Articles with the Tag wingnuts

Cuba and the American wingnut

socialism, US foreign policy, wingnuts
Published on

Chris Bertram was a bit naughty on Crooked Timber last Tuesday, putting up a post celebrating Cuba under Castro, or rather acknowledging that Castro was not quite the mad dictator of American propaganda. The result? A thread of over 300 comments filled with decent leftists and wingnuts denouncing him for his soft stance on tyranny. Ironically in the process they showed why Chris was right in saying that anti-Castro fanatics hate Castro less for his human rights abuses than for the simple fact that he hasn’t knuckled under, that half a century of US pressure has not been able to make Cuba get in line.

It also shows how dangerous it can be to look at human rights issues without taking into account the context in which they are reported. The best example of which has been the War on Iraq, in the runup to which claims about Saddam’s awful regime were plastered all over the media, some true, others not, all of which in the end served not to end those abuses and bring the perpetrators to justice. Instead it helped to justify the invasion and subsequent occupation, which has so far has already killed a million Iraqis.

It’s not hard to see that American concerns about Cuban human rights abuses serve the same goal. It’s also not hard to see that undemocratic as it might be, Cuba would be much worse off under any US-led attempt to “democratise” it, as the example of Haiti should make clear. Democracies can commit massive crimes as well and worse, US/EU-approved and imposed “liberal democracies” usually shaft their own populations. Would you rather have Cuban or US style healthcare?

If we denounce Cuban abuses we might feel good about ourselves, but this will not end them and worse may help create a worse situation. Only the Cuban people can liberate themselves.

What Jonah wants

US politics, wingnuts
Published on

Earlier I said that Jonah is just another kind of Holocaust denier, the way he distorts the true history and politics of fascism, but the big question is what he tries to achieve with this distortion. You can do worse than to read John Emerson’s explanation, who argues it’s done partially to slime the left, partially to inoculate the Republicans against the charge of fascism and partially, perhaps unconsciously as a dominance game within the media: “no matter how stupid we make our arguments, you will take them seriously”. All fine points, but there’s still something missing. There’s more going on and it’s best expressed through that stupid backcover quote:

The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

What Goldberg is saying with that, and with so many other examples, is that all traditional, stereotypical liberal dogoodery is fascist. That it doesn’t matter whether state power is used benignly or malignantly, the fact that it’s state power is enough to make it fascist. A public school system, a national health service, all fascist. Ridiculous of course, but it is an extreme version of what a lot of rightwingers half believe already. Which makes Jonah’s book so dangerous, as it strengthens the paranoid beliefs of an already radicial and powerful group. Worse, because it’s so extreme it helps legitamise less extreme versions of this idea. The American media is already saturated with reports and stories that push the idea all state interference is bad, all social programmes are evil and pushing the idea that it’s not just wrong but fascist to have welfare can only help in further eroding public support.

What’s to be done? Debating Jonah on the merits of his book is pointless, as that only strengthens the perception of legitamicy, though just straightforward education in what fascism is should be done. Making fun of him and his book is better, but in itself is not enough. What we want is to make sure the sheer stupidity of these beliefs is exposed, which I think is best done by dragging these half hidden ideas I outlined above into the spotlights and then ridiculing them. Fortunately, most people are still not stupid enough to think a female school teacher is really the modern equivalent of a concentration camp guard.

Jonah Goldberg: just another kind of Holocaust denier

US politics, wingnuts
Published on

So Jonah Goldberg, the cheetos munching spawn of Lucianne, has actually managed to complete his magnus opus Liberal Fascism: from Mussoline to Muscle Beach, showing us how no really, it wasn’t the fascists that were fascists, it was the liberals! Since it came out David Neiwert has, as usual, done a sterling duty in calmly explaining how and why Goldberg is talking cock, but of course without leaving any impression on the man himself. Goldberg knows it doesn’t matter what David says or how carefully he explains he’s wrong, as his audience will never see nor (want to) understand David’s arguments. As long as the message of “liberals = Fascism!”is out there, Jonah has done his job.

Which is why the important point David makes is not that Jonah is wrong, but that he is just another kind of Holocaust denier:

Goldberg is much offended, of course, that I’ve compared his work to David Irving’s in this regard, saying “he tries ever so slightly to tag me as a member of the David Irving Holocaust-denier camp.” But that, of course, isn’t what I’m saying at all: Rather, my point is that he employs the same historical methodology as Holocaust deniers, which is rather a different thing. I once made a similar point about Michelle Malkin’s methodology in her book In Defense of Internment — and predictably, as Jonah did, she simply tossed it off as a “smear” rather than answer the point.

what Jonah does is just as offensive, morally and factually wrong as denying that the Holocaust has happened. He distorts history to make the victims of fascism into their own oppressors, just like some Holocaust deniers blame the Jews for their own persecution. Therefore it is not possible to get into a “reasonable debate” with Goldberg, nor should we want to. Instead he should be shunned and mocked for his beliefs. Wasting time refuting his arguments just helps establishing the idea that his opinions on this are respectable, if wrong in its particulars.

This is not the impression anybody who is serious about history, who is serious about fascism, whether liberal, conservative or socialist, should want to encourage. Already the idea of what fascism was and is has been diluted by overuse as a general purpose insult. Imprinting the belief on the general public that it’s the liberals who are the true fascists, or even the idea that this is a reasonable thing to believe means we can give up any hope of being able to use fascism in its true meaning. And that’s just what Jonah Goldberg would like to happen.

Objectivists defend blacklisting

libertarianism, wingnuts
Published on

I was idly googling on Michael Italie, the sewing machine operator and SWP member who was fired from his job at Goodwill after he ran for mayor of Miami, when I came across this gem: The Importance of Blacklisting, hosted at the Objectivist Center.

In this article, one Roger Donway describes the case of Michael Italie and argues that Goodwill was in their right to fire him, that in fact this was a tactict objectivists should emulate. He argues that blacklisting is justified in defending “bourgeois standards”:

The central issue of the Goodwill case has nothing to do with the right of free speech or the right to run for office, for those rights were not touched. The central issue of the Goodwill case is nothing but the right of citizens to weaken their destroyers by refusing to fund them. Of course, when alumni and employers withdraw their money, Marxist professors and anti-capitalist employees will whine, “Don’t I have a right to my own opinion?” To which the proper answer is: “Yes. And I’ll be happy to debate your opinion, if I have time. Meanwhile, I decline to support those who attack the political-economic system that makes my support possible.”


[…]

Consequently, I believe that libertarians should openly align themselves with the philosophical advocates of bourgeois morality, whatever the cost in popularity may be. They should point out that a major virtue of abolishing government regulation and subsidies will be a greater need for rationality, personal responsibility, and productiveness; a greater need for prudence, sobriety, and thrift; a greater concern for one’s own reputation and a greater reliance on the reputations of others, with a corresponding esteem for those behaviors — patriotism and cultural assimilation, marriage and child- rearing, decorum in conduct, speech, and appearance–that are commonly thought to be indicators of personal solidity.

But libertarians should go further still. They should also urge plausible, non- political mechanisms –ostracism, boycott, and blacklist–that will impose severe costs on those who flout bourgeois standards.

In short, Dunway argues punishing people for their political beliefs by taking away their livelyhood is okay, that objectivists should in fact use this tactic to “defund the Left”. Pretty vile, if you ask me. It’s typical of a certain breed of Libertarian: quick to claim the moral high ground, though their deeds are anything but moral.