Friday, September 25, 2009

Proud to be a Liberal! (Or, something . . . )

The dearly departed Prince of Chappaquiddick was proud of his liberalism.  “I am proud to be a liberal,” Senator Kennedy speechified as he received his honorary degree from Harvard in 2008.  The DemocraticUnderground and OprahOverground proudly echoed that chant following Aquaman’s demise last month.

But, are they really proud to be called liberals, today? I mean, come on . . . liberal today does not connote the same meaning as when Jefferson, FDR, or even Kennedy’s big brother boastfully bore the brand.  In fact, according to a recent Rasmussen Poll, only 15% of voters say they view the description of a liberal candidate as positive.

No problem for the modern liberal, especially for SecState Hillary, who during the campaign declared her preference of “progressive” as the new shuck and jive around the negatives encumbering the liberal tag.  The problem though, is that only 32% find that to be a positive descriptive of their political leanings, and that is even down from 40% just after the ’08 elections.  Seems more and more of the electorate are figuring out that when politicians call themselves “progressive,” what they really mean is, “liberal,” in a not-so-fond 21st Century sort of way.

So what’s a proud 21st Century Liberal to do?  Well, I just so happen to have what I think to be a winning suggestion – assuming liberals actually care about “truth, social justice, and The People for the American Way.”  They need to each come out of their political closets, and separate themselves into the two distinct groups they most genuinely resemble, today - Marxists on one side, and Fascists on the other.

Don’t click away from here in a huff!  I’m not calling anyone bad names, or using those terms as pejoratives.  Hang with me a bit longer.  It gets better, so read on. 


First, a couple of quick history and language lessons . . .

I know our President hates it when people read to him from the dictionary, but I think some of us may require a quick trip back to the classroom . . . especially those if us who went to a public school in the last 30 years, or so. 

From Merriam-Webster:

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Marxism: a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.

Now, I’ll simplify the above definitions in such a manner that even an American elected official can understand them.  (Appointees, such as members of the Supreme Court . . . probably not):

FASCISM:  government lets you own your business, but tells you how to run it.

MARXISM:  government seizes control and assumes ownership of all business and property.

Simple enough?  Do you now understand the subtle difference between those two authoritarian-controlled economic structures?

Which stripe each individual liberal chooses to wear, I care not, just so long as they are honest about their intentions and proudly wave their flag of choice – so that we know who they are and what they stand for as we debate today's most important issues.

Starting at the top, with the man we elected 44th President of the United States, who was previously acknowledged to have the “most liberal voting record” in the Senate . . . for which lapel pin should he trade in his Stars and Stripes - the hammer and sickle, or a swastika?

Hmmm.  I think if I’m being perfectly honest, Obama’s endgame preference remains to be seen.  We need a little more time to see how his policy agenda plays out, in reality, as opposed to what he promises, as dictated to him by the Teleprompter-in-Chief.

At first glance, simple, unadulterated fascism appears to be the present course being set for the United States of America – what with the takeover of General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, etc. - the determination of the Administration to set the salaries of financial-sector employees, (and even beyond that industry) – the proposed intent of Congress to have the FCC regulate the Internet – the renewed interest by Congress to reinstitute The Fairness Doctrine, (giving government control over the speech of privately-owned TV and radio stations) – and just this week, Obama signaled an interest in bailing out the nation’s failing newspapers. 

          ***(Sidebar question:  Why in the hell do newspapers need to be bailed out?  When most were established, they were the only source of news and information.  Today, Americans, indeed most of the world, have access to thousands of news sources, 24/7/365, at the push of a button or stroke of a key.  We DON’T NEED THEM ANYMORE!  It’s Darwinian.  Survival of the fittest.  Like the dinosaurs they are, their time has passed.  I no longer spend a dollar every morning for a copy of the local paper.  I rollover, grab my iPhone, and instantly have access to virtually every news source in the world.  Yep, “there’s an app for that.”)

Oh, yeah!  There’s also this little matter of Obama/Pelosi/Reid et al, wanting to absorb 1/7th of the country’s economy, otherwise known as “health care,” into the federal bureaucracy! 

Not to mention the fact that President Barack Hussein Obama bitch-slapped Israel in front of the entire U.N General Assembly this week - a totally justifiable rebuke, to be sure!  After all, how dare Israel seek to hold on to tiny little slivers of land they retained after being invaded in 1967, unprovoked, by the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria.

I wonder if Obama has ever looked at a map, and noticed the size of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, in comparison to the already tiny amount of real estate Israel holds to so tentatively?  The Israelis call what they have, a “country.”  Over here, we’d refer to that amount of land as a National Park, or, “New Jersey.”

And I wonder if Obama has ever called up any of the oh-so benevolent, Allah-loving dictators of those expansive Arabic territories, and asked them if they’d be willing to carve off a tiny chunk of their own desert paradises, upon which their beloved Palestinian brothers and sisters could settle, and build their own peaceful and sovereign democratic state?

Nah.  I doubt it.

Now, let me think . . . which 20th Century world leader also had it in for those nasty old Jews?  Oh, yeah . . . that German fascist with the goofy mustache.

OK.  Fine.  For now, let’s set aside the Marxist fear-mongering, and acknowledge that indeed, it is the Fascists who are currently dominating the agendas of both the White House and Congress.  So, damn-it, let’s be proud of who we are, and not run away from the infinitely and historically more accurate label of, Fascist.  If we’re gonna quack like ducks, let’s proudly call ourselves “Ducks!”

