From Andrew Bacejevich, skewering a new Stalin bio in the National Interest:
For any great power, the essential prerequisite of "peace" is that others should accede to the aspiring hegemon’s own requirements.
« Did the bankrupcty reform touch off the mortgage bubble? | Main | Live fast, die young, leave a good looking corpse »
Quote of the day
04 Sep 2007 10:57 am
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16156
Comments (52)
It is interesting (arguably to the point of making a case for derangement) that Mr. Bacejevich finds it necessary to invoke President Bush three separate times in a brief essay about a man who has been dead for 50 years.
Geoffrey Roberts is an idiot! There is a massive difference between Churchill drinking and Stalin killing 20 million? It is true that some ideologists among the party hoped for a better world. But there is actually also a substantial, night and day, difference between any US invasion and Stalin's war games?
The quote above is sound... but when was the last time that two free democracies went to war with each other? when was the last time that two oppressive dictatorships started fighting? there is a difference between a religious fundamentalist trying to convert others by force and say an atheist risking his life in battle for religious freedom and the right of the individual to believe in whatever he/she wants? system counts?!
Yes - maybe Stalin could be called a great states-men.. but he was never a great man! Humanising Stalin? I would rather call him a great tyrant?
Nice review. Continuation of the paragraph is just as good:
Note, for example, that sixty years before 9/11, Stalin promulgated a variant of what we today call the Bush Doctrine. "Defending our country", he told a graduating class of Red Army officers in May 1941, "we must act offensively." Stalin was anticipating the Bush Administration’s rationale for invading Iraq: Peace tomorrow requires the initiation of war today against those who stubbornly resist our legitimate demands.
In Boston College library a couple of months ago, I stumbled across a Russian-language collection of official Soviet diplomatic review articles from 1982, concerning the country's peace-building policies both in Europe (the anti-nuclear movement) and the developing world. The sensation of reading them was not qualitatively different from reading current US State Department press releases. There is, however, a stylistic difference: the Soviets liked to bury their lies in stultifyingly complex verbiage. The Americans package their lies in clean, smooth, zippy buzzwords, which on closer inspection prove to mean nothing at all.
Hum...no mention of the Hitler-Stalin pact that (I confess I have not brushed the dust off my memory) drove a stake into the heart of a unified 'Left' and allowed the wehrmacht to mass for 'operation barbarossa'? Either the original book is working VERY hard to cleanse Uncle Joe's memory or the reviewer is VERY selective in his outrage. Or both. Caveat emptor.
That was an interesting review. Too bad the author had to throw in his totally non-sequitor anti-Bush sentiments. Though I suppose he really does believe that Bush is like Stalin.
EI
brooksfoe wrote: The sensation of reading them was not qualitatively different from reading current US State Department press releases.
In potentially related news, the sensation of reading the directions for mixing 15-minute epoxy from a tube are not qualitatively different from those on a box of 15-minute bran muffins, provided you ignore the ingredients, the nature and limitations on the actors, the expected result, and the general context of their application.
However, the latter is intended primarily to glue together one's intestines and the former is intended to glue together everything else, and the person who can't tell the difference between the two shall suffer some very interesting consequences.
Note, for example, that sixty years before 9/11, Stalin promulgated a variant of what we today call the Bush Doctrine. "Defending our country", he told a graduating class of Red Army officers in May 1941, "we must act offensively."
Here, Mr. Bacejevich does go off the rails. He could just have easily substituted "Churchill" or "Roosevelt" for "Bush" in this sentence, and at least maintained historical context. Churchill's "doctrine" of the 1930s was, in fact, the pursuit of offensive deterrents against Hitler. It was for this reason that the Baldwin and Chamberlain governments mistrusted him. Roosevelt's doctrine after 1939 was to actively support the anti-German alliance (for example with lend-lease) despite the opposition of an isolationist Congress.
If Mr. Bacejevich doesn't use Bush in his quote -- a strawman with which to scare leftist children -- his analogy is revealed as the nonsense it is.
Stalin's "offensive" deterrent doctrine isn't a failure of theory (as theory it's rather unoriginal) but of execution. In highlighting the terrible outcomes of the latter, Mr. Bacejevich is quite on target.
Henry, you genius, Stalin was referring to the invasion and dismemberment of Poland. Perhaps you see that as a legitimate "defensive" action. I believe the people of Poland disagreed.
anony-mouse, there are an increasing number of people in Afghanistan who understand quite clearly that being sold a pile of Communist-internationalist shit by a Soviet apparatchik is really not so different from being sold a pile of American-freedom shit by an American State Department or Pentagon bureaucrat. Both of them keep repeating these words that don't seem to mean anything concrete, and both of them promise a lot of money and help that never arrives. And both of them apologize deeply when they accidentally kill your wife and kids, but nobody gets punished for it, and next week they accidentally kill your neighbor's wife and kids, and nobody gets punished for that either.
beautiful post anony-mouse.
brooksfoe..
apparently you love "the sensation of reading not qualitatively different press releases"?
