Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Simplicity Previous entry: Scarborough needs to offer his resignation in shame

G-Fascism…A Whole New Era

Where the rhythm is the bass and the bass proposes a massive ideological slaughter of its enemies.

Now, what about those whom Obama and his supporters vanquished? What the Republican party badly needs is a Night of the Long Knives.

Finally, Jonah Goldberg’s thesis has been validated with all the gusto that unintentional irony can provide.  The proposal that conservatives wholeheartedly embrace the fascist purge of dissenters and dangerous elements - in response to a liberal victory - is actually the Final Solution of the Liberal Fascist movement, designed to get the innocent and wholesome conservatives of America to pick each other off, stupid rumor by stupid rumor.  Smooth move, Woodrow Wilson.  Smooth move.

Although he advocates that George W. Bush be tossed out in the purge, he does allow for some redeeming qualities to the otherwise surefire enemy of the state in which he doesn’t believe:

Bush has kept America safe from terror attacks since September 11. The liberations of Afghanistan from bin Ladenism and Iraq from Ba’athism were vital victories for national security and human rights. Until this year’s mortgage meltdown, his tax cuts fueled robust growth. Good work.

Yes, until everything he did failed, he was a success.  And until he got grades back, he was a valedictorian, too.

Murdock then goes on and bravely tells us that the Republican Party’s parade of convicted felons, retired crappy leaders and current, soon-to-be-replaced leaders should not be leading the party.  This is because it is easy to say completely obvious things.  I’m all in favor of the GOP continuing to have this fight, over and over and over again until someone finally tells Dick Armey that he’s not invited to the party anymore - Democrats, for years, spent so much time trying to figure out who to blame and how to blame them that the guiding focus of the party became avoiding mistakes rather than doing anything proactive.  It’s how we got the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts, among other flights of politically “necessary” fancy. 

There is one thing about this developing conservative crackup that is telling - in all the years that Democrats groused in the wilderness, angry at the feckless leadership of our own party, our enemies lists never grew this large, this fast, this pointlessly.  They were also never this grease-stained. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 11:32 PM • (20) Comments

What the Republican party badly needs is a Night of the Long Knives.

Umm…....wasn’t that all about the gay?

Comment #1: Rugged in Montana  on  11/10  at  11:43 PM

I can’t help but think that a party purge would be a very good thing for Republicans.  They should get on that.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/11  at  12:08 AM

G-Fascism…A Whole New Era
Where the rhythm is the bass and the bass proposes a massive ideological slaughter of its enemies.

Awesome.  Pure, 100% awesome.  You, sir, are the winner.

Comment #3: smadin  on  11/11  at  12:40 AM

Are you certain that’s grease that is staining their pants, Jesse?  What with all the sparks flying about their basement rooms as they contemplate sticking knives in each others backs, those may be stains of another sort grin

Comment #4: apikoros  on  11/11  at  12:56 AM

LOL!  Love the Warren G reference, Jesse.  You’re awesome.

Comment #5: Eric  on  11/11  at  01:08 AM

I remain completely unsurprised at any of this talk. Every totalitarian movement in history has eventually started killing off — whether literally or symbolically — those of its members who were either insufficiently sycophantic or not ideologically pure enough.

Comment #6: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/11  at  01:09 AM

What do you expect from a fellow with the Hoover Institution?

Comment #7: Ms Kate  on  11/11  at  01:10 AM

Bush has kept America safe from terror attacks since September 11.

Huh. He must be from that alternate universe where the anthrax attacks never happened.

Comment #8: Chet  on  11/11  at  02:02 AM

The liberations of Afghanistan from bin Ladenism and Iraq from Ba’athism were vital victories for national security and human rights.

Fail.  Fail: Bush.  Fail:Goldberg.

Afghanistan was never held by “bin Ladenism”.  Osama bin Laden hid within the national boundaries of Afghanistan.  The U.S., with the assistance of NATO, attacked Afghanistan because it was a “failed state” that did not police terrorism within its national boundaries.  Parts of Afghanistan were controlled by warlords; parts by a politically powerful retrograde religious movement called the Taliban. 

