My right-wing brother accused me of “tottering on the edge of fascism” recently when I listed “disseminating covert propaganda disguised as news broadcasts” among the many illegal things BushCo should be impeached for. My brother’s argument was that the liberal MSM promotes fascist group-think, so the administration has to combat that by putting out its own side of the story. He was actually arguing that government propaganda is protected free speech! As we all learned from our Former Dittohead friend Jim Derych, right-wingers easily dismiss anything that threatens their worldview as being a product of the imaginary “liberal media,” but my brother was taking it a step further.
Being called a fascist is nothing new; we on the left are often assailed by right-wingers calling us fascists. But I was a little stunned when my brother said it to me. Obviously, his argument is ridiculous, and when I challenged him to define fascism, all he came up with was that fascists don’t tolerate any differing opinions (oddly, earlier in our conversation he had said that the Democrats are “fragmented”… fragmented group-think, that’s a new one for me). To back his claim that fascism resides on the left end of the political spectrum, my brother cited the fact that the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party. But I can’t decide if he was being totally dishonest, or if he simply doesn’t recognize Hitler using the exact same tactic the GOP uses when they name things like the Clear Skies initiative, the Healthy Forests initiative, and the Help America Vote Act. No doubt it is a little of each.
Anyhow, I emailed my brother a few quotes about fascism to help clear up his misunderstanding. I didn’t go with a politician’s, historian’s, or pundit’s definition of fascism, either. Instead I went right to the source: Benito Mussolini.
Follow me across the break for the quotes and my analysis I sent to my brother, as well as some quotes from a piece written by Vice President Henry Wallace in 1944.
I have reformatted and rewritten my analysis a bit from what I sent to my brother.
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini (from Encyclopedia Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor).
“Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology which embraces nationalism as the transcendent value of society. The rise of Fascism relies upon the manipulation of populist sentiment in times of national crisis. Based on fundamentalist revolutionary ideas, Fascism defines itself through intense xenophobia, militarism, and supremacist ideals. Although secular in nature, Fascism’s emphasis on mythic beliefs such as divine mandates, racial imperatives, and violent struggle places highly concentrated power in the hands of a self-selected elite from whom all authority flows to lesser elites, such as law enforcement, intellectuals, and the media.” — translation of Mussolini’s diary by Ben Tripp
Now substitute in the word neo-conservatism for fascism and see how well it fits.
“Neo-Conservatism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
Eisenhower warned us about the dangers of the military industrial complex, but this goes even further. GOP loyalists simply flow back and forth between government and corporations with government contracts (many of them of the no-bid variety). The New York Times has revealed that 90 former officials at the Department of Homeland Security or the White House Office of Homeland Security are now “executives, consultants or lobbyists for companies that collectively do billions of dollars’ worth of domestic security business.”
See also the K Street Project, the Carlyle Group, Haliburton/KBR, etc. Now the GOP rubber stamp Congress has refused to investigate the awarding of contracts by the executive branch. And don’t forget the bankruptcy bill written by the credit industry, the Medicare drug plan written by the pharmaceutical industry, and the energy policy authored by the energy companies. If these examples don’t demonstrate a merger of state and corporate power, then I don’t know what would. This is why I think the name BushCo fits them so well.
The Democrats are certainly not off the hook on encouraging corporatism. In particular, DLC Democrats are often beholden to corporate interests. But it is nowhere near the extent to which the GOP has become the tool of corporations. The only way I can see to fix this problem is through the elimination of ALL lobbyist gifts or contributions, strict policing of quid pro quos, and extending the period required before a former government official can take a job with a corporation that does business with the government.
“Neo-Conservatism is an extreme right-wing ideology which embraces nationalism as the transcendent value of society. The rise of Neo-Conservatism relies upon the manipulation of populist sentiment in times of national crisis. Based on fundamentalist revolutionary ideas, Neo-Conservatism defines itself through intense xenophobia, militarism, and supremacist ideals. Although secular in nature, Neo-Conservatism’s emphasis on mythic beliefs such as divine mandates, racial imperatives, and violent struggle places highly concentrated power in the hands of a self-selected elite from whom all authority flows to lesser elites, such as law enforcement, intellectuals, and the media.”