I recommend the following texts by Joseph Goebbels:
What Does America Really Want?
But also these papers by other authors:
America as a Perversion of European Culture
Failures in Building an American People
Priceless?
I believe Henry's point, brooks, was that the quote doesn't apply to Chruchill, Roosevelt, or Bush - not that Stalin's annexation of Poland was "legitimate".
(And what's he's saying about theory vs. execution, as near as I can tell, is that the problem is not with a theory of offensive action as defense, but that Stalin misapplied it by not just attacking, but in effect annexing a harmless and peaceful state as a pretext for further annexation.
In other words, Stalin's "defense" was "conquest". Bush's defense really is spreading Democracy. One can reasonably consider this a horrible mistake for "realist" reasons - though I do not - but one cannot fairly consider it simply a front for annexation, given actual US actions.)
Iraq and Afghanistan are not physical buffer zones for the United States. Both have actual democratic, locally-run governments, rather than US-run puppets with fixed elections (note recent carping from the CIA about how Bush didn't let them interfere in the Iraq elections to counter Iranian influence!).
Given any more than cursory analysis of Iraq and Afghanistan, any comparison between the actual doctrines (as demonstrated by their actions) of Stalin and President Bush must fail to find fruit.
Comparing their words is meaningless, as tyrants typically lie and pretend not to be. Their actions, however, reveal a world of difference.
Stalin was anticipating the Bush Administration’s rationale for invading Iraq: Peace tomorrow requires the initiation of war today against those who stubbornly resist our legitimate demands.
This was Chamberlains justification for the declaration of war against Germany in 1939.
IIRC, Hitler was fond of calling him a warmonger.
Bush's defense really is spreading Democracy.
Well, we have reached the point at which you reveal yourself to be dwelling on a different planet from mine -- one on which, apparently, democracy is capitalized; so I doubt further discussion will be useful. I will note, however, that George W. Bush does consider Iraq to be a "physical buffer zone" for the United States ("if we don't fight them there, we'll end up fighting them over here"), in much the same paranoid fashion in which the United States once considered Vietnam to be part of its "buffer zone".
Quiz: England's declaration of war against Germany in 1939 a. followed b. preceded Hitler's invasion of British ally Poland?
Pottisch: yes, there are strong similarities between GOP and conservative talking points and Nazi propaganda. We're not supposed to say this because of Godwin's Law, but it's true.
Quiz: England's declaration of war against Germany in 1939 a. followed b. preceded Hitler's invasion of British ally Poland?
a. followed Saddam's, ah Hitler's invasion of Kuwait, er, Poland?
yes, there are strong similarities between Democrats and liberal talking points and Nazi propaganda. We're not supposed to say this because of Godwin's Law, but it's true.
Thanks, Sigivald for your response. I didn't think my point was that hard to figure out.
Brooksfoe, let me put it another way. Almost every state considers offensive action legitimate in the face of sufficient threat. This is a banal observation.
The fact that Stalin and Bush may have used similar justifications for certain state actions is irrelevant. It is a foolish, ahistorical anology that sheds no light on why the Soviet Union's actions were abhorrent.
Stalin's evil wasn't his rhetoric, his evil was that of, among other things, the invasion and dismemberment of Poland.
yes, there are strong similarities between Democrats and liberal talking points and Nazi propaganda. We're not supposed to say this because of Godwin's Law, but it's true.
Posted by hugo pottisch | September 4, 2007 3:15 PM
Have you read Gobbels speaches or did you just post the links because it gives you a frisson of danger? The reason that the Nazi propaganda and current republican propaganda sound so similar is because they are both extreme nationalists engaged in what they see as an apocalyptic war, culturally and militarially with liberal 'traitors' at home and external enemies abroad. The Nazis pionered the use of this kind of nationalist propaganda in democratic elections. It's no mystery that Bush and his apologists would sound the same. It's rather pedestrian, like saying the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
As for the moral comparison between the two, that's more complicated. But to say there is no comparison between the two is delusional.
geez, can't anyone review anything without using the spin of it to apply to Bush? I'll admit, I was buying the whole thing, right till then as a critique. And then? How am I supposed to buy what he's selling? Stalin wanted peace by global communism, in which everyone is brothers... as long as they all have the same governments. It is doublespeak to compare that to the current situation, though with just enough truth to make it sound good. Criticism with context=good. Trying to apply the casting of the iron curtain as a similar thing to trying to prosecute a war on terror? Yeah, not so much the same. Can you imagine Stalin dealing with Chechnya? he would have pogrommed them into their graves...