Today, Afghanistan is essentially a failed state, with parts controlled by warlords, parts by the Taliban, and a diminishing part by the Western-created government of Hamid Karzai.

On the other hand, opium poppy production is at an all-time high (pun penance due and payable).  At least SOMEONE’s economy isn’t worse for the war.

Comment #9: Ereshkigal  on  11/11  at  03:44 AM

One of the Republican Party’s many problems is that their demand for ideological purity disqualifies so many candidates for high office (I’m especially thinking presidential here). How many good candidates are not even considered simply because they are pro-choice?

I’m struggling to think of any Democratic equivalents. An anti-choice candidate wouldn’t have too much trouble (it would be assumed their Supreme Court nominations would be (pro-choice) Democrats anyway); pro-Iraq War isn’t a problem (see Hillary).

Comment #10: Will H.  on  11/11  at  10:28 AM

“I can’t help but think that a party purge would be a very good thing for Republicans.  They should get on that.”

I agree wholeheartedly, but only if those remain are as similar to Jonah Goldberg as possible…

Comment #11: MikeEss  on  11/11  at  10:41 AM

I can’t help but think that a party purge would be a very good thing for Republicans.   Enemas for everyone!  Hooray!

Comment #12: togolosh  on  11/11  at  12:54 PM

read some article (may have been in Jane’s or something like that) that afghan opium production is at an all-time high, but exports and heroin remain flat. It’s like, there is some black hole all this opium tonnage is going into.

Comment #13: Indy  on  11/11  at  01:11 PM

1. After reading Murdock’s excoriation of GWB, I can’t help but ask who he voted for in 2000 and 2004. I bet I know.

2. I will give Murdock this, however: He is one of the few who is looking for new GOP leaders in the ranks of people who have actually, you know, won elections. Still, the fact that even he is framing this as “Who is the ideologue we should have blind faith in?” is comforting to us on the other side.

3. Enjoy this crackup while it lasts; I don’t put a lot of stock in anything changing by it. All they know how to do is destroy, and they can’t destroy Obama because he hasn’t even taken office yet. So they’re destroying each other for a couple of months, but come January they’ll “remember” who the “real” “enemy” is.

Comment #14: Rick Massimo  on  11/11  at  01:22 PM

I’m struggling to think of any Democratic equivalents. An anti-choice candidate wouldn’t have too much trouble (it would be assumed their Supreme Court nominations would be (pro-choice) Democrats anyway); pro-Iraq War isn’t a problem (see Hillary).

I had an online discussion with someone who believed that “progressive” and “pro-life” (believing fetus == 4-year-old child) were mutually exclusive.  I said that the progressive agenda actually reduces the incidence of abortion dramatically enough that criminalization would be unnecessary, and that if anything it was the NON-progressive “pro-life” position that was mutually exclusive.  By non-progressive pro-life I mean someone who does not think the state should have the power to pay for ALL pregnancies, ALL child support including children’s medical bills, ALL contraception, ALL adoption fees, etc. etc..  Such a person is essentially saying, “I think abortion is morally equivalent to cold-blooded murder, but I am willing let those children die because it would cost me too much in taxes to save them.”

It makes me wonder though if there is room in the progressive tent for an explicit pro-life movement that was focused on first eliminating the circumstances that lead to abortion by trying to ensure that EVERY child is truly wanted in this society, and only after establishing a strong social safety net considering the criminalization of first/second-trimester abortions.  But that would probably require a new twist on the definition of murder:  what is it called when you want to save someone’s life but a third party prevents you from doing so?  And why shouldn’t we be willing to charge men who “oops” their girlfriends/wives into an unwanted pregnancy that she feels is necessary to terminate?

