Matthew Franck liked Jonah’s book:

Edmund Burke in 1775, in what seems to be the first defense of partisanship in Western political thinking, argued that party loyalty and striving for victory over one’s opponents is a good thing, so long as loyalty to one’s own did not lead each party to attempt the “proscription” of the other. My second and last question prompted by Jonah’s Liberal Fascism is, how real is the prospect that one of our parties may try to proscribe the other. And which is more likely to try it?

It is a standard charge of left-wingers who claim to see “fascists” on the right that conservatives want to crack down on dissent and stifle freedom of political speech. But if, as Jonah powerfully argues, our fascists are liberals and many of our liberals are fascists–while fascism is much more weakly present (if at all) on the right–then it should not be surprising that we find the left to be the maker of speech codes, hate crimes laws, political correctness, indoctrination programs in all levels of education, campaign finance “reform,” and so on. Can anyone recall any similar campaigns by conservatives for the repression of dissent in the last several generations? (And no, efforts to revive now-lost prohibitions on obscenity and pornography don’t count.) Proscription of its opponents’ views–a classic great-party gambit by those who wish to unmake and remake regime-question settlements–seems to be the agenda of the American left, not of the right.

It’s not just fascism that is redefined by the book, but the words “left” and “right” as well.

…what is it?

Toward the end of his speech, Dr. Suzuki said that “we can no longer tolerate what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton” and then encouraged attendees to hold politicians to a greater green standard.

“What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

[Afternoon update]

Apparently, such is the threat from global warming that we’ll have to sacrifice democracy on its altar:

[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

Well, that’s a relief.

Actually, there’s a bunch of good stuff like this over at Jonah’s Liberal Fascism blog today. Just keep a scrollin.’ Including Joshua Lederberg’s thoughts on letting scientists run things.

…what is it?

Toward the end of his speech, Dr. Suzuki said that “we can no longer tolerate what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton” and then encouraged attendees to hold politicians to a greater green standard.

“What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

[Afternoon update]

Apparently, such is the threat from global warming that we’ll have to sacrifice democracy on its altar:

[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

Well, that’s a relief.

Actually, there’s a bunch of good stuff like this over at Jonah’s Liberal Fascism blog today. Just keep a scrollin.’ Including Joshua Lederberg’s thoughts on letting scientists run things.

…what is it?

Toward the end of his speech, Dr. Suzuki said that “we can no longer tolerate what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton” and then encouraged attendees to hold politicians to a greater green standard.

“What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

[Afternoon update]

Apparently, such is the threat from global warming that we’ll have to sacrifice democracy on its altar:

[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

Well, that’s a relief.

Actually, there’s a bunch of good stuff like this over at Jonah’s Liberal Fascism blog today. Just keep a scrollin.’ Including Joshua Lederberg’s thoughts on letting scientists run things.

Here’s a very interesting thought for McCain to partially neutralize Obama’s appeal: Michael Steele. I heard him speak a year ago at the Conservative Summit in DC. He’s a very impressive guy. It’s a shame he didn’t win that Senate race in ’06. He came pretty close, for a Republican in Maryland.

Mickey Kaus is on the job:

McCain said he had “respect” for opponents of his immigration plan (which he didn’t renounce) “for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law.” Not like those others who base their opposition on bigoted yahoo nativism! McCain’s semi-conciliatory words aren’t what you say when you really respect your opposition–then you say “I know we have honest disagreements.” Not “I know most of you aren’t really racists.” Even his suckup betrayed how he really feels. Which I suspect is sneering contempt!

He doesn’t quite have that faking sincerity thing down.