McCain. I think he’s been consistently as bad as the folks he’s now criticizing. A preening attention whore for the media these last 8 years. Gross.

So he’s a gigantic hypocrite, IMHO. Doesn’t make his message all that difficult to figure though, really.
Comment by Jason —
September 6, 2008 @ 10:24 am

Also, FWIW, (nothing, really) I’m already quite embarrassed by my demeanor and the overall tone of my comments in this thread. I don’t quite know what came over me, perhaps I mistook my asshole pills for my Zocor this morning.

At any rate, apologies for spraying the walls of your place with my vitriol. I think I may have just vented some pent up frustration. Which of course is no excuse.
Comment by diana —
September 6, 2008 @ 10:55 am

Jim,

Did you see Yglesias’ pedantic little pseudo-observation? He’s wrong, you’re right. The meme of the convention wasn’t that the President would put the country first but that YOU should.

(And that of course, obama couldn’t possibly…..)
Comment by chaos —
September 6, 2008 @ 11:35 am

There ought to be a fairly large number of people, things and groups that are more important to you than your “country.”

I can’t think of any besides my family. Just what should be more important than your country?

I saw plenty of people here confused “the State” with “the country.” They are two different things. The government of the United States is not the United States.

Oh by the way: “Country First” is a fascist idea.

Sorry but it is not. It could be, if you associate the State or a particular ideology with “the country,” but otherwise to say that nationalism is fascist is ridiculous. When I think of country first I don’t think of the GOP or the Democratic Party or Ron Paul or the Green Party or the government bureaucracy, I think of what will be best in my opinion for the country as a whole.
Comment by Bob Thompson —
September 6, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

I don’t have McCain’s text in front of me, but I seem to recall that he expressed his idea that ‘country’ is is not a place but rather an idea. ‘Country first’ could be a fascist expression if used in a nationalistic sense but McCain is using this expression to describe the American ideal of individual liberty as set forth by the founders. The far left supporters of McCain’s opponents in this election represent a serious threat to this ideal.

Centrist democrats, independents, and republicans recognize this threat. They, however, are part of the problem because their inattention to the principles underlying the ideal of individual liberty has allowed this nation’s government to lose sight of this principle.

Congress is almost universally in this category. McCain is far from perfect in this, but not as bad as most.

Attention to this and a reform effort is just what we need. I personally think a ‘term limit’ on congressional service would help a lot.
Comment by Tom the Barbarian —
September 6, 2008 @ 12:18 pm

I guess “Country First” is just shorthand for the longer-winded fascist phrase, “Ask not what yout country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”

Correct?
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 6, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

TO: Jim Henley
RE: Fascist President John F. Kennedy

Oh by the way: “Country First” is a fascist idea. There ought to be a fairly large number of people, things and groups that are more important to you than your “country.” — Jim Henley

I recall President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address, wherein he said…

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask rather what you can do for your country

So, by your lights he was a fascist before McCain was one.

Tell us. Do you think highly of President Kennedy?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]
Comment by matthew hogan —
September 6, 2008 @ 12:27 pm

Mussolini, although quite possibly an atheist (he argued in favor of atheism some time before coming to power), strongly supported the Vatican, talked about the importance of religion in the state, and lavished funds on it, all in order to get it to support his programs, which it did.

Not entirely accurate, there was quite a bit of tension between church and state, but an element of fascism is accomodation of religion, at least in public, and to the extent religion promotes nationalism.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 6, 2008 @ 1:10 pm

Tell us. Do you think highly of President Kennedy?

Not particularly. Got a different box?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 6, 2008 @ 1:34 pm

OK, who linked to this thread?
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 6, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

I checked, and the most popular right-of-center blog to ref it is Joyner’s, but I don’t recognize the names as being OTB denizens.

