Swamp Zombie

William Kristol, today:

So we are really to believe that President Bush just sat around after 9/11 thinking, "How can I aggrandize my powers?" [...]

This is the fever swamp into which American liberalism is on the verge of descending.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in January 2002:

[I]n 34 years, I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. We saw it in the War Powers Act. We saw it in the Budget Anti-Impoundment Act. [...]

And one of the things that I feel an obligation, and I know the president does too, because we talked about it, is to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors. We are weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years.

Definition of "aggrandize" here.

Cheney brags 10 days ago about responding to Sept. 11 by "restor[ing] the legitimate authority of presidency" here. Money quote:

"At the end of the Nixon administration, you had the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy," he said. "There have been a number of limitations that have been imposed in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate."

Comments

Pro Libertate | December 30, 2005, 1:08pm | #

Yes, now that we've given Congress unfettered power, it's unfair to limit the president's authority. Free cookies for everybody---yeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Larry Edelstein | December 30, 2005, 1:08pm | #

Hmm.

Two questions:

1) What political force shares these ideas about the appropriate division of power in the federal government? Are they Republican ideas? Conservative? John Birch? Constitutionalist?

2) Where can I find the best defense of these ideas? Is there a paper somewhere?

Bob Basil | December 30, 2005, 1:10pm | #

For a moment there, when he was attacking the selection of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee, William Kristol was not a hack.

But basically he's a hack.

Ken Shultz | December 30, 2005, 1:18pm | #

"At the end of the Nixon administration, you had the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy," he said. "There have been a number of limitations that have been imposed in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate."

Interesting that he would use the word "legitimacy" there. That kind of legitimacy seems a function of two things, competence and public perceptions. If public perceptions are such that the President's authority is limited, well that's the way it's supposed to work. ...and if competence is the problem, with Watergate being a great example, well don't blame that on us!

Poor, poor Dicky poo! ...The President's authority has to contend with legitimacy! Poor, poor Dicky.

joshua corning | December 30, 2005, 1:19pm | #

i am confused as to why restoring power that was once in the executive branch but is now in the hands of congress and the various buraokracies is such a bad thing...anyway i am not entierly against this...my real problem is the gain in federal power as a whole...needless to say the errotion of the executive branch has perralleled a rise in federal power.

and i think kristol's use of "aggrandize" was the second one at dictionary.com and refered to personal aggrandizment and the one Matt is refering to is the first and in regards to the presidancy as a whole.

checks and balances are a delicate thing...cheney may be wrong and the power balance is better now then it was but to say that he does not have a point in that the presidentail power has erroded in a historical sense is definatly wrong.

BearCub | December 30, 2005, 1:23pm | #

Can we launch some kind of meme campaign to steal back the "conservative" from Willie K and his freakshow posse (in the MSM, at least)? Maybe we could all start calling them "poopyservatives" or something...? (Okay, that doesn't roll of the tongue, but you get the idea...)

quasibill | December 30, 2005, 1:25pm | #

"but to say that he does not have a point in that the presidentail power has erroded in a historical sense is definatly wrong."

It depends on how far back in history you're willing to go.

Jennifer | December 30, 2005, 1:26pm | #

Can we launch some kind of meme campaign to steal back the "conservative" from Willie K and his freakshow posse

How about "authoritarians"?

Ethan | December 30, 2005, 1:30pm | #

So I guess Kristol had some crack left over from last time.

Anyone who follows politics at all knows that one of the main goals of this administration is to increase the power of the office of the presidency. And he follows politics. So why does he write such things? If only we could pinpoint the reason...

Pro Libertate | December 30, 2005, 1:30pm | #

Works for me, Jennifer. Authoritarian bastards! Why, yes, it rolls trippingly on the tongue.

Zeus knows that "we" elected these people to save the poor presidency from irrelevance. 'Cause that's the big problem with the American system, you know.

Authoritarian bastards!

Al | December 30, 2005, 1:35pm | #

Joshua Corning has it right, I think.

Jamie Kelly | December 30, 2005, 1:40pm | #

THIS JUST IN:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President Bush's secret domestic spying program, Justice officials said Friday.
The officials, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, said the inquiry will focus on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Jamie Kelly | December 30, 2005, 1:42pm | #

So the Justice Department wants to know who leaked the information about the program, but not whether the program itself is illegal? Hmmm.

