The Frat Boy Ships Out - The Economist on Bush Presidency

[Sasquatch]

HE LEAVES the White House as one of the least popular and most divisive presidents in American history. At home, his approval rating has been stuck in the 20s for months; abroad, George Bush has presided over the most catastrophic collapse in America’s reputation since the second world war. The American economy is in deep recession, brought on by a crisis that forced Mr Bush to preside over huge and unpopular bail-outs.

The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660)

[burmafrd]

Hey sasqie you have been kind of absent. Though I see the absence did not improve your posts.

[Cajuncowboy]

HE LEAVES the White House as one of the least popular and most divisive presidents in American history. At home, his approval rating has been stuck in the 20s for months; abroad, George Bush has presided over the most catastrophic collapse in America’s reputation since the second world war. The American economy is in deep recession, brought on by a crisis that forced Mr Bush to preside over huge and unpopular bail-outs.

The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660)

Hey look, more garbage. Did you find it on the mall after his majesty addressed you the other day?

[Sasquatch]

Hey look, more garbage.

Is there a specific part of the article that you find objectionable?

[vta]

Is there a specific part of the article that you find objectionable?

Well, I can't answer for him, but if the author had a shred of integrity and wished to deal in realities, he most certainly would have omitted this gem: A Bush relative describes family gatherings as “funeral wakes”..

This kind of sophomoric writing just doesn't hold water; any experienced reporter would know this and make his case based on an opinion he had faith in, instead of cryptic hearsay.

You cant help but have the echo of this incompetence ring throughout the rest of the article...

[Sasquatch]

Well, I can't answer for him, but if the author had a shred of integrity and wished to deal in realities, he most certainly would have omitted this gem: A Bush relative describes family gatherings as “funeral wakes”..

This kind of sophomoric writing just doesn't hold water; any experienced reporter would know this and make his case based on an opinion he had faith in, instead of cryptic hearsay.

You cant help but have the echo of this incompetence ring throughout the rest of the article...

I'll grant you that that passage was gratuitous but labeling the entire article "incompetent" as a result is just as hyperbolic. The Economist endorsed Bush in 2000 so their assessment of his presidency cannot be cavalierly dismissed as liberal claptrap.

[vta]

I'll grant you that that passage was gratuitous but labeling the entire article "incompetent" as a result is just as hyperbolic. The Economist endorsed Bush in 2000 so their assessment of his presidency cannot be cavalierly dismissed as liberal claptrap.

I said that incompetence echos throughout, as in you can't help but now be wary of just how honest this guy cares to be.

It's a pretty glaring/amateurish snafu - all in a tirade of condemning one man for the bumbling of his job - and it's entirely legitimate and not at all hyperbolic, to be speculative about the rest.

I won't go into screaming about the source too much, though; it's an easy out.

As for the Economist endorsing him, if they're anything of the sort about being true to their profession, they let their own reporters voice their opinions, and I'd wager it wasn't this guy doing the endorsing. Or am I wrong in that regard?

[Sasquatch]

I said that incompetence echos throughout, as in you can't help but now be wary of just how honest this guy cares to be.

It's a pretty glaring/amateurish snafu - all in a tirade of condemning one man for the bumbling of his job - and it's entirely legitimate and not at all hyperbolic, to be speculative about the rest.

I won't go into screaming about the source too much, though; it's an easy out.

As for the Economist endorsing him, if they're anything of the sort about being true to their profession, they let their own reporters voice their opinions, and I'd wager it wasn't this guy doing the endorsing. Or am I wrong in that regard?

I'll indulge your deflection since no one else seems to have actually read the piece, although I find it telling that instead of engaging the central points of the article you decide to quibble about one offhand remark. Here's the paragraph in its entirety for those following at home:

America is embroiled in two wars, one of which Mr Bush launched against the tide of world opinion. The Bush family name, once among the most illustrious in American political life, is now so tainted that Jeb, George’s younger brother, recently decided not to run for the Senate from Florida. A Bush relative describes family gatherings as “funeral wakes”.

I called it "gratuitous," even though it's relevant to the author establishing that the President's inner circle is as somber as the rest of the country, but you are leveling far more serious charges, calling into question the author's competence and honesty. What exactly leads you to believe that the quote is false?

[VCDefectors]

While the article did a decent job of highlighting the key points of the Bush presidency, it's argument (i.e. whether Bush was a good or bad president) is a major flip-FLOP. Put me in the camp of TBD. I don't think anyone will know for years the ramifications of the decisions President Bush made in his tenure. I have mixed feelings about it, myself.

[iceberg]

I'll indulge your deflection since no one else seems to have actually read the piece,

no need to. if you post it it's bad bush and you'll defend to your dying breath how right that article is and how "counter points" are to be dismissed on the way to yet another bush bashing.

[BrAinPaiNt]

no need to. if you post it it's bad bush and you'll defend to your dying breath how right that article is and how "counter points" are to be dismissed on the way to yet another bush bashing.

And others will defend W to the core without even reading the article. Heck some in here defend W on some things... even when W admits otherwise.

:laugh2:

[iceberg]

And others will defend W to the core without even reading the article. Heck some in here defend W on some things... even when W admits otherwise.

:laugh2:

who's defending bush? for me, my saying all sassy does is post slams to bush doesn't defend bush or the slam in question. long ago in a forum far away i asked sassy to at least *try* to post something that was fair and balanced.

he flatly refused and got pretty upset that i would dare ask for unbiased viewpoints.

so i know when sassy gets his thesarus out and posts an article, it's bad bush. not defending bush at all just noting the status quo.

[BrAinPaiNt]

who's defending bush? for me, my saying all sassy does is post slams to bush doesn't defend bush or the slam in question. long ago in a forum far away i asked sassy to at least *try* to post something that was fair and balanced.

he flatly refused and got pretty upset that i would dare ask for unbiased viewpoints.

so i know when sassy gets his thesarus out and posts an article, it's bad bush. not defending bush at all just noting the status quo.

I think I have already shown you plenty of times where Some defend W even when W admits partial blame to something...or have you forgot.

[iceberg]

I think I have already shown you plenty of times where Some defend W even when W admits partial blame to something...or have you forgot.

nope. i'm sure they have. i've likely hit that list at least once or twice in my life (if not more) to you.

but for my own mindset, i try to see all views and not slant to any one given way. i'm open for honest dialog about how we see things. i've lost my interest in just seeing someone post time and time and time again BAD BUSH as the only thing they know to do.

even with him gone now you think he'd get happy, but it continues.

so, if you're backhanded-slapping me for my views in the past, i got it and can see where you're coming from. if you're digging at others, 'eh, not gonna get into trying to defend them. we're all grown ups in here. but none of this changes the fact when sassy posts, it's bad bush and nothing short of that will do.

if i missed any posts about bush that were not slaps by him, feel free to correct me.

[vta]

I'll indulge your deflection since no one else seems to have actually read the piece, although I find it telling that instead of engaging the central points of the article you decide to quibble about one offhand remark. Here's the paragraph in its entirety for those following at home:

America is embroiled in two wars, one of which Mr Bush launched against the tide of world opinion. The Bush family name, once among the most illustrious in American political life, is now so tainted that Jeb, George’s younger brother, recently decided not to run for the Senate from Florida. A Bush relative describes family gatherings as “funeral wakes”.

