Barack Obama isn't very good at being president. Bill Clinton wasn't during his first 12-18 months either. They have one asset in common: high levels of intelligence. This suggests that they should be smart enough to learn from their mistakes and adapt their behavior in response to obvious and repetitive opposition tactics. Most analysts argue that Clinton learned his lesson and had a modestly productive six years following the two disastrous ones at the beginning of his first term. Personally I think he "accomplished" things only inasmuch as he caved in, pushed Reagan Lite legislation, and declared victory. But given the fanatically hostile Republican Congress he face, I can buy the argument that he adapted.
Obama, on the other hand, just doesn't seem to be getting it. And this shocks me. It really, really does. Not because I considered him a neo-FDR or some kind of progressive liberal poster boy – in fact, I'm on record months before his election pointing out that there isn't a lick of difference between him and Hillary Clinton's Diet Republican ideology – but because I thought he would put his hand on the glowing stove a few times, get 3rd degree burns, and then be smart enough to stop touching it. But he isn't. He just keeps putting his hand into the fire again and again under the assumption that this time it will not burn him.
I borrow this analogy from Mike, who in turn sourced it to from Dave Dayen, but Obama is little more than Charlie Brown trying to kick the football while the Lucy that is the Senate GOP holds it.
We all recall that Peanuts gag from our childhood. Sad-sack Charlie…one of these days he was going to kick that football, darn it. Even as kids we knew he would never actually get it, but that was part of his appeal. He was so earnest, and it was intended to be heartwarming to see how he trusted his friend even though we knew Lucy was going to screw him (figuratively, thanks to the FCC) every single time. What was lovable, or at least intended to be lovable, about Charlie Brown is quickly starting to look pathetic in the elected leader of the nation.
Take the recent Wall Street reform legislation. The administration catered exclusively to three Republicans – Snowe and Collins from Maine as well as Scott Brown from Massachusetts – from the get-go. In fact, they practically wrote the legislation. The White House pulled no punches in catering to their every whim. They agreed to open a Krakatoa sized hole in the Volcker Rule, at Brown's insistence, to help protect prominent asset management firms in Boston. They agreed to make the bill "deficit neutral." But when Brown realized that deficit neutrality meant a $19 billion tax on hedge funds and investment banks – and $19 billion is couch change to that industry, especially given how deeply they've partaken of the public till lately – he balked.
It is the same story over and over. Kiss the GOP's ass, give in on every issue, promise them everything they demand…and then they refuse to support it anyway. Obama does not get this. It is not sinking in. For some reason he thinks that if he is "bipartisan" enough with people like Brown and Snowe they will start working with him. And then they yank the football away and he ends up on his ass. Every time.
He is not figuring out that the opposition party, including the ones he believes are Reasonable and Moderate, has no interest in working with him and no intent to do so. He immediately yields all of his leverage in negotiations, kissing their asses from the very beginning, and then he is shocked at the end when they mug him for the last few concessions at the end. Why wouldn't Brown do this? It's painfully obvious that they can get whatever they want from Obama. Very early in his presidency I noted a disturbing tendency for Obama to immediately pull back when attacked. He proposes something, the right starts howling, and in the blink of an eye he's taking it off the table and making concessions by the dozen. It weakened his position to the point that he is practically a joke in the Senate. "We can get anything we want out of this guy. All you have to do is hit 'em hard. We've got 41 Senators and we're taking this asshole to the cleaners! Ha ha!"
Eighteen months isn't enough time to cement a legacy but it's long enough to be past the growing pains. It is starting to look like this guy just can't cut it, unless you count delivering slightly prettied-up versions of Republican legislation or massively watered down versions of Democratic legislation as success. But stick with it, Mr. President. We'll hold the football for you next time. We promise.
roberto says:
This guy truly is embarrassing. The democratic party was barely alive when he took off. He had a chance to revive the party. Instead, he put the final knife in it. I've never seen anything as pathetic as this. It's actually comedic. I never thought I'd turn into one of those 3rd party people. But I just can't bear to associate with this rotting corpse of a party anymore. I'm not voting for people who despise me anymore. fuck obama and fuck the democratic party. fuck their assassinations, their trillions for banksters, their mandates for shitty healthcare, their 10% unemployment, their catfood commissions, their Ken Salazar regulators, their drones, their wars, and their useless fucking speeches. Fuck them.
FMguru says:
It is weird, because one of the things that impressed me during the campaign (primary and general) was the way he would stay cool and refuse to be whipsawed by the media panic of the day (unlike McCain, who regularly contradicted himself from day to day in response to ephemeral events), but was smart enough to change course when it became clear that something wasn't working (unlike Hillary, who rode Mark Penn's strategy into the ground and kept campaigning for more than a month after Obama locked up the delegates he needed). It was his best trait, and like you, I thought he'd give the whole "bipartisanship" thing the ol' college try a couple of times, and then retire it once he realized that the GOP had no interest in giving him even half an inch of cooperation. But no, he appears to really sincerely believe all his Kumbaya we-can-come-together bullshit. Arrrgh.
