To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
(Jonah is) but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28
By now, almost everyone has heard of Jonah Goldberg's ridiculous, incoherent, revisionist claptrap, "Liberal Fascism" which doesn't even get past the title without invoking Godwin's law. Of course Johah's argument is silly hyperbolic wingnut propaganda, easily debunked by anyone with the intellectual honesty to question his childish partisan spew.
"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."
~Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore. (p. 32)
Goldberg's pre-adolescent argument is a tale written by an idiot for consumption by idiots, which the wingnuts lapped up like hungry puppies.
What you haven't probably heard about is the brand new book coming out, called "Conservative Communism" by Janet Silverstein. I just recieved the final draft and having read it, I must say it's going to change everyone's preconceived notions of what is "left and right".
For decades, conservatives have used the "C" word as a pejorative to describe everyone to the left of Ann Coulter. The word being used as the political version of "Shut up!" and to intimidate liberals into silence. Communism has been used to smear liberals from FDR to JFK and most recently, the Clintons.
Conservatives honestly believe that communists are leftists and that it is an integral part of contemporary liberalism. That inside every liberal is a Stalin just waiting to jump out of their chests like the baby alien in the famous sci-fi film.
In her brilliant new book, Janet Silverstein (a colleague of mine), proves without a doubt that the opposite is actually true. That Communism is on the political right and conservative idols such as Ronald Reagan and William (the bloody) Kristol are actually the result of what she calls "the Conunist Ascension" in the late 20th century.
As Ms Silverstein astutely observes, Joseph Stalin, upon taking power after the death of Lenin, was the first of the "Conunists" when he disregarded the original Communist concept of the dissolution of the state, and instead strengthened and greatly expanded executive power over that of the Politburo and reorganised the government and the military under the same model as was in place during the reign of the former conservative monarchy under the Czar. Furthermore, Stalin re-instituted conservative divorce and abortion laws, replaced liberal and experimental education with rigid instruction in "the basics", incorporated the Orthodox church into the state, re-invigorated nationalism and rejected Western liberal democracy.
As Ms Silverstein correctly asserts, authoritarianism is a product of the right and all such governments are inherently conservative. Monarchy, dictatorship, plutocracy, theocracy and totalitarian regimes such as fascism and communism are all conservative forms of government. While Democracy, like that established in the United States after it's divorce from the conservative political monarchy of Great Britain, is a product of liberalism. The foundation of the American democratic system is a result of the period of the enlightenment in which liberal social and scientific ideas and rationality rejected the conservative status quo of monarchical authority and religious absolutism.
In the Soviet Union, liberalism was replaced with a plutocratic police state, where the communist leadership became the new privileged conservative elite in place of the aristocracy and became in sole control of it's economy based primarily on a entrenched military industrial complex fueled by intense nationalism and fear of outside threats. The communist government of the Soviet Union was undeniably conservative, not liberal. Communists in Russia today are considered conservative not liberal.
Enter the Neoconservatives in the United States. The Neoconservative movement, like Stalinism, arose out of a rejection of liberal social ideals and traditional Marxism. Indeed, many Neocons are former Communists. David Horowitz for example, is the son of two life-long communists and was a prominent Marxist before before the Conunist Ascension. Professional neo-conservative gasbag, William (always wrong) Kristol, is the son of Irving Kristol, considered to be one of the founders of Neoconservatism and a self-avowed former Marxist and Trotskyist.
Neoconservative ideology is rooted in the concept of Permanent Revolution and unilateralism put forward by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Marx used it to describe the strategy of a revolutionary class to continue to pursue its class interests independently and without compromise, despite overtures for political alliances, and despite the political dominance of opposing sections of society.
Neoconservatism is driven by the establishment, like Stalinism, of a greater empire in order to preserve the security of the homeland.
Frank neoconservatives like Robert Kaplan and Niall Ferguson recognize that they are proposing imperialism as the alternative to liberal internationalism.
McGowan, J. (2007). Neoconservatism, p. 124-133 in American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina University Press.
Sound familiar?
The incredible influence Neoconservatives that were spawned in the Conunist Ascension have in the current government is undeniable. The concepts of a greater American empire, established with the policy of nation building, by unilateralism if necessary, once the anathema of the traditional conservative ideology, is now foreign policy du jour. Stalinist methods such as domestic surveillance without warrant, disregarding habeous corpus, disregarding lawful legislation through executive decree, expansion of the power of the executive coupled with a reduction in the powers of the legislative, increased militarism and nationalism fueled by a distrust of internationalism and fear of outside threats are now political reality.
So what's next? Here's what Philip Atkinson of the right-wing un-think tank "Family Security Matters" had to say about the future of Conunism.
"If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestige while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his new found popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."
Of course one could easily replace Julius Caesar with Stalin in the above.
"Family Security Matters" is a front group for "Center for Security Policy" within which is the "National Security Advisory Council" which was established and currently run by neoconservatives.
Ms Silverstein's outstanding and brilliant treatise is a warning of the dangers of the expansion of executive power coupled with dangerous nationalism and militarism and the threat that poses to us all.
If nothing else, it should convince conservatives that it’s time to find a new insult.