I called it "gratuitous," even though it's relevant to the author establishing that the President's inner circle is as somber as the rest of the country, but you are leveling far more serious charges, calling into question the author's competence and honesty. What exactly leads you to believe that the quote is false?

That's amusing that you find it relevant to establish a belief, while my finding it's specious nature relevant, to being wary of the author is 'quibbling'.

Really, something as amateurish in journalism. It's like Felix Unger calling a touchdown a homerun... Sorry, his points are sullied by taking this sophomoric tact. If he can't substantiate it, he would know better, if he were wiser he would have just left it out.

The points? There's nothing really new in this article.

[iceberg]

That's amusing that you find it relevant to establish a belief, while my finding it's specious nature relevant, to being wary of the author is 'quibbling'.

Really, something as amateurish in journalism. It's like Felix Unger calling a touchdown a homerun... Sorry, his points are sullied by taking this sophomoric tact. If he can't substantiate it, he would know better, if he were wiser he would have just left it out.

The points? There's nothing really new in this article.

sometimes it's more important to get digs in that be right. i mean, if you say it enough people won't see the difference anymore.

[BrAinPaiNt]

nope. i'm sure they have. i've likely hit that list at least once or twice in my life (if not more) to you.

but for my own mindset, i try to see all views and not slant to any one given way. i'm open for honest dialog about how we see things. i've lost my interest in just seeing someone post time and time and time again BAD BUSH as the only thing they know to do.

even with him gone now you think he'd get happy, but it continues.

so, if you're backhanded-slapping me for my views in the past, i got it and can see where you're coming from. if you're digging at others, 'eh, not gonna get into trying to defend them. we're all grown ups in here. but none of this changes the fact when sassy posts, it's bad bush and nothing short of that will do.

if i missed any posts about bush that were not slaps by him, feel free to correct me.

You must feel really guilty if you allude I am talking about you. Fact is I was not. And in one instance I remember a thread where I said someone was defending W beyond all belief and you said something like I have not seen one person do it...so I pointed it out.:D

[iceberg]

You must feel really guilty if you allude I am talking about you. Fact is I was not. And in one instance I remember a thread where I said someone was defending W beyond all belief and you said something like I have not seen one person do it...so I pointed it out.:D

possibly. i'm sure i've done many strange things in my time so yea, i include myself in blanket phrases when maybe i shouldn't.

[MetalHead]

HE LEAVES the White House as one of the least popular and most divisive presidents in American history. At home, his approval rating has been stuck in the 20s for months; abroad, George Bush has presided over the most catastrophic collapse in America’s reputation since the second world war. The American economy is in deep recession, brought on by a crisis that forced Mr Bush to preside over huge and unpopular bail-outs.

The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660)

The BSD is strong with this one.

[Sasquatch]

That's amusing that you find it relevant to establish a belief, while my finding it's specious nature relevant, to being wary of the author is 'quibbling'.

Really, something as amateurish in journalism. It's like Felix Unger calling a touchdown a homerun... Sorry, his points are sullied by taking this sophomoric tact. If he can't substantiate it, he would know better, if he were wiser he would have just left it out.

The points? There's nothing really new in this article.


It's hardly specious or sophomoric if the reporter is actually quoting a Bush confidante characterizing family gatherings in that manner. After all, he is asserting the opinion that the family name has lost its political luster as a result of the presidency. That observation hardly makes this reflection a hatchet piece.

Geeze, I thought the republican sympathizers on the board would appreciate the fact that the Economist actually praised some of Bush's accomplishments. I guess one would have had to read the entire article to have noted that, something very few people who have posted in this thread seem to have done.

[vta]

It's hardly specious or sophomoric if the reporter is actually quoting a Bush confidante characterizing family gatherings in that manner. After all, he is asserting the opinion that the family name has lost its political luster as a result of the presidency. That observation hardly makes this reflection a hatchet piece.

Geeze, I thought the republican sympathizers on the board would appreciate the fact that the Economist actually praised some of Bush's accomplishments. I guess one would have had to read the entire article to have noted that, something very few people who have posted in this thread seem to have done.

Sure, if in fact he were quoting a Bush relative, it wouldn't be those things. But throwing out cryptic junk like that - does it really seem likely a Bush relative is going to say something like that, in this kind of climate? It's laughable.

I don't care if anyone rags on his gaffs, or praises his accomplishments, but good Lord, come up with something believable or leave it out. I understand how 'anonymous sources' are full of fecal matter when it comes to broaching a perception not all that copacetic with one's own, so I'll just take them all with the same grain of salt.

All in all, the article may have merit, ( I did read it), I just happen to think the author sullied his own article by trying that.

[Sasquatch]

Sure, if in fact he were quoting a Bush relative, it wouldn't be those things. But throwing out cryptic junk like that - does it really seem likely a Bush relative is going to say something like that, in this kind of climate? It's laughable.

I don't care if anyone rags on his gaffs, or praises his accomplishments, but good Lord, come up with something believable or leave it out. I understand how 'anonymous sources' are full of fecal matter when it comes to broaching a perception not all that copacetic with one's own, so I'll just take them all with the same grain of salt.

All in all, the article may have merit, ( I did read it), I just happen to think the author sullied his own article by trying that.

It's a quibble because you're getting your cackles up over a relatively minor and ultimately insignificant point made in the article which has little to do with the author's main contention. It would be like your wife crying hysterically over your failed marriage of umpteen years because you left the toilet seat up once.

[burmafrd]

Sasqie you really have lost this one since its clear that no one cares about an article with an obvious bias and agenda except you and other liberals.

Brain tries to come off as impartial but fails once again since he clearly is not.
At least not on the subject of Bush.

[Temo]

I thought it was a well thought-out article. I don't have a problem with the "funeral wake" statement either. Ultimately it's irrelevant to the story, and I know that on first read I completely skipped it. Didn't even remember it until someone here brought it up.

[burmafrd]

A well thought out article does not have stupid, bias proving and agenda driven lines in it.

[silverbear]

Well, I can't answer for him, but if the author had a shred of integrity and wished to deal in realities, he most certainly would have omitted this gem: A Bush relative describes family gatherings as “funeral wakes”..

Strange how Newsmax and WorldNetDaily will do the EXACT SAME THING, quote anonymous sources, on a near-daily basis, and you on the right eat it up with a spoon...

[silverbear]

no need to. if you post it it's bad bush and you'll defend to your dying breath how right that article is and how "counter points" are to be dismissed on the way to yet another bush bashing.

Ice, no matter what Sasquatch's agenda is, don't you find it compelling that a publication that SUPPORTED Dubya at the outset, now judges him to be a very bad, indeed incompetent, President??

What's amusing is how quick some in here are to label the Economist "biased", in spite of their past support of their hero...

[silverbear]

sometimes it's more important to get digs in that be right.

Ol' buddy, it sounds like you don't want him to post ANY negative articles, even when they ARE right...

