I must once again ask people to please, please refrain from sending me emails describing some activity of a private entity, or even our current government, as "Fascist". Fascism is an actual thing, not merely a synonym for authority you dislike, or even authority you believe is being abused. Boycotts are not fascist, no matter how bad the cause. Neither is firing an employee for having odious beliefs. Roving wiretaps are not fascist. Overzealous enforcement of petty laws are not fascist. Barack. Obama. Is. Not. Fascist.
That doesn't mean that the things of which you disapprove are right. But calling something fascist, when it does not really pertain to the totalitarian ideology which gripped various states during the early-to-mid-20th-century, does not add to the conversation. It's an attempt to short-circuit logic by employing a word with a very, very high negative indice. I'm more than willing to listen to your argument about how awful . . . well, whatever you're complaining about is. But shouting and name calling are not arguments.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The singular of indices is index, Megan, not indice. Just helping you to revisit your Latin *s*.
Morzer is a language fascist!
These restrictions on the e-mail we can send Megan are fascist!
Love Megan, hate her use of English.
1. "Overzealous enforcement" takes a singular verb;
2. "Indice" is an obsolete word for index - the singular of indicia is indicium.
No shouting.
Subject-verb agreement is fascist.
(I used a period because Mr. McAllister said I wasn't allowed to shout.)
I have not yet used the word, but I find the prospect of large state sponsored industrial concerns funded in large part by the state on the condition that they work support the goals of the state to be, well, edging close to the f- word.
To be fair, you can have a neofascist industrial policy without having a fascist government, just like you can have neofascist architecture without having a fascist government. I think we need more detail on McArdle's Law.
What about softer dogmas like Peronism? When does Corporativism "cross the line" into Fascism?
Many of the polices being advocated by top Democrats looks a lot like Peronism, with a Protestant rather than Catholic bent.
Barack Obama is not fascist or Marxist. He is Peronist. There is a difference. He is this odd mix of leftist populism combined with crony capitalism whereby the upper middle class and small businesses are taxes out of exist to provide bread and circuses to the lower classes and to pay off the political and connected industrial elite. That combined with a good dose of personality cult is Peronism.
I'll respectfully consider arguments that a given president (or president elect) is not a fascist when they remove the fasces from the presidential seal and other United States heraldry. Until then, I shall only make a derisive phht! noise.
Love John, hate his not following the punctuation style of this blog.
His statement should have read, "Barack. Obama. Is. Not. Fascist. Or. Marxist. He. Is. Peronist."
Feel free to vary the number of spaces between the sentences.
Great point, John. Because all that actually happened.
I assume this is a semi-subtle reference to the oh so easily cast "socialist" epithets of last summer and fall?
I don't think I've said "fascist" myself, but the easy calls from Washington to Halliburton (and Blackwater?) are a bit unsettling.
Mr. Lyle,
I like the fact that you know what fasces are. I like the derision. However, I must point out that the Presidential Seal doesn't contain fasces. Those are arrows.
DB Cooper,
He hasn't been sworn in yet. But if you take all of his policies together, that is what you get. The lower earners in society will pay virtually no income taxes and get any number of government goodies. The big corporations will get bailouts and any number of government handouts. Meanwhile, those making over some arbitrary amount but not large enough to get a bailout or serious corporate welfare, will get taxed back down to lower class status.
Will our humble blogger define the word as she wishes it used?
Megan,
I will never accuse you of being a fascist, just elitist and out of touch. Of course I am the worst wine sipping, Washington living, over-educated elitist on earth. So I feel it okay to criticize one of my own kind.
Mr. Fraizer,
You are correct. Perhaps Mr. Lyle meant the Seal of the US Senate, which does contain fasces. They also appear in the Oval Office, atop the Capitol Building, in the House of Representatives chamber, on the USSC building, on the Lincoln Memorial, and on many police department badges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces#The_fasces_in_the_United_States
Kudos Megan! I've always hated when people misuse that word.
A big part of Fascism is totalitarianism. I don't think you can have Fascism without it.
Mr. Blair,
I knew about some of these fasces, but certainly not all. Thanks for sharing that cool link.
Can anyone explain why the hat of Santa Claus appears in the seal of the U.S. Senate?
Oh, apparently, it's a "liberty cap" or "Phrygian cap". That's cool.
Barack. Obama. Is. Not. Phrygian.
Mr. Fraizer,
I believe you are correct; let me amend that to "...when they remove them from the door to their office..." and let the rest stand.
In all seriousness, I really do think that American populist authoritarianism shares plenty of cultural heritage with Italian populist authoritarianism, both drawing on the traditions of Roman authoritarianism, and that while populist authoritarianism may only be fascism when occuring a particular cultural context, the relevant symbols and institutions aren't really any more specific than "western civilization".
I'm puzzled. John's description of "his policies" roughly strike me as status quo. Lower earners already pay no income tax although they do pay payroll taxes and will continue to do so. Corporations already get tons of goodies although I would add that almost every speech Obama made for the past 12 months included mentions of his desire to cut back on same. Again, either you trust his promises as a sign of his intent or you don't. If you don't, that's a different issue.
Megan's point is definitely well taken. Fascism as with Marxism have defined historical meaning.
BTW, my favorite popular dig at this whole "ism" mania came from John Stewart when he asked Bill O'Reilly about where the dividing line was on the top marginal federal tax rates. Status quo was 36% whereas 39% = "socialism."
I've had to live for some years with posters detailing 100 signs of a fascist dictatorship under Bush posted on or by colleagues' doors, few of which actually reflect 20th C Fascism or even were practices of, say, the administration itself.
At least one of the people purports to have some expertise on architecture in Italy under the Fascist regime and really knows better.
*SIGH*
Another John,
You are right that there is nothing new about what Obama is trying to do. It is as you point out a continuation of a very disturbing trend that has been going on since Clinton. But Obama will accelerate that trend. He claims to want to have more generous government funded health benefits (bread for the masses). He wants to raise the top tax bracket back to at least 39%. More importantly, he wants to introduce a raft of new government regulations and evironmental mandates. The burdens of these mandates will fall greatest, as government reglations always do, on small business. This will create a bigger advantage for larger corporations who are better able to absorb the cost. This combined with his enthusiasm for FDR type industrial planning gives you a real Peronist agenda. Of course Obama ads the cult of personality element that has been missing from American politics.
Marxism may be fairly well defined, but fascism is not. Marxism grew out of an intellectual movement, and is based on the works of Marx and Engels, and their later followers. Fascism, on the other hand, has no intellectual tradition -- it is avowedly anti-intellectual.
Mussolini took some elements of socialism, some of nationalism, some of corporatism, and mashed together a system based primarily on what he thought was a good idea at the time. If he or Hitler, or Franco, or Salazar, or Pilsudski, or Horthy, or any other fascist leader had allowed for an orderly transition of power to another fascist, then maybe some ideology would have developed, but since all were overthrown, killed, or ceded power to a non-fascist, we'll never know. Likely, their successors would've been equally non-intellectual and non-ideological, and would simply have carried on a cult of personality and dictatorial expediency.
Thanks for the post, I enjoyed it- I wrote a paper about the Integralists of Brazil under Getulio Vargas in college, and I've been annoyed at the casual abuse of definitions of fascism ever since. If you're interested, they are like any old fascist party, except they have a vastly dorkier logo, the integral sigma, kind of like a mathematical fasces.
dumb post and discussion, because there's like, you know, a dictionary definition of fascist that megan ignores. and that definition (see below) supports the use of the term where there's a "tendency" toward high levels of economic and/or social control, with suppression of opposition. the term thus properly can be used, with a small "f," to refer to lots of things beyond actual fascist movements. now, that doesn't mean it should be used to apply to any exercise of control (by the man in his pants). but where you have cheering masses chanting a leader's name, and the leader pledges to reorder society, make people do things whether they want to or not, wants a youth corps of sorts, and opposition to the leader is shouted down and/or villified, well, that's getting pretty darn close to a legitimate accusation of fascist-like behavior.
fascism is Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Of course Obama ads the cult of personality element that has been missing from American politics.