Eric the .5b | December 30, 2005, 1:45pm | #

Tip - if you are unsure of the spelling of a word and don't have access to a spell-checker, use Google. A search just the word in question (or "Define" and the word in question, sometimes) will offer "Did you mean:" followed by the correct spelling if you gave an incorrect one. The vocabulary for it is incredibly broad and the matching is very good. A search for "buraokracies" comes back with "Did you mean: burocracies", for instance.

You could use a dictionary, of course, but if you're already in a web browser, hey...

Eric the .5b | December 30, 2005, 1:47pm | #

Which I just realized is the wrong spelling.

Oops. The downside of a dictionary built up by search results.

Ed | December 30, 2005, 1:59pm | #

That's true, Eric. I just Googled Tagtean Lesbos and it asked me if I really wanted Tagteam Lesbos.
I replied in the affirmative.

jimmy | December 30, 2005, 2:06pm | #

this whole osama-loving website gets the godwin award every time. bush=hitler, bush=hitler, bush=hitler...geez, if i wanna hear that, i can go downtown and listen to the mentally ill "homeless" meth-heads on their stolen bicycles.

thoreau | December 30, 2005, 2:07pm | #

I'm too smart for the Godwin trap.

I always do Stalin comparisons!

Eric the .5b | December 30, 2005, 2:11pm | #

Here we go again.

dhex | December 30, 2005, 2:12pm | #

i think "welfare/warfare" state works better. just switch it around when you're talking to more lib types so they don't immediately flip out.

Eric the .5b | December 30, 2005, 2:16pm | #

I will say, as a statement of fact, that I am amused.

That's not quite a "response", so seems kosher.

quasibill | December 30, 2005, 2:28pm | #

"Or, put another way, by those criteria, when's the last time we didn't have a NaZi (to borrow a pre-existing abbreviation) in the White House?"

As I noted in the initial post, the thing we can thank the neocons for is being explicit in it. They are, in reality, no different from any other group that has been in control since at least the depression (you know that FDR admired the Soviets, right?) The only difference is in what their focus was.

Rick H. | December 30, 2005, 2:35pm | #

Youse are all a bunch of Osama-lovers!

Godwin!

Ed | December 30, 2005, 2:52pm | #

I think you would be hard pressed to name any president who felt that he had all the power he needed, thank you.

Ken Shultz | December 30, 2005, 2:53pm | #

I've said this before...

I think a lot of people who throw Godwin's Law around have forgotten what it says. It says that as a thread gets longer, the probability of someone referring to the Nazis approaches 100%. Some people have applied a corollary suggesting that when someone refers to the Nazis, they lose the argument. In my opinion, however, that corollary has a built in declining return.

There are threads in which comparisons to Nazis may be perfectly apt. I think a direct and complete comparison of the Bush Administration to the Nazis probably isn't apt.

...In spite of all the simularities. But I'd love to have that discussion sometime. In what ways is the Bush Administration different from the Nazis? In what ways is the Bush Administration like the Nazis?

andy | December 30, 2005, 2:53pm | #

Money quote:

Please, Please, PLEASE refrain from using the word money in that way, Matt. Especially when refering to Richard Cheney.

Jennifer | December 30, 2005, 3:03pm | #

In what ways is the Bush Administration different from the Nazis?

Hatred is generally based on religion or nationality, rather than ethnicity (the Nazi Jew-bashing was racial, not religious, in nature)

Scapegoats are citizens of other countries rather than our own

VAST difference in the degree of oppression (though this can always change)

In what ways is the Bush Administration like the Nazis?

Use of fear tactics to divert attention from their own wrongdoing

Stated or implied belief that nobody who disagrees with them can possibly be right

ignoring previously signed treaties with other countries

Build-up of "us vs. the rest of the world" nationalism

The rescinding of civil liberties in the name of protecting the nation

"our country is above criticism"

"hooray for the military, don't you dare criticize anything they are doing"

assumption that sins committed by any member of a certain group reflect upon all members of the group

treating prisoners in ways which the civilized world considers abhorrent

tries to keep what's going on in prison camps secret from the outside world

not allowing Red Cross access to certain prisoners

use of torture in questioning

guilty until proven innocent

Ruthless | December 30, 2005, 3:07pm | #

We're up against a couple of Catch 22's.
If I were President, I would want more authority, but I wouldn't be President (assuming I could be), because I don't think the authority of a leader does anything to cause progress in society.