And I'm sorry, but your choosing to attack him in this thread comes off as a desire not to consider the opinions expressed in the Economist's article...

Mind you, I'm pretty sure that was NOT your motivation, that you posted what you did because Sasquatch irritates you with his leftist propagandizing, but that's how you make yourself appear to anybody who doesn't know the history between you two...

[silverbear]

Sure, if in fact he were quoting a Bush relative, it wouldn't be those things. But throwing out cryptic junk like that - does it really seem likely a Bush relative is going to say something like that, in this kind of climate? It's laughable.

Do you also laugh when Newsmax throws out "cryptic junk like that"?? They do it a LOT...

Somehow, I doubt it...

I don't care if anyone rags on his gaffs, or praises his accomplishments, but good Lord, come up with something believable or leave it out.

Actually, I don't find it hard to believe that these days, Bush family gatherings are not real happy occasions... meanwhile, are you completely certain that the author did NOT get such a quote from a Bush family relative who requested anonymity??

[BrAinPaiNt]

Sasqie you really have lost this one since its clear that no one cares about an article with an obvious bias and agenda except you and other liberals.

Brain tries to come off as impartial but fails once again since he clearly is not.
At least not on the subject of Bush.

I never tried to come off as impartial. Never commented on the article as far if it was good or bad.

[silverbear]

A well thought out article does not have stupid, bias proving and agenda driven lines in it.

To you, everything that is critical of Dubya is "biased"...

Even when it comes from a publication that SUPPORTED him for the longest time...

In your world, the list of "unbiased" media sources consists of nothing but Faux News, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily et al... which is funny, inasmuch as it's hard to find media sources MORE biased than them... but they share YOUR biases, so they're OK in your book...

[vta]

Strange how Newsmax and WorldNetDaily will do the EXACT SAME THING, quote anonymous sources, on a near-daily basis, and you on the right eat it up with a spoon...

Do I indeed? Perhaps, since you 'come armed with facts', you can provide some evidence of this?

[vta]

Do you also laugh when Newsmax throws out "cryptic junk like that"?? They do it a LOT...

Somehow, I doubt it...

No I laugh when you show yourself to be completely without facts and contradict your own silly assertions on a daily basis.


Actually, I don't find it hard to believe that these days, Bush family gatherings are not real happy occasions... meanwhile, are you completely certain that the author did NOT get such a quote from a Bush family relative who requested anonymity??

You don't say? How many Bush family gatherings have you attended?

[iceberg]

Ice, no matter what Sasquatch's agenda is, don't you find it compelling that a publication that SUPPORTED Dubya at the outset, now judges him to be a very bad, indeed incompetent, President??

What's amusing is how quick some in here are to label the Economist "biased", in spite of their past support of their hero...

i just don't care to dive into one-sided articles designed to bash bush.

if that ever happens to obama, i will get tired of it too.

it's like a broken record that skips on what it *thinks* is an intelligent part but whether it is or not doesn't matter. move on and find something new to parrot about.

[burmafrd]

This fascination with bashing Bush even after he has left office is telling about the charactor of those that do it.

[iceberg]

This fascination with bashing Bush even after he has left office is telling about the charactor of those that do it.

or how pissed off bush made them.

i'll agree it's stupid to bash him now that you got what you want and he's done. but it was stupid to just bash bash bash for 8 years and then sit around and do it some more like "wha??? it's all true!!" when your entire history has never given a damn about truth, only perception of the bash.

when every article you ever posted about the man was to bash him, you just ignore him. don't blame "us" if he finally posts something worth a damn after hundreds of shameless blind bashing already ahead of it. long ago we knew sassys only goal in life was to demean bush and when asked politely, he flatly refused to be objective or unbiased.

so it would be an epic fail of untold proportions to think he's suddenly being honest about it now.

[DFWJC]

I'll grant you that that passage was gratuitous but labeling the entire article "incompetent" as a result is just as hyperbolic. The Economist endorsed Bush in 2000 so their assessment of his presidency cannot be cavalierly dismissed as liberal claptrap.

A pre 9-11 endorsment means very little. The better question would be "who did they endorse in 2004?"

As for The Economist, they do beat up on the US at times---but that comes more the the Euro need to bulid themselves up. :)

[Temo]

A pre 9-11 endorsment means very little. The better question would be "who did they endorse in 2004?"

As for The Economist, they do beat up on the US at times---but that comes more the the Euro need to bulid themselves up. :)

The Economist has been known historically as a very pro-US publication, with many US-based contributors. They were supported Bush moreso than most European publications due to Bush's support for free trade (which any economist, like me, could support). They have turned away from Bush especially in the past couple of years however... and supported McCain until the latter stages of the campaign, when they complained that they wanted "the old McCain back" (whatever that means).

[DFWJC]

The Economist has been known historically as a very pro-US publication, with many US-based contributors. They were supported Bush moreso than most European publications due to Bush's support for free trade (which any economist, like me, could support). They have turned away from Bush especially in the past couple of years however... and supported McCain until the latter stages of the campaign, when they complained that they wanted "the old McCain back" (whatever that means).

I'm a subscriber....save your breath. Just poking. I appreciate what you're saying.

[Temo]

I'm a subscriber....save your breath. Just poking. I appreciate what you're saying.

k. :)

I also, by the way, don't mean to suggest that they are entirely pro-US either. Just moreso than most European publications.

[silverbear]

You don't say? How many Bush family gatherings have you attended?

None-- how 'bout you??

[silverbear]

i just don't care to dive into one-sided articles designed to bash bush.

But the article being discussed here really wasn't one-sided, it gave Dubya props for the things that the author thinks he did right...

It's precisely because it was the Economist that this article is thought-provoking... that publication has simply not been a left wing, bash Bush at every chance publication...

[iceberg]

But the article being discussed here really wasn't one-sided, it gave Dubya props for the things that the author thinks he did right...

It's precisely because it was the Economist that this article is thought-provoking... that publication has simply not been a left wing, bash Bush at every chance publication...

maybe not. but all the articles i have bothered to read that sassy posted was all bush bashing.

you cry wolf enough i just quit listening. don't look at me funny if you finally have a point.

[burmafrd]

Silver and Sassy and ARgle andJiggsy and company keep posting the same garbage over and over again and then wonder why they are laughed at and ignored by most.Talk about oblivious in their hatred.....

[iceberg]

Silver and Sassy and ARgle andJiggsy and company keep posting the same garbage over and over again and then wonder why they are laughed at and ignored by most.Talk about oblivious in their hatred.....

talk about epic irony...

[Rackat]

talk about epic irony...
^^This.

:hammer:

[ScipioCowboy]

None-- how 'bout you??

In this regard, the onus of proof isn't on VTA. It's on the journalist who claims to be privy to the happenings at Bush family functions. It's also on the poster who claims to know the news sources that VTA "eats up with a spoon."

[vta]

None-- how 'bout you??

The same number of cryptic quotes I'm passing off as facts: 0. ;)

[vta]

In this regard, the onus of proof isn't on VTA. It's on the journalist who claims to be privy to the happenings at Bush family functions. It's also on the poster who claims to know the news sources that VTA "eats up with a spoon."