I suspect that he'll eventually come around to becoming a two-fisted fighting liberal critic of the GOP – the moment his congressional majorities evaporate and he hits lame duck status. He'll do the right thing only after he's wrecked his agenda and power by repeatedly doing the wrong thing – but just in time for him to go down in history as the liberal who failed (a la Carter). Thanks, Barry.
fuzzbuzz215 says:
Eh. I still think he's doing the best he can. This is a Right Wing country after all. Obama did take steps in the right direction with health care and the financial reform. Lets keep in mind the immense size and power of the interests that Obama is working against here. Corporate and business interest would never let any president get away with what FDR got away with, especially in this modern world full of multinational corporations that are far more powerful than anything FDR had to work against. Also, ive liked what hes tried to do with school loans. At least he ATTEMPTS to help. Ill give him that.
daphne says:
my shorthand for this phenomenon – and to complete your metaphor – is "Kiss my ass and I'll kick yours."
ZenPoseur says:
He's not Santa Claus, Ed. I really wish you'd stop getting so apoplectic about your former Messiah's so-called "betrayal". Peddle your far-left purity pogroms somewhere else, because I'm not drinking the kool-aid.
(This has been a test of the Emergency Sarcasm Service. This was only a test. If this had been an actual sarcasm emergency, we would own your punk asses, yo.)
Comhradh says:
I saw this whole fiasco play out with the healthcare bill. I was honestly hoping (how naive of me!) that Obama would realize very early in the process that the Republicans were in no way going to be honest debaters in the process, and that he'd just kick them to the curb like the wounded animals that they were. Majority in the House, 59 seats in the Senate, and somehow, Republicans got to control the entirety of the bill *and* claim it was a boondoggle that Democrats will be solely responsible for when it fails (unless it succeeds, then they get to say they wrote it).
At this point, comparing Obama to Charlie Brown is a disservice to Charlie Brown. At least Charlie Brown attempts to kick the ball.
Andrew R. says:
Hi! I only discovered this blog recently, and, what the hell, I may as well put my foot in my mouth with a comment.
First off, why on earth do liberals and leftists talk about the later Clinton years as if they were some sort of disaster? I keep reading things like, "We can't afford any more DLC policies," but I am hard pressed to figure out what exactly is wrong with full employment, a balanced federal budget, and rising personal incomes. If this is what caving in to the Republicans looks like, I'd like to see some more.
Secondly, if you want to actually do away with the filibuster, that's something you can do, but it's going to eat up the entire legislative agenda. That would be a knock-down drag-out fight that would involve all of the energies of the Democratic party which is far, far more fractious than the GOP. And then, in the end, if you were successful, you'd be left with a congress that is ripe for whatever nutbar GOP agenda gets passed the first time they get 50 + 1.
bb in GA says:
Bro or Sis FBuzz:
You got to get your mind right!
When I brought up the Gallup poll that has said almost forevermore that about 35-40% of us self identify as Conservatives while only 20% are Liberal…well, I was told right here that such thinkng and pollling was shallow. That we in the US embrace Liberal ideas in percentages waaay greater than 20%
Now you come along and say we are a Right Wing country…Hey FBuzz…DUCK!
Now which is it?
Are we all knuckle draggin' clones of the knee walkin' stupid George W?
or can I play bass and sing back-up for
"Darth Cheney and the Masters of the Universe"?
//bb
Crazy for Urban Planning says:
I'm not sure where I fall on this. I would say that the only "conservative" I find intellectually honest these days is David Frum who is willing to admit that that crappy health care bill will probably be popular in 2014…
As a liberal I could get endlessly frustrated at the tendency for Dems to be butt fucked for offering a hand job to Reps, but that is life so I don't know what to do about it.
Crazy for Urban Planning says:
More broadly it is a pity how the Clintonites decided to take money from jerk bankers in New York and Hollywood Elites in California (yes I just said Hollywood elites, I must be an idiot). I think what they have become is just a reflection of new constituents. Today's two party system represents big banks and big business and bigger banks and bigger business. Those are our choices now.
Its a pity because I think that if any politician talked about actual progressive policies they may well find a receptive audience. As far as I can see the only specific policy ever talked about by the teaparty dopes is antagonistic language to big banks – something any progressive would agree with them on.
I do think its good we have all killed local economies and all shop at Wal-Mart because most people couldn't afford local stores anyway right now.
waldo says:
The world has become so bizarre that, despite you, Greenwald and Chris Floyd, I still like Obama and hope he can achieve something good.
