Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Doomed To Make The Same Not Mistake Previous entry: Men Speak Out and much is learned

Like A Thief In The Night

imageDid you know that Barack Obama is leading a crypto-messianic, quasi-fascist movement?

Moreover, this kind of reaction—an emotion-driven response utterly devoid of coherent ideational content, a response that leads far too many people to be enthusiastically willing to believe virtually anything that Obama might proclaim and to follow him anywhere—is one that Obama and his campaign explicitly seek to elicit.

People had better wake the hell up, and they had better study some history very damned fast. I have sometimes remarked, and I repeat the warning here, that the twentieth century was a nonstop train of horrors—yet in one sense, the most terrible and horrifying aspect of the twentieth century is that we learned absolutely nothing from it.

Among the horrors of the twentieth century were several notable leaders who initiated events that led to slaughter and destruction on an ungraspably monumental scale. These charismatic leaders evoked a response from their followers almost identical to that called forth by Obama. These leaders specialized in “personal stories of political conversion.” Doesn’t anyone see the connection? Doesn’t anyone remember any of this?

There are rising murmurs (and screams) that Obama is the spearhead to a fascist movement, led largely by overexcited college students and newly rejuvenated voters that want to help him embark on his grand crusade of…well, none of the fascism-watchers are quite sure what elements of the fascist program Obama seeks to institute.  While he lacks any political element of fascism in his platform, he makes up for it in some people liking him a lot, which is like 60% of fascism anyway.

This, incidentally, is what happens when a movement begins its official rewriting of history, but one of its prime historians is a complete fucking idiot.
Arthur Silber, the author of the original post above accusing Obama of incipient fascism, has some ironclad evidence that Obama’s leading a dangerous cult of personality - he asks supporters for “personal tales of political conversion”, making virtually everyone who’s ever switched political parties in any political system ever and told others about the fantastic decision they made a handmaiden to tyranny. 

It is odious and stupid, led even moreso by the fact that Obama is at this point, and in a more remarkable and spectacular and public way than I can ever remember, the ultimate embodiment of all the evils of our time.  He is a Muslim and an atheist and a fascist and a socialist and a left-winger and a right-winger and too smooth and too rough around the edges and too misogynistic and too much of a feminist and too black and not black enough.

Were I paid to be on TV, I would declare him the best candidate EVER, because he seems to find a way to piss every fringe off.

The modern problem with recognizing evil where it lays isn’t that we overlook the obvious signs.  It’s that we have far too many people screaming into the ether that they, too, have glimpsed into the face of evil, and it looks like everything from building codes to that particularly puffy cloud southwest of the radio tower.  With Obama, the most telling part of the evil he allegedly constitutes is that it’s so amorphous and ethereal (and black and Democratic and weird-backgrounded, let’s be honest) that it seems it all comes back to one central, bizarrely anti-democratic principle: any Democratic candidate able to draw support outside of the tepid and resigned is probably some insidious sort of evil.  It not only obscures what’s truly wrong with our world, but it plays on our worst fears and instincts.  The best part, though, is that because Obama is Every Evil Ever, calling this stupidity what it is can simply be blown off as him, once again, hating the values that you hold dear.  Black dudes have it so easy these days.

All I know is that you’d better keep an eye on your platter of burgers, because the Oburglar might be coming for them next.  After the babies, of course.

 

------

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 09:59 PM • (92) Comments

All I know is that you’d better keep an eye on your platter of burgers, because the Oburglar might be coming for them next.  After the babies, of course.

Oh, no! I’ve got some babies marinating in the fridge (vindaloo spice mix with a little vinegar and minced ginger) and NO ONE is getting them away from me…not even the Oburgler.

Comment #1: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/30  at  10:02 PM

Don’t worry Jeff, Babies are in season.

Fetuses?  That’s a different story altogether!

Comment #2: Ms Kate  on  06/30  at  10:19 PM

Bubbling and murmuring is rising that Obama is the spearhead to a fascist movement, led largely by overexcited college students and newly rejuvenated voters that want to help him embark on his grand crusade of…well, none of the fascism-watchers are quite sure what elements of the fascist program Obama seeks to institute.

His grand crusade of making every pregnant woman have an abortion, forcing the rich to pay 100% of their income in taxes, and re-instituting slavery with the colors reversed. Duh.