Let’s break it down point by point (I regroup things a little bit for analytical purposes):
“Extreme right-wing ideology which embraces nationalism as the transcendent value of society”: This is why they keep bringing up the flag burning amendment. It is a total waste of time, unless you consider the political capital they are trying to gain by pumping up nationalist sentiment.
The GOP and their surrogates in the media keep saying that anyone who disagrees with them is an America-hating, pro-terrorist traitor. My own brother even called me a fascist for saying that BushCo’s illegal, covert propaganda doesn’t belong on TV. Look at Sean Hannity’s books: “Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism”, and “Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism.” He paints liberalism as the opposite of nationalism, as anti-liberty, and as in league with terrorists! This ignores the fact that America was conceived as a liberal nation and has only made progress when striving to become more liberal. A simple review of U.S. history shows how conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of every issue.
Regardless, through their propaganda and hate-mongers, the GOP has obscured, obfuscated, lied, and turned reality on its head when it comes to defining American values. They attack Democratic veterans as being anti-troops while claiming the politicians on their side who never went to war are the real patriots. The latest example is the right-wing reaction to the Hamdan ruling. Can you believe they are actually saying it is anti-American to abide by the rule of law, the Constitution, and our treaties?
“Manipulation of populist sentiment in times of national crisis”: This one is easy: the misuse of 9/11 to get authorization for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Administration officials intentionally inflated the sense of crises by fanning the fear of “weapons of mass destruction.” Each election cycle, they work to scare people into voting GOP against their own interests by saying the terrorists want Democrats to win or that the terrorists will hit us for sure if Dems are elected (among other things). Every time Kerry started to gain on or pass Bush in the polls, DHS would announce another Orange Alert (yet we have had NONE since the Presidential election… how odd). Now they are using “cut and run” rhetoric when talking about the Democratic plan to strategically redeploy our troops and end the occupation of Iraq, playing on people’s fear of losing a war.
“Fundamentalist revolutionary ideas”: It doesn’t get much more fundamentalist than the Christian fundamentalism of the Religious Right. Is Christian fundamentalism really revolutionary, you ask? Well, they do want to turn America into a theocracy, so I’d have to say, “Yes.” Just look at the pushes to overturn Roe v Wade and for an anti-gay marriage amendment. They even call their agenda a “culture war,” so revolutionary fundamentalism is the perfect descriptor for the Religious Right, IMHO.
“Xenophobia, supremacist ideals, and racial imperatives”: The good old Boogeyman strategy. Though they haven’t strictly adhered to racial/ethnic lines, there is no doubt that they use scapegoats to blame America’s problems on. The GOP and their mouth-pieces routinely scapegoat gays, immigrants, blacks, secularists, humanists, Hollywood, elitists, bad guys, ter’rists, Arabs, and others for all of the U.S.A.’s problems. Of course, their favorite scapegoat of all is liberals and the imaginary liberal media. Anyone who stands against them is automatically labeled a liberal, and in the same breath is called a grave threat to America. Look at the titles of Coulter’s books: “Godless”, “Treason”, “Slander”. Like Hannity’s books cited above, these books demonize liberalism, flat out lying about liberals and the liberal philosophy, and turn reality inside-out and upside-down.
“Divine Mandates”: George W. Bush loves to use Good vs Evil imagery (ie. “Axis of Evil”; “evildoers”). And who can forget when Bush called the U.S. attacks in the Middle East a crusade? He also said that freedom isn’t America’s gift to the world, but God’s gift to the world. The implication is that the U.S. military is an instrument of God! You don’t get much more divine a mandate than that. You could probably put the efforts to overturn Roe and outlaw gay marriage into this category as well… I’m sure the fundamentalists would.
