Conservatives want limited government. Fascism is NOT limited government!

JULY 8, 2011

Fascism Is Not Conservatism

By David Limbaugh

7/8/2011

Someone recently emailed and asked me to rebut the claim that fascism is a right-wing system.

I have given this question considerable thought over the years; even when I was in college, liberals routinely smeared conservatism as a fascist political ideology. Indeed, how many times have we heard the mantra that communism and Nazism represented the two extremes of the political spectrum, left and right, respectively? This never made sense to me, as I knew that conservatism championed political and economic liberty and that communism and fascism were the direct antithesis of these.

I am thankful that my friend Jonah Goldberg has written the definitive work on this subject and set the record straight, in his scholarly and entertaining "Liberal Fascism." I strongly recommend it.

But let me share some thoughts I've developed over the years as to how the misunderstandings on these terms evolved, points which may or may not be addressed in Jonah's book.

Both communism and Nazism are evil totalitarian systems characterized by enormous power in the central government. It's true that in theory, Karl Marx predicted the eventual withering away of the state and the "dictatorship of the proletariat," when the people would rule, which was sheer fantasy because it was based on grossly erroneous assumptions about human nature, as history would repeatedly demonstrate.

But no one can deny that communism, in practice as well as theory, is a form of socialism, as evidenced, among other things, by the Soviet Union's proud self-identification as a "socialist republic." Likewise, Nazism and fascism, by definition, are socialist systems, with the state owning or controlling the major means of industry and production.

But there are differences in these systems, and I think these differences, along with historical reasons so well chronicled in Jonah's book, contribute to the left's soft identification with one and strong rejection of the other.

Apart from being centralized political systems, Nazism and fascism were nationalistic, patriotic and militaristic. Some have even said they were religious, but I see little authentic evidence of that. The Soviet system was more international in its orientation, being driven less by national fervor and more by world expansion. I'm not disputing that Hitler and Mussolini were expansionist, as indeed they were, but the Soviets were more focused on making communism a global system and diminishing the role of the nation-state in comparison with Nazism and fascism.

But there's something even more telling. Communism, as conceived by Marx, was based on the perceived class struggle. Marx envisioned that the "workers of the world" would unite against so-called capitalist oppression. Marxism was thoroughly materialistic and rooted in class warfare. Nazism was probably not so virulently anti-capitalist -- at least in terms of its ideological emphasis. It was more racially and nationally driven.

So where does that leave us? Well, today's liberals see themselves as champions of the "working man" and enemies of corporate interests and the wealthy. Their political lifeblood is class warfare on behalf of the "working man" (read: labor unions). Redistributionism is at the heart of their philosophy.

When those on the left today call conservatives "fascists" or liken Bush to Hitler, they are betraying their contempt for what they perceive to be excessive nationalism, patriotism and militarism on the part of conservatives. But there's a darker side to their thinking. The left's worst-kept secret is that many liberals believe -- or would at least like the electorate to believe -- that conservatives are racist. So there you have it. Conservatives are nationalistic, jingoistic and racist. Point, set, match. They're fascists.

But it's as divorced from reality as it is sinister. Conservatives are driven by liberty and a healthy skepticism for centralized government. They aren't enemies of the federal government but believe it ought to be limited in its powers and scope, as contemplated and designed by the Constitution. They are the opposite of racists, aspiring to colorblindness and equality of opportunity and rights for everyone. We will proudly accept, however, the charge that we are nationalistic, patriotic and firm believers in American exceptionalism.

Liberals can definitely identify with communism, as indeed they have through the years, as in their glorification of the Soviet Union in years past and their romanticizing of communist dictators, such as Cuba's Fidel Castro. But they also have far more in common with fascism than conservatives do, given their penchant for centralized governmental power and too much state control over business and industry, as we've seen most strikingly under President Barack Obama.

As political theory and actual practice throughout history demonstrate, both communism and fascism are left-wing political and economic ideologies -- as far as they can be from the right wing of the spectrum.

David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host
Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics
and author of new book Crimes Against Liberty,
the definitive chronicle of Barack Obama's
devastating term in office so far.

The Preamble They Should've Written - James L. Payne

About the Authors

Contributing editor James Payne has taught political science at Yale,Wesleyan, Johns Hopkins, and Texas A&M. His latest book is Six Political Illusions: A Primer on Government for Idealists Fed Up with History Repeating Itself. ... See All Posts by This Author

• 
  Tweet This
• 
  Post on Facebook
• 
  Post to Digg
• 
  Reddit!
• 
  Stumble this!

Flag this article [?]

Guest Column | James L. Payne

The Preamble They Should’ve Written

Delete "General Welfare."

