A recent column by Jonah Goldberg takes the themes described in Liberal Fascism and digs deeper on a lion of liberal lore: Margaret Sanger.
Such historical reflection is worth consideration given how modern day liberals preach that their ideology is simply that of the "enlightened progressive" mind...or something like that. If that's how they want to describe themselves that's fine, but it's fair to point out that the roots of that enlightenment include some revolting ideas and dreadful policy goals - even by revered liberal icons.
Some highlights:
Under the banner of "reproductive freedom," Sanger subscribed to nearly all of the eugenic views discussed above. She sought to ban reproduction of the unfit and regulate reproduction for everybody else. She scoffed at the soft approach of the "positive" eugenicists, deriding it as mere "cradle competition" between the fit and the unfit. "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief issue of birth control," she frankly wrote in her 1922 book The Pivot of Civilization.
[snip]
So forget about intent: Look at results. Abortion ends more black lives than heart disease, cancer, accidents, AIDS, and violent crime combined. African Americans constitute little more than 12 percent of the population but have more than a third (37 percent) of abortions. That rate has held relatively constant, though in some regions the numbers are much starker; in Mississippi, black women receive some 72 percent of all abortions, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Nationwide, 512 out of every 1,000 black pregnancies end in an abortion. Revealingly enough, roughly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood's abortion centers are in or near minority communities. Liberalism today condemns a Bill Bennett who speculates about the effects of killing unborn black children; but it also celebrates the actual killing of unborn black children, and condemns him for opposing it.
The most insightful aspect of Goldberg's work on this topic has been to expose contradictions between what many modern liberals claim versus a number of the ideas and leaders that are the foundation of the ideology we see today. Just because many liberals might not recognize that fact, doesn't mean it's not a discussion worth having.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 26, 2008 08:46 PM | Email ThisSimilar accusations of racism are made by liberals against conservatives with regularity. Rush Limbaugh is painted as a racist all the time by libs. Let's not have conservatives follow suit with witch-hunts for supposed racist liberals.
It would not be difficult to find questionable statements about race from the writings of the Framers of the Constitution. Does that mean that a constitutionalist today is also a racist?
Posted by: russell garrard on June 27, 2008 05:28 AMAnd if you somehow think that disallowing black women from having abortions is more compassionate than allowing them to, you are far dumber than I first thought.
Posted by: thehim on June 27, 2008 09:22 AMPardon the ad hominem, but you're clearly a very sick, unhappy person. Get some help.
Posted by: Richard on June 27, 2008 10:08 AMSean Hannity once asked ex-NOW president Patricia Ireland if she was in favor of reducing the amount of abortions. She wouldn't give a direct answer. Of course not. Liberals love abortion.
Liberals are goofballs. They care more about saving a spotted owl than an unborn human life.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 27, 2008 10:50 AMThanks for the advice. Any time you want to meet up for a beer or coffee, I'm game. I think you'd be surprised by how sick and unhappy I am.
@8
I would ask "thehim" if he believes that a reasonable goal would be to reduce the number of black abortions.
Absolutely. But banning abortion won't work towards that goal. Just as banning prostitution or drugs or religion doesn't stop any of those things.
Sean Hannity once asked ex-NOW president Patricia Ireland if she was in favor of reducing the amount of abortions. She wouldn't give a direct answer. Of course not. Liberals love abortion.
Nice anecdote. I just gave you an answer - and it was both easy to do and 100% correct.
Liberals are goofballs. They care more about saving a spotted owl than an unborn human life.
Thanks for trying to assume my position on the spotted owl. Wanna keep embarrassing yourself?
Posted by: thehim on June 27, 2008 11:20 AMIn a general sense I believe my statement is true. Not much different than liberals fanatical desire to preserve a small god-forsaken section of artic tundra rather than drill for the oil underneath it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 27, 2008 12:07 PMThat's just as stupid as saying that Republicans really enjoy killing brown people for oil.
@10: Not much different than liberals fanatical desire to preserve a small god-forsaken section of artic tundra rather than drill for the oil underneath it.