Speaking of using terms in a specific way: what is it about Obama's political career that makes it a "cult of personality," as opposed to a typical political career, however popular he may be?
"Fascism, on the other hand, has no intellectual tradition -- it is avowedly anti-intellectual."
I wouldn't say that. I think fascism is an out growth of Romanticism. It can be anti-rational, but it is not anti-intellectual or devoid of intellectual tradition. Fascism has a pretty well established intellectual foundation of elitism (the belief in a chosen elite based on race or intellectual ability or some other factor that can take society to a higher plane), a rejection of freedom and democracy, a rejection of market capitalism and an embrace central planning, and a belief in the importance of art and its effect on the populace and channeling the popular will towards a greater good.
pls note that i'm not accusing anyone of being fascist, but i think much of this is in the eye of the beholder, one person's fascist being another's beloved leader (was saddam fascist or just the beloved father of the iraqi people doing what was necessary to maintain order? tito? etc.).
"Speaking of using terms in a specific way: what is it about Obama's political career that makes it a "cult of personality," as opposed to a typical political career, however popular he may be?"
I think his coolness and opaque nature has allowed a cult to grow up around him. Whether he intended it or not I don't know. But there seem to be a significant number of his supporters who project their hopes and views on him and really have no idea what he actually believes and don't seem to care. When people are making posters of you in social realist style and that say "Obey" or "Don't Let Me Down", you have a cult of personality.
can't resist another comment: as some have noted, fascism has a rational basis, just one that we think is repugnant. that is, unlike communism, fascism seems to be consistent with human nature (which seems inclined toward villification/hatred of the other, etc.). this makes it more dangerous than communism, which seems pretty pie in the sky to most folk (by contrast, hating your neighbor, looking out for your own, believing you and yours are superior, loving the leader, just following orders -- that's what humans have done for much of their history). this makes calling someone a communist is effectively calling them an idiot/naive, calling someone a fascist is effectively calling them evil.
You've been doing SO well with the video clips lately....how COULD you forget to insert a youtube of the "Argument" sketch?
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Superflat,
Communism has lots of hatred of the other. Communists just hate people of the wrong class or political consciousness. The root of communism is raising man up beyond what he is into a new man. Doing that requires eliminating everyone who doesn't get with the program and maintains a false consciousness.
In order for communism to work, everyone has to work for the collective and never for themselves. Once someone starts working for themselves, they become capitalists and the whole thing fails. To put it in concrete terms, once a farmer starts growing tomatoes in his backyard rather than spending all of his energies on the collective, he is destroying the system and has to be stopped. Stopping him usually involves throwing him in jail or shooting him. It is the only way.
Make no mistake, when you call someone a communist, you are calling them evil.
I disagree with the opinion expressed above that the political movement we have just witnessed to get Barack Obama elected el presidente in any way involved a cult of personality. I supported and voted for him. I can assure all you gentle people I would never involve myself in any cult of personality that did not revolve around myself.
PureGuesswork,
I will be the first to admit that I am wildly jealous that Obama has a cult and I don't.
But there seem to be a significant number of his supporters who project their hopes and views on him and really have no idea what he actually believes and don't seem to care.
So, this seems like a bizarre way to determine what is, or isn't, a "cult of personality."
The first is thing, that people project their hopes and views on him, seems to be a rather mundane description of popular political leaders, particularly before they become President. I would bet good money that many, many people saw in Reagan (or Kennedy, or even Clinton or GWB) what they wanted to see.
Some of this is due to the nature of campaigning and rhetoric that is designed for mass consumption. Some of this is due to apathy: most people aren't wonks - they care more about how things sound than how things are. Obama is a fine aspirational speaker - I'm certainly a fan. But the idea that people that like him are just imagining things, but people that vote for everyone else are making comprehensive, policy-based choices, just doesn't seem right to me.
Otherwise, more abstract values like "trust" and "likeability" (and whether or not people would "like to have a beer with" someone) wouldn't be particularly important. But they are, in every election.
When people are making posters of you in social realist style and that say "Obey" or "Don't Let Me Down", you have a cult of personality.
So, Shepard Fairey makes a poster that gets popular, and that's why there's a cult of personality? As a phenomenon, I guess I would like it to mean something more than simply an aesthetic sensibility of campaign materials.
Sorry, I'm reading my post, and I realize that it sounds a bit more trenchant than I mean to.
I've always been a bit amused and surprised that Obama gets so frequently knocked for, essentially, his popularity. So I'm always curious how that particular critique is different than just saying "people seem to like him more than I think they should."
As has been pointed out, "fascist" doesn't have a precise definition. In the 60's a fascist was anybody who told a hippie to do something he didn't want to do; lately it's been Bush and anybody who supports him.
Wikipedia includes as part of its definition, Fascism...seeks to form a mass movement of militants who are willing to engage in violence against their political opponents and groups or individuals that the movement deems to be enemies. Fascists wish to solve existing economic, political, and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.
There's no question that Obama's supporters and even his campaign staff engaged in fascistic acts during the election season, from attacks on McCain and Clinton supporters to threatening the licenses of radio and TV stations that ran certain anti-Obama ads. Some Democratic sheriffs and prosecutors even threatened to investigate Obama's critics.
I suppose to legitimately drop the "ic" from fascistic, you'll have to wait for the brownshirts break down the doors of Republicans houses at 3:00 in the morning and beat everybody up.
BradL
I am not saying everyone who voted for him are part of the cult, just a number of them. These are mostly his younger supporters, the ones like the Columbia student who wrote the "Obama is my personal Jesus" oped. They will never hold him responsible for anything objectionable - they will always find excuses and scapegoats to explain things he does that disappoint them. They have invested too much of their self-esteem in him, projected too many of their hopes and fears and feelings onto him - they can't afford to admit, ever, that they got carried away.
They certainly can't ever admit they were duped, because that would mean they're not as smart as they think they are. And they are convinced that they are every bit as smart as they think they are.
That is a cult of personality. Let me ask you, why did those creepy social realist posters get so popular if they didn't appeal to a certain segment of his supporters who really buy into the idea that he is something beyond an ordinary politician?
Brad L, I think the knock on Obama's cult of personality does naturally follow from the "blank slate" accusation. The support for Obama does not flow from support of his policies (how could it be? he doesn't have any!) but is about his personality. Thus you have the intense unquestioning support from his fans and easy attacks (racist!) on anybody who supports his opponent.
You can't have an intelligent conversation with his supporters because they don't have an intelligent reason for supporting him. It's all about him, the man in the Office of the President Elect, who will command the oceans to recede, heal the world and bring a new dawn.
Ugh, you might want to go over this w/ Jonah Goldberg, he's seriously confused.
John-
The Obama posters may have been popular because they look cool. The poster artist behind them has been very successful in the non-cult art market as well.
Just a thought.
And the "we can't have an intelligent conversation with his supporters" stuff is just a straw man argument. As if President Bush hasn't had a subset of these folks among his supporters. Or Clinton. If Obama is a blank slate President, he's the most well-published blank slate we've had in quite some time. I didn't view the fact that President Bush hadn't authored a best-seller with his policy views as a negative, but I find some people's refusal to accept that there are many well-informed Americans who read Obama's stuff and still decided to vote for him interesting.