Comment #3: Lauren O  on  06/30  at  10:20 PM

Obviously this is total bullshit, but I have to admit I’ve started to wonder what it’s going to be like to get to drink the koolaid for once, in an Obama Administration.  Barack is one of the only politicians whose speeches I will actually watch on viral video at work.  I have both of his books and I keep meaning to buy one of the many nifty Obama t-shirts that seem to be on offer.  I live in a heavily Democratic black middle class liberal neighborhood, and it seems like every third house has one of those Shepard Fairey screen print posters pasted up in the window.  I don’t think I’ve ever been this openly excited about any politician, and while obviously I don’t think “popular” = “fascist”, I’ll admit it feels a little weird. 

Getting more serious, now, I think the main thing that gives this idea legs is that our political system is heavily invested in the idea that the vast majority of Americans are depoliticized and do not participate meaningfully in the political process.  Also, one of the key ways that the American propaganda machine has made foreign dictators seem particularly ominous is by casting their popular support, especially adoration in the form of actually reading their books, wearing clothing and brandishing artwork with images of The Leader, etc, as signs of how evil they obviously are.  When of course there really isn’t anything ominous about a political leader that people actually like—it’s just residue of the American propaganda machine which has generally been too afraid to talk substantively about what exactly is wrong about fascism.

Comment #4: The Opoponax  on  06/30  at  10:22 PM

I don’t think I’ve ever been this openly excited about any politician, and while obviously I don’t think “popular” = “fascist”, I’ll admit it feels a little weird.

I haven’t either, but I only got to vote for Gore 2000 and John Kerry. 

What’s different about Obama is that he’s a proactively smart politician.  He’s the kind of leader we’ve wanted the past few cycles - not perfect by any means, but not defined by his failures and his fears, either.

Comment #5: Jesse Taylor  on  06/30  at  10:26 PM

Subtext: He will take your tasty destroying-the-Rain-Forest (with the teeny tiny reconstituted onions) burgers and replace them with soy latte milkshakes! Grimace will not be pleased!

Comment #6: Roxanne  on  06/30  at  10:27 PM

That might be part of it, Jesse, because I’m in the same boat.  I remember Bill Clinton being elected, but I was 10 years old at the time, and even as I grew up I never felt particularly passionate about the Clinton presidency.  It was good, I was pro-Clinton and happy to have a Dem in the white house, I thought 99% of the backlash against him was bullshit, but I wasn’t exactly adding quotes from his State of the Union Addresses to, umm, whatever predated Facebook profiles in the annals of Things To Plaster Interesting Quotes On.  I never had nor wanted a Clinton/Gore button on my backpack, let alone a Bill Clinton t-shirt or Bill Clinton posters on my walls.  You know?

Comment #7: The Opoponax  on  06/30  at  10:32 PM

Teh horrur ... the candidate is a young person of color with his own personality cult!

Of course they can all move to Russia, where real men are elected repeatedly ... well ... take power through thuggery and organized crime anyway.

Comment #8: Ms Kate  on  06/30  at  10:33 PM

take power through thuggery and organized crime anyway.

I’ve seen that flick a couple of times already. Was it Russian? I don’t remember there being any subtitles.

Comment #9: Roxanne  on  06/30  at  10:35 PM

They’re only trotting this out because they’re hitting him at his strongest point, which is his popularity.  He’s got a Kennedy vibe, and that’s what this country needs at this point in time.  It’s either people have hope or despair, because things are so bad, and I’m happy that Americans are opting for hope.

Comment #10: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/30  at  10:38 PM

It is called Putin as Time Thug of the Year, and is now playing.

Comment #11: Ms Kate  on  06/30  at  10:38 PM

Weird. I was thinking it was a domestic film.

Comment #12: Roxanne  on  06/30  at  10:43 PM

Well there has been an anemic knock-off of it in the second-run circulation for some time ...

Or was that Idiocracy?

Comment #13: Ms Kate  on  06/30  at  10:48 PM

Would someone mind making Silber read Dave Neiwert’s blog so Silber doesn’t keep making himself look like such a fucking idiot in front of the whole internet?

Seriously.  It’s embarrassing.  Twenty minutes with the History Channel would tell you that Silber couldn’t buy a clue if he had a $50 bill in his hand.