Maybe, given the recent thrust of complaints, some JFK fan site . . . ?
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 6, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

Also, a funny thought: as regulars know, I’m no Objectivist. But when Rand wrote “The New Fascism,” wasn’t it the Kennedy administration that inspired the work?
Comment by Ohio Granny —
September 6, 2008 @ 2:06 pm

God.
Country.
Family.
Community.
Self.
In that order.
Used to be the American standard.
Sorry you spit on that memo.
Comment by abb1 —
September 6, 2008 @ 2:17 pm

Bob Thompson: …but McCain is using this expression to describe the American ideal of individual liberty…

But “individual liberty” and “country first” are two mutually exclusive concepts. “Individual liberty” = “me first”.
Comment by Mr Duncan —
September 6, 2008 @ 2:34 pm

Know your history: Fritz Thyssen.
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 6, 2008 @ 2:40 pm

TO: Jim Henley
RE: Kennedy-Fascistly Speaking

Not particularly. Got a different box? — Jim Henley

So. Are you calling President Kennedy a ‘fascist’ too?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Same box. Different corner…..
Comment by Bob Thompson —
September 6, 2008 @ 2:40 pm

abb1:

I see no exclusivity between ‘country first’ and ‘individual liberty’ when the preservation of the only country on the planet founded on the principle of ‘individual liberty’ above all else requires that we act to defend it. Those who value individual liberty must join this common cause to defend it.

Is this complicated?
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 6, 2008 @ 2:44 pm

TO: Jim Henley and Thoreau
RE: What Brought Us Here

I checked, and the most popular right-of-center blog to ref it is Joynerâ€™s, but I donâ€™t recognize the names as being OTB denizens.

Maybe, given the recent thrust of complaints, some JFK fan site . . . ? — Jim Henley

I came here via Joyner’s site after my attention was drawn there by at Instapundit item. In other words, it’s a sympathetic or secondary instalanch.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Socialism and Fascism are opposite faces of the same coin; made of a base metalâ€”totalitarianism. -- CBPelto]
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 6, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

Ah, that explains everything! People still reading Glenn Reynolds in 2008. Makes sense.

Ohio Granny: That’s one fucked up list.

I see no exclusivity between â€˜country firstâ€™ and â€˜individual libertyâ€™ when the preservation of the only country on the planet founded on the principle of â€˜individual libertyâ€™ above all else requires that we act to defend it. Those who value individual liberty must join this common cause to defend it.

Is this complicated?

Spectacularly so. Do you really not see that?
Comment by abb1 —
September 6, 2008 @ 3:08 pm

Bob Thompson,
where did “defend it” come from?

Anyway, no, it’s not complicated, but it seems quite paradoxical. “Country first” is, without a doubt, a collectivist slogan.

It tells you to sacrifice your individual liberty for the sake of the state that (presumably) cares about nothing but your individual liberty.

Sorta like, you know, bombing for peace, fucking for virginity, or torturing against terror.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 6, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

I see no exclusivity between â€˜country firstâ€™ and â€˜individual libertyâ€™ when the preservation of the only country on the planet founded on the principle of â€˜individual libertyâ€™ above all else requires that we act to defend it.

That might be a compelling argument if the policies being advocated for the ostensible defense of this country were indeed keeping us safe from real threats, and if the policies were not horrifically at odds with individual liberty.

Oh, fuck it, why am I arguing with you people? We played nice in 2002 and look where we are. If you’re still too dumb and/or evil to realize what the hell you’re arguing for, then you are not worth dealing with.
Comment by Bob Thompson —
September 6, 2008 @ 3:32 pm

abb1:

I agree that it is paradoxical – since individually we are not capable of defending the liberty that we prize against those who collectively value a different form of society (one where groups can define the ends sought).

I don’t see that I am being ‘told’ to sacrifice my individual liberty as much as there is an effort to persuade me to vote a certain way in order to continue to have individual liberty.

If the cause is lost at the ballot box, then I don’t know what comes next.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 6, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

If the cause is lost at the ballot box, then I donâ€™t know what comes next.

If the party of torture, unchecked surveillance, and detention without trial wins at the ballot box, then the cause of individual liberty will indeed be lost.
Comment by abb1 —
September 6, 2008 @ 4:07 pm

Obviously he’s trying to persuade you to vote certain way, they all do.

It’s just interesting that he says “country first” and you chose to connect some dots and come up with this seemingly paradoxical interpretation of it – “individual liberty”.

Jim Henley’s interpretation comes more naturally, at least as far as I’m concerned: “country first” = ‘country for the sake of the country’.
Comment by Paul A'Barge —
September 6, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

Why put scare quotes around the word country? You weenie.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 6, 2008 @ 4:21 pm

Paul: No special reason.
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 6, 2008 @ 4:44 pm

TO: Jim Henley
RE: I See No….

