OKAY: I WAS WRONG

I see you couldn't answer most of my posting...I'm not surprised.

Exhibit 1 in the "lack of subtlety" case - attacking arguments I never made.

You said earlier "If conservatives aren't dogmatic then who is?

The answer to your question is liberals, as I prove above. Don't run away from your arguments. While one can argue that their is an element of dogmatism in any philosophy, by definition, there is no question but that dogmatism is a central element of leftist thought in modern America.

While the left talks a good game about tolerance and acceptance of the other as we can see in examples of where the left actaully rules, disagreement with orthodox (leftist) thought is not only *not* tolerated, but generally punished.

One can see the extremes of this in communist and fascist countries, but speech codes, hate crimes, and all the rest provide a window on the same authoritarian impulse here in the US.

As the rest of my earlier posting shows, along with the original author that started this thread, the creators of this study engaged in a mix of simple ad hominem, projection, and ideological dogmatism to produce their Orwellian document.

Another fundamental mistake;

I think that describes at least the sense of the social conservative movement - it certainly describes a personage like Pat Buchanan, popular to many here, who left the Republican party because in his view it wasn't conservative enough.

Buchanan left the Republican party because he drifted ever further left on economic issues. He has become an ardent protectionist. The Reps remain largely free traders. While he is not a liberal over all, as he still is a social conservative, describing Buchanan circa 2003 as being in an example of the far right is completely off base.

In a limited way (something you might have gathered from reading the paper) - only in the sense of believing in some sort of ideal past that present day America fell short of.

While Hitler did romanticize elements of the German past, he did so only to laud the Germans as a race. He was a futurist if anything, claiming that he would perfect society and government and usher in a thousand year Reich of utopian rule, and focused on wholesale societal change.

Again, this millenial utopianism is a central aspect of leftist thought. While Hitler's version was different from that of Lenin, Mao, or modern leftists, the idea that the perfection of mankind is possible if only we reject the social structures that exist now is just not present on the right, which has no illusions of heaven on earth.

...something you might have gathered from reading the paper...

I have already read four accounts of the papers (I believe there are two) from trusted sources, but to satisfy you I will read the papers themselves. I doubt I will encounter any significant suprises. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini were conservatives by any definition, and any author who claims otherwise --- which clearly was done in this paper, unless all the reporting on the "meta-study" has been erroneous --- is an idiot. I'll come back and clear up your misunderstanding about conservatives and free markets -- for the second time -- after I examine the study.

As for the tactic of claiming that you were talking about immigration policy when you used the term "middle-class whites," implying that non-white American citizens and conservative bigotry towards them were the furthest thing from your mind, I find it highly disingenuous --- borderline dishonest really.

While he is not a liberal over all, as he still is a social conservative, describing Buchanan circa 2003 as being in an example of the far right is completely off base.

Neither Hitler nor Mussolini were conservatives by any definition

I'm not sure what I'm being accused of, but let me clarify my point. There is definitely a racial tinge to the discussions here on immigration policy and overseas outsourcing. Conservatives here who clamor for government restrictions on commerce (e.g. restrictions on H1B visas and tighter immigration controls) are doing so primarily to protect white middle class jobs from competition and as such can only be said to support laissez-faire economics only to the extent that it doesn't put white middle class jobs in jeopardy.

While Hitler's version was different from that of Lenin, Mao, or modern leftists, the idea that the perfection of mankind is possible if only we reject the social structures that exist now is just not present on the right, which has no illusions of heaven on earth.

Ask people who consider themselves conservatives if think society overall is better today than it was in the 1950s. G. Gordon Liddy has a book titled "When I was a kid, this was a free country". Hitler wanted to set up the Third Reich - i.e. a resurrection of the past imperial Germany glory. The very word "fascism" traces to the "fasces" carried by officials of the Roman Empire - Mussolini saw himself as restoring the Roman Empire.

The differences between conservatives and liberals do tend to be between placing the ideal society in the past vs. in the future.

Buchanan doesn't consider himself a leftist and most of his supporters don't consider him or themselves leftists either. The Southern Agrarian movement, which seems to have been a big influence on Buchanan, isn't a leftist movement either. It is possible to be rightist and anti-capitalist.

To begin with, I specifically stated Pat was not a leftwinger...you should read more closely...but not the icon of the far right you are trying to make him out to be.

In the normal usage of the terms right and left, capitalism and free trade are right wing. Protectionism and corporatism/socialism are left wing.

Whatever his supporters wish to call themselves, this is the nature of the political divide. Pat moved left on economics. I urge you, like I would have urged the authors of this study, to actually read conservative writers and not just grab text out of context. Pat's flip was a dominant issue of discussion just a few years ago within conservative circles.

Further, I'm rather interested to here about how rightwing Pat's associate Lenora Fulani is...

Neccacary, that doesn't look correct either. (Hee,hee)

Ahem < assume air of distinction >yes, were it so, however, I was referring to the two s's, plural, the ones that come first, not the second occurrance, when there is only one "c".

< / air of distinction >

I found the paper, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition (37 pages), and the rebuttal written by Greenberg, and Jost's response to the rebuttal. I won't be able to read it all tonight.

But what strikes me right off the bat is that it's very strange to question the need for a control group for this large study, as you did. Clearly the authors are shooting for scientific credit with this "meta-study," an absurd prospect without a control group.