The edge goes to the reviewer, of course, for exposing all the factual problems with the book, so I guess I can forgive the insertion of his own modern politics in his diatribe. IMHO the revision of Stalin to a guy just doing his job should be taken very seriously, because the time approaches when people don't remember the USSR personally. They will remember what is written in books... even if it's wrong.
Wow, Northern Observer, that's some weak tea you're drinking.
Let us move on to Mr. Bacejevich's explication:
Stalin was anticipating the Bush Administration’s rationale for invading Iraq: Peace tomorrow requires the initiation of war today against those who stubbornly resist our legitimate demands.
This is a completely banal statement. It is the justification for offensive war of every nation in history. The Confederacy stubbornly resisted Lincoln's legitimate demands to remain in the Union. Hitler stubbornly resisted Great Britian's legitimate demands that he stop invading neighboring states.
By analogizing Bush and Stalin on a point of meaningless rhetoric, Bacejevich just weakens his otherwise well-stated argument.
I do wonder if this analogy was a conscious effort by Bacejevich to convince his most leftwing readers that Stalin really was a bad guy. He was just as bad as Bush! That's pretty bad, you know.
Northerner/brooksfoe
Your words hurt me (as does the release of this "book"). Not so much the belittlement of Stalin's era (by comparing it to Republicans) but the lack of understanding of what makes up a free country compared to an oppressed!
Yes - it is not the words per se but the actions that make a difference (that is WHY I posted those links in the first place..). but there is more to it, much more! There is a difference in kind and not degree as many here have tried to point out (Henry manages to invoke more humour on this topic than myself - almost too close to home!)
Before I engage in further discussion - I would like you to tell me your take on:
when was the last time that two free democracies went to war with each other? when was the last time that two oppressive dictatorships started fighting? why?
Hugo, I think the point is we want to avoid BECOMING more like Stalin in our policy decisions. There is no question that Stalin was a tyrant and his policies were inhuman abominations; and by pointing out the parallels between Stalinist rhetoric and Bush rhetoric, we should be warned of the extent that we are pursuing the same lines of thinking that enabled Stalinist atrocities to occur.
Already we are justifying the use of torture, warrantless domestic surveillance, indefinite imprisonment upon denunciation, and other policies and tactics that would have been right at home in Stalin's Soviet system. How much further do we need to go down that road before we become indistinguishable from that regime? Have we perhaps already gone too far?
How much further do we need to go down that road before we become indistinguishable from that regime? Have we perhaps already gone too far?
Indeed, I've heard that there once was a country at war who locked up thousands upon thousands of its own citizens simply because they shared ancestry with that country's enemy.
I can't remember which country it was, but I'm sure it never recovered from that bout of war-induced madness.
I do wonder if this analogy was a conscious effort by Bacejevich to convince his most leftwing readers that Stalin really was a bad guy.
I doubt it. Most liberal scholars have long since disavowed Uncle Joe, who was a "leftist" in name only; he had no intention of proceeding further down the path of True Communism than had been done already. His goal was the accumulation and perpetuation of personal power in the service of himself, not the people of the Soviet Union. In this he was no different than the Tsars.
The leftist dream of the Communist "worker's paradise" died with Lenin (if it had ever truly lived even then). It was business as usual after that.
I can't remember which country it was, but I'm sure it never recovered from that bout of war-induced madness.
Posted by Squid | September 4, 2007 5:46 PM
That war ended. This one won't, conceivably for generations to come as it has been formulated. And the point of acknowleging past misconduct is to AVOID such misbehavior in the future, not to excuse and enable it.
liberalrob
unless somebody mentions the parallels between Saddam and Stalin/Hitler first and puts those in relation to e.g Bush or GOP - I have no real point of reference?
Based on your reasoning I could point out that when it comes to domestic policy - many US Democratic policies resemble the polemics of the National-Socialist Party (Nazis). Yet I would personally NOT dare to compare the US Democrats with the Communists or Nazis without mentioning that there is a difference in kind and not merely in degree (one is a democracy - the other a dictatorship). Please feel free to answer my questions yourself:
when was the last time that two free democracies went to war with each other? when was the last time that two oppressive dictatorships started fighting? why?
and do you see a difference between: a religious fundamentalist trying to convert others by force and say an atheist risking his life in battle for religious freedom and the right of the individual to believe in whatever he/she wants?