I've always been a bit amused and surprised that Obama gets so frequently knocked for, essentially, his popularity.
Two things: 1) it's not fair to criticize Obama for his weirder supporters, and 2) it's not really his popularity (i.e., the large number of people who like him) but rather the intensity with which some people like him that is creepy.
I cannot imagine the election of any politician that would make me react the way that a number of intelligent people of my acquaintance have reacted. I find it doubly hard to fathom when, to me at least, the object of their adoration seems so completely empty. I have no idea what Obama is going to do, and neither do they, yet they seem to think it's time to grab a random nurse and make out with her in the street.
But then, I was immune to Clinton's famous charisma, too.
These are mostly his younger supporters, the ones like the Columbia student who wrote the "Obama is my personal Jesus" oped.
I guess my point is that most politicians (well, at least most that are elevated as far as a nomination) experience the enthusiasm (and, sure, naivete) of their youthful supporters. This just doesn't seem particularly unique to me.
When he inevitably does things that disappoint those people, I think they will have a mix of responses: some will be denialist (as you suggest), some will become (dare I say it?) bitter and a bit jaded, others will see their own enthusiasm as misguided but essentially harmless.
Why do I think this? Because I was a college student during the Clinton rise, and there were, then too, a great number of young enthusiasts that probably got a little too involved, and if you talk to them today, those sorts of things are what you will hear.
And they are convinced that they are every bit as smart as they think they are.
Again, this describes approximately every teenager, and the vast majority of college students, ever. It also describes a huge swath of the adult population. Humility is not a virtue that our culture celebrates as much as we should. And, of course, I am absolutely right about that ;-)
Let me ask you, why did those creepy social realist posters get so popular if they didn't appeal to a certain segment of his supporters who really buy into the idea that he is something beyond an ordinary politician?
I think there are more than one question here:
1. I think the Fairey poster got popular largely because it was the antithesis of the campaign poster. It was simple, colorful, had an aesthetic that reached outside of political convention, and is actually decent as art.
2. You really have to parse "something beyond an ordinary politician," to make sense of this. I think many people certainly think he is better than average. Whether that comes from his bearing, his speeches, or whatever, puts him a little above "ordinary." (Personally, I love the fact that he speaks as an adult, to adults. I was never a fan of W, but I particularly disliked his folksy oversimplifications.)
But, thinking he is not "ordinary" is not the same as thinking he is not a politician, that he is some sort of transcendent other. People seem less cynical about him, I'll grant. And I don't really think that is a bad thing - I think we swim a little too comfortably in our cynicism.
But honestly, I also think many McCain supporters really thought their guy was also far more "honorable" than an average politician - that he was a cat of a different stripe. Indeed, that was what his 'maverick' image was about. They, too, suspended their cynicism on his behalf. And really, wanting the person that you just voted for to be a better person than you (or than he is) doesn't seem cultish to me. Optimistic, maybe. But not cultish.
BradL: there is definitely a cult of personality.
Witness the Obama Youth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08BAfKCfu74
How does Reich's definition of fascism fit into this discussion? I agree to a certain extent that there are inherent quirks of humanity that certain people of power thrive on.
What does the peanut gallery think?
I have no idea what Obama is going to do, and neither do they, yet they seem to think it's time to grab a random nurse and make out with her in the street.
Hehe. I think this is actually a confluence of two factors. The first is, indeed, that Obama is popular. I think his aspirational speeches are effective - the better ones are even moving. Obviously, I'm not the only one. (Nor does finding a few speeches moving mean that I am, here and forever, uncritical of him as a politician.)
And, I totally get it that it's not the same for everyone. My wife doesn't get any of that, either. She thinks he sounds kind of smug.
But if you like that style, if it works for you, then you may have two things going: a guy you like coming in, and (importantly) a guy you really don't like going out. I won't turn this into a list of W's greatest hits, but there are ample reasons why one might not like him, and might feel relief that he is leaving.
So, I think its the gap between the man going out and the man coming in that creates a little bit of relief and kiss-the-nurse celebration. I don't think all of that wave of emotion belongs just to Obama; just some of it.
BTW, Rob... when are you going to get your own blog? You should.
They will never hold him responsible for anything objectionable - they will always find excuses and scapegoats to explain things he does that disappoint them.
Doesn't that explain about 30% of the electorate on either side? Bush's approval ratings are still in the 20% range, and were in the 30% range at the beginning of the year. There are people who think Bush was sent by God to lead this country.
It's not a knock on Obama that people are fanatic about supporting him, just like it isn't a knock on Bush that people are fanatic about supporting him.
Neither is firing an employee for having odious beliefs.
So believing that marriage should retain it's definition as a heterosexual union is "odious"?
Odious: arousing or deserving hatred or repugnance.
So the majority of Americans hold an odious belief about marriage? Wow. When exactly was it that God came down, had a chat with you, and told you the One True Way to think about marriage?
Just curious.
So, if a company fired someone for opposing Prop 8, would they be "firing an employee for having odious belief"? Or is it only the hatred and repugnance of lefties that counts?
We're on the cusp of nationalizing our entire banking system.
If the jack-boot fits...
She thinks he sounds kind of smug.
I think he usually sounds like a Sphinx (and no, that's not a racial thing).
But the aspirational thing is part of the creepiness for me. I view government generally as a necessary evil, which should "aspire" to be as not-evil as is practical without compromising the necessary parts. People who want it to be more creep me out. If you want fulfillment, try having children or religion or serving soup to homeless people or ANYTHING but hassling me.
You're very kind, but the fact is I waste too much time here as it is...
"So the majority of Americans hold an odious belief about marriage?"
Yes.
When straight couples be married in under an hour for a modest cost in Vegas, and have their matrimony recognized by every state in the union, while gay couples need to fight through endless red tape and massive legal fees to establish a locally-recognized "civil union" that won't be accepted elsewhere, if and only if they are lucky enough to live in a state which allows it...
Anybody who would dare call such an arrangement fair and just is expressing an opinion I would most certainly call odious, even if they do have a lot of like-minded friends.
So does Obama have a cult in the way that Kim il Sung did? No. Is the adulation toward him different than I have seen for any other politician in my life? yes. The creepy youth choirs, the massive crowds, the will.i.am video. That is different. And weird. And the face poster....I can't think of any other American politician who had one. Though going by "Hillary!" is kind of close.
But do you think the Obama cult will live on? I kind of think it starts to die as soon as he adopts substantive positions and people can't project their fantasies on him as easily. Might already have started with the backlash against Prop 8 people noticing that he is against gay marriage for religious reasons. A lot of cultists will have trouble making that compute.
John of Cambridge writes:
"But do you think the Obama cult will live on? I kind of think it starts to die as soon as he adopts substantive positions and people can't project their fantasies on him as easily. Might already have started with the backlash against Prop 8 people noticing that he is against gay marriage for religious reasons. A lot of cultists will have trouble making that compute."
Nice comment. As far as the Obama cult goes, I'm unconvinced that anybody's going to stop drinking the Kool Aid anytime soon. After all, Creationists spin elaborate myths to explain away scientific discoveries all the time, and the evidence there is a lot harder than any speculation of what lies in a man's heart. The cultists can rationalize Obama's opposition to gay marriage as necessary ruse in order to win the election by not alienating the more socially conservative voters; he'll silently express his real support by appointing liberal judges who will be more receptive to the idea that marriage is a civil right.
Is the adulation toward him different than I have seen for any other politician in my life? yes.