There's a difference between preserving people's rights against government interference (which I assumed that Republicans were supposed to care about), and giving out natural resources owned by the federal government for the gain of oil companies.
Posted by: demo kid on June 27, 2008 12:16 PMWe're talking about a small piece of frikkin' frozen tundra. And you wonder why we think liberals are nuts. Sheesh.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 27, 2008 12:25 PMLet's see...who is it that pushed through the law against driving while using a hand-held cell phone? Who is it that wants to crush conservative talk radio? Who is it that wants to force people out of their cars and onto public transit? Who is it that forces adults in Seattle to wear bicycle helmets? Who is it that wants to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens? Who is it that won't allow a person to cut down a tree own their own property? Who is it that thinks nothing of frightening children with lies about "climate change"? Who is it that can't wait to ban barbecues? Who is it that tried to ban beach fires at Golden Gardens and Alki? Who is it that's beginning a new campaign against drive-up windows at Starbucks? Who, in England, is now proposing to examine children's sack lunches and confiscate them if the don't meet liberal nutritional guidelines?
I could go on and on. The very people that complain about "wiretapping" can't wait the stick their busybody noses into everyone's lives. Fascist describes liberals fairly accurately, but I think they ought to be called what they really are. Controllers.
The left attracts the kinds of finger-wagging, unpleasant people that are never happy unless they are bossing other people around.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 27, 2008 02:51 PMWhich one of those do I support?
And I assume that you are also in support of all drugs being legal, prostitution being legal, gay marriage being legal, and the full separation of church and state.
When it comes to bossing people around, there's enough blame to go around for both political parties. The longer you convince yourself that it's a phenomenon unique to the left, the more you'll keep embarrassing yourself.
Posted by: thehim on June 27, 2008 03:00 PMOn the other hand, conservatives seem to be wildly inconsistent when it comes to individualism and freedom. Do what you want... cut down trees, run around without bike helmets, commute 100 miles a day... who cares about the consequences? Just as long as you aren't gay and don't get an abortion.
Posted by: demo kid on June 27, 2008 03:12 PMThis is exactly the argument nanny liberal fascists use to justify their continuous impositions on personal liberty.
The other day there was a big scare story about the dangers of wearing flip-flops in the P-I,(and the dangers of going barefoot). What are you fascists going to do next? Outlaw flip-flops? After all, we need to be concerned about the consequences, don't we?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 27, 2008 03:33 PMThe biggest problem with using the fascist label to describe modern-day liberals is that the overriding characteristic describing the fascist movement was that it was against multiculturalism and believed that war was the answer to national decline. Yes, comparisons can be drawn to some of the left's more nanny state compulsions (especially regarding public health), but the main thrust of fascism was a desire to wall themselves off from the world while also expending resources trying to conquer it. Sound like the left to you?
Posted by: thehim on June 27, 2008 03:42 PMI don't support legalization of drugs, prostitution, or gay marriage,(I do support civil unions). I am a conservative, not a libertarian.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 27, 2008 04:01 PMWell, then what's the line? What's the difference between telling someone he can't smoke pot and telling someone he can't start a bonfire at Alki? What's the difference between telling a woman she can't have sex with men for money and telling someone they can't drive a car while using a cell phone? What's the difference between telling a man he can't pay a willing woman for sex and telling him he can't cut down a tree in his yard? What's the difference between telling two gay men they can't be married and telling them they can't own a gun or barbecue a steak?
The line between locking up rapists and murderers and locking up potheads and prostitutes is easy. When a person smokes pot or gets paid for sex, there's no victim demanding justice. What line are you seeing that differentiates the examples above?
I don't support legalization of drugs, prostitution, or gay marriage,(I do support civil unions). I am a conservative, not a libertarian.
Actually, you're a hypocrite.