And the best way to fight a war on terror is to not have a war on terror. The terrorists have already won, as I find myself repeating.

Kwix | December 30, 2005, 3:10pm | #

Jennifer,

Hatred is generally based on religion or nationality, rather than ethnicity (the Nazi Jew-bashing was racial, not religious, in nature)


Which hatred are you assigning to which regime? Nazi Catholic bashing WAS religious in nature. Not sure where the Romani(Gypsie) bashing falls, probably a bit of both.

Ken Shultz | December 30, 2005, 3:10pm | #

I agree quasibill.

I imagine some future President sportin' an armband with a swastika at his inaugural. He's sworn in and immediately starts to spout anti-Semitic propaganda and screaming for lebensraum.

Someone like you posts a comment suggesting that the President bears a striking resemblance to a certain twentieth century dictator...

...and the rest of the forum points their fingers and screams, "Godwin's Law, you lose!"

Ken Shultz | December 30, 2005, 3:12pm | #

I like Jennifer's list. ...nothing to add for the moment.

Jennifer | December 30, 2005, 3:13pm | #

Which hatred are you assigning to which regime? Nazi Catholic bashing WAS religious in nature

True, but it generally wasn't the Catholics who were being shoved into the camps. And from what I read, the Nazis eventually backed down on the Catholics a bit, after a few words with the Vatican. (Remember too that it was Hitler's pal Mussolini who made the Vatican a separate city-state in its own right.) The people who were going to be put into a camp regardless of their behavior were the ones who had the wrong ancestors--Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and such. Whereas the current administration, for all the forms of bigotry it DOES have, generally doesn't seem to care about skin color or racial background.

John | December 30, 2005, 3:15pm | #

I am constantly amazed at how Bush is always saved by his own enemies. Between the corruption in Congress, the bonehead pick of Harriet Myers and getting tagged for every lost puppy in Katrina, Bush was on the verge of having a lost second term. Then out of the blue, we get the NYT telling us that Bush is (gasp) spying on our enemies! The President has war making powers and was authorized by Congress to make war on AlQuada. Those powers do not end at the border. The idea that the government can listen into two Al Quada terrorists talking on the phone in Germany as intelligence gathering but cannot without a warrent if the same two people are talking in Manhattan is rediculous. Further, what the government is doing is using a powerful computer algorythum to pick out those calls which are likely to contain relevent information and listening in on those. So what?

All of this is a good example of the difference between people who have responsibility and those who don't and feel free to take pot shots at those who do. If there is another 9-11, no doubt everyone on this thread will hold Bush responsible. Imagine being in that position. You can use this technology which greatly increases your ability to prevent a terrorist attack but in doing so you might offend the likes of Howard Dean and his minions over at Reason, people who (thank God) have no responsibility for much of anything and are free to attack you no matter what you do, or you can not use the technology and if there is an attack, have to explain why you didn't use every means at your disposal to prevent it because you were afraid you might have offended said Deaniacs who are now of course crucifying you for not defending the country.

The only good news about this is that most people in this country are smart enough to realize all of this, which is why Bush's poll numbers are rebounding and the Dems are going down ever since this story broke. Like I said, Bush must be the luckiest man in the world in his choice of enemies.

Eric the .5b | December 30, 2005, 3:16pm | #

That works. People who object to an implication even the implier admits would be unreasonable to state outright would of course object to an outright statement that was reasonable.

thoreau | December 30, 2005, 3:20pm | #

If there is another 9-11, no doubt everyone on this thread will hold Bush responsible.

If the attack is perpetrated by people who kept a low profile, used simple means, and exploited the inherent vulnerabilities of an open society, I won't fault anybody expect the actual perpetrators, their knowing accomplices, and their knowing sponsors.

You can hold me to that, although I hope that we don't suffer an incident that merits such a discussion. But, if we do, you can hold me to that.

Let's just pray that this remains a hypothetical.

joshua corning | December 30, 2005, 3:20pm | #

and i think kristol's use of "aggrandize" was the second one at dictionary.com and refered to personal aggrandizment and the one Matt is refering to is the first and in regards to the presidancy as a whole.

opps should have read:

and i think kristol's use of "aggrandize" was the third one at dictionary.com and refered to personal aggrandizment and the one Matt is refering to is the first and second and in regards to the presidancy as a whole.

andy | December 30, 2005, 3:27pm | #

"If there is another 9-11, no doubt everyone on this thread will hold Bush responsible."