It seems like the adoration that was showered on Bush, he too was able to draw massive crowds. It could just be that good presidential candidates have the ability to inspire people enough to show up and hear him speak. The difference this time, is that McCain supporters were trying to say that this was a "bad thing" The only reason they said that was because McCain couldn't draw near the same crowds. Remember one of the rules of Rove, attack an enemy's strengths.
Tara writes: "Anybody who would dare call such an arrangement fair and just is expressing an opinion I would most certainly call odious, even if they do have a lot of like-minded friends."
Rhetoric like this doesn't advance your cause. Of course, calling the Prop 8 outrage the "Big Gay Hissy Fit of 2008" isn't helping the other side, but at least it's kind of funny.
"Rhetoric like this doesn't advance your cause"
Who said anything about advancing a cause? I'm just calling a spade a spade. Don't like it? Stop treating people unequally, and I'll stop calling the way you treat them odious.
Tara writes: "Stop treating people unequally, and I'll stop calling the way you treat them odious."
The cost-benefit analysis of that proposal leaves me a bit wanting...
"The cost-benefit analysis of that proposal leaves me a bit wanting..."
If you don't consider avoiding my scorn reason enough to reconsider your odious views, then you're free to make that calculation.
Likewise, I see no compelling reason to cease in detesting your defense of a fundamentally immoral position.
Has that rascally Jonah been spamming you again?
Tara writes: "Likewise, I see no compelling reason to cease in detesting your defense of a fundamentally immoral position."
I can see one: you're not dealing from a position of strength (political at least, moral is debatable), and you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Personally, I could really care less about this issue, but reading news stories about howling gay activists terrorizing old religious women makes me want to see them get their comeuppance. It only reinforces my Catholic-school image of them as decadent, nihilistic perverts intent on destroying our culture.
That's okay John. You don't seem to have much in the way of any mathematical aptitude, and so of course, I look down my nose at you as boorish, ill-educated and barely civilized. So I'm an elitist too.
That's funny - he says drily. It seems there's a certain fellow living in the Whitehouse who once upon a time had a considerable cult following for no good apparent reason. One that went far beyond what is attributed to Obama today. Or do I have you figured wrong, and you agree that W was a cult figure?
ScentOfViolets writes: "Or do I have you figured wrong, and you agree that W was a cult figure?"
In my book, at least, his cult status is mostly as the boogeyman of the Left. Of course, Cheney and Rove are considered Master to his Blaster, so it's sort of difficult to separate their demonization from his.
I'm sorry, but if you think Obama is some sort of cult figure while W never was, I've got to ask what you've been smoking. If you want to talk about this sort of thing dispassionately, fine. But don't make it into some sort of partisan sniping.
"I can see one: you're not dealing from a position of strength (political at least, moral is debatable), and you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Personally, I could really care less about this issue, but reading news stories about howling gay activists terrorizing old religious women"
I must have missed the part where I said I was either gay or an activist. I'm not "arguing" from a position of "strength" or "weakness", I'm simply exercising my moral judgement on what I see as an extremely odious position: The position that this obvious inequity and unfairness is considered to be okay by people who claim to care about liberty and justice.
SOV writes: "I'm sorry, but if you think Obama is some sort of cult figure while W never was, I've got to ask what you've been smoking. If you want to talk about this sort of thing dispassionately, fine. But don't make it into some sort of partisan sniping."
Were masses of voters crying tears of joy when Bush was elected? Were supporters offering sex in exchange for a ticket to see him speak on election night?
Furthermore, one should be far more concerned about the way old religious women are terrorizing gays, by electing to vote their equal protection under the law out of their state constitution.
In any sane world, that's a far greater grievance than offending somebody's delicate sensibilities by having the GALL to exist.
Tara writes:
Likewise, I see no compelling reason to cease in detesting your defense of a fundamentally immoral position.
So, according to Tara, the majority of Americans are "fundamentally immoral" people because they think that the definition of marriage that's been around for 5000+ years shouldn't be changed by judges acting on their own personal whims.
Yes, brothers and sister, Tara has The One True Way, and anyone who disagrees with her is an immoral bigot.
Christianity? Islam? Fundamentally immoral. Ancient Greece, which had great approval for homosexual relationships but didn't have SSM? Fundamentally immoral and oppressive for not having SSM.
As a matter of fact, every single society and religion in human history is, according to Tara, "fundamentally immoral", since none of them have had SSM, which, according to Tara, is the touchstone of all morality.
Yeah, right.
So, according to Tara, the majority of Americans are "fundamentally immoral" people because they think that the definition of marriage that's been around for 5000+ years shouldn't be changed by judges acting on their own personal whims.
That's a myth. Gay marriage licenses have been issues as early as 1600 years ago.
As a matter of fact, every single society and religion in human history is, according to Tara, "fundamentally immoral", since none of them have had SSM, which, according to Tara, is the touchstone of all morality.
Yeah, right.
There was a time when nearly every nation on earth practiced slavery. You would have been one of those mocking the abolitionists in those days.
Were masses of voters crying tears of joy when Bush was elected?
While I certainly wasn't crying tears of joy over Obama's election by any means), I think we can cut those who did a little slack based on the fact that their elation had more to do with the election of our first black president, without regard to who it happened to be. For many in America, that, in itself, was a "great" moment in history.
Yes, one can cynically look at it as a trailing indicator of the way society has changes (as I do), but it's still a pretty big deal, considering it was only a couple generations ago that Ike had to call out the national guard just so a little black girl could enter the front doors of her local school.
Heck, I'm neither black nor did I vote for Obama, but I'm still a little happy about it. If only I had a little more faith in his competence regarding international affairs and the economy, I might have joined the celebrations.
Tara writes: "I must have missed the part where I said I was either gay or an activist"
I don't know (or, more importantly, care) whether you're gay or an activist, but it's pretty clear that you're advocating a particular policy position. Personally, I tend to, you know, actually support the policy positions that I bother advocating, typically through political donations and voting. I'd rather effect change than pass moral judgment, but to each his (or her) taste...
Tara proceeds: "I'm simply exercising my moral judgement on what I see as an extremely odious position: The position that this obvious inequity and unfairness is considered to be okay by people who claim to care about liberty and justice."
Congratulations on that.
Iow, after being asked to refrain from partisan sniping, Staash - what else? - engages in partisan sniping. Sheesh.
And uh, no, while I did see a lot of jubilant people that Tuesday night, it was mostly because either a) Bush's policies would be discontinued, something a lot of people not unreasonably felt was not entirely possible should McCain win, or b) that a 'man of color' finally attained the highest elected office in the land. As a symbol, that's pretty potent stuff. But, sadly, not because Obama was a cult figure, but rather, merely somewhat black.
This _isn't_ hard to figure out btw.
I look forward to the post where Megan demands that people stop using "gay" to refer to homosexuals, because "gay" means "happy," and that's all it means.
Sheesh.
Tara writes: "In any sane world, that's a far greater grievance than offending somebody's delicate sensibilities by having the GALL to exist."
Do you believe that there is a genetic basis to the following: pedophiles, serial murderers, drug addicts? Do you consider those that would like to marginalize, institutionalize, or reform these demographics as having "delicate sensibilities" offended by said people "having the GALL to exist"?
SOV writes: "Iow, after being asked to refrain from partisan sniping, Staash - what else? - engages in partisan sniping. Sheesh."
Yep, partisan sniping from a disaffected paleoconservative who voted against Bush, and one who voted for Obama as well.
