With the summary of the Augustine report being released today, and a lot of people thinking about future space policy, while I don’t have time in the middle of a move to write anything fresh, I’ve written so much in the past that I can run some golden oldies. Here’s what I think is a relevant piece that I wrote over half a decade ago.
Category Archives: Political Commentary
The F-Word
A useful essay, over at Hot Air:
Modern audiences, raised on a steady diet of movies about World War II, think of fascism as either inhumanly horrifying, or completely absurd, and wonder how anyone in their right minds could have fallen for the fascist sales pitch. In fact, fascism did not seem absurd at all to the intellectuals of the early twentieth century. They thought a wise and all-powerful State, run by the most brilliant minds, would be able to engineer a more advanced society, much as engineers were designing increasingly advanced scientific marvels. The pioneering author of modern science fiction, H.G. Wells, was an outspoken advocate of authoritarian control by a benevolent government of geniuses and academics. His novel The Shape of Things to Come envisions such a government seizing control of the entire world to create a global utopia, called “The Dictatorship of the Air” because the government controls the technology of air travel – which it occasionally uses to drop bombs on those who resist. Here are some excerpts from a famous speech Wells gave to the British Young Liberals Society at Oxford in 1932, reprinted in Jonah Goldberg’s indispensable Liberal Fascism – a phrase Wells actually coins in the speech:
We have seen the Fascisti in Italy and a number of clumsy imitations elsewhere, and we have seen the Russian Communist Party coming into existence to reinforce this idea… I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis… And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you… These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions… the days of that sort of amateurism are over-they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…
The world is sick of parliamentary politics. This is an idea that occurs in every strand of collectivist thought. Collectivists only revere democracy until it has voted them sufficient power… then democracy becomes a cumbersome inconvenience that allows selfish, ignorant fools and corporate shills to interfere with the brilliant work of great men. The Democrats fleeing from town hall meetings are also sick of parliamentary politics, as is the President who defiles American government with dozens of unelected, unconfirmed, unaccountable “czars.” Parliamentary politics proved very inconvenient for the President’s health-care takeover and cap-and-trade bills, and have been driving global-warming cultists mad with frustration for years.
…Is America sliding into fascism? Not completely, or quickly… but it’s a potent venom, deadly in small doses. We should not dismiss the menace of fascism by reasoning that it always comes dressed in black uniforms and jackboots, patrolling the perimeter of concentration camps – so we’re in good shape as long as those horrors are not in evidence. We shouldn’t be fooling around with such a toxic ideology at all. No matter how noble the stated goals at the beginning of the collectivist journey, it always ends at the same destination. Promoting his latest propaganda film, Michael Moore said that “capitalism is evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to replace it with something that is good for all people, and that something is democracy.” This is more than just laughable hypocrisy from a millionaire leftist. Capitalism is the exchange of goods and services between free men and women. In the end, there is only one alternative to it, and it is not “democracy.”
And it is particularly not a Republic.
[Update a few minutes later]
Some related advice from Kevin Hassett:
…if you pursue a radical left-wing agenda, you will inevitably arouse fear of fascism. Obama’s big mistake has been to ignore this dynamic and the fears that his own powerful charisma will inflame in his opponents.
When you think fascism, you think of the evil tyrants of the 20th century. But the first fascist nation in the world was, Goldberg insists, the U.S., and Woodrow Wilson the first fascist dictator.
The case is surprisingly strong. The “progressive” Wilson centralized power, shut down members of the press he didn’t like and pressed his brand of nationalism on American children, who were asked to pledge, “I make a promise that I’ll do my honest, earnest part, in helping my America with all my loyal heart.”
Given Goldberg’s definition of fascism, it makes sense that Americans would be nervous today.
A government that rapidly attempts to consolidate power over everything from automakers to health care will naturally give people pause. Attempting to do so by following the lead of a charismatic politician who rose to power by organizing massive rallies will naturally give people pause. That such a leader would surround himself in the White House with political thugs will naturally give people pause.
Yes. A lot of pause.
The Green Jobs Illusion
Why Van Jones was the right man for the job:
…let’s not miss the opportunity to point out that Jones’s promotion of “green jobs” was just as dubious, if not as reviled, as his dabblings in 9/11 Trutherism. As James Pethokoukis tweeted: “having a truther in charge of green jobs is a good fit… you need a certain willing suspension of disbelief for both”
To buy into the “green jobs” scam, you must have an unshakeable faith in the ability of the government to create a viable industry from whole cloth, because there is no commercial demand for the services these green-collar workers would provide. We don’t have to guess about the future of green jobs; we can look to the ethanol industry.
They never learn.
The End Of The Soviet Union
It should be apparent by now that Communism never died. The Soviet Union died. Being a Communist, or a neocommunist, is not an intellectual anachronism at all — it is quite the fashion in the academy and our other institutions. Does Charles not realize, for example, that Obama’s friend Bill Ayers — who proudly calls himself “a small ‘c’ communist” — was in 2008 elected vice president for curriculum of the American Education Research Association, the nation’s largest organization of education professors and researchers? (See Sol Stern’s profile of Ayers and education, here). I’m not sure “pathetic” is the right word, but what is a perilous intellectual anachronism is the belief that the communist threat ended 18 years ago.
