Flirting with Fascism

The American Conservative ^ | 6/30/2003 | John Laughland

[A. Pole]

Denouncing Bill Clinton as a "counter-revolutionary"

That is why Clinton got impeached.

[JohnGalt]

The point of the article was that Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than the American right. This is important to some people less so to others.

In the larger context of an evolving debate, which on some posts you seem to know nothing about and on others you seem to know generally think this critique, which you know nothing about, is bunk.

If you asked why we care about such things, its because their is general theory of liberty that we share, that institutions protect liberty, and one of those institutions is the intellectual movement of the American Right.

But you never asked, which what makes your day spent posting criticism of the writing style of the piece (real riveting stuff) which I assume is for the consumption of people who already have their mind made up on the subject.

[JohnGalt]

This piece is just about the intellectual history of Michael Ledeen; if you were hoping to sway opinions, I'd suggest more time spent on showing where 'creative destruction' comes from the American right lexicon. More interesting, is that you essentially suggest that Ledeen may well be a Wilsonian liberal (internationalist interventionist liberalism) , but he is not a fascist.

Damned with faint praise I suppose.

The author was not suggesting that the author was a fascist but one who draws part of his world view from Italian fascists.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The point of the article was that Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than the American right.

And my point is, I don't care one way or the other. Whether true or not, it proves nothing.

This is important to some people less so to others.

Evidently.

My point is, the people to whom this is important, are misguided - grasping at straws, seeking out straw men, and lacking real arguments for anything.

In the larger context of an evolving debate, [something unintelligible]

I find it funny that you think a truly silly point (whether or not Michael Ledeen is a fascist) suddenly becomes Important because there is a "larger context of an evolving debate".

Maybe it just means that the Larger Evolving Debate is silly!

their is general theory of liberty that we share, that institutions protect liberty, and one of those institutions is the intellectual movement of the American Right.

And so your whole point here is to excommunicate Mr. Michael Ledeen from that movement because you think something he wrote thirty years ago proves that he's not up to the task.

Fine by me (for the sake of argument). So what? Now what?

[JohnGalt]

I dunno; I was posting a lot on a secesionist thread today.

I never once stated anywhere that I thought it was important for you to read this article. That is why I found your posts odd; it's as if you were just bored. It had no meaning for you, i.e. was a waste of time that you could have spent elsewhere, but evidently to others they thought it was an interesting article.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I never once stated anywhere that I thought it was important for you to read this article.

I never once stated anywhere that you did. This article was posted to FR, and I made comments to it. That's how FR works.

evidently to others they thought it was an interesting article.

And the intent of my comments was to try to explain to those people that they are grasping at straws. As I have said numerous times now.

FR is a news/discussion forum and that's what I've been doing, discussing an article (in this case explaining that it is silly). Understand now?

[Burkeman1]

"Me Dumb and don't know nothing."

Is that your argument? It seems to be.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I'm glad you took several days to compose such a thoughtful reply.

"Me Dumb and don't know nothing."

Who are you quoting?

Is that your argument? It seems to be.

Thanks for the autobiographical info, I'll take it into account.

If I said to you, "your posts seem to be riddled with pink elephants and be full of Latin poetry", you'd tell me to get my head examined, because if that were what I thought your posts "seem" to contain, there would be something wrong with me.

Same sorta thing here.

[Godebert]

Your ping list is a veritable who's who of "neo-con" leftists. Did you ever check out the dictionary definition of neoconservatism? From Webster's:

ne•o•con•serv•a•tism n. a moderate form of political conservatism that generally opposes big government but supports social welfare and certain other liberal goals.

Even Webster's defines you as liberals.

[Dr. Frank fan]

That's funny. You must be talking about the book version. Here's the entry on webster.com:

One entry found for neoconservative. Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv Function: noun Date: 1952 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism - neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun - neoconservative adjective

Even Webster's contradicts itself trying to define the word.

[Godebert]

I found my definition in the 1997 Random House Webster's College Dictionary. Interesting that there was no definition for "Paleoconservatism". I guess that would be anyone to the right of these neocon liberals.

[A. Pole]

ne•o•con•serv•a•tism n. a moderate form of political conservatism that generally opposes big government but supports social welfare and certain other liberal goals.

Webster got it wrong. Neoconservatism is the ideology of military buildup, intrusive government, foreign interventions and globalism dressed in democratic slogans.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Webster got it wrong. Neoconservatism is the ideology of military buildup, intrusive government, foreign interventions and globalism dressed in democratic slogans.

So, neoconservatism is the ideology of... Bill Clinton?

Well, everybody has their own little definition of the word. Who am I to question yours?

[Dr. Frank fan]

I found my definition in the 1997 Random House Webster's College Dictionary.

Ok. Webster's apparently needs to do a little more in-house communication cuz their book and website are contradicting each other.

Interesting that there was no definition for "Paleoconservatism".

Not really. I never thought it was a real word to begin with. (But then again, I'm not convinced that "neo-conservative" is a real world, either.)

I guess that would be anyone to the right of these neocon liberals.

"Neocon liberals" huh? Ok. Some would say you are contradicting both definitions above (neocons can't be "liberals" because they are "former liberals" by the definition I quoted, or conservatives who support "some" "liberal goals" - not full-on "liberals" - by the one you quoted). But I know better than to question it, since I realize that, like many people, you have your own personal definition you are using.

[A. Pole]

Webster got it wrong. Neoconservatism is the ideology of military buildup, intrusive government, foreign interventions and globalism dressed in democratic slogans.

So, neoconservatism is the ideology of... Bill Clinton?

You know, you made a discovery. Clinton a closet neocon! Now I understand.

[Dr. Frank fan]

do you?

[A. Pole]

do you?

Neocons are a mystery to me. This Clinton theory clarifies it a little.