SOV continues: "And uh, no, while I did see a lot of jubilant people that Tuesday night, it was mostly because either a) Bush's policies would be discontinued, something a lot of people not unreasonably felt was not entirely possible should McCain win, or b) that a 'man of color' finally attained the highest elected office in the land. As a symbol, that's pretty potent stuff. But, sadly, not because Obama was a cult figure, but rather, merely somewhat black."
Obama's cult status is largely attributable from his public image being largely indistinguishable from that _exact_ symbol. I don't see any cognitive dissonance here...
I might as well cite my references before people accuse me of making shit up.
Theodosian Code 9.8.3, drafted in the year 342 by the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans, declared the previously not-uncommon practice of gay marriage to be illegal.
Further reference to the fact that gay marriage was an occasional fact of life in early rome can be found in Suetonius's biography of Nero in "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars":
"He gelded the boy Sporus, and endeavoured to transform him into a woman. He even went so far as to marry him, with all the usual formalities of a marriage settlement, the rose-coloured nuptial veil, and a numerous company at the wedding. When the ceremony was over, he had him conducted like a bride to his own house, and treated him as his wife. It was jocularly observed by some person, "that it would have been well for mankind, had such a wife fallen to the lot of his father Domitius." This Sporus he carried about with him in a litter round the solemn assemblies and fairs of Greece, and afterwards at Rome through the Sigillaria, dressed in the rich attire of an empress; kissing him from time to time as they rode together."
It's not just Rome, either. 17th Century China, and parts of Africa in the 19th Century, were found to have treated same-sex marriage as fundamentally the same thing as opposite-sex marriage.
Most damning to the "traditionalist" argument against gay marriage are the early-Christian rites for "same sex unions" uncovered by Boswell, which are documented in his 1980 text, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century"
Congratulations on that.
My initial post was a response to somebody who attempted to shame others for calling opposition to gay marriage "odious."
All I was initially saying in response (before you opened the floor to the wider debate) was that it should be okay to call an odious position odious, and the adjective is certainly descriptive in this case.
Tara writes: "There was a time when nearly every nation on earth practiced slavery. You would have been one of those mocking the abolitionists in those days."
False equivalence, and a smear to boot.
"Do you believe that there is a genetic basis to the following: pedophiles, serial murderers, drug addicts? Do you consider those that would like to marginalize, institutionalize, or reform these demographics as having "delicate sensibilities" offended by said people "having the GALL to exist"?"
*sigh*
It didn't take long for the bigotry to emerge and show its true colors, did it?
Once again, the specter of people who abuse children and/or themselves is raised as though the argument about two consenting adults seeking a loving relationship together has anything to do with it.
This ridiculous baiting has been raised and shot down enough times that I'm not even going to waste any more time on it. Go do your own homework on it.
Suffice it to say, I'm more comfortable than ever wielding the brand of "odious" towards this kind of prejudicial hatred.
Tara writes: "It's not just Rome, either. 17th Century China, and parts of Africa in the 19th Century, were found to have treated same-sex marriage as fundamentally the same thing as opposite-sex marriage."
And that worked out pretty well for them. I'll have to remember that the next time a homosexual advocate accuses Prop 8 voters as being "on the wrong side of history".
"False equivalence, and a smear to boot."
Hey, you're the one who resorted to the "it must be okay because all the other countries are doing it" argument. I simply illustrated that it doesn't hold water when applied to something that you may have come around to agree is odious.
Not only do you have a poor grasp of what partisan sniping means, but also what a 'cult figure' is. Mao Tse Tung was not revered for being quintessentially Chinese or a revolutionary, or any of a number of other things. Mao Tse Tung was idolized for being Mao Tse Tung.
Iow, Obama is a _symbol_ of something, but not that thing itself. And hence not a 'cult figure' in the sense you are describing, which is actually:
I get the sense you are rather young.
Tara writes: "Once again, the specter of people who abuse children and/or themselves is raised as though the argument about two consenting adults seeking a loving relationship together has anything to do with it."
What about a consenting adult and a consenting child seeking a loving relationship? What about a consenting adult and another consenting adult entering into a contract whereby one murders and cannibalizes the other? Your arguments are predicated on the assumption that consenting individuals have the right to behave as they damn well please, regardless of the oppressive opinions of the community at large. You're argument is just as oppressive as mine if you don't support the aforementioned scenarios.
SOV writes: "Not only do you have a poor grasp of what partisan sniping means, but also what a 'cult figure' is. Mao Tse Tung was not revered for being quintessentially Chinese or a revolutionary, or any of a number of other things. Mao Tse Tung was idolized for being Mao Tse Tung."
Idolization does not exist in a vacuum devoid of contributing cultural artifacts. Would a foreign, un-revolutionary Mao Tse Tung have been equally idolized as Mao Tse Tung?
SOV continues: "Iow, Obama is a _symbol_ of something, but not that thing itself. And hence not a 'cult figure' in the sense you are describing, which is actually:
Noun 1. cult of personality - intense devotion to a particular person
I get the sense you are rather young."
Well, gee, a symbol must be completely different than the real thing, right? Oh wait, Plato's allegory of the cave suggests otherwise...
I get the sense you are rather daft.
Were masses of voters crying tears of joy when Bush was elected? Were supporters offering sex in exchange for a ticket to see him speak on election night?
My mother was telling me how Bush was specifically chosen by God to run our country when he was elected. A girl carved a B into her face and blamed it on a black man in a misguided attempt to help McCain.
Tara writes: "All I was initially saying in response (before you opened the floor to the wider debate) was that it should be okay to call an odious position odious, and the adjective is certainly descriptive in this case."
Whether it's okay is entirely different matter than whether it's smart...
Shrug. You've made quite clear your intellectual abilities; I'm just being charitable. But it's now also obvious that you just want to fight for the sake of fighting, something I'm not going to do. Later.
"And that worked out pretty well for them. I'll have to remember that the next time a homosexual advocate accuses Prop 8 voters as being "on the wrong side of history"."
That makes as much as saying dancing the Hora "worked out well" for Jews in Germany in the 1930s.
"Whether it's okay is entirely different matter than whether it's smart..."
Again, you assume my goal is to persuade people that think like you. It's not. It's condemning a bad idea as a bad idea. Historically, the minds of bigots don't change. The battle for civil rights is won by shaming bigotry to prevent it from carrying on to the next generation, and waiting for today's bigots to die off.
Tara writes: "Again, you assume my goal is to persuade people that think like you. It's not. It's condemning a bad idea as a bad idea. Historically, the minds of bigots don't change. The battle for civil rights is won by shaming bigotry to prevent it from carrying on to the next generation, and waiting for today's bigots to die off."
Perhaps you missed my fecundity argument in the earlier thread.
Who voted for Prop 8?
* Hispanics
* African Americans
* Mormons
Who voted against it?
* White liberals
Which of these demographics would you expect to outbreed the other?
Asians, people under 30, and the irreligious also voted against it.
The irreligious and liberals mostly expand by conversion rather than reproduction. Kind of like the Shakers, but unlike the Shakers they're commonplace in most universities. They have a significant culture presence however you feel on the matter.
"I'm sorry, but if you think Obama is some sort of cult figure while W never was, I've got to ask what you've been smoking." SoV
TR: I think W was a cult-figure to some people. What I find a bit hypocritical here is liberals found that outrageous and even implied it was a threat to democracy. Whereas Obama quotes scripture, talks about lights shining on people, etc and it's a good thing.
The hypocrasy is palpable. Basically "White Protestants idolizing a Republican" bad and a threat to church-state separation. "White new agers and non-white Protestants idolizing a Democrat" good and a sign of progress in this country.
Still I do think Obama is a bigger cult figure then Bush managed. He's more in-line with Reagan and JFK.