Posted by: thehim on June 27, 2008 04:18 PMThe drug war
Prostitution laws
Attempts to fight homosexuality
Attempts to limit reproductive rights
Attempts to censor pornography
Attempts to limit immigration
The entire Bush Administration foreign policy
Opposition to assisted suicide
Attempts to bring forced prayer into schools
Shall I continue?
Posted by: thehim on June 27, 2008 04:24 PMThe "drug war" is an imposition on personal freedom? How so?
Prostitution should be legal? I presume with appropriate licensing and government fees.
What specifically do conservatives do to "fight" homosexuality?
What specifically do conservatives do to "censor pornography"? I don't think it is unreasonable for a civilized people to want to shield their children from looking at some guy's privates while they are at the checkout line.
Conservatives do not want to "limit immigration", they want immigration to be legal.
"The entire Bush Administration foreign policy" I was so sure you wouldn't leave that out.
"Opposition to assisted suicide" I think I agree with you on this one.
Name any conservative politician that has tried to bring about "forced prayer into schools". That's simply a convenient leftist canard.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 27, 2008 04:38 PMYes.
The "drug war" is an imposition on personal freedom? How so?
How is it not? It's a war designed to prevent people from being able to make decisions about the kinds of mind or mood altering substances they use. Again, how is that different from any of the examples you used in the comment above?
Prostitution should be legal? I presume with appropriate licensing and government fees.
Of course. Why is making prostitution illegal different from other nanny state actions? And why would that industry be exempt from government regulation?
What specifically do conservatives do to "fight" homosexuality?
Sodomy was illegal in Texas until a few years ago, and some politicians are still trying to bring the ban back. Not to mention that gay marriage bans are an open attempt to "fight" homosexuality.
What specifically do conservatives do to "censor pornography"?
Are you not aware of the attempts by Republicans in Congress to fight pornography on the internet? Are you not aware of the lengths that Republicans went to try to put people like Larry Flynt in jail? I'm shocked that you don't know, and I'll be happy to point you in the right direction to learn about it.
I don't think it is unreasonable for a civilized people to want to shield their children from looking at some guy's privates while they are at the checkout line.
I don't either. But Republican attempts to limit pornography have gone far further than that.
Conservatives do not want to "limit immigration", they want immigration to be legal.
You're obviously not very aware of the battles that high tech firms have been having with Republicans in Congress over the number of visas they can get.
"The entire Bush Administration foreign policy" I was so sure you wouldn't leave that out.
Congrats to you.
"Opposition to assisted suicide" I think I agree with you on this one.
Awesome.
Name any conservative politician that has tried to bring about "forced prayer into schools".
You still haven't explained what the line is between the aspects of personal liberty that it's ok to trample on and the aspects of personal liberty that it's not.
Posted by: thehim on June 27, 2008 05:13 PMI will dispute your last point about conservatives wanting "forced prayer in public schools".
If you read your own link and do some research you will see that Republicans only wanted to allow voluntary prayer in public schools. Liberals of course want public schools to be a state vehicle for pushing secularism on children. There has been no agenda from any Republican politician for "forced prayer" and you are lying about it, "thehim".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 27, 2008 05:30 PMhttp://soundpolitics.com/archives/006180.htm
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 27, 2008 06:13 PMYour inability to digest without derision a serious argument that does not align with your comportment of the world is not my problem, nor does it really make me inclined to respond to you much at all.
Your routinely simplistic misreading of what I and other conservatives are saying (such as your bizarre conclusion about what Goldberg or I was saying about abortion in the African-American community) is banal. Moreover, you insist on arguing with a conservative strawman of your own creation, based on a perceived polyglot of beliefs you have assembled in your aforementioned hasty misreading of conservatives and their ideas, which you then foist on actual conservatives to defend (this would be a primary reason people get annoyed with your behavior here).
Other than that I'm thrilled to continue this conversation.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 27, 2008 07:31 PMThat is pure bull. Conservative commenters here can state that Obama supports killing infants, that liberals all support Stalin, that Democrats are against freedom and liberty, and so forth. However, when thehim outlines *actual positions* taken by a large number of members of the major conservative party in the United States, you're claiming that it is a "perceived polyglot of beliefs"?