For the record I am not trying to speak into the real lives of other women from my white+male privilege position.  At the moment I think the simplest answer is still the default pro-choice position: each situation is too specific to make blanket laws around and the women themselves should make their own determination where to go in their own lives.  I’m just curious if there is a path to explicitly bring in pro-life-but-not-anti-sex people into the tent without risking legally turning women into chattel.

Comment #15: KL  on  11/11  at  01:26 PM

One of the Republican Party’s many problems is that their demand for ideological purity disqualifies so many candidates for high office (I’m especially thinking presidential here). How many good candidates are not even considered simply because they are pro-choice?

They’re pretty much going the way of the California Republican Party, and it’s pretty funny to see it happening on a nationwide level.  Schwarzenegger is just barely tolerated by California Republicans—they’d throw him out of the party if it didn’t mean they’d lose the prestige of having a Republican governor.  (He was brought in to stop the lawsuits against Enron that Gray Davis started, not because they love him ideologically.)  They absolutely love to run rabidly pro-life candidates statewide and then decide that the solution is to run people who are even more insanely right-wing when they get their asses handed to them.

Overall, this is frankly bad for the state, because our California Democrats are able to suck at their jobs but still keep them because the alternative is worse.  A sane opposition party would be nice to have since it would keep lazy Democrats on their toes.

Comment #16: Mnemosyne  on  11/11  at  04:41 PM

KL:

It makes me wonder though if there is room in the progressive tent for an explicit pro-life movement that was focused on first eliminating the circumstances that lead to abortion by trying to ensure that EVERY child is truly wanted in this society, and only after establishing a strong social safety net considering the criminalization of first/second-trimester abortions.

That’s not a “pro-life” movement. That’s a pro-choice movement.

You’re demonstrating exactly why the term “pro-life” is inherently dishonest, and why we prefer to use the phrase “anti-choice.” It’s why we spend so much time fighting against the how the issue is framed. The fact is that pro-choice policies actively and demonstrably reduce the incidence of abortion; free access to contraception, well-funded family planning, and active anti-rape and anti-DV programs, among many other things, will collectively lead to a lower abortion rate.

Framing the argument as if the sole position of the pro-choice movement is abortion on demand == fail.

Comment #17: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/11  at  05:15 PM

That’s not a “pro-life” movement. That’s a pro-choice movement.

Note the part where I mentioned criminalization of first/second trimester abortions.  I haven’t heard of criminalization inside the pro-choice frame even for those societies where the abortion rate is teeny.

Comment #18: KL  on  11/11  at  06:40 PM

Note the part where I mentioned criminalization of first/second trimester abortions. I haven’t heard of criminalization inside the pro-choice frame even for those societies where the abortion rate is teeny.

Why would a pro-choice frame — which is what you’re really talking about — criminalize abortion? Reiterating that point makes your framing more wrong, not less so.

Comment #19: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/11  at  08:29 PM

Why would a pro-choice frame — which is what you’re really talking about — criminalize abortion? Reiterating that point makes your framing more wrong, not less so.

Well you’re right, criminalizing abortion is (AFAIK) NOT pro-choice.  But the rest of the progressive agenda that actually reduces abortion IS pro-choice.

What I’m trying to get at is:  suppose there exist out there people who are think fetuses are morally equivalent of fully-born children yet don’t have dumb hangups about who women sleep with.  Such people might call themselves “pro-life” (even though they are sharply at odds with the leaders of the actual pro-life movement who care way more about who women sleep with than the actual fetuses being terminated).  And maybe these kinda-pro-life folks could be convinced that the only real difference between them and the pro-choice frame is that in some distant future when abortion is essentially only performed for medical reasons they would finally find themselves at odds with the pro-choice folks when they push for criminalizing abortion-not-for-medical-reasons.

I’m honestly not sure there are many people like that, but the person I was arguing with swore they were a “pro-life progressive.”  OTOH they gave up when I pointed out that relying on private organizations to provide the social safety net wholly undermined their argument that fetus == child (since protecting life is absolutely a state function).

Comment #20: KL  on  11/11  at  10:08 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.