Oh, and can people refrain from using "9/11" as shorthand for 'terrorist attack'? The events of that day were unique and will almost certainly never be replicated, even to the greater part. While other terrorist attacks will most likely occur, their nature will probably be quite different.

Damn, I'm grumpy today.

joe | December 30, 2005, 3:29pm | #

Between the invective hurled and people who don't agree him and the threat that we're going to suffer a terrorist attack if we make trouble for the President, I almost didn't notice that John refused to address the actual objections of those who have a problem with warrantless spying by the government.

Ken Shultz | December 30, 2005, 3:30pm | #

If there is another 9-11, no doubt everyone on this thread will hold Bush responsible.

thoreau gave a well reasoned (and well appreciated) response.

...I'd add that it's the President's responsibility to defend the country from terrorism, and if his actions encouraged another attack, or if the attack gets through due to Administration incompetence in policy or in its implementation, I will, indeed, hold the President responsible.

You can use this technology which greatly increases your ability to prevent a terrorist attack but in doing so you might offend the likes of Howard Dean and his minions over at Reason...

Surely you can conjure some better argument--why insult Reason? ...What does Reason have to do with Howard Dean? You've been around for a while John, and you know better than that. That's really, really lame.

martin | December 30, 2005, 3:36pm | #

The Nazis knew full well not to directly assault the religious beliefs in mostly Catholic areas. The conflict came when the Catholic church was reluctant to subjugate to the state, pointing to their allegiance to the Pope. The Protestant State Church let themselves be railroaded and went over to Nazism in 1933. There were a few notable exceptions, Pastor Niemoeller for example, but they suffered terribly for it. Even the Catholics were effectively silenced and told to stick with caring for the souls or else.

To compare GWB with the Nazis does little to make him look like a monster. History doesn't bear it out, not even close.

Larry Edelstein | December 30, 2005, 3:37pm | #

Can anyone take a shot at my two questions?

1) What political force shares the administration's stated ideas about the division of power in the federal government? Are they Republican ideas? Conservative? John Birch? Constitutionalist?

2) Where can I find the best defense of these ideas? Is there a paper somewhere?

Or can anyone say something germane?

joe | December 30, 2005, 3:41pm | #

Larry,

I don't know about actual writings, but in terms of political breakdowns, stronger vs. weaker chief executive - vis a vis Congress and the courts - has been a conservative vs. liberal issue. Line item vetoes, assertions of War Powers, and a minimal role for Senate consultation on judicial nominees, for example, have all been put forward by conservatives, and their opposite argued by liberals.

Larry Edelstein | December 30, 2005, 3:42pm | #

Or to put it another way: where are the intellectual centers of movements to restore power to the executive branch? Where are the political centers (aside from the incumbents, of course)?

quasibill | December 30, 2005, 3:42pm | #

Larry:

1) Neoconservative.

2) Pretty much anything by PNAC, Kristol, Cheney. As this article states, Cheney has been fairly unapologetic in his belief in an imperial presidency. And the neocons are all about granting the president nearly unlimited power so long as he can claim some connection to war-making or national security. I'm blanking on the name of the neocons' periodical right now - surely someone else here can give you the name.

Neil Block | December 30, 2005, 3:50pm | #

Grover Cleveland spent a good portion of his book on the presidential prerogative and its importance in governance... except he was a pre-Progressive Democrat who hated tariffs, taxes, and imperialism, and used his powers to crush any movement to expand the federal government (414 vetoes in his first term!). I guess it's just a matter of who's in office, rather than the stated powers of the office.

quasibill | December 30, 2005, 3:53pm | #

Uh, yeah - Weekly Standard.

(The article leads off with a link to their website).

If you look at the list of contributors to the Weekly Standard, you'll see the names of the people who form the core of the intellectual support for the neocon agenda. Searching for papers they have published will answer alot of your questions.

As a brief summary, they are essentially ex-Communists who believe in unlimited democratic government and perhaps more importantly, the use of military force to spread it.