SOV writes: "You've made quite clear your intellectual abilities; I'm just being charitable. But it's now also obvious that you just want to fight for the sake of fighting, something I'm not going to do. Later."
I don't consider my posts an indication that I "want to fight for the sake of fighting". Regardless, +1 for well-yielded, sissy, passive-aggressiveness...
Tara writes:
Furthermore, one should be far more concerned about the way old religious women are terrorizing gays, by electing to vote their equal protection under the law out of their state constitution.
So, according to Tara, voting = terrorism.
Tara, dear, you are obviously utterly ignorant about the law, so allow me to clue you in about something:
Opposite sex only marriage does not deny gays "equal protection under the law." Prop 8 denies gays special treatment under the law. That's a different thing.
Whether you are gay or straight, you're allowed to marry members of the opposite sex. That's equal treatment.
You don't want to marry a member of the opposite sex, you want to marry a member of the same sex. So you want society to redefine marriage in order to make you happy.
That's special treatment.
You don't have a Constitutional guarantee of that.
Tara writes:
Most damning to the "traditionalist" argument against gay marriage are the early-Christian rites for "same sex unions" uncovered by Boswel
Um, no. "Same sex unions" would be Civil Unions, not marriages.
What are you talking about, Thomas? I could care less whether Obama - or Bush - is a 'cult figure'. I care very much indeed for consistency. Note that it's not 'liberals' who are saying that Bush was, and that Obama isn't; no, it's the Usual Suspects going on about the Cult of Obama, while at the same time denying any such thing for Bush.
Note also that what is construed to be evidence for this supposed cultism is a separate issue, and that in fact any sort of celebration on election night is supposed to be taken for evidence of Obama the Man.
Was this really that hard to sort out?
Tara writes:
Further reference to the fact that gay marriage was an occasional fact of life in early rome can be found in Suetonius's biography of Nero in "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars":
"He gelded the boy Sporus, and endeavoured to transform him into a woman. He even went so far as to marry him, with all the usual formalities of a marriage settlement, the rose-coloured nuptial veil, and a numerous company at the wedding. When the ceremony was over, he had him conducted like a bride to his own house, and treated him as his wife.
Um, no. He turned a boy into a not-man, then married that thing and treated it as his wife. Further, we're talking about Nero here, not one of your well know law followers.
Do you have examples of real marriages between two functioning members of the same sex (eunuchs don't count), which is to say ones that had legal effect, rather than "we threw a party and said we were married, and the government ignored us"?
Tara writes:
Once again, the specter of people who abuse children and/or themselves is raised as though the argument about two consenting adults seeking a loving relationship together has anything to do with it.
You just posted that SSM has a long history, because Nero gelded a boy and then "married" him. If that's not "abusing a child", I don't know what is.
I really should be wasting my time arguing with you, because it's clear you're one of those people whose entire moral code boils down to "if I want it, it's moral, if I don't, it's not."
But I'm weak, so I'l probably continue poling holes in your silly little pouts.
Hi, I'm new to the thread, so I will be ignoring the debates raging and just comment on Megan's original's post.
I think the best argument against using a word like "fascist" to describe your opponents, regardless ideological bent, theirs or yours, is that it demonstrates a lack of emotional control over your ability to engage in debate. It's childish. It also demonstrates a lack of originality; cliches tend to do that, particularly very annoying ones. As soon as I hearing anyone using a word like "fascist" (or "Marxist," "Communist," or "socialist") I immediately tune them out, because I can be fairly certain that they aren't actually putting a great deal of thot into their argument. They're reacting, not thinking, which means that I am very probably going to be bored with their argument. And they have given me an excellent excuse for not taking them seriously. In that respect, I suppose it's a great timesaver for me.
Btw, I spell "thot" the way I do because I am trying to take the "ugh" out of it.
SOV writes: "I could care less whether Obama - or Bush - is a 'cult figure'. I care very much indeed for consistency. Note that it's not 'liberals' who are saying that Bush was, and that Obama isn't; no, it's the Usual Suspects going on about the Cult of Obama, while at the same time denying any such thing for Bush."
You care about "consistency" so long as it meets your preordained delusions and prejudices, as evidenced by the pithy "partisan sniping" above.
SOV continues: "Note also that what is construed to be evidence for this supposed cultism is a separate issue, and that in fact any sort of celebration on election night is supposed to be taken for evidence of Obama the Man."
Not "any sort" but a very, very, particular sort.
Look, you can deny the cultish devotion of a non-marginal number of people to the Obama candidacy all you want, but I don't think this type of hand-waving or dubious comparisons to Bush will do your argument much justice.
Oh gawd not only young(can I call 'em or can I call 'em?), ignorant, and aggressive, but a gamer as well. Probably plays a 133rd level Cleric/magic user, lawful evil to show he's edgy, and has granted himself equally outrageous saving rolls and implausible charisma points.
Would it kill you guys to occasionally field someone who's, well, normal for a change?
SOV writes: "Oh gawd not only young(can I call 'em or can I call 'em?), ignorant, and aggressive, but a gamer as well. Probably plays a 133rd level Cleric/magic user, lawful evil to show he's edgy, and has granted himself equally outrageous saving rolls and implausible charisma points."
... wtf?
"Who voted for Prop 8?
* Hispanics
* African Americans
* Mormons
Who voted against it?
* White liberals
Which of these demographics would you expect to outbreed the other?"
As long as we have sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll to corrupt the youth of America, our society will continue to drift away from puritanical authoritarianism.
Breed all you like, social conservatives. We will still the hearts and minds of your children from you. :)
"Speaking of using terms in a specific way: what is it about Obama's political career that makes it a "cult of personality," as opposed to a typical political career, however popular he may be?"
The big staged rallys, for one.
What's wrong with fascism, per se? Not Nazism, which everyone considers evil -- the racism/genocide wasn't an inherent feature of fascism as it originated in Italy. Some good things have come from fascist governments -- think of Brazil's energy independence strategy, or Chile's Social Security system and copper stabilization fund. What's more, fascist governments have a fairly decent track record of peacefully transitioning to democracy: e.g., South Korea, Chile, Spain, Taiwan, etc.
"What are you talking about, Thomas? I could care less whether Obama - or Bush - is a 'cult figure'." SoV
TR: Then just ignore discussion of it. Besides I wasn't referring to you alone. Point is the liberal side certainly did think the "cult figure" element about Bush was scary and most people who mention it, in my experience, agree. I think the film "Jesus Camp" was partly about it and Harper's did articles on it. However they either deny there's a cult-figure element to Obama or they think it's okay. It's inconsistent. If you're consistent on it, bully for you.
Personally I think both cult-figure elements are creepy, but also not all that important. America was not going to be overrun by some Dominionist putsch that would imprison adulterers or idolaters. America's not now going to be overrun by Leftist intellectuals who'll send the rich to labor camps or force the Boy Scouts to embrace queer theology. (An actual term, I'm not using a slur for gay people) Both culty elements are weird in the way Lyndon LaRouche people, or Ron-Paulogists or whatever, are weird.
"What's wrong with fascism, per se?" Fred
Are you joking or insane? Fascism is the totalitarian domination of the nation over the individual. In Fascism there can be noting outside the state. Anyone who values any level of freedom or independence couldn't ask this.
"Are you joking or insane?"
Neither. I just gave you a few examples of countries that are better off because of policies enacted while they were run by fascists. It's worth noting that once they became democracies, Chile, Brazil, Taiwan, and South Korea kept many of the economic policies instituted by the fascists and and are better off because of that.
But every single Muslim we dislike is an Islamofascist.