….response to my question about whether you think President John F. Kennedy is/was a ‘fascist’; based on his inaugural address in which he said….

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask rather what you can do for your country.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Doo, DOO, doo, doo;
Doo, DOO, doooooo. -- to the tune of the Jeopardy background music during Final Jeopardy]
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 6, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

P.S. Your failure to answer the question reminds me of the cunnundrum faced by the Pharisees when Christ asked them if John the Baptist’s baptism was of God or of men.

I do not envy your position on this. But I do recommend you answer my question honestly.
Comment by McDuff —
September 6, 2008 @ 4:49 pm

Chaos @ 43

I canâ€™t think of any besides my family. Just what should be more important than your country?

My breakfast? Who won third prize in the greasy pole contest at the county fair? Where’s my towel? I can think just about anything would be more important.

I know that Patriotism is supposed to be some uber-virtue, but does anybody have any reason why? I mean, other than the dirt-level practicalities that in the case of a war some other country might want to kill us so we got to kill them first, is there any reason for me to give any notions of loyalty or affection for a bunch of cocksuckers who only share my nationality because of accidents of birth?

I admit to a natural deficiency, in that I’ve never seen nationalism as being anything other than pure laziness, just like racism or sexism or a bunch of other isms, the natural outcropping of our twin tendencies to clump together in herds and to do what big strong people with shiny hair tell us to do. “Oh my God, the King told us that we really are better than the dirty stinking French, it must be true!” But other than that, is there any actual intellectual justification for it at all?

To update Chesterton’s aphorism for the times – since many of us don’t mind if our mothers have a go at the Pinot on occasion these days – “My Country, Right Or Wrong” is like saying “My Priest, Celibate or Rapist”.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 6, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

But I do recommend you answer my question honestly.

Why? Do you matter somehow?
Comment by McDuff —
September 6, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

Oh, and the post was linked to from Crooked Timber, which admittedly is more likely to explain the presence of godless european hippies than right wing crazies, but there you are. Datapoint. For you.
Comment by Bob Thompson —
September 6, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

McDuff:

I like to put my individual liberty FIRST.

I don’t like to be with a herd of anything except longhorns.

I don’t like anyone TELLING me what to do.

I do spend some time trying to figure out how to secure my individual liberty against isms and anarchists.
Comment by McDuff —
September 6, 2008 @ 5:25 pm

Chuck – does being forced to pick which member of the USA’s ruling elite was closer to fascism really seem like that difficult a job to you?

JFK was a rich womaniser with some moderately good ideas about how to run an empire which did not, nonetheless, extend to anything like a lack of nationalistic fervour. The notion of sending young men off to die in a jungle in the name of the USA was not alien to him.

McCain was one of the young men sent off by Kennedy and his predecessors, and his entire worldview has been seemingly shaped by the process of trying to justify the unjustifiable. McCain is the kind of person who is incapable of grasping that he might have spent his time being tortured for no fucking reason other than to keep the power fantasies of a bunch of crazy people in his own country alive. He represents, if not a direct ideological line from JFK, at least someone who was heavily influenced by JFK and by the quasi-intellectual justifiers of the expansion of the American Empire.

Just because the dude got shot as a Democrat doesn’t mean he was Jesus, or that people need to defend any damn fool thing that came out of his mouth as being the word of The Lord God himself. The elites on the left think you should be a country first type because working together we can do great things, or somesuch. The elites on the right think you should put the country first because then the people who run the country can take your stuff. The folks on the right may be objectively more in line with the real world on this particular issue; they are also objectively much bigger cunts on it.

Any questions now, Chuck?
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 6, 2008 @ 5:49 pm

TO: Jim Henley
RE: Does I[t] Matter?

Why? Do you matter somehow? — Jim Henley

Probably a bit more than you might care to think.

Are you going to answer the question? Or are you going to be a latter-day Pharisee?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 6, 2008 @ 5:54 pm

TO: McDuff
RE: Jim Henley Question

Any questions now, Chuck? — McDuff

I’m still waiting for Jim to answer the question asked of him. After all….

….he was the one who equated the idea of putting one’s country ahead of oneself as ‘fascism’.

Personally?

I think Jim is rather youngish in terms of years and poorly educated in history vis-a-vis politics. Otherwise, he would have remembered JFK’s statement and likely have thought better of making his.