Ethan | December 30, 2005, 3:54pm | #

The idea that the government can listen into two Al Quada terrorists talking on the phone in Germany as intelligence gathering but cannot without a warrent if the same two people are talking in Manhattan is rediculous.

I would say it's closer to orangiculous.

One difference between the two: one's legal, the other isn't. And the issue isn't the warrant, exactly, but whether the President should have the power to spy on American citizens according to his own whim, with no requirement to even tell anyone or justify the spying to anyone ever. He claims that power. I say such a power violates the Constitution.

Ken Shultz | December 30, 2005, 3:56pm | #

1) What political force shares the administration's stated ideas about the division of power in the federal government? Are they Republican ideas? Conservative? John Birch? Constitutionalist?

Some more learned person should take a shot, here's my two cents.

If Republican ideas on the separation of powers are in contrast to Popular Sovereignty, then, no, I don't think Bush's power grab is a particularly Republican idea.

Conservative ideas, as I understand them, would limit the power of the President, although they might give a big exemption under a State of Emergency.

John Birch comes kinda close, I think. You've got the anti-internationalism coupled with a clear us versus them mentality. I'd point to something cohesive by them, but I've looked through their website on occasion, and, in my opinion, that looked kinda hard to come by.

It seems to me that none of these apply clearly. It seems to me that the President is claiming some kind of retroactive State of Emergency going back to 9/11. ...Anything written about the President's powers under a State of Emergency would probably do.

...I'm not a lawyer, but I'd suggest taking a look at Ex parte Milligan. It's about habeas corpus rather than wire tapping, but I'm not so sure the same sort of logic doesn't apply.

joe | December 30, 2005, 3:58pm | #

Neil Block,

The question wasn't about expanding government power, but of the president's "share" of that power - that is, his authority to act unchecked by the other branches.

You can have a small government imperial president - Reagan comes to mind - and you can have a big government, modest president. Carter, or maybe Clinton, would be examples.

joe | December 30, 2005, 4:03pm | #

quasibill, which prominent leaders of neo-conservatism are ex-Communists?

I know there were a couple of old ones, but people like Kristol, Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Woosley have always been men of the right. While they may have picked up some strategic advice from the Bolshies - like Norquist's Lennin poster - that is not the same thing at all.

Nor do they believe in "unlimited democracy." Though they use the term a lot to sell their bill of goods, one of the core values of neo-conservatives is a belief in aristocracy - rule by the enlightened "best" caste, who should feel free to mislead and manipulate the public into supporting their initiatives, because the aristocrats know best, after all.

Rick Barton | December 30, 2005, 4:04pm | #

William Kristol:

So we are really to believe that President Bush just sat around after 9/11 thinking, "How can I aggrandize my powers?"

Whatever, it's certainly also a case of the aggrandizement of government power being necessary in order to bring to fruition William Kristol's and the other neocon's longstanding plans to have American blood and money spent for what the neocons envision as being beneficial for the Israeli government.

The neos want to keep troops in Iraq so that they may be used to pressure or attack Syria and/or Iran.

Rick Barton | December 30, 2005, 4:10pm | #

"like Norquist's Lennin poster"?

zach | December 30, 2005, 4:18pm | #

You can have a small government imperial president - Reagan comes to mind - and you can have a big government, modest president. Carter, or maybe Clinton, would be examples.

I think Bush qualifies as a big government imperial president. Does this mean that soon we'll have a small government modest one?

Something tells me, no. But one can hope.

joshua corning | December 30, 2005, 10:46pm | #

Joe,

I am sorry but I find your outrage a bit disingenious. I mean you have all this rage with Bush using the NSA to spy on americans but your outrage seems to stop when the IRS spys on americans finantial records or when state and local government spy on how many people live in a house,(not to mention when and where and what type of house one wishes to build) or when it regulates medical records and keeps precise records of car and driving habits and on and on and on.

For you it seems like this should be a non-issue.

For me it really comes as no suprise and at least this time the government has a constitutional arguement. It also doesn't seem like a partisan issue to me and I have little doubt that dems have acted just as bad in the past (worse when we have been attacked on our soil; FDR) and would be perfectly willing to do exactly what Bush is doing now.

joshua corning | December 30, 2005, 11:05pm | #

What does Reason have to do with Howard Dean?

joe

:)

sorry that was to fun to resist.

actually i probably am picking on joe to much...especially on this issue seeing as how my opinion is mostly in the minority of libertarians and my views on the war are admittadly not libertarian in origin (leftist in fact).