So . . . taking into account the massive portions of the American economy that Obama and this Congress have set their sights upon commandeering, and then overlaying that with Obama’s personal animus towards Israel . . . one is inclined to paraphrase the closing line of JFK’s speech, as repeated by his little brother Teddie the Water-Treader at that 2008 Harvard ceremony:

“If that is what they mean by a Fascist… Then I am proud to say I am a Fascist.”

Come on, you liberals, progressives, greenies, moderates, and members of the Communist Party of America!  You wanted him.  You voted for him!  You still support his agenda . . . right?  Then get out there and countermarch against those unpatriotic tea-baggers – trade in that symbol of capitalist oppression, the Stars and Stripes, and replace it with the enduring symbol of your newly realized faith in National Socialism, the swastika!

Remember – “honesty is the best policy” - so by golly, get out there and proudly call yourself what you really are . . . Fascists!

21 comments:

  1. i am not smart enough to understand your rantings. But I like all the big words, and smelly inewwwwwwwwendoes. I hope his policies fail, and then we can take back the midterm elections. BTW I was just kidding first few lines, nice to see a music lover that is not a fruity azz liberal. and again BTW u know me, im easy.

    Marcus

    ReplyDelete
  2. good work. Are all trumpet players so clued in? Saddly no. You play a mean essay. As a popular talk show hosts sometimes points out, if JFK were coming out now in this arena of ideological politics, he would be a Republican. That's probably over stated by I get the point. He would be a Ron Paul type trying to fight off both sides...but less troll-looking. And instead of M.Monroe he would be banging Sarah Palin.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon -

    Banging Sarah Palin, instead of Marilyn Monroe? (Hmmm.) The thought of that just made my day.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Personal attacks, spam and obscene language will be deleted."

    i won't bother then.

    you can guess what i was going to say though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. no one is even going to see that last post are they?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "exalting nation and race over the individual"... "dictatorial leader" = government telling you how to run your business? That's quite a reduction there. evidently the fascist movement in germany around the 1940s can be reduced to economic terms. good to know.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rex - if I am being fined $25,000 or spending one year in jail, because I refuse to buy health insurance . . . as stated in the current legislation . . . then "nation has been exalted above the individual," and in lieu of being a victim of "racial" hatred, I am being persecuted for preferring "freedom" over "statism." Substitute "Jew" with "libertarian."

    ReplyDelete
  8. That was pretty well written. I would have to say I would agree with you. It's refreshing to read something that actually has intelligence behind it, rather than listening to the crap my husband watches every day (Olbermann and Maddow). Thanks for that! Intelligence is so refreshing. Yes, taking over health care is a bad idea. Bailing out any corporation is a bad idea. Big government: very bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I went to Clemson. Can you use 2 syllable words, so I do not have to use the dictionary ? I think I agree with everything, I am still on the word *pejoratives*. Is this the first post? If so, where is the sex? Please do not tell me that the MM/Palin comments count. and....where is the religion ? oh, that was the mention of Israel.
    okay...maybe that can count. good stuff Bake.

    DF

    ReplyDelete
  10. Praise Hussein!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve,

    Would you consider Canada a fascist state then?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Richard - I just had That disussion with a bunch of Canadians. Seems they don't think so. Then again, they were personally socialist, who were all too happy to see Canada heading further left.

    While not THERE, yet, they are certainly further down the path towards being a fascist society. Afterall, they have already taken huge hits in the free speech department.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ok so if they are not fascist yet then The US is not there yet. I mean the Canadians are closer to socialism or Democratic Socialism which is a lot different than a fascist regime or Banana Republic dictatorship. Great Britain, Germany, and France are considered Democratic socialist countries right?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Richard - the bottom line, is that the US, Canada, and Western Europe are implementing more and more 'fascist-style' pieces of legislation, and reducing or eliminating more and more individual and corporate freedoms - including absorbing vast sectors of the free economy into the governments' control. The only thing we are still missing is total autocratic or authoritarian control. But when you start penalizing or imprisoning people because they don't buy or use the government's approved program's, then there's not much difference.

    Democracies can be just as authoritarian as a dictator. Remember, the "majority" in the US use to consider blacks "less than human."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dale - check out this blog for your question about the "sex" thing:

    http://religionpoliticsandsex.blogspot.com/2009/09/sex-bible-things-they-didnt-teach-me-in.html#more

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lol. You keep using these words. I don't think you know what they mean.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lola - not sure what words you're talking about.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. I see more politics then Religion and Sex in this blog. What's up with that? :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Aren't you Freeper Nazis talking about murdering Obama and putting 75 million liberals to the gas chambers when you "take back your country"? You right-wingers are the real Nazis, only you don't know it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey just a heads up, but liberal actually is the accurate word for Barack Obama. He does advocate more government control in economics, but he also allows more freedom socially. Fascist and Marxist aren't even political ideologies, they're parties! And since our president already has a party he won't fit into those boxes for you. Freshen up on your ideological box next time.

    A proud liberal


    *excuse my tardiness to the discussion. i just stumble upon it while looking for a facebook group protesting communications monopolies

    ReplyDelete

Fire away! But, keep it civil. Personal attacks, spam and obscene language will be deleted.