And finally: Do you personally see a difference between Hillary Clinton and Hitler? (I think the Democrats voted in favor of the war?)
We want to avoid BECOMING more like Saddam than like Hillary? We want to avoid BECOMING like Stalin and not Bush?
You are right that we do not want to breach individual rights, that we want to learn from history, etc.. But many have apparently no idea what the real difference is between democracy and dictatorship... Europe's has had it for barely half a century? The US a tad longer and stronger.. compared to those regions the rest of the world is living in medieval times (which can be a good thing when looking at it from an environmental point of view - but not necessarily for the individuals living there)?
some of you really scare me and I suggest that you quickly buy a ticket to a region where you get executed for saying what you think!
You want to see behavior worthy of Soviet Russia... go and express your support for the War or Bush on a university campus.
The Democratic Congress passed the most recent warrantless wiretapping law that gave the administration MORE power than they wanted. They wanted to be able to tap conversations between two foreign nationals, both of whom are outside the country, even if the conversation passes through equipment on US soil. FISA taps actually get a warrant...
Is nationalism bad? If it is, then I don't want to be good. Go USA!
EI
brooksfoe wrote: Pottisch: yes, there are strong similarities between GOP and conservative talking points and Nazi propaganda. We're not supposed to say this because of Godwin's Law, but it's true.
*sniff sniff* MMMMMMMM....glue.
Point of reference, Godwin's law states that whosoever brings Hitler/Nazis into the thread has certifiably and automatically ceded the argument. That you would actually raise the Hitler/Nazi issue AND Godwin in the same narrow effort to smear a particular ideology you don't agree with is...let's see, irony multiplied by itself three times gives us irony cubed, which would be...a falling anvil?
Cripes, you're trying very hard to sound cartoonish, and it's working. But okay, let's tinker with the substance of the claim. In order to build his vision of a Better Germany, Hitler had to eliminate his opposition, i.e., the forces that might attempt to check his efforts to move in a particular direction. This was achieved by the burning of the Reichstag and his successful pinning of the deed on his political enemies.
Now, my memory may be a bit fuzzy, but in the last US election, I seem to recall that both houses of Congress were tilted from Republican domination to a slight majority edge for the Democrats, who then set about opposing Bush's efforts. I then seem to ALSO recall that none of America's primary federal buildings caught fire while Bush Revere galloped down main street shouting "The Democrats are coming!" In other words, the proper system of checks and balances is still firmly in place and working, and the primary head of state in the US is still subject to the normal democratic procedures that serve to limit his powers. (Shoot, compared to the tricks persons like FDR and J. Edgar Hoover managed to pull off in the federal government without bringing the US to its knees, Bush has a halo and wings.)
So, I conclude that your assertions about "GOP talking points" are rubbish, and the similarities you claim are superficial. Basically, you're still looking at the epoxy and the muffins, finding the words "15 minutes" and "mix thoroughly", and then abandoning depth perception in favor of edgy sound-bite rhetoric.
unless somebody mentions the parallels between Saddam and Stalin/Hitler first and puts those in relation to e.g Bush or GOP - I have no real point of reference?
Bacejevich's review itself does some of that. There are many other points of congruence that have been endlessly explained, on this blog and elsewhere. The fact that President Bush is the executive of a "free democracy" and has not literally murdered millions of his own people at his own order does not mean that he should get a free pass to engage in Soviet-style treatment of people, be they American citizens or our worst enemy. We must NOT become the new "good Germans" who turn a blind eye to every excess, every subversion of our values as Americans, because we don't want to cause trouble for ourselves.
Yet I would personally NOT dare to compare the US Democrats with the Communists or Nazis without mentioning that there is a difference in kind and not merely in degree (one is a democracy - the other a dictatorship).
But the way that "democracy" is being run today is adopting more and more the policies of the worst dictatorships in history; if we remain a "free democracy" but otherwise adopt all the excesses of Stalinist Russia, what then is the benefit to the people of being a "free democracy?" A Stalinist "free democracy" would be just as repugnant as a Stalinist dictatorship, to my mind. In other words, I find your distinction to be increasingly one without a difference.
Please feel free to answer my questions yourself:
I find your questions irrelevant to the issue at hand, but OK.
when was the last time that two free democracies went to war with each other?
To my (imperfect) knowledge, never. Of course it depends on your definition of "war" (and of "free democracy"). In terms of conventional armies surging back and forth conquering territory, I think it hasn't happened.
when was the last time that two oppressive dictatorships started fighting? why?