At least someone caught that... :D

[neosapien23]

While the article did a decent job of highlighting the key points of the Bush presidency, it's argument (i.e. whether Bush was a good or bad president) is a major flip-FLOP. Put me in the camp of TBD. I don't think anyone will know for years the ramifications of the decisions President Bush made in his tenure. I have mixed feelings about it, myself.


I never thought I would agree with you, but yes it is way too early to judge the former President. History will either prove him right or very foolish.

[ScipioCowboy]

At least someone caught that... :D

Can you envision a world in which journalists can make crass generalizations and perfunctory assessments without any substantiation, and the onus of proof falls on the reader to prove them wrong?

Oh, wait. Some might argue we already live in such a world.:p:

[vta]

While the article did a decent job of highlighting the key points of the Bush presidency, it's argument (i.e. whether Bush was a good or bad president) is a major flip-FLOP. Put me in the camp of TBD. I don't think anyone will know for years the ramifications of the decisions President Bush made in his tenure. I have mixed feelings about it, myself.

What he said...

[Batman]

HE LEAVES the White House as one of the least popular and most divisive presidents in American history. At home, his approval rating has been stuck in the 20s for months; abroad, George Bush has presided over the most catastrophic collapse in America’s reputation since the second world war. The American economy is in deep recession, brought on by a crisis that forced Mr Bush to preside over huge and unpopular bail-outs.

The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660)



Yes, goodbye to the Frat Boy, say hello to the Fascist Dictator.

[silverbear]

maybe not. but all the articles i have bothered to read that sassy posted was all bush bashing.

you cry wolf enough i just quit listening. don't look at me funny if you finally have a point.

Oh, I thought you were making a specific argument about this article that he posted... I guess I see where you're coming from, I kinda feel the same way about the neverending stream of anti-Obama articles coming from the likes of JBond, and a few others...

I guess that's one way we're different though, instead of tuning those types out, I prefer to go after them, demonstrate where their thinking is flawed...

[silverbear]

Silver and Sassy and ARgle andJiggsy and company keep posting the same garbage over and over again and then wonder why they are laughed at and ignored by most.Talk about oblivious in their hatred.....

Clearly YOU'RE not ignoring us... in fact, I'd say half of your posts these days invoke my name...

I'm clearly deep under your pelt... and I don't see too many others laughing at me... gettin' pissed at me, yes; laughing, no...

And in case you haven't noticed, these days most of my posts aren't hater posts, they're posts DEFENDING Obama against YOUR criticisms... YOU, and those like you, are the ones snarling your hatred on a daily basis...

[silverbear]

talk about epic irony...


Oooops, burm, looks like even those who pretty much agree with you are laughing at YOU...

[silverbear]

The same number of cryptic quotes I'm passing off as facts: 0. ;)


That was a stylish response, I can appreciate it... well said...

[silverbear]

Do I indeed? Perhaps, since you 'come armed with facts', you can provide some evidence of this?


Uhhhh, "you on the right" is clearly a GENERIC observation, based on the popularity with the right of such bogus "news" sites as the Drudge Report, Newsmax and WorldNetDaily...

Now, do I really need to provide examples of them using "cryptic quotes"??

[silverbear]

This fascination with bashing Bush even after he has left office is telling about the charactor of those that do it.

ROTFLMAO... what do you reckon the over/under is on the number of times YOU'VE invoked Clinton's name since he left office, hypocrite??

Is it over a thousand times?? Ten thousand times?? :D

[silverbear]

Can you envision a world in which journalists can make crass generalizations and perfunctory assessments without any substantiation, and the onus of proof falls on the reader to prove them wrong?

Oh, wait. Some might argue we already live in such a world.:p:

We do indeed... for proof, just read Newsmax or the Drudge Report or WorldNetDaily on a regular basis...

[silverbear]

Yes, goodbye to the Frat Boy, say hello to the Fascist Dictator.


LOL... Batman, you just proved that you know absolutely NOTHING about politics... congratulations...

Obama's critics say he's a SOCIALIST, which is just about the polar opposite of a FASCIST... indeed, fascism is a RIGHT WING political ideology...

And this "fascist" has now met with Republicans on two-three occasions since taking office, trying to build a consensus on his stimulus plan... that's not how a "fascist" operates, that type tends to be the "we'll do it my way, and you'll like it" sort...

Y'know, like the previous President was; no discussion, no debate, you just make up your mind, and that's the way it's gonna be done, by Gawd...

[trickblue]

We do indeed... for proof, just read Newsmax or the Drudge Report or WorldNetDaily on a regular basis...

and on the contrary... NYT, Boston Globe, LA Times, WaPo... etc... ;)

[Aikbach]

Still griping about Bush? How long will that horse be beaten? Ridiculous, you have the hyper liberal surrender monkey in office, can't you be happy even in your much solicited despair?:)

[CowboyMcCoy]

LOL... Batman, you just proved that you know absolutely NOTHING about politics... congratulations...

Obama's critics say he's a SOCIALIST, which is just about the polar opposite of a FASCIST... indeed, fascism is a RIGHT WING political ideology...

And this "fascist" has now met with Republicans on two-three occasions since taking office, trying to build a consensus on his stimulus plan... that's not how a "fascist" operates, that type tends to be the "we'll do it my way, and you'll like it" sort...

Y'know, like the previous President was; no discussion, no debate, you just make up your mind, and that's the way it's gonna be done, by Gawd...

I was thinking the same thing, but then I thought I'd just let his ignorance speak for itself. LOL

[ScipioCowboy]

LOL... Batman, you just proved that you know absolutely NOTHING about politics... congratulations...

Obama's critics say he's a SOCIALIST, which is just about the polar opposite of a FASCIST... indeed, fascism is a RIGHT WING political ideology...


Not necessarily.

Joe Stalin was both a fascist and socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism

[silverbear]

and on the contrary... NYT, Boston Globe, LA Times, WaPo... etc... ;)

They have their agendas, but they also strive to adhere to a certain level of journalistic integrity... in part, this means they try to avoid "cryptic quotes"...

The journalistic standards of the websites I mentioned is considerably more lax, to the point of being nonexistent...

[silverbear]

Still griping about Bush? How long will that horse be beaten?

Perhaps as long as the right has been griping about Clinton??


you have the hyper liberal surrender monkey in office

Whoa, that doesn't sound like the Aikbach I'm used to reading...

[silverbear]

I was thinking the same thing, but then I thought I'd just let his ignorance speak for itself. LOL

Gotta point out when some Obama basher really doesn't know what he's talking about...

[Aikbach]

Perhaps as long as the right has been griping about Clinton??




Whoa, that doesn't sound like the Aikbach I'm used to reading...Note the smiley face, I'm allowed to be cheeky.;)

[Aikbach]

Not necessarily.

Joe Stalin was both a fascist and socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascismThose National Socialists in Germany seemed pretty fascist minded as well.

[masomenos]

Not necessarily.