HoosierPoli says:
This is a textbook example of what I was trying to say with my post, which nobody seemed to get. Who are we blaming? Obama. Who is the root of the problem? The five or six shitbag Democrats that use Republican intransigence to hide their own corporate bootlicking.
There are two Democratic votes just SITTING on the table for financial reform, Cantwell and Feingold, who won't vote for the legislation because it doesn't go far enough. If that was the only problem, the solution is simple: toughen up the legislation, get Feingold and Cantwell on board, and stick it to the Republicans. Except that's NOT an option, because the "Democratic supermajority" is more like 54 or 55 seats, with the remaining seats filled with corporatist dirtbags that will sell out their own party in a heartbeat, and are chomping at the bit to kill financial reform.
And best of all, when these shitheads get there way, who does the reactionary left blame? Obama! Clearly he must not be very good at being President.
Ed's Clinton point also shows the difference between getting what you want and agreeing to what other people want.
grendelkhan says:
Eh, I'd believe more of the poor-Obama nonsense if there were more evidence to suggest that any of the pretty words about wanting really sweet progressive things are more than shiny things to shut the base up. As Greenwald has pointed out extensively, Obama acts one way when he really wants something, and another when he doesn't. It's pretty straightforward.
I seldom get tired of this. A year ago, I was told that I was asking way, way too much, that I had unrealistic expectations, that he was going to make things better, just you wait. I kept on hearing about the infinite capacity that fans of the Democratic Party have for self-deception, but I didn't really understand it until I saw it happening in real time.
That's so adorable! Even though it's well-known that Obama traded away the public option early on in the process, you still charmingly believe that he was suckered in due to being insufficiently aggressive or savvy, rather than being the pusillanimous architect of your disappointment in the first place.
anotherbozo says:
You may be right on target, Ed. All my alternate theories fail to convince even ME. But I keep bringing to bear all my insight into human frailties when Obama is on camera, and I can't see the weakling that his actions seem to describe. I can't see the rationalizer or deluded optimist (this time it WILL work!), either.
If he's been asked WTF? questions on camera before, please provide a link. Maybe I missed the answers that would have provided some insight.
jazzbumpa says:
bb – that's a false choice. You need to start thinking harder.
Hoosier – And everybody else, come to think of it –
You're making things awfully one dimensional, either it's B. Hoover Obama, or Snowe, or some blue dog. Again, a bunch of false choices. This is a deeply divided country. I just heard somewhere and can't verify that 24% of the U.S population still believe the Big O is some sort of foreign born alien.
There was a big debate recently about the power/non-power of the presidency. Real world – it's never simple, clear-cut, or straight forward. there's things he can do, and things he can't. It might take more than 18 mos to figure that out with a minority firmly committed to obstructionism for its own sake.
OTOH, Obama is, and has always been, a moderate conservative. Only in right-wing wacko-land has he ever been any kind of leftist/progressive, let alone a fucking socialist. Don't expect a real progressive agenda from him, because it is not what he believes in.
Recent popular votes for the presidency have been in the 53-47 range. These things are damned close. But they're between conservative Dems, and radical wing-nut reactionary regressives. There is a political left in this country, but it about the size of Bernie Sanders.
What the hell do you expect? Repugs will say no to anything that comes from Obama. Policy doesn't matter in the slightest. They just want him to fail. There is no political will anywhere to support anything that even hints at a progressive agenda. This ain't O's fault. Or that of any other individual or small group.
It's because Corporations run America, and we are blithely following them down the road to fascism.
The thing I can't understand is that the mere possibility of a filibuster has become a filibuster. In the news it says the Repugs filibustered the jobs bill. All that happened is it didn't pass with 60, so the Dems gave up in the face of a inevitible filibuster.
Stop caving and make those bastards filibuster. Make them stand up there for hours in front of Moloch and all those people saying why they hold up this and won't vote for that. At least give people a chance to see what the hell those ass holes are doing.
End of incoherent rant.
WASF,
JzB
HoosierPoli says:
JzB
Rules of procedure in the senate are not my strong suit, in that I know basically nothing about them.
But I read somewhere that there was a rules change in the 90s that basically eliminated the "roll out the cots" filibuster, basically allowing the filibuster-free filibuster. Somebody else can step in and correct me, but AFAIK the "make em read the phone book" Civil Rights era strategy no longer exists.
Andrew R. says:
HoosierPoli, the issue as I understand it is quorum calls. Basically, if you've got an old-school filibuster going on, at any given time, someone can have a quorum call to see if there are 51 senators. If there aren't enough senators for a quorum, you're done. This means that there's an incredible burden on the majority party because they've got to keep at least fifty people on the Senate floor at all times, whereas the minority party only needs one.