The Jones incident, moreover, does not indicate that “we had a communist in the U.S. government.” To the contrary, as I argued last night, we have a U.S. government in which Van Jones was quite consciously selected because his views are representative of the president who made him the “green jobs czar.” Van Jones isn’t Alger Hiss. There’s nothing covert about him. He didn’t snooker Obama into bringing him aboard. He is who he is, and that’s why Obama wanted him. Having a Communist in that job was perfect since the “green jobs” initiative is an important part of the hard Left’s agenda to use environmentalism as an additional justification for usurping command of the economy.
In fact, the death of the Soviet Union has actually been a boon for neocommunists. Now, Obama and his fellow travelers like Jones, Ayers, Wright, Klonsky, and ACORN, can spout all the same totalitarian, anti-American, central-planning ideas the hard Left has always pushed, but in the abstract — under such mushy labels as “social justice” and “green jobs.” That is, they are liberated from having to defend the Soviet Empire, which, until 1991, was a living, breathing, concrete example of how horrific these ideas are when put in practice.
Yes, the superficially attractive (to those unfamiliar with human nature or economics) but ultimately disastrous idea lives on in the academy, and now in Washington. And our wonderful media, of course, thinks it’s no big deal, or are even attracted to it, not recognizing it for what it is.
The Mystery Of The Obama Vetting Process
Makes sense to me (once I put on my loon hat).
[Update on Monday morning]
If you’re only a reader of the New York Times, you still don’t know why Van Jones resigned, though you may think you do. This is shameful, and at this point, almost surreal.
And He’s Outta There
Right in the middle of holiday weekend. Does this mean that the story goes away with him, or will some intrepid reporter have the temerity to ask the White House on Tuesday how he got there in the first place, and how the vetting process broke down? If it did?
I think that it simply didn’t occur to these creatures like Valerie Jarrett that his viewpoints would be controversial. After all, it’s probably what they believe themselves.
[Update mid morning]
More thoughts from Maguire. And from Scott Johnson:
Jones claimed to have been the victim of a “vicious smear campaign.” Why cave in to such a campaign? In his resignation letter Jones explains: “On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.” Jones was of course “smeared” with his own words, which proved indeed to be vicious, voluminous and damning.
Jones said he had received encouragement from across the political spectrum to “stay and fight.” I doubt it, but I will concede that I had meant to urge him to stick around and defend himself.
Yes, I’ll miss him now. He was a poster child for this administration.
[Late morning update]
More thoughts from Jonah Goldberg:
Van Jones’ views are now widely known. And as far as anyone can tell reading the newspapers this morning or watching the Sunday shows, this White House and this President have nothing but praise for Jones and think he’s a fine, self-sacrificing, public servant who simply took one for the team.
I can’t think of a more succinct, discrete, example illuminating why Obama’s claims to centrism are a fraud.
It is quite striking.
[Update early afternoon]
A lot of links from Ed Driscoll: Van Goes Under The Bus. I’m sure that the president will say that this isn’t the Van that he knew.
A Modern-Day Paul Revere
An interesting interview with a straight-talking former head of the GAO.
An Ill Wind Is Breaking
…for our president. Some thoughts from that famous conservative, T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII.
At Least Discussing Sane Campus Gun Policy
…in my home town of Flint, Michigan. Unfortunately, the usual stupidity prevails.
It’s an interesting marketing issue. Flint has been trying to rise from the GM ashes by becoming a college town, so which policy will attract more students, and their parents? Michigan is (and has been for a few years) a “shall issue” state, and the predictions of the hysterical gun grabbers haven’t panned out. So it will be interesting to see how it all comes out.
The (Non)Feeding Frenzy
…in the media over Van Jones. As someone notes in comments over there, imagine if George Bush had appointed a Klansman who spouted conspiracy theories about the Clintons and called Democrats anal orifices, and put him in charge of thirty billion dollars worth of federal activity, with no confirmation hearings.
[Late afternoon update]
Mickey thinks that the bus is revving its engine. It makes sense for him to be gone on a Friday before a holiday weekend. That will help bury the news.
[Update a few minutes later]
Does Barack Obama understand the odiousness of Trutherism? I’m not sure that he does, or that Democrats do in general. After all, Howard Dean called it “an interesting theory.” And it wasn’t that long ago (and may still be true today) that a majority of Democrats either believed that George Bush knew about the attacks ahead of time, or aren’t sure. Why would he think that a belief that is mainstream in his own party was particularly odious? In fact, I’m sure, given the “progressive” bubble in which he’s spent his entire life, he’s a little perplexed what the big deal is about Van Jones. None of this is news to him, any more than Reverend Wright’s views were. The only thing that shocks him is that anyone else would object.
[Late evening update]
Mark Steyn has some useful thoughts on Truther chique:
Is Van Jones a real Truther or a faux Truther? The White House position is that he’s the latter – hey, he just glanced at it, saw it was some routine impeach-Bush-for-killing-thousands-of-his-fellow-Americans thing, and signed it without reading it; we’ve all been there, right?
Van Jones Trutherism, like Van Jones Communism and Van Jones Eco-Racism Theory, is a kind of decadence: If you really believed 9/11 was an inside job, you’d be in fear of your life. Instead, for a cutting-edge poseur like Jones, it’s a marketing niche, one that gives you a certain cachet with the right kind of people – like, apparently, Barack Obama.
Indeed.