Between the Lines: Modern American fascism developing from outside the government

Just a few years ago, I took the opportunity to attend special guest appearances by two high-profile political personalities at Syracuse University whose visits were within a few weeks of each other—Ralph Reed, former leader of the Christian Coalition and a Republican strategist on the right, and Jocelyn Elders, former surgeon general of the United States during the Clinton administration and a Democrat of decidedly left orientation.

Although their addresses and responses to questions that followed illustrated vividly their wide differences of opinion on current issues, that was not the most striking contrast between the two mid-week evening events at Hendricks Chapel on the university campus. The most significant distinction between them was not the behavior of the respective guests, but the behavior of their audiences.

Dr. Elders drew the smaller audience, most which appeared to be of similar political persuasion. Following her address, she fielded questions from attendees representing both sides of the political spectrum, all of which were presented respectfully and answered by Dr. Elders in an uncompromising but mutually respectful and cordial manner.

By contrast, Dr. Reed drew a much larger audience, but it was evident from the start that many were there to challenge him openly and berate him for his political positions. Far-left activists in the audience were disruptive throughout, and although Dr. Reed completed his address and responded to a few questions with courtesy and dignity, he eventually had to be escorted out of the chapel for his and everyone else’s safety.

At the time, what occurred in the chapel that night may have seemed like little more than an isolated example of extreme discourtesy on the part of a few members of the extreme left. But recent reports from across the nation about an increasing incidence of this sort of behavior, and worse, by those on the political left provide evidence of a pattern—the use of interference, intimidation, and even violence by left-wing activists in order to suppress opposition to their political viewpoints.

From a few hecklers interrupting an opposing speaker, to same-sex marriage activists disrupting a church service, to left-wing counter-demonstrators accosting an elderly woman and destroying a sign she was carrying, a significant segment of political-left activism has evidently adopted “forcible suppression of opposition” as an acceptable strategy to advance their causes in the public square.

Although Americans are about to witness the inauguration of the most left-leaning president in the nation’s history, and his administration working in consort with perhaps the most left-leaning congressional majority we have ever seen, it is not from within government that citizens of the republic must first fear the rise of fascism, but from outside and eventually creeping in.

This modern American societal fascism of the left has already become well established across the culture. Some of it arises out of simple, seemingly innocent things that many would scoff at taking very seriously, such as all manner of “political correctness,” which has been progressing for several years. What is this so-called political correctness, anyway, but activist imposition of revised standards, according to politically left sensibilities, for acceptable and unacceptable thought and behavior?

Like any forced evolution toward political totalitarianism—the logical outcome of an unchecked fascist trend—the progression begins with the seemingly innocent stuff. Eventually, coercion, intimidation, and suppression of non-conforming viewpoints becomes institutionalized here and there on the way to everywhere. Although government may not be initiating the trend or its manifestations, given sufficient political momentum it will be in complicitity at first and later the primary purveyor after things have gone irreversibly too far.

The early signs are plentiful, and typically marked by descriptions that belie the real essence and agenda. Witness the “Fairness Doctrine”—regulation the left-leaning majority in Congress would love to impose on the free-enterprise media market in order to suppress the one traditional outlet the left does not already monopolize—talk radio.

Now, we may be about to witness another example of institutionalized suppression of opposition compliments of another politically left oriented institution—labor unions. The so-called “Employee Free Choice Act,” promoted by organized labor leaders and bantered about the news media these days as “card check,” has been hanging around Congress since 2005. If its supporters can scare up at least 60 votes in the new Senate, this legislation will make it to the president’s desk and, Mr. Obama has signaled, receive his signature.

This legislation would remove the guarantee of a secret ballot wherever employees of a company would be voting on whether to unionize their workplace. The primary objection of those opposed to the legislation? The increased exposure to workers of intimidation and coercion in absence of a secret ballot.

Ironically, rank-and-file union members are overwhelmingly against the proposal being pushed in Congress by their leadership. A recent Zogby poll revealed that 71 percent of union members favor ballot privacy, while a McLaughlin poll showed that 79 percent of Americans oppose “card-check” legislation that would make private-ballot elections no longer mandatory.

Despite overwhelming favorability numbers like that to retain the basic American right of ballot privacy in the workplace, the small minority who favor card-check legislation are only a couple allied senators away from getting the new law imposed on everyone else. It is just the latest sign, and a pretty glaring one, that the fascism of the left is moving right along as it builds momentum to change the very fabric of the American nation.

Monday, December 8, 2008
WATCH THE LANGUAGE
By
Neal Boortz
@ December 8, 2008 8:16 AM Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (0)

I know that things are rough out there, but this is when we need to be even more wary of this “spread the wealth” mentality. People are more likely to buy into the rhetoric when they are down. Just remember that it sounds good in principal (if you’re not all that fond of little inconveniences like property rights) but the realities are far, far worse.

Here’s what I mean, folks. How many of your saw Barack Obama on Meet the Press this weekend? I’m going to give you a few quotes from Obama, and you tell me that this guy isn’t dangerous for our economic prosperity ... not to mention freedom:

“I think the important principle, because sometimes when we start talking about taxes, and I say I want a more balanced tax code, people think, well, that’s class warfare. No. It turns out that our economy grows best when the benefits of the economy are most widely spread. And that has been true historically.”

Here’s the clip or watch it here: http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2008/12/watch-the-language.html

Know what? I would like a more balanced tax code myself. For one, I would like for more people to actually pay income taxes. How’s that for balance. Right now 43% of income earners pay no income taxes at all ... and what little bit the next seven percent pay (bringing us up to 50%) amounts to about three percent of all income taxes. In the meantime the top one percent pay about 39% of all income taxes while earning about 19% of all income. That’s not balanced ... so more balance sounds fine to me.

Now another Obamamabit:

” ...part of what I’m hoping to introduce as the next president is a new ethic of responsibility where we say that if you’re laying off workers, the least you can do when you’re making $25 million a year is give up some of your compensation and some of your bonuses ... That kind of notion of shared benefits and burdens is something that I think has been lost for too long, and it’s something that I’d like to see restored.”

Here’s the clip or watch it here: http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2008/12/watch-the-language.html

Restored how? By government edict? What are we heading for here, government control over executive compensation? Maybe government control over ALL compensation. Yeah .. that’s the ticket, isn’t it? We’ll let the private sector continue to own and operate the businesses, but we’ll put the government in control of setting all salaries.

>By the way ... do you know what you call an economic system where the means of production are privately owned but controlled by government? No, it’s not socialism. Under socialism the government owns the businesses. And it’s not capitalism. Under capitalism ownership and control is private. So ... what’s the word? A very few of you know ... and the rest of you are about to find out. It’s the “F” word. Fascism. So .. what does that make Obama?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.