I'm sure there are numerous examples. Usually it is over resources and/or territory.
and do you see a difference between: a religious fundamentalist trying to convert others by force and say an atheist risking his life in battle for religious freedom and the right of the individual to believe in whatever he/she wants?
I think so, though I still don't see where you're going with this. If the atheist is taking his risk to extend freedom and rights to people outside his own society, I think there is less of a difference than if he is doing it to protect the rights enjoyed by himself and his own family and friends. The mere fact that someone else does not enjoy the freedom I enjoy does not mean my own freedom is lessened (for me, utilitarianism "stops at the water's edge"). It may be a noble effort to battle for the freedom of others, but that's different than battling for your own. That distinction must be recognized.
And finally: Do you personally see a difference between Hillary Clinton and Hitler? (I think the Democrats voted in favor of the war?)
If by "the war" you mean the invasion of Iraq, if you had asked me on March 19th 2003 I would have voted the same as Hillary. You can't take a vote based on an interpretation of misleading and purposely misinterpreted evidence as heartfelt embracing of a concept. As I (and many other Democrats) have said over and over, knowing what we now know there was little or no justification for the invasion of Iraq. And there is little or none for our continued occupation.
So, I conclude that your assertions about "GOP talking points" are rubbish, and the similarities you claim are superficial.
Tell Jose Padilla that his being held incommunicado without trial for years and denied his Constitutionally-guaranteed due process rights is "superficial." Tell the Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib inmates that the interrogation techniques practiced on them were "superficial." Tell the protesters who were chucked out of a public rally in Colorado for wearing T-shirts with anti-Bush slogans underneath their jackets that their treatment was "superficial." Tell me the official policy of excluding potential protesters to designated "free speech zones" far out of sight of the targets of their protest is a "superficial" subversion of free speech. Tell me the policy of rendition of prisoners we capture to foreign countries for the express purpose of allowing more coercive interrogation techniques to be practiced on them "superficial." Tell me that allowing the President to approve warrantless surveillances in violation of the procedures laid out by the FISA act is "superficial." On and on.
It's not "superficial." It's incident after incident where values traditionally associated with American democracy are being purposely discarded. And it has to stop.
... Tell the protesters who were chucked out of a public rally in Colorado for wearing T-shirts with anti-Bush slogans underneath their jackets that their treatment was "superficial." Tell me the official policy of excluding potential protesters to designated "free speech zones" far out of sight of the targets of their protest is a "superficial" subversion of free speech. ...
(Just picking the easy ones, because I'm lazy.)
Their treatment was superficial. None of those protesters were prevented from staging their own event, and speaking to anyone who wanted to listen to them. They were just prevented from taking over someone else's event.
Reading along on this thread I was wondering what debilitating perhaps congenital abnormality describes the irrational lunacy of libertarians.
And then, like and invisible hand holding a light in my brain, I began to see.
Comparisons between Bush and Stalin are - forgive my giddy extremism here - IMPOSSIBLE! because Bush, unlike Stalin, believes in PRIVATE property. Hence, even though parallels SEEM to exist, the 'cultural context' in which each 'leader' imposed (unitary) executive authority, or fear-mongered to achieve policy aims, or dragged citizens against their will into imperialistic wars, or disseminated lies (ie, propganda) to cover their asses to the masses, or ... whatever.
I now see that only a fool would try to draw parallels between the two.
They were just prevented from taking over someone else's event.
Posted by Bill | September 4, 2007 8:40 PM
They didn't take over someone else's event. That wasn't even their intention (not that anyone asked, or would have believed them anyway). They simply showed up and took a seat! It would be like throwing people out of the gallery at a Congressional committee hearing for just sitting there quietly. No, what happened was there was a PRESUMPTION that they would TRY to take over the event. "Profiling" if you will.
I now see that only a fool would try to draw parallels between the two.
Well, you said it, but yes, only a fool would try to draw parallels between the two. And the fact that you're willing to pose the comparison in a public forum proves that, all protests to the contrary, you believe the comparison is foolish too.
I wish people would start arguing with the libertarians on the thread instead of the libertarians in their head. Here is a good example of arguing with the libertarian in your head
Reading along on this thread I was wondering what debilitating perhaps congenital abnormality describes the irrational lunacy of libertarians.
And then, like and invisible hand holding a light in my brain, I began to see.
scudbucket said
Comparisons between Bush and Stalin are - forgive my giddy extremism here - IMPOSSIBLE! because Bush, unlike Stalin, believes in PRIVATE property. Hence, even though parallels SEEM to exist, the 'cultural context' in which each 'leader' imposed (unitary) executive authority, or fear-mongered to achieve policy aims, or dragged citizens against their will into imperialistic wars, or disseminated lies (ie, propganda) to cover their asses to the masses, or ... whatever.No, you can make all the comparisons between Bush and Stalin you want to.