“Militarism and violent struggle”: Just look at the PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century if you really want to see how frighteningly hawkish these folks really are. Once you have read that, you understand that one reason the GOP doesn’t want to withdraw from Iraq is that militarism and war has become such a defining element of their philosophy. They believe that America is the lone superpower remaining post-cold war, and as such, is in a unique position to gain hegemony over the globe – military, economic, and cultural. To accomplish this goal will require a vast military machine deployed worldwide, and especially in resource rich but unstable regions like the Middle East. We must fight and win multiple simultaneous wars to let everyone on the planet know that we cannot be challenged. Scary, huh?
And even if we do manage to end the occupation of Iraq, the administration has this one covered by declaring that we are in a perpetual “General War on Terror.” The right is also fixated on Bush as Commander in Chief. They might as well dress him up in a military uniform like Idi Amin or Joseph Stalin. By focusing on the Commander in Chief role, the right thinks they can justify a huge expansion in executive authority. Our civil liberties are being trampled and the power of the executive is being expanded beyond anything the Framers imagined, all in the name of fighting the never-ending GWOT.
“Highly concentrated power in the hands of a self-selected elite from whom all authority flows”: Some people call them the “Haves and Have-mores” but Bush calls them his base. Is it any wonder that all of the BushCo policies are aimed at helping the elites? From the repeal of the estate tax that would only effect the very wealthy, to the cutting of income taxes on the wealthiest 2%, to extending the lower rate on dividends, to the tax amnesty for companies hiding profits overseas, to weakening environmental protections, to refusing to raise the minimum wage. When Bush declares, “I’m the decider, not you” he wants everyone to know that he is in the seat of power. When the right calls Bush the Commander in Chief, they do so to reinforce his authority.
“Authority flows to lesser elites, such as law enforcement, intellectuals, and the media.”: I disagree with the notion that “intellectuals” have fallen in with this crowd – hence the right is constantly harping about the evil, liberal college professors. On the other hand, maybe this means people like the right wing think tanks and “puditry” – people like Grover Norquist. I wouldn’t call them intellectuals, but maybe some on the right would.
What about law enforcement? Honestly, I’m not too sure; I just don’t know enough about the subject. The purpose of consolidating law enforcement into the Department of Homeland Security was to allow better coordination between agencies, but it also may allow a higher degree of control from the top down than there was before. However, DHS was a Democratic proposal, so I’m not sure we can lay that one on BushCo. What I do know is that the administration actually had to do a purge at the CIA to get rid of the people who disagreed with BushCo’s misuse of intelligence and outing of covert operative Valerie Plame-Wilson and her WMD-monitoring operation. The NSA has been at the center of the illegal domestic spying programs.
Please note the “media” in this quote. This would be the Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, and O’Reilly types – lying vitriol spewers – as well as the Judith Miller, David Brooks, Robert Novak, and Charles Krauthammer types – so-called “respectable journalists” – who are little more than propagandists who shill for the administration. It is scary how the GOP talking points reverberate through the echo chamber and onto the public airwaves and pages. One of them, Tony Snow, has now ascended the ladder into the inner circle of the administration – you don’t get a more clear example of power flowing from the top to an obedient “lesser elite” than that.
I suppose you could make the case that the power has actually flowed in the other direction, from the media up, before it is then fed back to the media in a sort of positive feedback loop. This explains why there is no liberal media anymore: they are all trying to get a peice of this pie being handed down from the top.
————————————
As I was re-writing this to post here, Thom Hartmann made me aware of the piece written by Vice President Henry Wallace for the New York Times in 1944. Hartmann wrote about the Wallace article two years ago on Common Dreams (The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: “It Can Happen Here” ). Wallace’s article was a warning about creeping fascism and how Americans could recognize and combat American fascists. Like me, Wallace turned to Mussolini for his definition of fascism as corporatism. I forwarded Hartmann’s article to my brother as further back-up for the Mussolini email.
The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy.