RE: Your Thoughts on JFK

To follow….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -- John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address]

P.S. Too bad the Democrats seem to have lost that magnificent spirit over the last 48 years.

P.P.S. But it’s a good thing that the Republicans seem to have picked it up.
Comment by McDuff —
September 6, 2008 @ 5:54 pm

I like to put my individual liberty FIRST.

I donâ€™t like to be with a herd of anything except longhorns.

I donâ€™t like anyone TELLING me what to do.

I do spend some time trying to figure out how to secure my individual liberty against isms and anarchists.

And I expect you came up with the notion of being a cocksure, independent cowboy all by yourself without reference or influence from any national or cultural narratives, didn’t you sir? I salute you for your redneck originality, sir, and for being one of the few members of Homo Sapiens Sapiens who has truly transcended the plains ape need for socialisation and the influence of others on your personality and sense of worth. You are the salt of the earth, there is no question about it.

Tell me, do you follow all local, state and federal guidelines when it comes to getting your cattle from field to table? Or do you just protect your individual liberty from anarchists and not governments?
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 6, 2008 @ 5:55 pm

P.P.P.S. By the way, I was a Democrat, until I realized that they had lost that bright and shining light.
Comment by Idi Amin's Last Meal —
September 6, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

& Jermaine Dupri continues to receive a free pass.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 6, 2008 @ 6:05 pm

Yes, clearly the modern day pharisees are the people who hate war and prefer not to torture others. The nationalists, the ones who place collective loyalty over other ethical obligations and cheer for the party of war and torture, those are the REAL followers of Jesus.

Uh huh.

FWIW, I take my screen name from some dirty hippie who wrote:

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.

That’s the only sort of patriotism that matters, IMHO.
Comment by McDuff —
September 6, 2008 @ 6:08 pm

Chuck

Lofty notions of the blog’s proprietor being young and uneducated may strike you as being an amazing zinger, but they actually make you look like a cock.

I think that Jim’s response was apt. But for your edification, some bullet points:

1) Using a fascist term doesn’t make you a fascist, just probably more amenable to their ideas.

1a) The Militarised, Nationalistic, Jingoistic Republican Party are probably better positioned than most to be amenable to Fascist ideas, let’s be honest here.

1b) The Democratic Party are not exactly immune from such notions, being deeply embedded in the Washington DC shithole as they are. It’s just not as bone deep in the ideological makeup of their party.

2) If you can’t tell the semantic difference between “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” and “always put your country first” then you don’t get to argue from your own authority as the snooty intellectual guy in the conversation. Ever. You should probably go study some information theory and ask why the first one had more words in it.

3) Kennedy was a nationalist, just like McCain. Neither McCain nor Kennedy were/are actually Fascists, although there would have been some parts of both men’s policies that went down well in Nazi Germany and, of course, many that wouldn’t. (Questions of who would have done what and where had their cultural contexts placed them in, say, Nazi Germany are best left to much more boring threads than this)

4) Nationalisms are not all fascisms. Nationalisms are sometimes useful in the short term. Nationalisms are, though, almost invariably dumb.

5) Country First is, indeed, a Fascist term. This does not mean that John McCain is a fascist. On the other hand, your conflating it with Kennedy does mean that you’re desperate to score a cheap shot.
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 6, 2008 @ 6:12 pm

TO: McDuff

does being forced to pick which member of the USAâ€™s ruling elite was closer to fascism really seem like that difficult a job to you? — McDuff

This is non sequitur to the topical thread. I suggest you start a blog thread of your own on this matter.

JFK was a rich womaniser with some moderately good ideas about how to run an empire which did not, nonetheless, extend to anything like a lack of nationalistic fervour. — McDuff

This too is non sequitur.

The notion of sending young men off to die in a jungle in the name of the USA was not alien to him. — McDuff

This too is non sequitur. But….

….where were YOU in â€™62?

I was at Offutt AFB, Nebraska. Waiting to signal for a â€˜fair catchâ€™ of an incoming ICBM from Cuba. And in â€™67 I was eligible for the draft with a number of 51; three guesses what that meant.

So. You might be surprised to learn that Kennedy was not in favor of expanding our activities in Viet Nam beyond some teams of advisors.