Posted April 27, 2011
Print This Post • 13 comments

Did the Founding Fathers get it right? Is the Constitution they drafted a secure basis for limited government? Many conservatives suppose so and believe the drift to big government has simply been a case of not reading the directions on the package. Last January these conservatives ordered that the Constitution be read aloud at the opening session of the House of Representatives, apparently hoping that the reverberation of its words off the marble walls would inspire lawmakers to return to the limited government of yesteryear.

I’m afraid it was an unrealistic hope. You can say many good things about the Founding Fathers, but these gentlemen fell short in one, critical way: The Constitution they drafted contains no significant intellectual impediment to the endless growth of government; that is, it does not explain what’s wrong with too much government. If anything, it goes in the opposite direction, inviting politicians to use the federal government to address everything. This invitation stands in the preamble, where after noting government’s obvious jobs — “establish Justice” (a court system), “insure domestic Tranquility” (armed forces to put down riots), “provide for the common defence” (armed forces to take care of foreign invaders) — the drafters added that government’s function was also “to promote the general Welfare.”

This phraseology may not have had much importance in 1787, when communication about national issues was limited. In modern times, however, the mass media turn every human need into a national problem that can be said to affect the general welfare:  unemployment, wages and working conditions, medical care, education, food production, science, natural disasters, and so on. Following the lead of the preamble, lawmakers feel justified in using government to address every one. The result is a big and ever-growing government.

“What Else Is There?”

What’s the way to stop this drift? For the answer, we need to examine the logic that drives governmental growth. The modern argument for government involvement looks like this:

1. Problem X affects the general welfare;

2. Government is the only institution that can address national problems;

3. Therefore, government has to step in and address X.

Notice how the argument depends on statement 2, that government is the only answer. If you accept that assumption, then you are pretty much bound to agree that government has to be involved. Not to agree makes you look cruel and insensitive, unwilling to fix the nation’s problems. And it doesn’t matter how badly government has performed in the past. Those urging more government concede that government is wasteful, often inept, and corrupted by special interests. But that doesn’t affect their position.  “We’ve got to do something,” they say. “After all, what else is there?”

Well there is something else, but we often overlook it because it’s not big, imposing, and centralized like government. It’s the millions of independent thinkers and doers who each day strive to make the world around them a better place, working individually, and joining together with friends and neighbors, in groups, churches, associations, and businesses. We can call this problem-solving system the private sector, or civil society, or the voluntary sector.

Although we often don’t stop to realize it, this collection of independent actors is working to address just about every national problem you can think of. Take disaster relief. On this subject standard political logic has taken us to a big-government solution. Hurricanes and earthquakes certainly affect the general welfare; therefore, we say, government must step in. So we end up with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Many agree that this massive bureaucracy is inept and wasteful, but if you suggest closing it down people say, “We have to have it. When disaster strikes, we can’t just sit by and do nothing.” That’s the fallacy of assuming only government can solve problems.

When disaster strikes, the fact is that millions of individuals react in constructive ways. The people immediately affected do much to take care of themselves and their families. Neighbors pitch in to help neighbors. Businesses sell — or donate — needed supplies. Churches send aid and volunteers. Voluntary groups in other regions take up collections and send supplies. Businesses rebuild. Philanthropists support reconstruction projects. This vast multitude of helping hands is a disaster-relief system. The same is true for other problems: education, working conditions, medical care, and so on. The private sector can and does address all of these issues.

It’s biggest enemy, the institution standing in the way of this vital, intricate system of private, voluntary action is. . . government! It undermines the private sector in three ways:

1. Resources. Government’s taxation drains wealth from the private sector. Every dollar government puts into its programs comes, directly or indirectly, from individuals, businesses, and groups that would have used their resources to do what the government agencies try to do.

2. Regulations. Government’s rules and regulations are, like taxation, a burden on the private sector. Every minute someone spends filling out a government form is a minute he cannot use to help a neighbor.

3. Motivation. Private action is prompted by the belief that we make a difference. When people assume government is supposed to solve problems, it weakens their motive to help themselves, and it weakens their inclination to reach out and solve problems in their community.

In conclusion, if the Founding Fathers had wanted to block the drift toward big government, they should have written a preamble that extolled the virtue of the private sector, perhaps like this:

We the people of the United States of America, recognizing—

That the general welfare is promoted by individuals, families, neighbors, and societies

freely striving to improve the condition of mankind,

And further recognizing—

That government action often counteracts their independent, creative activities;

Do hereby establish a government which shall establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, and provide for the common defence.

Government Creates Poverty - John Stossel

The U.S. government has "helped" no group more than it has "helped" the American Indians. It stuns me when President Obama appears before Indian groups and says things like, "Few have been ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans."
       
Ignored? Are you kidding me? They should be so lucky. The government has made most Indian tribes wards of the state. Government manages their land, provides their health care, and pays for housing and child care. Twenty different departments and agencies have special "native American" programs. The result? Indians have the highest poverty rate, nearly 25 percent, and the lowest life expectancy of any group in America. Sixty-six percent are born to single mothers.
       