Holy crapoly! This is exactly what I was just talking about with the media: Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, O’Reilly, Judith Miller, David Brooks, Robert Novak, and Charles Krauthammer. Throw in the covert propaganda disseminated by the administration and the GOP talking points, and I would say our public information is severely poisoned. And that poison is designed, in part, to divide Americans. Again, when Bush said he is “a uniter, not a divider,” he was saying the opposite of what he meant. Bill Clinton echoed this sentiment when he spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and said that the GOP wants us divided. And the GOP talking points often contain B.S. about the Democrats being disunified or fragmented.
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. … They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
The Neo-cons know that the ruthless pursuit of profits and power does not play very well with the public. But, by following the PNAC and Mussolini outlines, BushCo is able to hide their deceit and ruthless pursuit of profits and power behind the disingenuous mask of patriotism during wartime. As I stated above, this wartime front is used to trample our rights and anyone who questions the breach of our rights is immediately labeled a traitor or terrorist sympathizer. It is sick and twisted.
Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after ‘the present unpleasantness’ ceases. [These monopolists] are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage. Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself.
While we have few true monopolies, we have a lot of industries dominated by what I would consider cartels: a few large companies in collusion to control the market and that don’t really compete with each other. The oil/energy cartel, pharmacy cartel, defense cartel, communications cartel, media cartel… I’m sure I’m missing a lot of other examples here. Even companies that are not cartels, like Wal-Mart, could fit this quote. Wal-Mart moves into a community and squashes all the locally owned businesses.
There is a very important underlying truth here: There is no such thing as a free market. When there is no regulation, monopolies and cartels stomp out any competition, and abuse the market, laborers, consumers, and the environment. So, the choice is a regulated market with real competition, or an unregulated market controlled by monopolies and cartels that prevent any real competition. BushCo has done nothing but weaken, eliminate, or fail to enforce existing regulations.
The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination…
Here Wallace covers the boogeyman strategy. The neo-cons are certainly more subtle in most ways about expressing and spreading their hate, but it is still there and plays a major role in their political strategy. Wallace is saying that it is a difference of degree rather than kind that separates the holocaust from the anti-gay marriage amendment or the voter suppression of minorities.
So, between Mussolini and Wallace, I think it is pretty clear that fascism lies on the other side of the political spectrum, and that the GOP is not just tottering on the edge… but has already plunged headlong into the pit.
————————————
I never heard back from my brother on the Mussolini quotes or Hartmann article I sent him. He probably didn’t even read them. If he did, he probably didn’t recognize the parallels to BushCo I pointed out. No doubt, his brain put up its force-field before he started reading and all the parallels were automatically deflected away as group-think from the liberal media. One of my other brothers says I am too blunt and confrontational, but when someone calls me a fascist, how am I supposed to react?
One last thing… Here is the new GOP logo I created. Should I send this to my brother, or is it too blunt and confrontational?
Saving this to my folders. I’m sorry about your brother throwing stones… your diary, though, has much to share and teach us. Thank you.
Signed – a woman once called a Liberal Nazi. Go figure.
Liberal Nazi..that’s great isn’t it. Do these people have any idea how idiotic they sound? Rhetorical question ..but it’s kinda like verbal diahrea..just string a bunch of words they don’t like together whether they end up making sense or not.
The other burning question: is the Soup Nazi related to the Liberal Nazi?
Actually… he called me a fucking liberal nazi.. .right in front of his kiddoes.
Then he started mumbling about what the fuck we (meaning we fucking liberal nazis) amust be teaching our kids.
Was in a cafe, just after I had shared with the owner as her son is in Iraq and I was soothing her and I had told her of the DC march and such… he had the audacity to make his comments known to all… but all was mumbly… just barely audible you know – because…let’s face it – he was a coward. I did engage a bit but only with my eyeballs… and that shut him up a bit. It’s amazing what a step forward and a solid stare will do to these “men”.
While you may be “tottering on the edge of fascism” it appears your brother has fallen into the abyss. I offer you my sympathies. I have a life long friend who shares his views and we have a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ that we do not discuss politics…were that not the case, there would be no interaction.