Now then, you could do this, basically call the GOP's bluff, but it would take *work.* I'm not actually sure why the Democrats don't, on a few occasions have a page go in for take out and settle in for the long haul, especially when you've got legislation as game changing as health care or financial reform.
comrade x says:
So everybody is pretty much in agreement- Obama is not a progressive. Neither is his Party.
So why should progressives vote for him? Fuck it… you are going to have to bite the bullet, vote third party, and watch the GOP thugs win some elections and beat the country further into the ground. But if progressive causes are going to gain any ground the Democrats have to be allowed to sink into oblivion. They're the Lucy holding the football and the progressives are the Charlie Brown.
BTW, let's drop this crap about America being a " conservative country". That's the standard exscuse of the DLC when they are too wishy- washy to push through legislation that will truly benefit the majority of Americans. If America is so conservative then why did that jackhole Bush 2 have to cheat in his two elections to win? Why did Americans put Obama into office when he sounded like FDR? Why are they abandoning him now that he sounds like Calvin Coolidge?
Seth says:
Another point about the US being a "conservative country":
In poll after poll, more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal. But as soon as you start polling on actual issues rather than empty lables, it quickly becomes clear that most Americans are, in fact, pretty liberal. I'm not a big Michael Moore fan, but he's made this point repeatedly and convincingly over the last few years.
Most Americans aren't culture-warriors; most aren't Evangelicals; most want government support and safety nets to be clearly and safely and strongly protected. The ones who don't are very vocal, but that doesn't make them a majority–unless we've started calibrating votes by volume.
HoosierPoli says:
"Fuck it
HoosierPoli says:
That post got messed up, but you know what, I stand by it.
John says:
@Seth: "In poll after poll, more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal. But as soon as you start polling on actual issues rather than empty lables, it quickly becomes clear that most Americans are, in fact, pretty liberal"
The greatest success of the Republican Party in America was redefining the political labels of "right and left" to mean "good and bad". People self-identify as "conservative" because they have been led to believe that anything and everything bad is "leftist" and "socialist" while all things good are "conservative".
This manifests itself most blatently in the recent attempts by those on the far right to reclassify Fascism as a phenomenon of the left end of the political spectrum. To anyone with any passing knowledge of political science, this is a farce of the grandest scale. But to the common American idiot, the absolutely absurd notion of someone being simultaneously socialist and fascist is not only possible, but physically manifested in our current president.
So when a poll comes around that asks "Are you on the political left or right", most people see it as "Are you an evil America-hating scum, or a patriotic hero" and pick the obvious choice.
Monkey Business says:
My biggest problem, and not necessarily with Obama but the Democratic party in general, is that when it gets down to it, the GOP is just better at the process of governing. They ram stuff down the Democrat's throats when they're in power, and obstinately refuse to let them get anything done when they're not. They don't even need a supermajority, just a simple one, and they still get stuff like the Bush tax cuts passed.
How is it we're even having a debate about financial reform? The debate should have started with "This crackerjack group of fuckups nearly destroyed the world economy because we let them run around without a regulatory leash." and ended with "All in favor of reform? The "Aye"s have it. Motion passes." Health care was the same way.
There is no Liberal party in America. There is no one that's willing to get their hands dirty and fight the GOP. No one that's willing to get into a real knock down, drag out brawl with the Republicans over stuff that matters.
I want Obama to go before a joint session of Congress and boldly declare, like his predecessor did, "You're either with us or against us.". I want Congress to queue up a laundry list of every liberal fantasy legislation and let the GOP come out against every single one.
After that, I want to go after the bootlickers. I want to go after the Ben Nelson's, the ones that sell out their constituents, their party, their country, to line their own pockets.
After that, I want to go after the corporations. Ban big money from corporate entities in politics. At least give the little guy a fighting chance.
And after that, hopefully, take a vacation.
ZenPoseur says:
If I may spew out a hodgepodge of comments on different matters…
The lack of actual filibustering on the Senate floor is simply a matter of keeping the Senate running. Someone mentioned that it takes a disproportionately minuscule effort to keep a filibuster going, whereas those attempting to break it have to be all in. That's not just a matter of making the majority work, though, it's part of the filibusterer's strategy. The Republicans would love it if, without significant sacrifice, they could keep the Democrats in the Senate at all hours while they took turns doing 2 hour shifts to read from the phone book. It would wear the Democrats down, drain their energy and enthusiasm for the process, and curtail their ability to fly home and visit their constituents (which would be a double whammy, because the Republicans could then use that against them come election time.)
Having a filibuster going on also makes it more cumbersome to find floor time for regular Senate business. And since the point of most Republican filibusters is simply to disrupt Senate business… Well, you can see what a Pyrrhic victory that would be, even if we broke the filibuster.