The study has been out since May and is already a laughingstock. I feel pretty confident that it will soon become a notorious example of skewed science -- a Darkness in El Dorado of psychology, if you will -- after some heavyweights in the field have a chance to study it over the next twelve months or so.

In any case, I will read it and get back to you in the next few days.

The differences between conservatives and liberals do tend to be between placing the ideal society in the past vs. in the future.

Again, you need to pay closer attention to what is written.

Hitler glorified the German past only to the extent that it upheld the superiority of the German race. He neither advocated nor attempted to enact a return, in any way, to the partial constitutional monarchy of Kaiser Wilhelm (and it should be specifically noted, extremely Jew friendly for continental Europe) nor the decentralized feudal Holy Roman Empire dominated by the Habsburgs.

Hitler's vision was a totally centralized, socialist realm purged of tradional religion where he was the embodiment of the state and the national will. All the old structures of the Weimar Republic and the Hohenzollern's empire would be removed.

Mussolini, of course, was a committed socialist who broke with the italian socialists over the question of national versus international socialism during the first world war.

To say that either of these men were traditionalists goes beyond mere mistake into the realm of purposeful deception.

While fascism is not communism, they are closely related, which explains why they exchanged so many basic ideas (death camps, early development of modern propaganda and espionage, the one party system, etc), and it one point were allied against their more traditional enemies - ie the Pact.

They were both corporatist anticommunist nationalists, as opposed to Marxist internationalists, which tends to put them in the right wing category. Don't be distracted by their "socialism" - it wasn't of the Marxist variety or meant to be put to Marxist ends.

This is a common, and deeply flawed, response to the question of the organization of NAZI Germany.

Yes, their name included socialist in it. However, they were socialists not because of their name, but because they favored and enacted corporatist, socialist policy.

The National Socialists, like their internationalist brethern favored control of industry for the good of the state, a comprehensive social welfare net, and the one party system. Hitler added a racialist element to the mix, of course, but then again communists from Stalin to the Sandanistas, had no point in murdering disfavored ethnic groups either.

Hitler even claimed that he found much to learn from Marxism. That he wasn't as dogmatic in his socialism as the fools to his east merely made him more dangerous, not a fundamentally different sort of tyrant.

Further, that the Soviets and Germans were bitter enemies - after being allies - is hardly different from the relations between the USSR and Red China. Yet, no one is willing to argue that this opposition made the Chicoms rightwingers for some reason.

It is instructive to consider that by the 80s, Red China was a western ally and Democratic India a Soviet one. This does not change the fact both the Soviets and Chinese were communists, the Indians and Americans democrats.

In regards to the term "capitalism", all forms of government are capitalist by definition. "Capitalism" is defined as the means of production. All economic entities need capital. The question is who controls the capital. Under Mussolini, fascism was defined by the fact that although companies could still be privately owned, they were told what to produce, how much to produce, where to produce, when to produce etc.

As far as a desire to return to an idealist past, talk to any hippie, commie, or Mussolini facsist to get an earfull about the "good'ole days."

Don't be distracted by their "socialism" - it wasn't of the Marxist variety or meant to be put to Marxist ends.

Do you really think that a student of John Lukacs -- a fact you should know from my earlier post -- is unaware of the distinctions between marxism and naziism? It's impossible to know what "ends" the Thousand Year Reich meant to put its brand of socialism, since it only lasted 13 years, but you can be certain that Hitler's "corporatist" plans did not include a free market. His interventionist proclivities were manifest. He just happened to be a far better economist than Stalin.

But as I said above, Hitler's racialist policies, Volk worship and hypernationalism were more important than economics in terms of the overall tenor of the regime.

By the way, I assume you know that Hitler rejected the term fascism. Mussolini had little success in getting him to adopt it. In any case, neither man was interested in returning to an idealized past. They were anti-Burkean revolutionaries fixated on future greatness. Any sense of nostalgia for past greatness they sought to instill in the masses was done chiefly for propaganda purposes.

I urge you, like I would have urged the authors of this study, to actually read conservative writers and not just grab text out of context.

I've been on this site for at least three or four years - I'm quite familiar with conservative writings and thoughts. To quote Buchanan himself, "if conservatives are not trying to conserve our families and our society, then what is we are trying to conserve?". I'll cite as well Buchanan's 1992 keynote address at the Republican National Convention. While Buchanan is somewhat embarrasing to the conservative movement, let's not play revisionist history and pretend that Buchanan doesn't share the concerns of a signficant portion of the conservative community.

In the normal usage of the terms right and left, capitalism and free trade are right wing. Protectionism and corporatism/socialism are left wing.

In the contemporary and primarily American, use of the terms this is true. However the marriage between free-market capitalism and the right wing only dates back a century. Conservatism, as an abstract philosophy, simply is favoring the status quo. In the US, especially during the Cold War, this meant supporting the free-market and capitalism, with the caveat that the market would not undermine the existing social order.

But as I said above, Hitler's racialist policies, Volk worship and hypernationalism were more important than economics in terms of the overall tenor of the regime.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm not going to rehash to complete analysis of Nazi Germany. The point is simply that Hitler saw the Third Reich as a means of recreating the (fictional) past - different historians will disagree about whether or not Hitler believed in his propaganda or not - it's impossible to tell. The point of the article was the belief in a romanticized past that is shared by conservatives (none of whom have answered my question about whether or not they think society on the whole is better today than in the 1950s).

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.