Family and friendship are important and should be able, in a perfect world, to weather differing opinions. Perhaps such an ‘agreement’ would enable you both to remain friends as well as siblings.
That being said, perhaps providing him with a condensed version of this diary may be appropriate…perhaps this checklist, if further conversations are desirable:
Good luck.
Peace
area, #4 The supremacy of the military. Their military is currently getting their ass handed to them by a bunch of “insurgents”. I bring this up every now and then when I have PMS and I feel like having a conversation with the 82nd Chairborne.
The false rhetoric (lies) and ill considered decision making (ignoring military and intelligence input) processes that contributed to this debacle, would lead me to say that #4, as it relates to ‘avid militarism’, is certainly in play.
They may be failing, but they continue defying the will of the American people, with the aid of a compliant rubber stamp congress, a cowardly, virtually non-existent opposition, and a controlled media.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
Mussolini got hung by his heels. I’d settle for the lot of them in the dock at the Hague.
Peace
My brother is actually really smart, and that is why I try to engage him. I’m sure if I can just penetrate his outer defenses, I can change his mind. He actually recently told me that you can’t trust what any politician says and you shouldn’t get too infatuated with any politician because they are bound to disappoint you, so I think his love affair with Bush has wavered a bit. But he is still buying into the Neo-con job anti-liberalism.
Thankfully, our conversations are mostly by email, since I am in SoCal and he is in NYC. When we do get together, we don’t discuss politics beyond the occasional lighthearted needling.
I have sent him the 14 characteristics of fascism before and he blew them off, saying they were assembled by… drumroll please… a liberal professor. That’s why I went to Mussolini this time as my source.
Hi mrb. Great diary…as for your GOP logo and sending it to your brother-don’t know..although if he doesn’t read your email maybe seeing that will make him wonder. Of course it’s usually pretty hard to change people’s minds when they seem to be that far gone with believing all the bushco propaganda.
Although I do know someone who was an ardent ardent believer in everything bush has said since 2000 and a few months ago he called his brother(my brother-in-law) and apologized to him for all their political conversations saying he was completely wrong about bush….pretty amazing as this guy is pretty much a fundie whack job. He’ll never vote dem I’m sure but instead may not vote at all in next election…is that progress for our side or not?
Thanks, CI.
I wasn’t going to send the logo to my brother… that part was a joke.
My brother thinks I am as brainwashed as I think he is. But the difference is illustrated clearly by the recent email exchange we had about the RFK, Jr. Rolling Stone article. It was clear my brother didn’t even read the article or the other links I sent him, but I read every link he sent me. He apparently just looked at right-wing websites and used their “counterpoints” and links to articles that supposedly debunked RFK. I don’t think he even read his own sources, because their so-called debunking was just totally lame. He even sent links to “liberal sources” who he claimed debunked RFK. But he must not have read any of those sources either, because they all AGREED with RFK on nearly everything (each article only took issue with some of RFK’s conclusions about the exit polling but agreed with him on the need for a voting overhaul due to all the other problems RFK addressed in the article). Two of the links he sent me were nearly identical articles with the only change being the city in which the event supposedly took place.
So, at least I read all of the info before deciding on my position. He stays insulated in his comfortable place. If I can just get him out of that comfort zone a little bit, I think I can make some progress with him, because is really smart and a really nice guy. He has great kids and a great wife (who is a public school teacher, no less). I may buy him “Confessions of a Former Dittohead,” but I’m not sure he’d read it. Maybe I should send it to his wife, and she can read it to him in his sleep…
Yeah it’s pretty hard(if not impossible) to get people to change their minds when they don’t want to read and be confused with ‘facts’…and just keep on repeating their supposed rock solid talking points/beliefs.
I’m like you, if I am going to be against something I want to know all the ‘facts’ or talking points that that side espouses so I can denounce them intelligently and point by point instead of just saying something is wrong.
Probably why I know much much more about the bible now than I ever did when I considered myself a christian and really had no idea what was actually written in the bible.