.
It accomplishes two things
.
1. Makes you look like a hysterical, shallow, uninformed, ahistorical idiot.
.
2. Spits on the graves of the millions of people that Stalin piled in mass graves across the Soviet Union
.
Scubucket concludes with
I now see that only a fool would try to draw parallels between the two.Which accurately describes the situation.
I agree that only a leader as brilliant as Stalin could have saved the USSR in 1942-1945 from the mess that Stalin made from 1937-1941. Wait, 1939-1953? I question the timing of this subtitle.
So TJIT, anony-mouse, and Pottisch think that Nazi and Soviet communications, language and patterns of reasoning were perfectly normal, and that it was only their actions which distinguished those regimes from laudable (liberal) democratic ones. Orwell, obviously, would strongly disagree. People don't become more or less evil by virtue of the body count; one is enough, depending on how and why you do it, and Hitler was already evil in 1923, and in 1933, long before he invaded Poland.
The similarities between today's GOP and the Stalinist Communist Party are legion. Loyalty to the Party and the leader above all else; the view that professional standards and intellectual integrity make one suspect; slavish devotion to "staying on message" (which they used to call "the Party line", back in the day); personal relationships and patronage over professional qualifications; the unending willingness to argue that black is white and up is down, offense is defense, chaos is freedom, facts are lies, feeling is truth; the ultimate resort to statements like "no one in the world can deny this" when in fact most people in the world deny it; the constant warnings of new traitors, saboteurs, wreckers in our midst; the omnipresent Enemy who will see any hesitation or critique as weakness; the brushing aside of law as mere paper technicalities; the assumption that anyone declared an enemy by the state must have done something to deserve it.
It's comforting to imagine that Stalinists were some different species of person, that it "can't happen here". But that's not the case. Stalinists were people who tended towards the authoritarian side of the psycho-political spectrum in a certain society under certain situations; it could have been you or me in that society. I'm fairly confident that if I had been in the USSR in the 1930s, I would have been more Mandelshtam than Beria. And I'm quite confident that Alberto Gonzales and John Hinderaker would have been Berias.
I am not a Republican though I tend to agree with the Republican party more than the Democratic party.
The Republican party is no more the party of "party loyalty" than the Democrats are. Both parties try to get their members to vote together. In Congress, those who don't vote the "party line" are not kicked out. If anything, Lieberman demonstrates what happens to a Democrat who doesn't toe the party line. I see more Groupthink and Good Speak on the Democratic side around issues like Global Warming and Cultural Relativism. Lots of Republicans are critical of Bush and how he's run the war in Iraq.
As far as rewarding loyal cronies goes, that's a political tool that probably goes back to the first organized group of humans. Go look at who in Congress gives earmarks to family members and loyal donors. Both parties. Both parties have a history of finding jobs for family members.
Someone on another blog pointed out that Clinton signed his share of anti-freedom legislation. Law enforcement is always pushing for more powers. Waco and Ruby Ridge both happened under Clinton.
Look at the War on Drugs for a source of terrible abuses of civil liberties and governmental power and bizarre double speak. Both parties are firmly behind that insanity.
The Democratic party has a former KKK member and a powerful senator blocking wind farms because they'll spoil his view.
I'm only pointing examples of Democrats because folks here have been pointing out Republicans already. Both parties are full of corrupt, power hungry politicians who will do or say almost anything to stay in power.
Clinton was not tricked into voting for the war in Iraq. The Democrats knew what was going on. They're not stupid. I may disagree with many of them, but they are canny political operatives who know how things work.
EI
Brooksfoe said
So TJIT, anony-mouse, and Pottisch think that Nazi and Soviet communications, language and patterns of reasoning were perfectly normal, and that it was only their actions which distinguished those regimes from laudable (liberal) democratic ones.Actually actions matter, at the end of the day talk is cheap.
.
This is evidenced by the UN and international communities flowing rhetoric on their dedication to the defense of human rights and the prevention of genocide.
.
As opposed to their actions in Rwanda, at Srebrenica, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc. Which has been more pretty rhetoric, and no action to stop the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
.
So I would say this provides a pretty clear example that actions are far more important then rhetoric. What do you think Brooksfoe?
Brooksfoe said
The similarities between today's GOP and the Stalinist Communist Party are legion.Well except for the purges. And the gulags for party members who disagree with the leader. Oh and the KGB and their vaunted talent at wet work against party members who disagree with the party leader.
.
I mean except for that the similarities are striking.