That said, I still think the Democrats should make Republicans filibuster the big stuff, at least once or twice per year, instead of just abiding by the quorum call. It would at least draw some modicum of attention towards Republican obstruction. And anyway, the more Republicans talk, the more they get into trouble — so make 'em talk.
As regards getting rid of the filibuster, I'm all for it, and I believe that it can be done with enough pressure. If, for example, on January 3rd of 2011, Harry Reid and the now slimmer Democratic majority in the Senate believed that maintaining their majority in the 2012 elections was going to depend on moving legislation forward against the unified objection of 54 Republicans and 2-3 Democrat prima donnas, there's maybe a ten percent chance that the filibuster as we know it would survive to see January 4th. Yeah, the usual suspects would hem and haw, but I'd love to see what happens when they try to explain to the American people that there's something wrong with 50%+1 rule.
As for the argument that liberals could suffer under majority rule, I find fault on two counts. One, so what? The elected majority ought to rule its chamber, whether they're conservative or liberal. Two, the filibuster has been used far more frequently to obstruct the progressive agenda than to obstruct the conservative agenda. Look at the last 10 years if you don't believe me. Look at civil rights. Have liberals ever employed the filibuster for a benefit equal to the cost we payed for the filibuster's delay of civil rights?
Finally, it is important and correct to point out that the Republicans represent an almost singular, unified voting block in the Senate, while the Democrats have a perpetual problem with defectors. It's fair and accurate to say that this is why we couldn't push the progressive agenda to the degree that we'd have liked, during the past 18 months. It's fair to blame those defectors for our historic but less than optimal accomplishments during this congress.
But it's also fair to ask why this is the case. Why do we have constant defections while the Republicans are nearly unified? Well, it's because Republicans have pacified their most liberal members, whereas Democrats have failed to pacify their most conservative members. This is a somewhat novel situation, actually. There have historically been defectors on both sides of the aisle during most congressional sessions. What's happened recently is that Republicans (and hard-right Republicans, at that) have managed to crack down on their caucus to an unprecedented degree.
Although my preference would be to return to the days where each Senator was free to vote their mind without fear of being an outcast in their own party, in the absence of such a scenario, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to expect Democratic leadership and the Obama administration (BETRAYER! FASCIST! PURITY FOREVER! FALLEN MESSIAH! ETC!) to follow the Republican example and crack heads among Democratic defectors in the Senate, in order to bring them into line. Use threats against committee assignments and primary support, cajole them, give promises, use constant harassment, or whatever works, but get those mofos in line. The tools to do this are there, but we took them off the table early on during this congress (even for Lieberman, for heaven's sake) and now we refuse to play hardball with defectors. We pussyfoot around and try only to appease them when we should be grabbing them by the nose and kicking them in the ass. The Republicans have managed to pacify defectors from the minority, for heaven's sake! Democrats sure as hell should be able to do it from the majority, and with control of the executive branch.
ZenPoseur says:
Err, I meant cloture vote, of course. Not quorum call.
bb in GA says:
I feel that if we left Leftville here and moved on down the road to the Right Wing Paradise Blog and Massage Parlor we would read the same stuff (albeit less intelligently expressed) with the names changed.
It's just amazing…Repug solidarity!? Don't y'all remember the conniption fits the Rs had with the Spec-Col-Snowe gang? Back in the day, they were gettin' fed grapes on silver by the big Ds with pedicures after ('ceptin Arlen)
The right wingers were saying similar things to what's here about Pres BHO from the other side about W not being a "movement Conservative" a la Saint Ronaldus.
//bb
party with tina says:
Senators are comparable to the "House of Lords" in England. They're almost "Noble" in their personal characteristics, compared to the Representatives. They are elected expressly to give every principality an equal say in one aspect of the decision making process. Democracy literally means "Mob Rule" and the senate are intended to curtail the potential "mob" from opressing a minority. For example laws that might ruin Wisconsin but greatly benefit California or New York state. Fillibuster is a tool to that end.
The Democratic party has never been particularly "Progressive" Either, except for when they stole the old progressive party's platform for the creation of an inflationary monetary system. Democrats in Congress sided with Slavery, and were anti-civil rights. I can't remember the senator's name who passed away recently, the most senior member, former member of the KKK, Democrat…?
Crazy for Urban Planning says:
I think the point made by Seth and John bears repeating. Americans aren't "conservative" as a rule. Listen to the jerk off "conservatives" on the radio talking about the oil spill, you would think they didn't small government! Whenever folks get asked specific questions they tend to want more government involvement – but you would never dream that to be the case based on the way liberals are portrayed…
ZenPoseur says:
bb,
Oh, I agree, in regards to the Senate during the 109th Congress and earlier (and maybe even during the 110th, too.) But the 111th — the Senate during the Obama administration — has been a very different animal. Snowe and Collins have been more loyal than ever since the fallout from their stimulus vote, and Spectre was forced out of the party entirely (and yes, I realize the Spectre situation was more complicated than just that.)