Joe Stalin was both a fascist and socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism

Also, the Nazi government in Germany is, in most circles, considered fascist. Nazi of course stands for National Socialist.

[masomenos]

Those National Socialists in Germany seemed pretty fascist minded as well.

You got that in just seconds before me! You will rue the day, Aikbach, you will RUE THE DAY!

[Aikbach]

Also, the Nazi government in Germany is, in most circles, considered fascist. Nazi of course stands for National Socialist. Is there a reverb in here?
I'll be Echo you be the Bunnymen. (Dated reference but someone will get it)

[silverbear]

Not necessarily.

Joe Stalin was both a fascist and socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism


Uhhh, not quite... let's look at the first paragraph of the article you cite:

Social fascism was a theory supported by the Communist International (Comintern) during the late 1920s and early 1930s, which believed that social democracy was a variant of fascism because it stood in the way of a complete and final transition to communism.

IOW, social fascism was an ENEMY to communism... now, let's read a bit further:

This view was accepted by Joseph Stalin who described fascism and social democracy as "twin brothers", arguing that fascism depends on the active support of the social democracy and that the social democracy depends on the active support of fascism.

This Stalin pointing out what he sees as the FLAWS in social fascism, not expressing an endorsement of it...

IOW, Stalin was DEFINING social fascism, not ADVOCATING it... he did so in the spirit of identifying an enemy...

You completely misinterpreted the article you cited, Scipio...

[masomenos]

Is there a reverb in here?
I'll be Echo you be the Bunnymen. (Dated reference but someone will get it)

At my age, I'm not sure if I should be glad or depressed that I understand that reference. Damn 20-something angst, always leaving me uncertain.

[ScipioCowboy]

Uhhh, not quite... let's look at the first paragraph of the article you cite:



IOW, social fascism was an ENEMY to communism... now, let's read a bit further:



This Stalin pointing out what he sees as the FLAWS in social fascism, not expressing an endorsement of it...

IOW, Stalin was DEFINING social fascism, not ADVOCATING it... he did so in the spirit of identifying an enemy...

You completely misinterpreted the article you cited, Scipio...

Actually, I just linked the wrong article. Here's the correct one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

It states, "there is no agreement on the position of generic fascism on the political spectrum, as has been described as left, right, and center."

And the definition of fascism is simply this: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism


There's very little question that Stalin was a fascist, and that fascists can emerge from any area on the political spectrum.

[Sasquatch]

Actually, I just posted the wrong article. Here's the correct one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

It states, "there is no agreement on the position of generic fascism on the political spectrum, as has been described as left, right, and center."

And the definition of fascism is simply this: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism


There's very little question that Stalin was a fascist, and that fascists can emerge from any area on the political spectrum.

Communism had an international dimension which is one of the reasons why Fascists and Commies in Germany, Italy, and Spain were mortal enemies.

[ScipioCowboy]

Communism had an international dimension which is one of the reasons why Fascists and Commies in Germany, Italy, and Spain were mortal enemies.

No doubt.

I was just making the point that fascists can arise from anywhere across the political spectrum. In fact, one article (which I've since lost) stated that many of Hitler's economic ideals were quite centrist.

And on that note, I'd like to send a message to all you centrists out there who claim to be oh so open-minded and middle of the road: I know your dirty secret, you little Hitlerites! :p:

[Sasquatch]

No doubt.

I was just making the point that fascists can arise anywhere on the political spectrum. In fact, one article (which I've since lost) stated that many of Hitler's economic ideals were quite centrist.

And on that note, I'd like to send a message to all you centrists out there who claim to be oh so open-minded and middle of the road: I know your dirty secret, you little Hitlerites! :p:

If you employ a simplified, generic definition of fascism taken from sources such as Wikipedia and online dictionaries you would reach that conclusion.

Very few professional historians, however, would characterize the U.S.S.R. under Stalin as a fascist state.

Trotsky even composed a tract in the 30's entitled "Fascism, what it is and how to fight it."

[ScipioCowboy]

If you employ a simplified, generic definition of fascism taken from sources such as Wikipedia and online dictionaries you would reach that conclusion.

Very few professional historians, however, would characterize the U.S.S.R. under Stalin as a fascist state.

I've had a number of history professors label Stalin a fascist. I'll take their word and the word of the dictionary over yours.;)

[Sasquatch]

I've had a number of history professors label Stalin a fascist.

Mmmmhmmmm. :rolleyes:

[ScipioCowboy]

Very few professional historians, however, would characterize the U.S.S.R. under Stalin as a fascist state.


Mmmmhmmmm. :rolleyes:

See how easy that was?:D

[Sasquatch]

See how easy that was?:D

Since the history professors at your university did such a woeful job of explaining to you the nuances that distinguish fascism from communism, let me briefly enumerate a few that are commonly cited by more knowledgeable and competent practitioners of the discipline:

1. Communism was atheistic while fascism was vaguely deistic and willing to accommodate organized religions that acknowledged the state's supremacy.
2. Fascist intervention in the economy was less extensive than the Stalinist regime's.
3. Communism stressed the abolition of classes whereas fascism emphasized the unity of classes.
4. Fascism was nationalistic while Communism was international in scope, Stalin's "socialism in one country" notwithstanding.

Do let us know what your professors think of that when you get a chance. ;)

[silverbear]

Note the smiley face, I'm allowed to be cheeky.;)

You absolutely are... LOL...

[silverbear]

Also, the Nazi government in Germany is, in most circles, considered fascist. Nazi of course stands for National Socialist.


Yeah, and communist regimes often call themselves "The People's Democratic so and so"...

[silverbear]

Okay, since some in here want to try to claim that fascism and communism are similar ideologies, instead of going to Wikipedia, let's go to some credible sources...

The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines fascism as:

a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed...

...a person of the far right in politics

And Dictionary.com offers this:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power

Meanwhile, Communism is defined by the Cambridge Online Dictionary thus:

the belief in a society without different classes in which the methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members

And Dictionary.com offers this take:

a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

IOW, Communism is a LEFT WING political philosophy, Fascism is a RIGHT WING political philosophy... Communism is a form of government run by a POLITICAL PARTY (the word it self comes from "communal"), Fascism is one run by one DICTATOR...

Yes, both are totalitarian, but that's about the extent of their similarities... they are fundamentally different philosophies, one cannot be a fascist and a communist at the same time...

One can be a Communist with totalitarian leanings, a la Stalin... to the extent that he centered all the power in his hands rather than in the Politburo, he wasn't a true Communist, but there are any number of levels that render it ludicrous to label him a Fascist...

Too many people use "fascist" as a synonym for "totalitarian", and when they do so, they reveal their political ignorance...

[vta]

Uhhhh, "you on the right" is clearly a GENERIC observation, based on the popularity with the right of such bogus "news" sites as the Drudge Report, Newsmax and WorldNetDaily...

Now, do I really need to provide examples of them using "cryptic quotes"??

No, you need to provide examples of me reading those sources and eating them up with a spoon...
Generic responses are not applicable.

[BrAinPaiNt]

No, you need to provide examples of me reading those sources and eating them up with a spoon...
Generic responses are not applicable.

