Politics 101 
Posted on 03/07/2010 3:44:03 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
Today's Washington Post Outlook section gives featured lefty blogger Ezra Klein another shot at the supposedly dysfunctional workings of the Senate. "As the minority becomes less responsible with the filibuster (and oh boy, have minority Republicans become less responsible with the filibuster), the majority needs to use reconciliation more often," Klein writes.
The article begins:
"Ask a kid who just took civics how a bill becomes a law and she'll explain that Congress takes a vote and, if a majority supports the bill, the bill goes to the president. That's what we teach in textbooks, but it's not what we practice in Washington."
Now, if you did in fact ask a kid who just took a civics class, she -- could be he! -- might explain that the House and Senate pass bills, and if there are differences between them, the bills usually go to a House/Senate conference committee, where lawmakers appointed by the leaders of both parties resolve the differences between the bills and come up with one final bill, which the House and Senate pass and which then goes to the president's desk for signature into law. (Wasn't that the method used for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the 1996 welfare reform bill and other legislation often cited by Klein and his allies today?) Isn't that what a kid who just took a civics class would say? Isn't that what we teach in textbooks? And is that what's being practiced in the case of the national health care bills?
The answer, of course, is no, because Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid, who in the past have been strong advocates of conference committees, decided to skip conference for the health care bill. Why? Because it might be troublesome -- and public. Better to bypass it altogether, assured that Klein and others will devote their energies to attacking Republican irresponsibility.
Communist, National Socialist, Fascist, Socialist, Democrat, Center, Republican, libertarian.
Increasing order of freedom and personal responsibility as one moves left to right. The list does not circle back.
To start with, sourcing wiki to buttress your view of the world is like trying to put out a grease fire by squirting it with a water hose.
I believe this is false. Until the House advises the Senate that the differences between the bills can't be reconciled via amendment, the bill just sits in the House.
HR 3590, and a link to all congressional actions: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03590:@@@X
I know that Byron York's assertion that differences are usually resolved via conference is incorrect. Differences are usually resolved by ping-pong amendments. However, ping-pong amendments would not be appropriate for this sort of legislation, so his ultimate question, "Where's the call for a conference?" is sensible.
Politics 101
Source: Hitler, A.; transl. Norman Cameron, R. H. Stevens; intro. H. R. Trevor-Roper (2000). "March 24, 1942". Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941–1944: His Private Conversations. Enigma Books. pp. 162–163.
Hitler was against internationalism, be cause he asserted the Jewish bankers controlled the financing of the same.
Are you sure this is not Hitler adopting a capitalist policy simply to garner votes and support, as he did for the pro-labor movement?
After all, this sound an awful lot like Obama’s comment on capitalism after the JP Morgan Chase bonuses.
Fascism derives it's name from Latin word fasces. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods that were tied around an axe, was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate. The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.
As such, Fascism rejects and resists autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. Fascist are strong nationalists, and resists outside influences that would weaken the national identity, i.e. illegal immigration, foreign religions, outside cultural influences, etc. As such, this is identified with the Right in the US, which promotes Christianity, national sovereignty, and the stoppage of illegal immigration, whereas the left takes the opposite tact.
However, there is some consensus on socialism, which is the term the Nazis used. Fascism was originally linked to Mussolini, and not the Nazis.
Note the date of the document! Note point 22!
22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.
I don't think they followed that to closely, eh?
Or how about point 24?
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race. The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination.
So much for not being the Party of Point being, by the time Hitler came to power, Nazism was not a specific ideology, but a conflation of ideas, concepts, and philosophies meant to realise the mythic ethnostate of Großdeutschland (Greater Germany).
As long as you brought it up, these other points
8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented.
6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State.
11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.
are not traditional leftist beliefs.
And the book that started the conversation we entitled
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
So why are we debating the Nazi's?
But the point you made about not defining terms is all too common, and a pox on our national discourse. Same with "liberal", "conservative", "right", etc. When the dull witted Hannity had Michael Moore on to debate his latest hit piece of a documentary, they never defined the word "capitalist". Michael Moore ate his lunch, both figuratively and quite possibly literally.
I thought you would bring that up. According to the sources I found, this platform was never altered. You can find more here.
Note point 22! ok
22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.
If I read this correctly, they demanded the abolition of hiring mercenaries, and then creating a national army, as there was no army in Germany in 1920, as it had been disbanded after WWI.
Or how about point 24? ok
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race. The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination.
This is no different than the State church in China. It is not religious freedom.
As long as you brought it up, these other points
8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented.
6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State.
11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.
are not traditional leftist beliefs.
Nor are they necessarily traditional right-wing beliefs. These are more center-of-the road ideas.
Because my post started with the Nazis, which you said were right wing. I pointed out “Liberal Fascism” had a section on Nazism and that it was left-wing. I did not change the topic to Fascism, I was referring to a source.
"THE MYTH OF THE 20TH CENTURY by Alfred Rosenberg
Published by Hoheneichen Publishing House, Muenchen 1941.
[Page 215]
We recognize today that the central maximum values of the Roman and the Protestant Church as negative Christianity do not correspond to our soul, that they are in the way of the organic forces of the Nordic racially determined peoples, must give way to them (these forces), and must let themselves be re-evaluated in the sense of a Germanic Christianity. That is the thought behind today's religious searching.
[Page 514]
The idea of honor-national honor-is for us the beginning and end of our entire thinking and doing. It does not admit of any equal-valued center of force alongside of it, no matter of what kind. neither Christian love, nor the Free-Masonic humanity, nor the Roman philosophy.
[Page 608]
A German religious movement which would like to develop into a folk-church will have to declare that the idea of neighborly love is unconditionally to be subordinated to the idea of national honor, that no act of a German church may be approved which does not primarily serve the safeguarding of the folkdom.
[Page 616]
A German religion will, bit by bit, present in the churches transferred to it, in place of the crucifixion the spirit of fire- the heroic-in the highest sense."
Since the Senate bill addresses new taxes, authorizes spending, as well as spending cuts and spending redirects, can it even be sent to the House directly, since it is a ‘revenue bill” that has to originate in the House?
In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism:
..Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism
The entire article by Mussolini makes for interesting reading, I would suggest it. I makes point that support either of our propositions.
Good catch on that. I thought it meant the abolition of both, but your reading makes more sense, especially in light of the Roman experience. Thanks for the correction.
As far as to whether points 6, 8 and 11, I would assert they are now rightist beliefs, because the middle has become left leaning, e.g. 8-border fences and troops, 6-birthers, and 11-Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, welfare, etc.
So, in practice, Communism and fascism obtain their ends via the State, and conservatives and libertarians obtain their ends via the individual. If we separate left and right along who controls us, Fascism and Nazism wind up on the left.
I'll concede on 11.
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.