But I would like to hear a more reasoned libertarian view on exactly what the executive branch war powers should be. Doesn't someone have to keep our enemies at bay?

TallDave | December 31, 2005, 12:20am | #

MW:

And you just proved Kristol's point.

TallDave | December 31, 2005, 12:23am | #

Hey why didn't we see all this fuss about abusing the executive power re the warrantless searches of Aldrich Ames and ECHELON?

Gee, it's almost like there wasn't a front-page NYT story about those. But how could that have happened?

TallDave | December 31, 2005, 12:29am | #

joe says: the threat that we're going to suffer a terrorist attack if we make trouble for the President

See, this is how unhinged the opponents of the NSA wiretaps have become. They're not just protesting that potential terrorist are being spied on to prevent them from killing us, they're claiming that pointing out that what they're advocating may get Americans killed is a "threat."

This is like claiming a "DANGER: Do Not Enter" sign is not only an infringment on your right to drive the wrong way on the freeway, but it's also a threat. This is tinfoil hat land.

James Feldman | December 31, 2005, 1:40am | #

Talldave: for what it's worth, some of us who are opposed to the NSA wiretaps find ourselves opposed because of just how fast and loose the administration plays around with the "potential" part of the potential terrorists who they are preventing from killing us.

Like the part where they were investingating PETA meetings because someone who had been a member of PETA joined the Animal Liberation Front.

This is what drives me crazy about the defenders of the authoritarians (Jennifer, great name!). You invariably pick the lamest argument against your politicians, and then proceed to shred it and assume that your stance is defended. Which it is, against idiots (not that I'm accusing Joe of being such). But on the serious criticisms, you are silent.

You know, I have yet to hear anyone make the affirmative case about why it is in our interest to eliminate FISA oversight of NSA phone intercepts. No one can tell me how eliminating that oversight has or will save lives. And its funny, how although President Bush's people apparantly went to Congress and asked if they would expand the guidelines of FISA and were rejected, how none of the President's defenders are lambasting the Republican Congress for having refused to pass a law that would save American lives.

Instead, we get the same old routine: Michael Moore opposes the NSA intercepts, and Michael Moore is an idiot. Therefore, being opposed to the NSA intercepts is idiotic. Well, I'm convinced.

dead_elvis | December 31, 2005, 1:52am | #

For a moment there, when he was attacking the selection of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee, William Kristol was not a hack. But basically he's a hack.

That's why I like Reason's Blog: they read the hacks so you don't have to.

Matt Welch | December 31, 2005, 3:06am | #

And you just proved Kristol's point.

By pointing out he didn't have one?

Hey why didn't we see all this fuss about abusing the executive power re the warrantless searches of Aldrich Ames and ECHELON?

I can't speak for the rest of the fuss-generators, but there is some overlap, especially among the type of people who contribute to & read this website, between people who criticized the expansion of government & executive power under Bush, and the expansion of government & executive power under Clinton.

Terry | December 31, 2005, 5:49am | #

Re: Bush = Hitler

An *excellent* book that attempts to define fascism is "The Anatomy of Fascism " by Robert Paxton. Its basic thesis is that fascism should be defined based on the practice of fascism
as opposed to the ideology of fascism.

Looking at the history of the rise of Hitler and Mussolini, Mr. Paxton argues that both men were supported by powerful elites. These elites supported them, not because they admired
Hitler and Mussolini and their movements, but because they were deathly afraid of communism. Fascism was seen as the only way to stop the spread of communism (after the communist coup
in Russia, their fear was understandable). This fear was also why people were willing to turn a blind eye to brutality and the end of
rule-of-law.

Note, he uses the term liberalism to mean classical liberalism, and the term conservatism to mean conservation of the past.

Mr. Paxton also compares and contrasts fascism with other authoritarian movements.

This is a good book to read before deciding whether Bush = Hitler.

Phil | December 31, 2005, 7:33am | #

Joe . . your outrage seems to stop when the IRS spys on americans finantial records or when state and local government spy on how many people live in a house,

Throughout two threads now, joe has been one of the most outspoken critics of the latter policy. Adjust your reading skills, joshua.

joe | December 31, 2005, 1:54pm | #

joshua,

"I am sorry but I find your outrage a bit disingenious. I mean you have all this rage with Bush using the NSA to spy on americans but your outrage seems to stop when the IRS spys on americans finantial records or when state and local government spy on how many people live in a house,(not to mention when and where and what type of house one wishes to build) or when it regulates medical records and keeps precise records of car and driving habits and on and on and on."