.
Brooksfoe said
Stalinists were people who tended towards the authoritarian side of the psycho-political spectrum in a certain society under certain situations;brooksfoe if you would actually pay attention you would recognize their are plenty of authoritarian types present in the democratic side of the aisle.
.
Tipper Gore and her record banning, Hilary Clinton and her tirade against video games, the democrats lock step support for the war on drugs, etc.
.
It was a democrat who came up with the phrase "Stoke of the pen law of the land pretty cool" regarding executive orders.
.
Can't get much more authoritarian then that.
liberalrob
thank you for answering my questions. You will find all my counter-arguments within your own words?
My mother, father and myself were born under Stalinism... We do not like Bush! He is too much of a statist to be close to my liking ($20 billion in subsidies for environmental destruction are more than stupid). If he were more of an economist or more of a foreign policy realist - but he is not. The SAME with Mrs Clinton...
And yet.. had I said something like that during Stalin - I would be dead (do you understand?? or is this like people dying in hollywood movies or video games for you).
we were threatened with out lives (for far less hoonesty than I have posted here alone). My mother was kidnapped - they told us she was dead. My uncle lost an eye - my grandfather died of the flue in a KGB hospital... I could go on - but for what? Most here are spoiled, welfare statists who have never experienced the difference between Bush, Hillary and Stalin/Hitler and see "similarities" in their rethorics... Somebody get me some of those airplane bags?
Ask any Holocaust surviver - no matter how HARD-CORE Democrat he is - if he would equate Bush with Hitler. The reviewer of this "book" does it all the time.. Rob - mentioned that he does NOT however mention Iraq... No tell me how is this possible.. If it were NOT for Iraq - would Bush be compared to Hitler? And IF he is being mentioned due to Iraq - then were is Saddam? how can we blame Roosevelt for being a warmonger without comparing him to Hitler and Stalin first?
Now - even in Europe you do not hear this shit anymore. If at all it stems from 14 year olds at the KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschland) or from a new wave of neo-nazis themselve..
WHAT I DO AGREE WITH 2007% is the follwing comparison - in this case I can back up that the logic ist the same and that the difference is ONLY IN DEGREE AND NOT IN KIND:
PLEASE ALL WATCH: WE ARE HITLER AND STALIN OURSELVES!!!!
Clinton was not tricked into voting for the war in Iraq. The Democrats knew what was going on.
I disagree. Yes, there were Democrats who felt that taking down Saddam would be a good idea. But their information was not necessarily any better than that possessed by the public at large; there was a concerted effort on the part of the administration to distort and misrepresent the intelligence. I'm sure they would have taken the increased access members of Congress had into account in their planning. They are also "canny political operatives."
If anything, Lieberman demonstrates what happens to a Democrat who doesn't toe the party line.
Lieberman is only tolerated because the Democratic majority in the Senate is so narrow. He is not a Democrat anymore.
Most here are spoiled, welfare statists who have never experienced the difference between Bush, Hillary and Stalin/Hitler and see "similarities" in their rethorics.
Hugo, I would think that you, as a witness and survivor of the tactics now being promoted by the Bush administration, would be the FIRST one to see the parallels. You need to forget the America of Roosevelt and Truman and the Marshall Plan; that benevolent America is not who you are dealing with today. The spoiled welfare statists have elected a sadistic, sociopathic upper-class twit fratboy to be their Maximum Leader. No, he's not Stalin or Hitler; but not because he COULDN'T have been! It's only because he lacked their personal charisma and determination to do what was necessary to achieve and maintain absolute power (which others such as Cheney and Rove had to supply), and the fact that he came to power in a "free democracy" which has restrained his impulses to a degree. This President would have felt quite at home in the Kremlin in the 1950's or in the Nazi heirarchy in the 1930's; his attitude and personality would have made him a perfect apparatchik. Until you realize the true face of these people, and recognize the evidence in front of you in the form of their ACTIONS as well as words, I'm afraid you're going to continue to be misled. These are not nice men.
If it were NOT for Iraq - would Bush be compared to Hitler?
Bush is not compared to Hitler simply because of Iraq. He is compared to the worst tyrants in history because of the many policies he has pursued that would not be out of place in their regimes, if they in fact were not already to be found there. While he has not created death camps or annexed the Sudetenland, he HAS authorized indefinite detention of American citizens and established gulags on foreign soil to circumvent our system of justice. He has acted at every turn to maximize the authority and power of the executive, which was intended to be checked and balanced by the Congress and the courts; his response has been to ignore the Congress when it is inconvenient and pack the courts with partisan supporters of his agenda. One can argue that he is merely availing himself of the tools allotted him under the Constitution; but the framers of the Constitution never imagined that the Congress and courts would be so complaint to the authority of the executive.