And it's not just the votes, it's when they happen. More Republicans used to defect during procedural votes (e.g. cloture.) But these days, the consequences to a Republican senator for defecting on a procedural vote are worse than they used to be for defecting on an actual floor vote. If rumor is to be believed, then key Republicans have been threatened with losing their committee assignments if they defect on even one procedural vote. Even if rumor is wrong, the caucus is acting as if that's the case.
I mean, really, the Republican Senators have become a very unified voting block over this past Congress, and Democrats have not responded in kind.
party with tina says:
Every minority does that. It's the only way to keep your foot in the door.
bb in GA says:
According to M-W
Fascism
"A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation, and often race, above the individual and that stands for centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe social and economic regimentation, and forcible repression of opposition."
Back before hippies roamed the earth, I thought I learned that Fascism was mainly an economic system where the (necessarily stong) central government "provided" central planning while the Greedy Industrialists still retained control of their probably stolen wealth and the means of production.
The definition that M-W provides seems unusually elastic in that it would seem to cover Hugo, Fidel, Mao, Hiltler, Stalin, Pinochet, Peron, and that Spanish dude,….among others I am sure Right and Left alike.
Has Fascism changed definition slowly over the last 50 years or was I wrong to begin with?
//bb
David says:
bb in GA, the definition of Fascism that you refer to is also the one that I learned, although my definition included one other thing: the use of religion by the government/state as a unifying agent to rally the population against "evil" minorities. I remember Mussolino playing the "catholic" card in building his fascist state, but Hitler definitely played the "aryan christian" card against the jews.
The extreme left and the extreme right both share the goal of nationalist/state control. What makes them different, of course, is who holds the power, over whom, and to what ends.
Fasicism leaves the corporations in control, uses "nationalism" to trump individual rights, and feels free to target religious minorities if this achieves some higher purpose of "unifying" the country (e.g., War on Terror).
Communism leaves power-hungry have-nots in control, uses "socialism" to trump individual rights, and eliminates religion because it is devisive and therefore not compatible with the "state."
A good propagandist would well know the negative impact of the word "communism" in America, and so it would be very clever of him (if he is a defender of corporate control) to convolute the definition of Fascism into the word Communism.
David says:
TYPO: "I remember Mussolino" should be "I DON'T remember Mussolino"
David says:
My last paragraph makes no sense…
But now that my damn students are out of my hair, I should clarify:
A good propagandist would well know the negative impact of the word "communism" in middle-America, and so it would be very clever of him (if he is a defender of corporate control) to convolute the definitions of Fascism and Communism, making them synonyms, and reflecting them BOTH back against their leftist opposition.
party with tina says:
Actually, Fascism is like Dictatorial Corporatism, or state capitalism, sort of moderate on the ol' economy. Our economy could be said to be "Fascist" now. Hitler didn't like Communists not because they were left or right, but because the Bolsheviks were Jewish, anti-religion, and in fact persecuted ethnic germans in western Russia who didn't fit in.
Hitler believed in elevating his people through a sense of "nobility" an Idea he got from Nietzsche. He basically used race and religion. Communists actually believed in destroying any sense of that, and many people gain it through religion. Christians feel "noble" in a sense as God's children, while atheists, comparatively feel we are all descended from monkeys, and are not special in any sense. Just accidents, random particles somehow gaining self-consciousness. If that is all we are then collectivism seems like the only thing we deserve in a sense…? Eh?
David says:
yes.
Communists think that religion encourages enemies of the totalitarian state — it's a battle for hearts and minds.
Fascists absolutely love religion, especially a passive/savior-based religion promising all in the next-life while rendering unto Ceasar in this life.
comrade x says:
The big reason the commies go after religion is that in most nations the official religion is part of the capitalist state. Like the Orthodox Church in Russia- it was little more than a racket designed to seperate the peasantry from their money and keep in fear of the Tsar, who was the head of the church as well as the state. Also, since socialism was the the last phase of the Enlightenment, it inherited the hostility felt towards religion by its republican forebearers, notably the revolutionists in France in 1789. There was no place in a modern scientific state for ancient superstitions.
bb in GA says:
Comradex:
I think you are correct about Russia and the conflation of Church and State, but go back to the roots.
The Original Comrade, Marx, had a deep seated hatred for theistic religion, but not the "religious" process. He envisioned a re-made, New Socialist man fully persuaded by his precious socialism/communism and devoted some measure of his writings to that subject.
I think the differing views on the essential nature of man is one of the important branching points between Right and Left.