It isn't a strawman he's trying to tear down...
Posted by: demo kid on June 27, 2008 08:58 PMLee/thehim has been arguing here with me and others for some time, employing such tactics. Making others defend writ large the actions of some conservatives he doesn't support (like the sodomy law issue he raised, which splits the conservative community) is the strawman. And that's even before we get into factual innacuracies like "forced prayer" in public schools, which is the real absolute "bull."
If you would like to point to posts where I have said "Obama supports killing infants, that liberals all support Stalin, that Democrats are against freedom and liberty" perhaps we can continue this discussion.
Since you can't, and since you insist on joining thehim in beating the tar out of conservatives because we don't share his mix of liberalism and libertarianism, let alone match up to his definition of a conservative, I don't think I will.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 27, 2008 09:36 PMI am. This is one of the most legendary displays of hypocrisy I've seen from a righty. I'm posting this up at Effin' Unsound this morning.
I will dispute your last point about conservatives wanting "forced prayer in public schools".
Go ahead and dispute it. I went to elementary school (I was the only Jew) where the parents were angry that the local high school was not allowed to have Roman Catholic prayers during their graduation. It happens all over, and it's against the Constitution. Many Republicans want to have organized prayer in public school where ALL students are expected to be part of it. Hell, I've had people tell me point blank that's what they're after.
If you read your own link and do some research you will see that Republicans only wanted to allow voluntary prayer in public schools.
Voluntary prayer is already allowed in public schools. Any student is allowed to pray in a public school any time they want.
Liberals of course want public schools to be a state vehicle for pushing secularism on children.
Absolutely not. I challenge you to find one liberal who believes that its the mission of public schools to dissuade kids from the religions their parents subscribe to.
There has been no agenda from any Republican politician for "forced prayer" and you are lying about it, "thehim".
Sorry, but you're not understanding the parameters of this debate very well. Voluntary prayer is already allowed in schools. What the Republicans were trying to push through back then was a recognition that public schools that wanted to have school-wide prayers can have them. That's forced prayer.
Once again, you're still not answering my main question here, and I'll be re-posting it at Effin' Unsound this morning:
You still haven't explained what the line is between the aspects of personal liberty that it's ok to trample on and the aspects of personal liberty that it's not.Posted by: thehim on June 28, 2008 10:22 AM
Your link is broken, but you're still misunderstanding the parameters of the debate. Any person can pray during school. What they can't do is have the school endorse their prayers and make it a sanctioned school activity. I'm sure that school administrators have crossed this line and I'm sure that some have been hypocritical about how they've monitored it, but you're certainly not tapping into some widespread belief on the left that Muslims are given special treatment over their ability to pray in school.
Posted by: thehim on June 28, 2008 10:30 AMJonah Goldberg's book is not a serious argument. After our last talk, I read two long volumes on Fascism, an Oxford Reader and Robert Paxton's excellent history of Fascism. Then I started reading Goldberg's book. It's absurd. No intelligent person should be taking it seriously. The entire thesis for book is: "Liberals have distorted the meaning of fascism to make it line up with conservative thinking, so I'll distort the meaning to make it line up with liberal thinking" It is embarrassing dumb, and yes, I only had to make it through the introduction to figure it out.
Your routinely simplistic misreading of what I and other conservatives are saying (such as your bizarre conclusion about what Goldberg or I was saying about abortion in the African-American community) is banal.
What was to misconstrue about the post above? You're clearly implying that liberals have an agenda of limiting black births through legalized abortion. This is nonsense. There's absolutely no campaign anywhere to encourage black women (or any women) to have abortions when they don't want them. There's only a desire to keep the procedure legal and safe for those who choose it.
Moreover, you insist on arguing with a conservative strawman of your own creation, based on a perceived polyglot of beliefs you have assembled in your aforementioned hasty misreading of conservatives and their ideas, which you then foist on actual conservatives to defend (this would be a primary reason people get annoyed with your behavior here).