Nevertheless, Indian activists want more government "help."

        
It is intuitive to assume that, when people struggle, government "help" is the answer. The opposite is true. American groups who are helped the most, do the worst.
        
Consider the Lumbees of Robeson County, N.C. -- a tribe not recognized as sovereign by the government and therefore ineligible for most of the "help" given other tribes. The Lumbees do much better than those recognized tribes.
        
Lumbees own their homes and succeed in business. They include real estate developer Jim Thomas, who used to own the Sacramento Kings, and Jack Lowery, who helped start the Cracker Barrel Restaurants. Lumbees started the first Indian-owned bank, which now has 12 branches.
        
The Lumbees' wealth is not from casino money.
        
"We don't have any casinos. We have 12 banks," says Ben Chavis, another successful Lumbee businessman. He also points out that Robeson County looks different from most Indian reservations.
        
"There's mansions. They look like English manors. I can take you to one neighborhood where my people are from and show you nicer homes than the whole Sioux reservation."
        
Despite this success, professional "victims" activists want Congress to make the Lumbees dependent -- like other tribes. U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., has introduced the Lumbee Recognition Act, which would give the Lumbees the same "help" other tribes get -- about $80 million a year. Some members of the tribe support the bill.
        
Of course they do. People like to freeload.
        
Lawyer Elizabeth Homer, who used to be the U.S. Interior Department's director of Indian land trusts, say the Lumbees ought to get federal recognition.
        
"The Lumbees have been neglected and left out of the system, and have been petitioning for 100 years. ... They're entitled, by the way."
        
People like Homer will never get it. Lumbees do well because they've divorced themselves from government handouts. Washington's neglect was a godsend.
        
Some Lumbees don't want the handout.
        
"We shouldn't take it!" Chavis said. He says if federal money comes, members of his tribe "are going to become welfare cases. It's going to stifle creativity. On the reservations, they haven't trained to be capitalists. They've been trained to be communists."
        
Tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs manage most Indian land. Indians compete to serve on tribal councils because they can give out the government's money. Instead of seeking to become entrepreneurs, members of tribes aspire to become bureaucrats.
        
"You can help your girlfriend; you can help your girlfriend's mama. It's a great program!" Chavis said sarcastically.
        
Because a government trust controls most Indian property, individuals rarely build nice homes or businesses. "No individual on the reservation owns the land. So they can't develop it," Chavis added. "Look at my tribe. We have title and deeds to our land. That's the secret. I raise cattle. I can do what I want to because it's my private property."
        
I did a TV segment on the Lumbees that I included in a special called "Freeloaders." That won me the predictable vitriol. Apparently, I'm ignorant of history and a racist.
        
The criticism misses the point. Yes, many years ago white people stole the Indians' land and caused great misery. And yes, the government signed treaties with the tribes that make Indians "special." But that "specialness" has brought the Indians socialism. It's what keeps them dependent and poor.
        
On the other hand, because the U.S. government never signed a treaty with the Lumbees, they aren't so "special" in its eyes. That left them mostly free.
        
Freedom lets them prosper.

Stewardship, Compassion, Justice and the U.S. Budget

Culture Watch Weekly News and Analysis on Family, Religion, and Civil Society

Stewardship, Compassion, Justice and the U.S. Budget

Jennifer Marshall

Stewardship, compassion, and justice have been mentioned frequently in recent Christian commentary on our national fiscal crisis, and rightly so. Budgets are indeed moral documents; for example, it is wrong to pass down $200,000 in public debt to each child born today.

These principles of stewardship, compassion, and justice have been well-established in serious conversation about the budget crisis for some time. That kind of dialogue has been taking place for years through the efforts of The Heritage Foundation and partnerships like the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour. The tour has included more than 40 public forums around the country for about five years, including Heritage experts Stuart Butler and Alison Fraser, along with analysts from the Brookings Institution, through the bipartisan sponsorship of the Concord Coalition.

These expert voices from across the political spectrum have helped explain the reality of unsustainable U.S. deficit levels caused by entitlement spending so that more Americans can discern the values at stake in this massive problem and work together toward tackling it.

Now some on the left are appealing explicitly to biblical argument in the budget debate. Calling on biblical principles is a welcome development, since they can illuminate the values that should inform the conversation. But concluding that Christian concepts like justice, compassion, and stewardship call for preservation of the welfare state status quo is the wrong approach.

Instead, biblical principles should challenge the status quo to see how it measures up on some basic Christian assumptions, including an understanding of:

• The nature and purpose of human beings; 
• What true human flourishing is, and conversely, the real nature of poverty; 
• How various institutions are ordained by God to play different roles in helping human beings to overcome poverty and to flourish in community.