//bb
comrade x says:
No disagreement here. Most political philosophies of the Enlightenment had a touch of messianic hopefullness about them. That is why socialist ( not all of them were Marxist) movements were so powerfull back in the 19th and 20th century.
party with tina says:
Right, my point was just that Fascism is not necessarily Capitalism, the word Nazi is an abbreviation for the German "National Socialism". It allowed for personal and private free-enterprise but all large corporations fell under the heavy handed jurisdiction of the Reich. These entities were then manipulated by the government in order to pursue this end or that. They didn't "like" religion because it made people passive but because it made them aggressive. Which is exactly why communists DIDN'T like religion. Fascist dictators want their people emotionally charged and then polarized, and it used religion to do this.
I'm not saying Fascism is Socialism, it's exactly the same economically as State-Capitalism. It just has this crazy as social edge to it of, you know…. massacring unfits… whatever.
People kind of define Fascism as the mixing of Corporate and Government power (Just as a theocracy is religion and government). I personally don't think that's accurate since any corporation is essentially a vehicle of the government, and to whatever extent it is controlled is just a variable in each political system. That is to say, all U.S. corporations are essentially vehicles for enterprise of the U.S. government. Because ultimately the government or people of a nation are liable for any mistake a corporation makes. For example, B.P. broke a lot of U.K. citizens pensions with this mistake. A corporations actual employees and investors are only personally liable for money they have invested or any criminal behavior that can be discovered.
This is why the government has the legal right to do what it did to health insurance. They didn't do anything other than take all these corporations and decide that they would be utilized to a different end than before. Now all these private insurance companies will essentially be administrators for a policy that comes from the federal government. Previously they would provide an insurance policy that came from it's own pool of investors. Now the policy comes from the tax payers, and these companies will profit their investors so far as they can more efficiently administrate more policies.
Same, the Student loans, the reason why the government had the right to take them over is because they were insuring all of those 90% of all those loans to begin with. Private banks were only liable for 10% of that money, and even after collecting insurance after a default they could pursue damaged against the original client for the full balance.
party with tina says:
The REAL problem with our Corporate State Capitalist system of today isn't that there are monopolies or big wigs or any of that shit. It's that Corporate entities are not people and are the only things being held TRULY responsible for their mistakes. A corporate document essentially takes as much personal liability away from an individual as possible. You can invest in a corporation that builds and maintains concentration camps knowing full well what they are doing to get a good return. And when all is said and done a few people might go to jail but it won't be you, even though you fucking funded the whole project you evil bastard.
Free enterprise is a good thing, Capitalism is a good thing, money is great, it's way easier than trading fancy rocks, that shit gets heavy way too fucking fast.
party with tina says:
All the investors in BP personally fucked the gulf coast, you might think of all that oil as their collected semen and the gulf as our gaping assholes. But we keep on going after that exec, who though he was responsible, should share the blame with every other mother fucker who makes money off of their operations with "Limited Liability" How about we fucking take money to clean the gulf out of the investors themselves? That would teach corporations to fuck around with our shit. Investors would shit themselves about how they need to be as cautious as possible instead of acting like a bunch of stone age men trying to get some pussy.
THINK ABOUT THIS: the investors in BP are PERSONALLY responsible for FUNDING a project that just happens to be the WORST environmental disaster ever. And these same people RAISE HELL when their PENSIONS get a little bruised? Fuck your pensions, faggots, YOU BROKE THE ENTIRE FUCKING GULF OF MEXICO WITH THAT MONEY!
comrade x says:
Actually capitalism ain't rocking so much these days, except for a small and ever shrinking elite. The anarchy of the free market is wholly inadequate to resolve the pressing emergencies of the environment, overpopulation, poverty, and famine. You can either have socialism or extinction.
Again, the communists didn't hate religion because it motivated the masses to resist them or because they competed for their loyalty. Americans don't understand how much the common people of Europe loathed the Church back in the day ( it is tolerated now, because it isn't nearly as powerful as it once was). The communists didn't have to win converts from the Church. The Church had to go because it was an apparatus of ariitocratic state power.
Heywood J. says:
Oh hell, forget Scott Brown, they can't even talk reputed Dummycrat Ben Nelson into voting with his own party half the time. Obama's own party hardly respects him. And that's his own damned fault.
Obama had a golden opportunity immediately after his election — with an electoral landslide, a congressional supermajority, and a clear majority of the people rooting for him, he basically got dealt a full house in that regard. (Consider that Fredo Bush took his 50.1% Diebold "victory" in '04 as a divinely-ordained mandate.) But no one knew what to make of Obama yet, he was still a largely unknown quantity.
I submit that it would have been a worthwhile endeavor for Obama to take, say, Joe Lieberman out to the woodshed the day after inauguration (or hell, even before), for Lieberman's persistent ratfucking during the campaign. It would have an easy, popular, guilt-free, and most of all productive way of letting the chumps know who was in charge.