I don't see YOU specifically eating them up with a spoon, others yes, not you specifically. However I think on occasion you might use a fork instead of a spoon and make a big mess. ;) :p:

[vta]

I don't see YOU specifically eating them up with a spoon, others yes, not you specifically. However I think on occasion you might use a fork instead of a spoon and make a big mess. ;) :p:

Actually it was chopsticks, hence the mess. :)

[masomenos]

Yeah, and communist regimes often call themselves "The People's Democratic so and so"...

That's because those states are democratic, just not in the sense that we are. Communists states are democratic in the sense that they have (or were supposed to have), to quote the dictionary, "the absence of hereditary or class distinctions or privileges". Communism, as you know, advocates a classless society.

[ScipioCowboy]

Since the history professors at your university did such a woeful job of explaining to you the nuances that distinguish fascism from communism, let me briefly enumerate a few that are commonly cited by more knowledgeable and competent practitioners of the discipline:

1. Communism was atheistic while fascism was vaguely deistic and willing to accommodate organized religions that acknowledged the state's supremacy.
2. Fascist intervention in the economy was less extensive than the Stalinist regime's.
3. Communism stressed the abolition of classes whereas fascism emphasized the unity of classes.
4. Fascism was nationalistic while Communism was international in scope, Stalin's "socialism in one country" notwithstanding.

Do let us know what your professors think of that when you get a chance. ;)

I know exactly what they would say: Your argument is based on a series of amorphous suppositions that you're presenting as fact but that you fail to substantiate with any documentation.

Then, they would fail you.;)

[iceberg]

I know what they would say: Your argument is based on a series of amorphous suppositions that you're presenting as fact but that you fail to substantiate with any documentation.

Then, they would fail you.;)

in this case "epic fail" would be in order.

sassy uses big words to try and just make people nod and agree to keep from understanding. he seems to hate it when the trick doesn't work and the smoke clears to the man behind the curtain reading a thesarus.

[Sasquatch]

I know exactly what they would say: Your argument is based on a series of amorphous suppositions that you're presenting as fact but that you fail to substantiate with any documentation.

Then, they would fail you.;)

I suppose they wouldn't take too kindly to their ignorance being exposed. People seldom do (ahem). :p:

By all means, bury your head in the sand. It's clear that you're more interested in playing to the gallery than in refining your understanding of fascism.

[masomenos]

I know exactly what they would say: Your argument is based on a series of amorphous suppositions that you're presenting as fact but that you fail to substantiate with any documentation.

Then, they would fail you.;)

:lmao2:

[iceberg]

I suppose they wouldn't take too kindly to their ignorance being exposed. People seldom do (ahem). :p:

By all means, bury your head in the sand. It's clear that you're more interested in playing to the gallery than in refining your understanding of fascism.

that 1st sentence is all about you, son.

all about you on all sides. you hate being exposed so you just keep saying it's them it's them...

[vta]

Eh.
Communism, Fascism, what's the difference? **** them both.

[Maikeru-sama]

This fascination with bashing Bush even after he has left office is telling about the charactor of those that do it.

Kind of like the obsession the Right had with President Bill Clinton?

[ScipioCowboy]

Okay, since some in here want to try to claim that fascism and communism are similar ideologies, instead of going to Wikipedia, let's go to some credible sources...

The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines fascism as:



And Dictionary.com offers this:



Meanwhile, Communism is defined by the Cambridge Online Dictionary thus:



And Dictionary.com offers this take:

For the record, I never said that communism and fascism were inherently "similar." I said that Stalin was a fascist. There are different forms of communism just as there are different forms of democracy. Stalin's form of communism differed from those who proceeded and preceded him.

Let's return to your definitions. The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines fascism thusly:

Fascism
noun [u]
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed

It never asserts that fascism is limited to one side of the political spectrum.

Now, let's look at the definition for fascist from the Cambridge Online Dictionary:

fascist
noun [C]
1 someone who supports fascism

2 a person of the far right (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=right) in politics

3 DISAPPROVING someone who does not allow any opposition:
He reckons all policemen are fascists and bullies.

Only one of the three definitions is qualified with "far right." The other two allow for persons and ideologies from either side of the political spectrum.

If you were arguing that most fascists have been right wing, I would agree with you. But I disagree with the assessment that fascism is a blanket "right wing political philosophy"--an assessment that isn't supported by any of our source material.

[Sasquatch]

Kind of like the obsession the Right had with President Bill Clinton?

Apart from that, "bashing" implies finding fault with someone by virtue of who they are regardless if it is warranted or not, whereas the Economist endorsed Bush in 2000 and has become critical of his presidency as a result of specific actions and policies. Plus, on more than one occasion, they praise some of his policies, including the surge in Iraq. Of course, you would have had to read the article to know this, which most of those objecting to it have not.

[vta]

Apart from that, "bashing" implies finding fault with someone by virtue of who they are regardless if it is warranted or not, whereas the Economist endorsed Bush in 2000 and has become critical of his presidency as a result of specific actions and policies. Plus, on more than one occasion, they praise some of his policies, including the surge in Iraq. Of course, you would have had to read the article to know this, which most of those objecting to it have not.

The problem with this article, is the same problem with all of them: they're all trying to get an early jump on an historical legacy. It can't be done. Time isn't impressed with impetuosity and can't be influenced.

Aside from the frivolous funeral remark, there's plenty of other unsubstantiated psyho-analyzing of the man's wants. The not so subtle numerous kicks in the pants (NEXT!) is not mitigated by some grudgingly added niceties. Mind you, I don't care, as I've said earlier, about defending Bush, I just don't think this article deserves as much stock as you feel it merits.

[Sasquatch]

Granted, these sources don't hold the weight of the dictionary.com's of the world or the generic entries of standard desktop dictionaries but I thought they might help advance the discussion .... in my favor. :D

From the Oxford Dictionary of Politics:

fascism A right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with a totalitarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism. In ancient Rome, the authority of the state was symbolized by the fasces, a bundle of rods bound together (signifying popular unity) with a protruding axe-head (denoting leadership). As such, it was appropriated by Mussolini to label the movement he led to power in Italy in 1922, but was subsequently generalized to cover a whole range of movements in Europe during the inter-war period. These include the National Socialists in Germany, as well as others such as Action Française, the Arrow Cross in Hungary, or the Falangists in Spain. In the post-war period, the term has been used, often prefixed by ‘neo’, to describe what are viewed as successors to these movements, as well as Peronism and, most recently, some movements in ex-Communist countries, such as Pamyat in Russia (see extreme-right parties). Given such diversity, does the term have any meaning?

From A Dictionary of Sociology:

fascism Originally, the term denoted only the Italian political party founded by Benito Mussolini in the aftermath of World War I, and the state that was created during the 1920s following the party's seizure of power, although in ordinary usage it has since become a generic term used to refer to almost any authoritarian right-wing ideology, political party, or state. It nevertheless retains a certain precision within political sociology. In the latter context, it has come to refer to parties, ideologies, or states that either advocate or embody a typically terroristic domination of a fused state apparatus, within which there is no separation of powers or rule of law, by a single party infused with a frequently racist and always nationalist petit-bourgeois ideology. On this basis, the German Nazi (National Socialist) Party founded by Adolf Hitler, the ideology he elaborated, and state that he created after his seizure of power, have become the archetypes of fascism in place of their Italian equivalents. Naturally, there were many variations on the fascist themes current in inter-war Europe, and these are concisely discussed in Eugen Weber, Varieties of Fascism, 1964.