Sigh. It is hard not to have feelings of intellectual superiority with this sort of discourse. No, I don't care if Obama is a cult figure or not in the sense that he's 'my guy' (he's not), but the question is interesting in the abstract sense. If you want me to think that you are not being merely partisan, but actually interested in the question, you would acknowledge that Bush was - and probably still is to some extent - a cult figure as well.
You aren't doing that, hence I suspect that you don't really care whether this is really true or not, it is just an accusation to throw around in the hopes that maybe it will stick; iow, yet more Frankurtian bullshit.
You also have the arrows reversed with respect to whose making the accusations: it's not Obama supporters denying he's a cult figure but Bush is; it's people like yourself making the accusation that Obama is a cult figure but Bush is not.
I don't write in a particularly abstruse way (at least, not here), and I don't think my style is particularly opaque. So my only conclusions can be that you are either unable to understand very simple constructions, or that you are trolling. Which is it? Or are you willing to admit at long last that, yes Bush is a cult figure by the standards you are applying to Obama?
Not difficult stuff.
The real cult figure is Sarah Palin, a woman of no discoverable brains who's being touted as the Great Conservative Hope based entirely on her sexual attractiveness.
Who voted for Prop 8?
Largely, old people.
Who voted against it?
Largely, young people.
Which group would you expect still to be voting ten or twenty years from now?
Here's the breakdown
As usual, the young, the college-educated, and the liberal were against Prop 8. More interesting, however, was the fact that self-described moderates and independents were as well, by margins of 53-47 and 54-46 percent respectively.
Notice also that in the religious category white evangelicals were for Prop 8 by a margin of 81-19, and all other denominations were against it 52-48. This was by far the greatest divide, suggesting that yes, this is an intrusion of religion into public life, and moreover, an intrusion backed by millions of Church dollars and thousands upon thousands of Church volunteers.
In view of another thread on abortion, I think this rather handily gives my position the win :-)
Frat boy! Nice to see you.
Separately:
The elephant in the room here is that many, many people supported Obama purely because he was young and black. His vaunted speaking abilities? He is not that good. He is on par with any other national politician, except, as Joe Biden pointed out, he's the first black candidate who doesn't talk like a charlatan minister like Sharpton or Jackson. He's not bad, but he's not good; but because he's young and black, he's getting praise he does not deserve, and overboard praise to boot. It's Howard Raines/Jason Blair on a national scale.
I remember his "response speech" to the Jeremiah Wright issue. Remember that? How he could never abandon his beloved minister? When he refused to denounce Wright and tried to change the subject? I thought Jon Stewart would chop him down; the Daily Show used to be really good at smelling bullshit and politicians who avoid the question.
Instead, Stewart practically called Obama a saint. "So, for once, an politician talked to Americans about race like a grown up." I was floored. If a white politician had given that speech, he'd have been skewered by Stewart.
Then, WHOOPS! It didn't work. So Obama abruptly rejected everything in the speech and denounced Wright soon after. But that was a big nothing to see here from Stewart.
Had a white politician done Obama's tap dance, it would have been called out. Instead, because he was a black man talking about another angry black man, he was praised. Bullshit.
SoV, what we notice about the cult of personality is different here, in that the usual suspects who call bullshit on blind faith following BECAME blind faith followers. Bush, Clinton, others have stupid mindless followers too, but they're reserved to the whackos and wingnuts so beloved by straw men creators. We have checks on the crazies, but those checks became crazies.
When Jon Stewart is pulling punches and praising you for crap he doesn't let others get away with, its a cult. And when Chris Matthews is letting out about thrills up his leg and when Bob Herbert is claiming that Obama's two-faced, ass-saving speech should be "required reading" and when people triumph that Obama's experience is "running a successful campaign" (and mean that that is a a point of executive experience and makes him presidentially worthy), its more than just a few young, naive, or foolish people drinking the Kool-Aid.
Chuckle. You have no idea who I am, do you, Basic? And, apparently, lack the skills to find out. But you keep posting your oh-so-well researched opinions, m'kay?
"Chuckle. You have no idea who I am, do you, Basic? And, apparently, lack the skills to find out. But you keep posting your oh-so-well researched opinions, m'kay?"
Judging by the "m'kay" I'm guessing you're the gay transsexual teacher on Southpark.
Mike writes: "Who voted for Prop 8?
Largely, old people.
Who voted against it?
Largely, young people."
Parent of minor child: 64% yes, 36% no
If you're not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain, especially if you are a parent...
LOL! I couldn't make my point any better than having you so adeptly demonstrate if Fred.
But just so you know - your judgment is, again, lousy. Just like on most every topic I've seen you post on, and for the same reason almost every time: you're one of those 'gut' people. Not a "let's do the research and see what it says" sort of people. I'd say your type has been at the wheel long enough.
First, I'd like to thank my white brothers and sisters for their intelligent comments. (What is race but extended family?)
Second, I'd like to say that most Republicans today are shills for Big Business and Globalists.
------------
SIGNATURE:
The white patriot's Coat of Arms: gens alba conservanda est (the white race must be saved)
----
T.S. Eliot: "White Trash" is a white person who fornicates with a non-white.
----
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST EUROPEAN AMERICANS.
Obama has supported:
(A) Reparations. Redistributing money from European Americans (Whites) to blacks, mestizos, and Asians.
(B) Criminalizing white parents who refuse to let their children practice miscegenation.
(C) Using “hate crime” laws to silence any criticism from European Americans.
(D) Using Third World immigration to overwhelm European American majorities.
(E) Maintaining anti-white affirmative action programs
(F) Creating a mandatory "America Serves" community-service program to indoctrinate and deracinate young European Americans
----
From evolutionary philosophy email list: "Children of mixed, white-black, marriages identify 99% of the time as black and detest European Americans (whites). Why? They almost always look black (eye color, hair texture, nose shape, skin color, etc.). Obama wrote: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's white race.""
Staash quotes and writes: "Tara writes: "There was a time when nearly every nation on earth practiced slavery. You would have been one of those mocking the abolitionists in those days."
False equivalence, and a smear to boot."
It's not a smear at all, Staash. You're a Sailerite and one of the most unrestrained racists ever to post on these Atlantic blogs - as much of a kloset klan kase as Steve Sailer himself is. Why pretend otherwise?
It's interesting that you've extended your little hatefest to include homosexuals, but it's really not surprising, considering the deep pathology of your ilk.
Re: Nigel's post at 1:58
Hey, Staash! Is this moron a friend of yours?
ML&J writes: "It's not a smear at all, Staash. You're a Sailerite and one of the most unrestrained racists ever to post on these Atlantic blogs - as much of a kloset klan kase as Steve Sailer himself is. Why pretend otherwise?"
Since when is opposing affirmative action and not self-identifying as an "Uncle Tim" (a white person excessively deferential or sympathetic to blacks) akin to supporting slavery? If I'm the most unrestrained racist around here, then the Atlantic blogs are perhaps the most inclusive community since the dawn of man.
MJ&J continues: "t's interesting that you've extended your little hatefest to include homosexuals, but it's really not surprising, considering the deep pathology of your ilk."
I wouldn't really call it a hatefest. Even though I'm not fond of homosexual activism, I really could care less about the gay marriage issue. I think there are valid arguments for and against it, and I'd prefer to see voters make the decision rather than the courts.
If you have a problem with that, then you can eat shit and die for all I'm concerned...
ML&J writes: "Hey, Staash! Is this moron a friend of yours?"
Nope. My friends, sadly enough, are almost exclusively liberals...
"LOL! I couldn't make my point any better than having you so adeptly demonstrate if Fred."