Instead, Obama tries to be conciliatory about every damned thing, and the only message that has been sent is that you can screw with this guy and get clean away with it. So now you have inbred back-benchers from East Overshoe fucking with him at the SOTU, knowing that Obama will do neither jack nor shit about it. The man has no balls, and every congressweasel from either side knows it. Consequently, he can get nothing truly meaningful done, and he won't until he steps up and tears one of these tools a new one.
A real leader would make goddamned sure that Joe Wilson loses this November by at least twenty points, even if it costs ten million to do so. Go out-of-pocket if you have to, but make sure people get that when you mess with the bull, you get the horns, not a flaccid, ponderous, conciliatory lecture.
Obama needs to internalize the fact that if he ever wants to get anything done, he has to stop trying to compromise with people who hate him viscerally, and start taking some low-level pelts just to clear things up. I keep hearing what a tough guy Rahm Emanuel is, but he seems to be saving that tricksy Krav Maga shit for something special.
beau says:
While I, too, am tired of Obama's attempted consensus building, perhaps we should examine the example of former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Short version – Major centre-left party loses elections for about a decade in a row, drafts in right-of-the-left outsider to lead.
New guy sells a 'new start', woos swingers, wins election.
Mass dancing in streets.
Sound familiar so far? Thought so. But from here, Kev and Barry's paths diverge…
Things go well for a while.
New guy (now PM) stands up to bazzillionaires, xenophobes and assorted rubes.
More dancing in more streets.
Bazzillionaires, xenophobes and assorted rubes fire up propaganda machine.
Someone says the word 'socialism'. No-one can remember who, but still…
Mass panic in streets.
New guy's polling numbers go into free-fall.
Centre-left party (now government) dumps leader, caves in to bazzillionaires, et al.
Life continues AS FUCKING USUAL.
Fin.
This just happened over the last couple years here in the land of Oz.
Would it play out any differently in the US?
Aslan Maskhadov says:
Apparently we got some Tea Party types in here. Fascism is not socialism, it is an open dictatorship of capital where the state is mobilized to crush the working class. Naturally, in this relationship the big capitalists lose some of their flexibility and must make compromises with state power, but under fascism they do more than well. Besides, there is no such thing as capitalism without the state; there will always be state intervention in the market; there must be or the whole system doesn't work.
I suspect that a lot of people who never actually read much about fascism or Marxism are commenting on both- the blind leading the blind.
I might also add that Marx did not despise or hate religion, he just saw how it distorts reality and how it offers a pain-killing effect rather than dealing with the cause of the pain in the first place. Hence the analogy to opium.
bb in GA says:
Aslan:
Opiate of the (M)asses – Ed
Let me concede your point that Marx' religion hatred is just my paranoia.
My over-riding point is that just as Christianity, in particular, promotes the New Nature in man so too did Marx promote the same "theological" construct in Marxism with his New Socialist Man.
His position was faith in his religion to remake man's nature. For me the parallel works.
//bb
Aslan Maskhadov says:
So calling something an opiate means "I hate it." Ok, apparently they started speaking a new version of English in the States.
There, Marx is commenting on religion's "pain-killing" effect for the depressed masses of that day. However, religion is largely an institution of social control. It justifies or legitimizes the inequalities inherent in class society. This goes all the way back to the dawn of "taboo".
And please define what this "human nature" is. Marx posited, with plenty of evidence, that there is no such thing as static, or constant human nature. The values and understanding of today are worlds apart from those of previous generations not to mention societies operating under different modes of production. Don't believe me? How do you feel about marrying your sister? For a few thousand years(even longer in some cultures), this did not raise an eyebrow.
Aslan Maskhadov says:
Speaking about human nature is first a fallacy, an appeal to nature. However, it is particularly bad because we can make appeals to nature based on observable natural phenomenon. However there is no definition of human nature. One man says human nature is to help, another says humans are naturally selfish. These are sweeping generalities with no concrete basis in fact. If someone said to you, "Black people are naturally prone to crime," I would hope you would be shocked not only because of the implications but by the fact that it is such a sweeping generalization. Yet all the time people say things like "Humans are naturally selfish/stupid/lazy/whatever," and people accept it despite the fact that it is just as stupid as the former statement.
knee pain treatment says:
Hi mate would it be ok if i took some info from here to use on one of my websites? cheers mate
Patrick says:
As much as I hated him, Bush's appearance of irrationality probably helped him in negotiations. Good negotiation tactics don't often look rational from a distance. Obama could probably learn this lesson. He needs to learn to play a little chicken. Although it appears he might finally be catching on now that the elections are on the line. Then again, Obama might be my Lucy, with me always assuming he'll get it right the next time.
aricept medication says:
cbF35P thanx big man