From the Oxford Companion to World War II:

fascism is a generic name for a particular brand of totalitarian regime, several of which made their appearance in Europe between 1922 and 1936.

The name, taken from the Latin fasces, the ceremonial bundle of rods and an axe carried before magistrates in ancient Rome, symbolizing the power and unity of the Roman imperium, was coined by Mussolini, whose National Fascist Party was the first such group to gain power. In a general sense, it can be taken to include the National Socialists of Adolf Hitler in Germany, the Falangists in Spain, Salazar's regime in Portugal, the Ustaas in Croatia, and the Iron Guard and Arrow Cross parties in Romania and Hungary respectively. It also had its adherents, such as the British Union in the UK, Action Française in France, and the Falanga in Poland, where it never became the dominant political force.

Though as a doctrine fascism has no coherent political programme, the fascists of the 1920s and 1930s shared a number of political beliefs, or organizational methods, psychological traits, and common enemies. Fear of anarchy and of Bolshevik insurrection were elements common to all forms of fascism and important in attracting the support of the middle classes and petty bourgeoisie. Fascists were all ultranationalist, fervently believing in the special mission and often the racial superiority of their nation. They all laid emphasis on the collective life of the nation and its destiny, minimizing the rights and interests of individual citizens.

The climate in which fascism arose favoured also the emergence of charismatic politicians or military commanders, and fascist parties developed the cult of the all-powerful national ‘leader’— Duce, Führer, or Caudillo—and they gave monopoly powers to their own ruling party. Like the communists, they established a system of parallel party organs whose function was to control all institutions of the state; and they raised élite forces—such as the Nazi SS—whose first tasks were to defend the party and to subordinate the regular army to it. A façade of popular elections and legislative assemblies was usually maintained; but through rigged electoral commissions, subservient courts (see People's Court), police terror, and, in extreme forms, concentration camps, fascists were able to eliminate most effective active opposition. They paid great attention to education, to youth movements (see Hitler Youth), and to the techniques of modern propaganda; and hence to rallies, processions, films, uniforms, the subservience of all forms of art, and social regimentation of all kinds.

By these means, fascists were able to create a social ethos marked by conformism, hostility to outsiders, routine violence, contempt for the weak, and extreme hatred of dissident opinions. They believed themselves to be building a new social order, dominated by a new sort of human being. As a result, in the more radical variants, they had no truck with the conservative traditions of the church (see religion) or the army. The political evils against which their crusade was directed were liberal democracy and, above all, communism.

Some western political scientists, strongly influenced by fascism's enmity with communism, have generally classified it as a radical right-wing movement (in this, they followed the original communist analysis). In fact this classification is misleading: fascism was a brew of both right-wing and left-wing elements, the particular mix varying from country to country and from phase to phase. Fascism was not so much the opposite of communism as its rival, offering an alternative radical vision for rebuilding the world through violence.

However, the fascist movement was anything but homogenous. The Italian Fascisti, for example, possessed a distinct, left-wing socialist element, as did the German National Socialists up to the Röhm Purge of 1934; the Spanish Falangists did not. The Nazis made anti-Semitism a central theme in their philosophy, as did the Iron Guard; the Fascisti and the Falangists were much less concerned with it. Both the Italian and the Romanian fascists worked within the framework of a monarchy, whereas the Nazis overturned all pre-existing state structures. The Falangist party had close ties to the Catholic Church, and saw itself as the latest stage in Spain's thousand-year Christian crusade. Mussolini's Fascist Party was largely indifferent in religious matters once it had made peace with the Vatican through the Concordat of 1929. Hitler's fascists, in contrast, were ostentatiously pagan and anti-Christian (but see German Christians), losing no opportunity to publicize their allegiance to the ancient German gods and the Wagnerian legends.

Inevitably, perhaps, the hysterical nationalism which was inherent in each branch of the fascist movement excluded the possibility of true harmony among them, and the Axis powers did not display any great degree of common ‘fascist’ purpose during the war. Franco, the Caudillo of Spain, remained coldly aloof from Nazi designs throughout the war. He rebuffed Hitler outright at their one and only meeting at Hendaye in 1940; and Spanish assistance to Germany was limited (see Blue Division and Spanish Legion). In Portugal, Salazar followed Franco's lead. Mussolini was less than enthusiastic about Nazi activities in the first stage of the war. Later on, the Germans deeply resented the need to rescue the Italian fascists from their misconceived and ill co-ordinated Western Desert and Balkan campaigns. The wholesale massacre of Italian soldiers, and of Italian prisoners in Germany, after Italy surrendered in September 1943 was evidence of this resentment (see also Garibaldi Division).

From the Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World:

The equation of fascism and communism also minimizes the ideological differences and the social and institutional bases of fascist and communist regimes. In its crudeness and violence, fascist ideology cannot be easily compared with the sophistication of Marxism. Nor were the social and institutional bases of fascist and communist societies comparable. Fascist regimes protected middle-class interests and preserved and compromised with traditional institutions like the church and the military far more than the communists did. Mussolini signed the Lateran Pacts and protected Italian big business. Stalin repressed the church and murdered kulaks.

From the Dictionary of the Social Sciences:

fascism An extreme right-wing nationalist ideology, revolutionary political movement, and type of authoritarian regime that developed in Europe between the two world wars. Its roots lie in Benito Mussolini 's National Fascist party, which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1944 and adopted the fasces (an ancient Roman symbol of unity and authority) as its emblem. Fascist parties appeared across Europe during the 1920s and 1930s, but came to power independently only in Italy and Germany. Local fascist forces were also installed or given a free hand during the Axis occupation of Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia during World War II. The Fascist Falangists also played an important role in the Spanish civil war of 1936 –1939 .

Fascism emerged as a broad-based rejection of the existing political orders, including liberalism , democracy , communism , and, somewhat more tentatively, monarchism. In opposing the rationalism and materialism of such systems, fascism praised the vitalism of the organic community and called for a radical assertion of national will. Fascism is perhaps best seen as a combination of conservative belief in the racial nation with modern faith in technology and social organization—often of socialist inspiration. Fascists argued that the national community should be unified, pure, and strong. Toward this end, fascist regimes repressed dissent and minorities while pursuing aggressive, usually expansionist foreign policy. Fascism did not entail a specific economic policy but usually maintained capitalist ownership, with a corporatist organization of interests under bureaucratic state control (see corporatism). Fascism was less defined by its policies, however, which were often ad hoc, than by its ideology, organization, and style. Ideologically, it celebrated youth, vigor, order, discipline, violence, and hierarchy. Organizationally, it was based on a revolutionary mass movement led by a charismatic absolute leader. Stylistically, it cultivated a combination of archaic, mystical, and militaristic symbolism.