What point was that, chuckles?
"Just like on most every topic I've seen you post on, and for the same reason almost every time: you're one of those 'gut' people."
Sounds like you're basing that assumption on your gut.
BTW, my girlfriend informs me that it's the guidance counselor character on South Park who uses the 'm'kays'. So maybe you're him. He's a tool too, so it's just as well.
Staash replies: "My friends, sadly enough, are almost exclusively liberals..."
Do they know about the hooded white robe you keep in your kloset?
Fred freds: "BTW, my girlfriend informs me that it's the guidance counselor character on South Park who uses the 'm'kays'."
I'm just amazed that a girlfriend of Fred's watches anything other than TBN and Hitler documentaries.
Moe moes:
"I'm just amazed that a girlfriend of Fred's watches anything other than TBN and Hitler documentaries."
She's actually pretty fond of BBC America.
"you would acknowledge that Bush was - and probably still is to some extent - a cult figure as well." SoV
TR: I did that. Do you want me to do it again? Fine, Bush was, and probably still is to some extent - a cult figure for some people as well.
True I add "for some people", but I'd that to Obama as well.
"Chile, Brazil, Taiwan, and South Korea"
TR: Calling all these "Fascists" is using the term a bit broadly. I'm not sure every nationalist dictatorship is Fascist.
"Calling all these "Fascists" is using the term a bit broadly. I'm not sure every nationalist dictatorship is Fascist."
Calling everyone you hate "fascist" is using the term a bit broadly; calling those countries' previous regimes fascist is pretty accurate. If you don't think the term fits, feel free to offer your definition of 'fascist'. Bear in mind though that the racism and genocide of Nazism was a creation of Hitler, and not inherent in fascism; before Hitler exerted his influence on Mussolini, Jews were prominent among Italy's fascist elite (as they were among Brazil's decades later).
Fred quotes and replies: ""I'm just amazed that a girlfriend of Fred's watches anything other than TBN and Hitler documentaries."
She's actually pretty fond of BBC America. "
I find it very easy to believe that Fred's girlfriend is into BBC. Most likely Fred hides in the closet while...
Oh, you're talking television...
Never mind.
"I find it very easy to believe that Fred's girlfriend is into BBC. Most likely Fred hides in the closet while..."
You'll have to explain the joke for those of us normal, non-transgressive folks who don't get whatever perversion (I assume) you are attempting to allude to there.
"Bear in mind though that the racism and genocide of Nazism was a creation of Hitler, and not inherent in fascism"
TR: Yes I know that. However Mussolini was totalitarian, imperialistic, and favored a non-capitalist/non-socialist economic system. I don't think Pinochet or Rhee were out to form an Empire. I'm not sure it's even right to call them "totalitarian" they were more like authoritarian. They certainly didn't reject capitalism.
Getulio Vargas's regime in Brazil does fit, but I wasn't sure that's what you meant by Brazil. Vargas was explicitly influenced by Mussolini and was explicitly not capitalist. However I don't know if Vargas can be credited with that much success and he committed suicide in 1954.
ML&J writes: "Do they know about the hooded white robe you keep in your kloset?"
Weak. Your flames used to be funnier, and a lot more creative. Have Megan's new censorship policies gelded you or something?
Staash wonders: "Your flames used to be funnier, and a lot more creative. Have Megan's new censorship policies gelded you or something?"
Nah, it's just not as much fun being mean to Repiglicans now that you've all been castrated. The post-election euphoria and all has me almost feeling sorry for you guys.
You were the Masters Of The Universe and now you're the Detroit Lions. How does it feel?
ML&J gloats: "You were the Masters Of The Universe and now you're the Detroit Lions. How does it feel?"
You're probably asking the wrong guy, as I'm not exactly a movement conservative, and I actually voted for Your Guy.
Short term, I'm going to get me some socialism. Hopefully no more $350 monthly checks to Mom to cover her health insurance, hopefully more Federal business my employer can snag.
Long term, more big government, more pie-in-the-sky ineffectual social engineering. Less freedom and dismal prospects for the future; Pat Buchanan isn't getting any younger...
Staash writes: "Less freedom and dismal prospects for the future; Pat Buchanan isn't getting any younger..."
If you seriously think Pat was ever a voice for "freedom" then you're even more deranged than Steve Sailer is.
Pat thinks we fought on the wrong side in WW2. A Jew-free, all-white world would be a-okay with Pat, as it would be with your li'l hate-buddy Sailer.
We have very different conceptions of the world, and yours ended up being stillborn.
ML&J writes: "We have very different conceptions of the world, and yours ended up being stillborn."
See, you _can_ do better! All it takes is the right kind of baiting.
oh, frat boy, I'm glad you expect someone on an anonymous internet board to ruthlessly hunt down your credentials, based on nothing more than your handle; either that, or blindly accept everything you say as gospel, because no one ever obviously makes up credentials on the internet.
but please, feel free to ignore what i said about the kool-aid drinkers. Funny, now its pretty obvious why you're an obama supporter. You're similar: ignore the question in front of you + demand blind obedience.
Obama: Change. Hope. Kool-Aid.
Interesting that in this thread there's a strong, though not absolute, correlation between the quality of an individual's grammar and logic and their politics. Those supporting conservative dogma could benefit immensely from a refresher course in the English language.
Megan would, too.
Wow Moe, you have been castrated.
What, no more of your weird little sexual fantasies about Dick Cheney?
You are indeed a lot less fun as a gelding.
"Those supporting conservative dogma could benefit immensely from a refresher course in the English language."
English majors tend to be more liberal than average. Conservatives are more common in economics and engineering, both are fields not noted for their grammatical acumen.
I'm a history major myself, there's always outliers.
Somebody writes: "Interesting that in this thread there's a strong, though not absolute, correlation between the quality of an individual's grammar and logic and their politics. Those supporting conservative dogma could benefit immensely from a refresher course in the English language."
Not all of us had the luxury of majoring in the liberal arts, the typical incubating curriculum for progressives. In the professions that actually have a real impact on the economy, proper grammar usually has a pretty weak correlation with success.
Staash stuupidly wriites: "In the professions that actually have a real impact on the economy, proper grammar usually has a pretty weak correlation with success."
Yes, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Ted Turner and George Soros are very impressed with your opinion.
JK Rowling, too.
Siilly liitle maan.
Semi-pro bosom and horsey drawer Ken McCracken asks me: "What, no more of your weird little sexual fantasies about Dick Cheney?"
I don't have any fantasies about old Dickless at all.
How many winged horseys have you drawn today, McCracker?
ML&J quaintly offers: "Yes, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Ted Turner and George Soros are very impressed with your opinion."
That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.
Staash reepliiees: "That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard."
You're a Sailerite. You have reverse stupid perception.
Move to Alaska, Governor Palin needs anti-talents like you.
After reading through this thread I want to say I see nothing remotely racist in Staash's posts. I despise the promiscuous use of the race card by many liberals. It's shameful because it increases the likelihood that REAL cases of racism will be ignored. If you truly care about stamping out racism then you aren't doing your cause any good by tossing the word "racist" around so callously.
Sorry to butt in, but indiscriminate "racist" labeling is a pet peeve of mine.
“Sorry to butt in, but indiscriminate "racist" labeling is a pet peeve of mine.”
Unfortunately for all of us, indiscriminate labeling is the standard of ML&J’s repertoire.
"I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment." - Newt Gingrich
Not that you'd expect better from him.
Odd. I was taught grammar in... grammar school. I didn't realize K-5 = elite liberal arts education.
This piece of moldy cheese is fascist. Yuck.