(no subject)

[fpb]

Anyone who thinks that I was too harsh about Jonah Goldberg's repulsive and politically motivated rewriting of my own country's history ought to read today's Thomas Sowell column, where it is taken entirely at its own valuation and highly recommended as summer reading for the children of conservatives. This unhistorical, culturally imperialistic propaganda, that distorts my country's and my continent's history in the service of provincial American concerns, is going to enter the bloodstream of a whole American party, If it has not already done so. This will increase further the mutual incomprehension between USA and Europe, because you cannot stand on your two hind legs and inform anyone who knows anything of continental history - France, Italy, Germany, etc. - that Nazism and Fascism were "left wing". This sort of rubbish, especially if spoken with the arrogance of Goldberg and Sowell, will increase European contempt for American viewpoints and culture. Do we really need this sort of trash further complicating our already difficult relationship, and all for the sake of a few Republican votes in the next election?

Comments

[goreism.livejournal.com]

All forms of collectivism are ‘Left’ in the U.S.

Except when they're not, of course. Nixon expanded the welfare state and supported affirmative action, Reagan drastically increased federal spending in real terms, Bill Buckley supported national service, many people in the current administration support expansive notions of executive power, and the current Republican nominee brags about serving "for patriotism, not for profit." It was the American Right that supported segregation and school prayer, while the ACLU advocates for broader First Amendment rights.

To the extent that the US political spectrum differs from Europe's, it's because both sides generally accept the broad-sense liberal consensus of flexible labor markets, liberal free-speech rights, and private ownership of industry. Our political debates center around whether the minimum wage should be $8.50 or $0, not whether the government should own the telecoms.

In short, the degree of collectivism a political movement espouses isn't a very reliable indicator of its position on the political spectrum. I don't think those terms pick out a well-defined set of ideological principles, especially over time. Instead, they refer to family resemblances and historical origins. That's why we call the Labour party "democratic socialist" even though they've long since given up any pretense of wanting collective ownership of the means of production.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Merci bien.

[superversive.livejournal.com]

If you’re comparing Nixon and Reagan with either the Communists or the Nazis, you’re out to lunch. As Orwell said, all such arguments amount to saying that half a loaf is the same as no bread. The political spectrum is just that — a spectrum — not a binary disjunction. Nixon, in American terms, was a long way to the Right of any party (democratic or not) that described itself as Socialist; Reagan was to the Right of Nixon; Buckley was to the Right of Reagan; and the current administration, except in foreign policy, is not on the Right at all.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

Where did I compare Nixon and Reagan to the Communists or Nazis?

You claimed at all forms of collectivism are "Left" in the States. I responded that the degree of collectivism a political movement espouses isn't a reliable indicator of its position on the political spectrum. Nixon was more "collectivist" by any measure than the modern-day Labour party, whether you look at marginal tax rates, government spending, or tariff barriers. But we call Labour "left-wing" and "socialist," and call Nixon a man of the Right.

The reason is that the words "Left" and "Right" aren't defined in terms of policy positions, especially over time. They're not short-hand for describing how collectivist a movement is. The American Right has often been just as "collectivist" as the Left—only in different ways.