LBJ, a Democrat of a different opinion, started sending combat formations into the fray. So. Please. Try to get your history straight. Itâ€™ll speed up our processes here, as I wonâ€™t have to tutor you on history.

McCain was one of the young men sent off by Kennedy and his predecessors, and his entire worldview has been seemingly shaped by the process of trying to justify the unjustifiable.. — McDuff

Non sequitur again. [Note: Do you have trouble with attention deficit disorder?]

McCain is the kind of person who is incapable of grasping that he might have spent his time being tortured for no fucking reason other than to keep the power fantasies of a bunch of crazy people in his own country alive. He represents, if not a direct ideological line from JFK, at least someone who was heavily influenced by JFK and by the quasi-intellectual justifiers of the expansion of the American Empire. — McDuff

Non sequitur, again.

Just because the dude got shot as a Democrat doesnâ€™t mean he was Jesus, or that people need to defend any damn fool thing that came out of his mouth as being the word of The Lord God himself. — McDuff

Non sequitur, again.

The elites on the left think you should be a country first type because working together we can do great things, or somesuch. The elites on the right think you should put the country first because then the people who run the country can take your stuff. The folks on the right may be objectively more in line with the real world on this particular issue; they are also objectively much bigger cunts on it. — McDuff

FINALLY! Back on topic. Albeit your showing the sort of crass you prefer. And selfishness too.

Oh well…..

Vaya con Dios, compadre.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You can lead a whore to culture, but you canâ€™t make it think.]
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 6, 2008 @ 6:12 pm

Probably a bit more than you might care to think.

There is no way that can not be a true statement.

Are you going to answer the question? Or are you going to be a latter-day Pharisee?

I’ve had a hard time deciding! I’m coming around the view that it’s important to scorn your delusion that you’re owed an answer, though.
Comment by Bob Thompson —
September 6, 2008 @ 6:38 pm

McDuff:

I do follow all the rules regarding the longhorns.

Is there someone on this site who can help me with libertarianISM?

Tell me about this Neville character.
Comment by McDuff —
September 6, 2008 @ 6:50 pm

Well, in 1962 I wasn’t born, so I guess you win the contest for “I was there”.

But since you don’t think it’s relevant that the first combat operations and the first use of Agent Orange was under Kennedy rather than Johnson I guess either your memory or your judgement must be failing in your old age.

The fact that you don’t seem to be grasping that the answer to your supposed “gotcha” question is a resounding “we simply don’t care because you clearly can’t read” is telling, too.

McCain and Kennedy are both very similar in foreign policy outlooks – I can easily imagine McCain drawing a “line in the sand” with Iran over some frothed up bugaboo. The fact that Kennedy had more tact than McCain and didn’t want to escalate it too hard didn’t change the inevitability of that escalation. It would have happened whoever was in charge, Johnson or Kennedy, such is the determinism and intertia of warfare. But unlike Kennedy, McCain’s had 48 years more experience of pointless warmongering and scaremongering from the US and still hasn’t figured out what’s wrong with the picture.

Your question was “is Kennedy a fascist”, meaning that you wanted someone to say “no” then you’d go “aha, gotcha!!one”. Unfortunately, that only works if Jim had been calling McCain a fascist. Since he wasn’t, you’re just Walter, really, aren’t you? Except Walter was cool.
Comment by McDuff —
September 6, 2008 @ 6:52 pm

Neville was the Part Time Barman at the Flying Swan in Brentford, known for serving the finest pints of Large in the town, which by the standards of the day meant the finest pints of ale in the known world.

But I fail to see how that’s relevant.
Comment by alex trebek/art fleming —
September 6, 2008 @ 10:24 pm

The correct question is: what statement by the late President Kennedy has the barest veneer between altruism and statism?
Comment by abb1 —
September 7, 2008 @ 3:47 am

What is the issue with Kennedy, exactly? I sure hate him as much as the next guy, but I see absolutely no problem with him saying “ask what you can do for your country”. It doesn’t hurt to ask – unlike putting the country first.
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 7, 2008 @ 10:37 am

TO: Jim Henley
RE: Indecision

Iâ€™ve had a hard time deciding! — Jim Henley

I can well imagine. I suspect the Pharisees were faced with the same problem back then.