How should a biblical understanding of these ideas shape an approach to the budget crisis? It means starting the conversation on government spending by focusing first on the character of spending, before the quantity of spending.

This means asking of each taxpayer-funded program: Is it a program or activity that government is designed to provide? What is the objective? Is it effective at accomplishing that objective? If the answers are satisfactory, then let’s decide how much to spend on that priority. If not, then we should be asking how to reform or eliminate it.

This line of reasoning was elaborated by Stuart Butler, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Policy Innovation, in a December lecture on how to protect the poor in the midst of the challenging fiscal decisions before us now. Failing to address the crisis will put the poor at risk first, he explains. We must address the crushing growth of entitlement spending, and that means getting our policy priorities straight.
“We cannot and should not provide defined social insurance benefits [like Medicare and Social Security] to people who don’t need them,” says Dr. Butler. Instead, our approach to entitlement reform should put “greater emphasis on true insurance against hard times and much less emphasis on providing benefits for all.” Americans should be free from the fear of poverty in their old age, which is much different from the stream of defined benefits that people have today.

We also need to look at the character of U.S. anti-poverty programs. The number of food stamp recipients has doubled in the last decade to more than 44 million. When one out of seven people depends on the government for food subsidies, can we be satisfied with the state of human flourishing in America?

Success in anti-poverty programs should be measured not in how much we spend, but in how many Americans escape dependence on government funding to lead more productive and satisfying lives. Protecting the status quo of failed anti-poverty programs neither does justice to the poor nor ennobles those who champion those programs without regard to their results.

Current federal anti-poverty programs diagnose human need primarily as a lack of material resources. As we’ve explained in a small group study guide on the subject, Seek Social Justice, that approach diminishes our understanding of compassion for the poor. Poverty in America is often linked to relational breakdown—the absence of fathers, the fracturing of communities. Relational restoration will require the institutions of civil society—especially families and churches—to bring their unique resources to the challenge of overcoming poverty.

The budget crisis is one of the toughest challenges our nation has ever had to face. Discerning the wise application of biblical and constitutional principles is essential for the road ahead.

Video: A Christian Family Embraces Politics

From Citizen Link Friday 5, a 7 minute video:

http://www.citizenlink.com/blog/2011/03/25/video-friday-five-jim-bob-and-michelle-duggar-on-juggling-family-and-politics/

Seven Principles of Compassionate Conservatism, Part 3 - Challenging

We're looking for a type of compassion that's Assertive, Basic, and...Challenging.

From Marvin Olasky's Compassionate Conservatism:

The tendency of affluent Americans has been to turn poor people into pets, giving them food and an occasional pat on the head, but not pushing them to be all they can be. Over time, bad charity has tended to drive out good, because people given a choice of pampering or needed pressure generally take the easy route. But those who consider the good of others as more important than their own satisfaction challenge clients (and themselves) to stretch perceived limits. Hard, character-building work is often particularly important in this process. Compassionate conservatives do not merely give the poor a safety net that may turn into a hammock; they provide a trampoline. The goal is to have the affluent stretch their limits also. It's easy to write a check but hard to check pride and arrogance at the door when dealing with those who don't get much respect, or to travel to a part of town that is outside the middle-class comfort zone. (p 17-18)

I think we all agree that there must be some sort of safety net in civil society. But government handouts are never going to solve the problem. The poor need skills and discipline to get economically productive jobs and keep them.

This is happening in decreasing measure in America today. The progressivism of the late 19th Century led to President Roosevelt's Social Security plan in the 1930's. In the desperation of the Great Depression, America took a sip of socialist tea. President Johnson added Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.


But the entitlement programs have taken our freedom without delivering us from poverty and sickness as promised. Our safety net has become a hammock, but the leisure it offers comes with ongoing poverty and entrapment in the cycle of depression and debilitation.


Is it well intentioned? Yes and no. Some have discovered how to remove the lid from the cookie jar, and taxpayer resources are being siphoned faster than wealth can be created. The welfare state and entitlements need to be reformed with an edge of challenge.


God send us a leader with the wisdom of Solomon!

Only We Can Prevent the Loss of Freedom in America!

Title links to Human Events article...

Freer Is Better

by  John Stossel 

10/13/2010

The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom lowers the ranking of the United States to eighth out of 179 nations -- behind Canada!

A year ago, it ranked sixth, ahead of Canada.
   
Don't say it's Barack Obama's fault. Half the data used in the index is from George W. Bush's final six months in office. This is a bipartisan problem.

   
For the past 16 years, the index has ranked the world's countries on the basis of their economic freedom -- or lack thereof. Ten criteria are used: freedoms related to business, trade, fiscal matters, monetary matters, investment, finance, labor, government spending, property rights and freedom from corruption.
   
The top 10 countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, the United States, Denmark and Chile.