My reply to the fascism charge: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”
Anything more than that is a waste of time. As you point out, how can you teach someone who refuses to learn?
You could do two things: Ask him to write down what he believes the defining characteristics of fascism are. And ask him who in history he sees as being the greatest examples of fascism.
If he identifies Mussolini, there may be some basis to hope he’ll read what Mussolini said. If he mentions, say, George McGovern, well – you know that you cannot go any further.
I think the one hope is to get past the point of labeling “your a fascist” – “no, YOU’RE a fascist”, or arguing over who/where provides the gold standard definition of fascism. That won’t do anything. However, you might be able to converse on what you agree should or should not be the role of government. Or at least begin to parse honest disagreements, explained without name-calling.
I think you are right… an honest discussion necessarily requires that you don’t call names. I also think that is one reason that the right does so much name calling: they don’t want an honest discussion. My brother’s use of the word fascism so stunned me that it took me quite a while to recover, and by then he had managed to articulate his nonsense about needing to combat the liberal media group-think and move on to something else. Even now, we are discussing what is or isn’t fascism instead of focusing on the problem at hand, which was all the illegal things BushCo has done. So his use of the inflammatory was successful in derailing the conversation.
But, it is also true that any productive discussion has to have an agreed upon vocabulary. So it is necessary, in that regard, to set the record straight on what fascism is or is not. If his frame of reference is so topsy-turvy, then no honest discourse will be possible.
I also think there is a difference between him saying I am on the edge of fascism, and me saying the president is a fascist. He called me a name, I called his party leadership a name. Again, this is my brother. We love and respect each other, so name calling is extremely rare.
We have done tons of emailing/discussing on things like the appropriate role of government, or the optimal tax levels to stimulate the economy. I don’t often diary about those other discussions because they don’t tend to go anywhere and don’t have that one seminal moment, that shock value, that brings things into sharp relief the way this one did with him calling me a near-fascist.
In the end, I am just really bad at letting go when someone strikes a personal nerve with me. So I had to respond for my own piece of mind, or I would not be able to sleep.
I know what you mean. It is really hard when it is your family member. I have a brother a little like that, and a cousin who is very much that way. I can deal with non-family pretty reasonably much easier than family members. It is easy to upset each other, and very very hard for anyone to admit that they were wrong about anything.
And there we get into a problem, that sounds too much like homework. Very few people can do something like that off the top of their head, most personal opinions are based on snap judgement rather than logic and can’t be explained or justified easily.
I have degrees in political science, history and law, and still read books on all 3 subjects. Republicans who know this avoid talking politics with me because they don’t want to feel like an idiot. Yet, in true conservative fashion, the fact that I can back up my opinions with boatloads of historical examples and they can’t doesn’t stop them from thinking that I’m the loon. Whatever Rush says must be true, personal observation and reasoning be damned.
In recent weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion the Rs look at being Republican and supporting this administration purely in the form of belief, as believing in Republicanism.
During MN’s Republican convention, NPR was interviewing an attendee. Several times in the brief interview she used the phrase ” I believe…”.
As I considered this perspective, that they relate to their politics as they do to their religion, it seems to explain the phenomenon to me.
‘Cause if one’s politics is like one’s religion, then all you have to do is believe, and never mind how you got to that point. One’s mind is made up.
The alternative with which we are more familiar involves; facts, logic, and conclusions, and then choice of political affiliations. I’ve never heard anyone I know talk about “beliefs” in expressing their opinions on or support of a particular political party.
I think you have a very important, key insight, there!
Republicans today think and behave as though part of a charismatic religious cult; there have been White House staff who have described the attitudes of those in the White House as being like cult-group members.
Maybe we’ve got “David Koresh” on a grand scale.
Now there is a scary thought!
How’d you determine which way your GOP elephant’s swastika was to be oriented ?
note that the Nazi version is oriented the opposite way, in case that was your intent.
I didn’t even think about it… I wasn’t paying enough attention to realize they could go either way. Now that you have told me they should be oriented the other way, I’ll make the change.