Social scientists most often interpret fascism as a response of the lower middle classes to economic crisis, defeat in World War I, and the threat of communist revolution, although it also received support from the bourgeoisie and some sectors of the working class. Fascist ideals were largely discredited by military defeat in 1945 , and the use of fascist symbols and language is now illegal in many European countries. Some postwar European movements—notably the French National Front, the German Republicans, and the Italian Social Movement—have sought to revive them in diluted form, often through veiled appeals to race and national renewal. Although the term fascist has been applied to a variety of extreme right-wing phenomena, latter-day examples are more usually and accurately called “neofascist.”

[Sasquatch]

The problem with this article, is the same problem with all of them: they're all trying to get an early jump on an historical legacy. It can't be done. Time isn't impressed with impetuosity and can't be influenced.

Aside from the frivolous funeral remark, there's plenty of other unsubstantiated psyho-analyzing of the man's wants. The not so subtle numerous kicks in the pants (NEXT!) is not mitigated by some grudgingly added niceties. Mind you, I don't care, as I've said earlier, about defending Bush, I just don't think this article deserves as much stock as you feel it merits.

Come on now. Your entire criticism focuses on one trifling assertion--and although I'm paraphrasing here it reflects the essence of what is being said--that even Bush family gatherings are gloomy because the family's political fortunes are no longer ascendant. I don't think that qualifies as a "kick in the pants" or shoddy journalism, unless you're predisposed to interpret it as such.

You're first point has merit but on the second we'll just have to agree to disagree as we have on so many other issues.

Now, where's my pizza? :)

[vta]

Come on now. Your entire criticism focuses on one trifling assertion--and although I'm paraphrasing here it reflects the essence of what is being said--that even Bush family gatherings are gloomy because the family's political fortunes are no longer ascendant. I don't think that qualifies as a "kick in the pants" or shoddy journalism, unless you're predisposed to interpret it as such.

You're first point has merit but on the second we'll just have to agree to disagree as we have on so many other issues.

Now, where's my pizza? :)

The unsubstantiated psycho analysis and the NEXT! are matters, as I wrote, aside from the funeral comment. The article is riddled with this kind of derision (haven't you read it?) and your angst doesn't address my assertion of what the authors intention is. :)

Your pizza is still in the oven. ;)

[Sasquatch]

The unsubstantiated psycho analysis and the NEXT! are matters, as I wrote, aside from the funeral comment. The article is riddled with this kind of derision (haven't you read it?) and your angst doesn't address my assertion of what the authors intention is. :)

Your pizza is still in the oven. ;)

The author is talking about what he believes to be, in many respects, a failed presidency. What tone do you expect him to adopt? Stating that the president lacks intellectual curiosity, often subordinates other considerations to political objectives, and values personal loyalty above intellect, experience, and competence is not derision if it's true and part of an attempt to understand what went wrong, as opposed to derision that has no other purpose than mockery and humiliation.

[ScipioCowboy]

Because some of us have appealed to the authority of professional historians and academicians in settling this Fascism debate, I decided to seek out a few and garner their opinions.;)

And here's what I discovered:

According to Roger Griffin, a political theorist at Oxford Brookes University, fascism is, "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine."

Griffin argues further, "not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own 'beyond left and right.'"

Roger Griffin, The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology, Chapter published in Alessandro Campi (ed.), Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Roma, 2003, pp. 97-122.

According to Walter Lacqueur, an American historian and political commentator, fascism "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme right is not very illuminating either. [Fascism] was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right".

Laqueuer, Walter. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press.

As I told Silverbear, I would agree with the assessment that most fascists come from the far right, but as Lacquer states, the argument that fascism is solely a part of the Far Right is "not very illuminating."

According to Seymor Martin Lipset, facism is "extremism of the center."

Obviously, fascism is a multi-faceted political ideology that can pull membership from anywhere along the political spectrum.

[vta]

The author is talking about what he believes to be, in many respects, a failed presidency. What tone do you expect him to adopt? Stating that the president lacks intellectual curiosity, often subordinates other considerations to political objectives, and values personal loyalty above intellect, experience, and competence is not derision if it's true and part of an attempt to understand what went wrong, as opposed to derision that has no other purpose than mockery and humiliation.

I expect him to remain on course with the herd and keep the prevailing tone.

If the mockery of the title itself has flown over your head, I doubt you will recognize it in it's other forms, as it appears throughout the article. There are some stock principles in the field of writing and I'm sure the major one of 'setting the tone' is not lost on this author.

The tone is set - a tone that will play well to ideological like minded; will cause anger amongst the ideologically opposed; and simple recognition of this principle for those who can recognize this tact.

I'm sorry I can't share your admiration of it/him.

[Sasquatch]

I expect him to remain on course with the herd and keep the prevailing tone.

If the mockery of the title itself has flown over your head, I doubt you will recognize it in it's other forms, as it appears throughout the article. There are some stock principles in the field of writing and I'm sure the major one of 'setting the tone' is not lost on this author.

The tone is set - a tone that will play well to ideological like minded; will cause anger amongst the ideologically opposed; and simple recognition of this principle for those who can recognize this tact.

I'm sorry I can't share your admiration of it/him.

Perhaps its because I'm a subscriber and know that the Economist has defended Bush policies on many occasions in the past, so I view it within a larger context of relatively evenhanded treatment of the outgoing president.

[iceberg]

Perhaps its because I'm a subscriber and know that the Economist has defended Bush policies on many occasions in the past, so I view it within a larger context of relatively evenhanded treatment of the outgoing president.

so since you've never posted an evenhanded/unbiased article about bush, we're/i'm supposed to believe you'd do it now?

stretch it mr fantastic.

[vta]

Perhaps its because I'm a subscriber and know that the Economist has defended Bush policies on many occasions in the past, so I view it within a larger context of relatively evenhanded treatment of the outgoing president.

Well, I'm sure your agreement of it's overall assessments may also have something to do with that. ;)

Besides, it's still too early to write our former Prez's legacy in the larger context.

[Sasquatch]

Because some of us have appealed to the authority of professional historians and academicians in settling this Fascism debate, I decided to seek out a few and garner their opinions.;)

And here's what I discovered:

According to Roger Griffin, a political theorist at Oxford Brookes University, fascism is, "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine."

Griffin argues further, "not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own 'beyond left and right.'"

Roger Griffin, The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology, Chapter published in Alessandro Campi (ed.), Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Roma, 2003, pp. 97-122.

According to Walter Lacqueur, an American historian and political commentator, fascism "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme right is not very illuminating either. [Fascism] was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right".

Laqueuer, Walter. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press.

As I told Silverbear, I would agree with the assessment that most fascists come from the far right, but as Lacquer states, the argument that fascism is solely a part of the Far Right is "not very illuminating."

According to Seymor Martin Lipset, facism is "extremism of the center."

Obviously, fascism is a multi-faceted political ideology that can pull membership from anywhere along the political spectrum.

It's also worth noting that neither of these scholars regard the Soviet Union under Stalin as a fascist regime.