I read plenty of conservative viewpoints and have throughout my life. I've enjoyed P.J. O'Rourke and I've read foreign policy books from guys like Michael Oren and Ken Pollock. I regularly read Reason's blog (and probably should become a subscriber) and find their conservatism to be the "real" conservatism. You are a clueless Republican sycophant who lives a sheltered world where the pundits are always right and that everyone neatly fits into a simple category of right vs. left. You have no concept of the authoritarian-libertarian axis (which is evidenced by the fact that you actually thought that I was somehow emblematic of the left netroots), and no understanding of how that axis is what's really shifting the political divide in this country right now.
Posted by: thehim on June 28, 2008 10:44 AMIf I'm "a clueless Republican sycophant" then you're not very bright to be wasting your time arguing with such an intellectual fool.
Moreover, thank you so very much for assuming I know nothing about the authoritarian-libertarian axis. Very charitable of you (I'm firmly on the right on the economic scale and right down the middle on the social issue scale), given that I've discussed before how individual Democrats and Republicans don't fit neatly at all into the stereotype of "liberal" and "conservative."
But speaking of those labels, it's a sunny day, ad I don't care to spend any more of it arguing with someone far left-of-center who insists on lecturing those on the right about what "real" conservatism is.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 28, 2008 01:55 PMFunny... you seem quite willing to lecture about what "real" liberalism is!
Posted by: demo kid on June 28, 2008 02:42 PMWe took our old car to the Greenwood car show and had a wonderful time.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 28, 2008 05:03 PMI challenge you to disprove any of his premises, lefty kool aid drinker. Evidently, you didn't read the book because he supports it with evidence that pisses off leftists like yourself. So, you've demagogued enough - time to support your case or we'll figure you are a flim-flam artist, out of the mold of your party's presumptive nominee for POTUS.
Posted by: KS on June 29, 2008 12:13 AMOne thing that is of interest is that the use of the term "socialist" to define Nazis is pure bunk. The only thing that Nazis shared with socialists was the name, and after coming to power, they actively hunted and killed the left and the intelligentsia in Germany. And this is typical of his logic... some liberals are vegetarians, some Nazis are vegetarians, thus all liberals are fascists. Brilliant.
He also neatly glides over the real fascists that were present in the United States in the twentieth century. Clinton? Johnson? Roosevelt? Bull. Try looking up Prescott Bush and the American Liberty League. Look up the history of American "militias". Look up David Duke. Those have been the true "fascists".
Finally, fascism is an ideology that is independent of right-left distinctions. It involves the nature of the social and cultural power that a government and ruling elites can marshal, Looking at fascism throughout history, and you'll see examples of both right- and left-leaning fascists. Still... I'm amused that a conservative in America can whine about liberals when it is the conservatives that have been presiding over some of the most egregious abuses of civil rights in recent memory, abuses that are quite common under fascist governments eager to retain control of their own power.
But this is the most important part. Pathetic hacks on the right have been given a lot of leeway in redefining pretty awful chapters of history: internment of Japanese-Americans (Malkin), the McCarthy witch-hunts (Coulter), Nazism and fascism (Goldberg). These were serious events, events that no fair and honest American can or should look back at with pride. But for these losers to redefine the nature of these events to score cheap political points is pure political necrophilia. It cheapens the true costs of these parts of our history, and gives false absolution that we do not deserve as a country.
Posted by: demo kid on June 29, 2008 01:24 AMYou appear to be in denial about Nazis not being socialist even though Nazi is short for National Socialist Party - what about that makes them not socialist ? They were from the political left in Germany. Sorry, you are using hand waving arguments and don't buy what you are trying to sell. Goldberg successfully makes the case for the connection between Naziism and liberal fascism - you don't effectively rebut it. End of story.
Posted by: KS on June 29, 2008 06:20 PMName them and explain how you were able to truthfully exclude the liberal left from those accusations. Me thinks you are trying to rewrite history once again. The BS detector has picked this up.
Posted by: KS on June 29, 2008 06:22 PM