You don't have to wait for someone to actually order the murder of millions to warn that they are setting you on the path to doing just that. Hitler and Stalin are not solely defined by the Holocaust and Siberia. There were many other aspects to their tyranny, and parallels CAN be and are drawn to the actions of this administration. We have to stop this BEFORE we become synonymous with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. If it's not too late.
if you would actually pay attention you would recognize their are plenty of authoritarian types present in the democratic side of the aisle.
Yes, there are. They need to go too. But I think the percentage of authoritarians comprising the Democratic members of Congress is less, maybe far less than that of Republicans. So given that our choice currently is between Republicans and Democrats, I'll take Democrats.
liberalrob: We have to stop this BEFORE we become synonymous with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. If it's not too late.
Bush or not.. we ALL have the potential to be like Hitler and Stalin and we prove it daily (eg animals). BUT - as I mentioned above - the system counts. As America is one of the strongest and oldest democracies on the planet - you cannot change ALL the laws over night and turn it into a Dictatorship... even if Bush wanted to do so (because he is of the same character as Hitler, Stalin, you, me, etc.) - he could not.
The people of America have democracy in their blood. They would always revolt against something going to far left or right. This balancing act has been going on for 300 years, happens now and will happen in the future. This IS normal democracy.
Your rhetoric: "If it's not too late" only leaves me to wonder... Again - and for the last time - if it is not too late for you...: Even with Bush in power and direct action abroad and the worst right push that you can imagine - there is a substantial difference in KIND and not DEGREE between Stalin and Bush (not human nature - which is the same in all of us). As there is between the USSR and USA - but he whole impact on the world and the Us
liberalrob - You need to forget the America of Roosevelt and Truman and the Marshall Plan; that benevolent America is not who you are dealing with today.
Do you mean the Roosevelt who amassed enormous powers to the Federal government and to the executive itself? The Roosevelt that allowed the detention of thousands of American citizens in penal camps? The Roosevelt that approved terror bombing campaigns against the Japanese and Germans? That Roosevelt?
Do you mean the Truman that authorized the dropping of the Atomic bombs? That signed the National Security Act of 1947, founding the CIA? That approved the use of loyalty checks that removed thousands from government jobs? That Truman?
Rob, the Bush presidency has been a fiasco on a number of counts. But a little context is in order before you start drawing parallels between run-of-the-mill executive malfeasance and the depredations of two of the three most evil dictators of the twentieth century (heck, why not go for the trifecta and bring up Mao?). When you overreach that way you just discredit your own viewpoint.
But that's just it my wingnut friends. Bush's party has been pushing the limits. Making differences of kind less clear. The lines are blurring.
There seems to be a creeping proto fascism in the american conservative movement and its party, the republican party. Ceratinly in the real of language and propaganda it is unrefrutable.
A whole web site has been documenting this for years. http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
But in substance their have been troubling incidents as well. The a-ha moment for me was reading about how Rove and the RNC had attempted to manipulate the department of justice in an effort to throw elections via malicious prosecution of democratic party candidates.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/us_attorneys/
The reporting on the behavior of Ken Blackwell in the 2004 Ohio election was not reassuring either. And it goes on and on.
A party committed to democracy and the rule of law does not do that. There seems to be a faction in the GOP that does not care to adhere to the values of democracy and the rule of law. If marching brown shirts through the streets was effective, I am sure they would do it. Certainly they did organize the brooks brother riot in florida to help convince the media that a recount would lead to social chaos. But mostly, street theatrics are not effective in American politics so they use other underhanded means. However, the intent to undermine democracy is there.
In a way the republicans are taking the faith of their old anticommunist supporters and spitting on it by taking up the enemies ways and means.
England's declaration of war against Germany in 1939 a. followed b. preceded Hitler's invasion of British ally Poland?
That alliance was a line in the sand, offered because Poland was Hitlers likely next target. Not because anyone in Britain would suffer from the conquest of Poland.
An attack on Belgium would have been a direct threat to the UK. An attack on Poland was a threat to the USSR.
And who allied with Hitler over that?
Also the invasion of Poland was a clear violation of the "peace in our time" Munich accords. Even Chamberlain had to admit the obvious at that point.
The people of America have democracy in their blood. They would always revolt against something going to far left or right.
I flatter myself that the Progressive movement is one such "revolt."
My god, there are a lot of pathetic Bush dead-enders in here. Smells like...freedom.
| 
True!
Posted by Freddie | September 4, 2007 11:11 AM