Actually, I denounced the Manassas, VA law in very strong terms on that thread, though apparently the joe who lives in your head supports it. I'm also a big supporter of medical privacy.

If the fact that a political position that values personal freedom - one's mind, heart, soul, body, and speech - over "economic freedom" - one's stuff and business operations - strikes you as confusing, then perhaps you need to leave the bubble of linkminded libertoids, and learn a little more about different political philosophies.

joe | December 31, 2005, 2:00pm | #

Rick Barton,

Grover Norquist quite famously has a poster of Lenin hanging in his office, and reads his books for strategic advice the way other read Sun Tzu.

"Probe for weaknesses with bayonettes" - that type of thing. He looks to the early Bolsheviks for pointers on effective political action. This is probably the most important "movement conservative" in America, and he thinks it is proper for our politicians to behave like those in Soviet Russia.

biologist | January 1, 2006, 2:36pm | #

not quite sure of TallDave's point, but:

Prosecutors say official at C.I.A. spied for Russia
Johnston, David. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Feb 23, 1994. p. A1

Spy suspect betrayed 10 U.S. agents, F.B.I. says
Weiner, Tim. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Feb 24, 1994. p. A1

C.I.A. had hints of a spy years before it zeroed in
Weiner, Tim. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 2, 1994. p. A1

Spy voices shame and defiance before receiving a life sentence
Johnston, David. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Apr 29, 1994. p. A1

Spy's spending brought alarm but no action
Weiner, Tim. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 2, 1994. p. A1

C.I.A. STILL IN DARK ON SPY'S DAMAGE
TIM WEINER. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 25, 1995. pg. A.1

Report finds Ames's sabotage more vast than C.I.A. admitted
Weiner, Tim. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Sep 24, 1994. p. A1


and those are just the front page articles

Rick Barton | January 1, 2006, 7:55pm | #

joe,

Ok, I'm hep now. I was aware that the WSJ called him the "Lenin of the GOP" but not aware of the portrait.

This is probably the most important "movement conservative" in America, and he thinks it is proper for our politicians to behave like those in Soviet Russia.

Oh come on, joe. You sound like a politician. That's a ridiculous stretch, and it's beneath you. Norquist simply thinks that there's stuff to be gleaned from some of Lenin's perspective on political conflict.

Kevin Carson | January 2, 2006, 12:35am | #

Joshua Corning,

Actually, the growth of the imperial presidency in national security affairs came about at the same time as the growth of big government domestically. From FDR until the reaction against Vietnam in the '60s, the Democrats were the party of both foreign policy activism and an activist presidency. Shit, the "welfare-warfare" state was CREATED by FDR and Truman.

Until at least the 1950s, "conservatives" were traditionally the people who feared foreign entanglements and standing armies, and believed in Congressional supremacy. It was liberals like Art Schlesinger who believed the President was some kind of progressive tribune of the people, and Congress was a bunch of moss-backed obstructionists.

You're imposing an anachronistic Heritage Foundation understanding of "liberalism" and "conservatism" on the past. Believe it or not, history didn't start in 1981.

joe | January 2, 2006, 9:57am | #

Rick, hanging the man's poster in your office seems to go a little beyond "gleaning."

But at the heart of it, yes, when Grover Norquist sees a fight between the two parties here in America, he doesn't look at like you or I do. He looks at through "Lenin's perspective on political conflict." And so do most of the "Movement Conservatives."

I think that's pretty damning.

Rick Barton | January 2, 2006, 1:10pm | #

joe,

For me to believe that, especially to the extent that it would be damning, you'd have to quote Norquist. It's some of the neocons who have troubling influences from their lefty linage.

Ya know; it wouldn't surprise me at all if Norquist was a reader of this fine blog. Hey Grover! How about it? Also Grover, let me thank you for helping in the effort to defeat Ref C here in Colorado.

Rick Barton | January 2, 2006, 5:28pm | #

...not that the poster of Lenin isn't a little weird. So how about it, Grover? Expatiate for us. Or at least, do just a little splainin...