RE: Who Owes What to Whom

Iâ€™m coming around the view that itâ€™s important to scorn your delusion that youâ€™re owed an answer, though. — Jim Henley

You’re welcome to your delusions. It’s a free country. But the rank hypocrisy combined with a fatal degree of Obama-esque pride….to the degree that one cannot admit to making a mistake…can lead to serious problems.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The only Guy I know of who was perfect, got nailed to a tree for it.]

P.S. That was accomplished by the Pharisees.

And lest you get too ambitious on that account, just remember that around 35 years later, the Pharisees, their city, their temple even the whole people were utterly destroyed.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 7, 2008 @ 10:54 am

You guessed my secret, Chuck: I killed Christ. I would have gotten away with it too, if not for you meddling minor GOP functionaries.
Comment by abb1 —
September 7, 2008 @ 11:07 am

Hey, fella, we read the book, know the story. Yeah, and since you, apparently, find it so fascinating, shouldn’t you be in church Sunday morning?
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 7, 2008 @ 11:13 am

TO: abb1
RE: Church & Ignorance

The Coming Civil War in America. — abb1

I go on Fridays.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 7, 2008 @ 11:14 am

TO: abb1
RE: Dang

Lousy copy-and-paste functions….

shouldnâ€™t you be in church Sunday morning? — abb1

Sorry about that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 7, 2008 @ 11:16 am

TO: Jim Henley
RE: Yeah….

I would have gotten away with it too, if not for you meddling minor GOP functionaries. — Jim Henley

….but you’re missing the point.

You AREN’T getting away with it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Crime does not pay...as well as politics.]
Comment by Thoreau —
September 7, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

Did you hear that, Jim? You aren’t getting away with it, according to a minor GOP functionary.

I don’t know exactly what that means, but it sounds like it could mean he’s going to Gitmo. If Jim goes dark for more than 24 hours, I’m going to call the ACLU.
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
September 7, 2008 @ 2:21 pm

I go on Fridays.

You’re Muslim, then?
Comment by mds —
September 7, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

Youâ€™re Muslim, then?

I suspect that Chuck is actually a Sixth-Day Adventist. That would explain a lot.
Comment by kid bitzer —
September 7, 2008 @ 3:22 pm

“Chuck is actually a Sixth-Day Adventist. That would explain a lot.”

really? you mean *none* of them can read?
Comment by Chuck Pelto —
September 7, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

TO: mds
RE: Better….

I suspect that Chuck is actually a Sixth-Day Adventist. — mds

…than the average moron.

Why?

Whereas Seventh-Day Adventists meet on Saturdays, a Sixth-Day one would, logically, meet on Fridays.

However, I’m neither. Nor am I a Muslim. Although my brother-in-law is an Iranian.

Still and all, it is blatantly apparent to the casual observer that most of the commenters here lack certain skills. Especially Thoreau.

But, as the song goes at the closing of Dr. Strangelove….

We’ll meet again.
Don’t know where.
Don’t know wheeeeennnnnn…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.]
Comment by abb1 —
September 7, 2008 @ 5:46 pm

Although my brother-in-law is an Iranian.

Now, that’s just un-American.
Comment by Happy Jack —
September 7, 2008 @ 6:12 pm

And in â€™67 I was eligible for the draft with a number of 51; three guesses what that meant.

The way this is worded, I’m thinking that you’re trying to leave a particular impression.

Guess one : you were eighteen then.

Guess two : you never saw combat in Vietnam.
Comment by nasrudin —
September 8, 2008 @ 12:01 am

Chuckie: “And in â€™67 I was eligible for the draft with a number of 51; three guesses what that meant.”

I only need one guess: you were in some kind of bizarre time warp, since the draft lottery didn’t start until 1969.

chuckie: “So. You might be surprised to learn that Kennedy was not in favor of expanding our activities in Viet Nam beyond some teams of advisors.”

“Some teams”? wow.
When Ike left office there were 800 American soldiers in VN. When JFK was assassinated 34 months later he had increased that to 16,000.

You’re outa your league here, kiddo.

(Comments automatically closed after 21 days.)

Unqualified Offerings

September 5, 2008

RNC Post-Liveblogging II

100 Responses to “RNC Post-Liveblogging II”

1. OG

2. The UO Family

3. New Crew

4. Auld Acquaintance

A Fanboy's Blogs

In Memoriam

Not Blogs

Regular Reading

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Aug				Oct »
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30