Comment #14: Mnemosyne  on  06/30  at  11:08 PM

Funny, when I think of the name Silber, I think of fascism.  Only because of the totally psychotic nazi that ran Boston University with an iron fist - and a one-time gubanatorial candidate the PUMAs would really really like.

Comment #15: Ms Kate  on  06/30  at  11:12 PM

Funny, when I think of the name Silber, I think of fascism.  Only because of the totally psychotic nazi that ran Boston University with an iron fist.

*runs screaming into the night*

Comment #16: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/30  at  11:17 PM

Projection. No one could like Obama because he’s, y’know, really smart and says a lot of sensible things and is a good public speaker. They must be doing it because they’re in a cult.

Comment #17: paul  on  06/30  at  11:42 PM

Wingnut syllogism:

Hitler was a persuasive speaker. Obama is a persuasive speaker. Therefore Obama is Hitler.

Comment #18: Bitter Scribe  on  06/30  at  11:45 PM

Do these people remember FDR?

How about GW. Yeah, that GW. Or, for a local favorite, Robert E. Lee.


Oooor . . . Ronald Reagan. JFK.

Not every charismatic man is a threat to modern society.

Comment #19: Erl  on  07/01  at  12:11 AM

Roxanne, nothing can kill the grimace.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeyU7uVOTic

Comment #20: commissarjs  on  07/01  at  12:15 AM

“Oh, his message is so wonderful!” What’s that message? “Hope! Change!” And what’s the nature of that hope and change?

So much for specifics.

This is just the worst kind of horseshit, and was when the Clintonites were peddling it too.

Comment #21: Auguste  on  07/01  at  12:52 AM

“Oh, his message is so wonderful!” What’s that message? “Hope! Change!” And what’s the nature of that hope and change?

wait… isn’t that the Bible? well, the Jesus bits, anyway?

Comment #22: denelian  on  07/01  at  01:26 AM

What is it with conservatives and projection:

Conservatives defund the VA, but Democrats hates the troops

Democrats hate the free market, but conservatives keep subsidizing corperations with government money

Democrats are fascists, but conservatives believe the president is above the law and that the VP is his own branch of government.

If people didn’t buy into these lines of crap, it would be hilarious…

Comment #23: stevek  on  07/01  at  01:28 AM

Arthur Silber, the author of the original post above accusing Obama of incipient fascism, has some ironclad evidence that Obama’s leading a dangerous cult of personality - he asks supporters for “personal tales of political conversion”, making virtually everyone who’s ever switched political parties in any political system ever and told others about the fantastic decision they made a handmaiden to tyranny.

Asking supporters for such tales is so common. And it feels so good to see a politician win over people by whispering in their ears. It is really democracy at work, and if Obama can win people so easily, without actually saying anything substantial, not even close, you can be sure he will be constrained by the People’s will, like Bush was. He won’t know what to do ! He has super charisma ! And an awesome PR machine. I really don’t see any way he would use these to get away with certain promises. I really, for the life of me, don’t see how charisma can be used to do virtually anything you want. Really.

Comment #24: littlehorn  on  07/01  at  01:40 AM

I just want to post a quote from the Sacramento Bee article, the one that started Arthur’s post:

She describes how he lit up the room with his wide smile, shook her hand and thanked her for volunteering.

“He looked at me, and the look in his eyes was worth 1,000 words,” said Mack, now a regional field organizer. Obama hugged her and whispered something in her ear – she was so thrilled she doesn’t remember what it was.
(available here http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/649427.html )

And also this, a recollection from a Stephanie Miller show:

Then another caller came on the line. She began by announcing that, of course, in general she doesn’t believe any of that nonsense about God controlling our national destiny, and she certainly doesn’t believe that God chose that awful George Bush to be our president.

BUT, she burbled on, she absolutely believes that Barack Obama has been ordained by God to lead the United States of America. AND, she further oozed, look at the physical effect he has on people! This, she portentously announced, IS. NOT. A. COINCIDENCE.

THIS. IS. SIGNIFICANT.

And if you want to judge for yourself, you should pay Arthur’s blog a visit. He’s not a Goldberg-type conservative. He’s a leftist-anarchist.
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com

Comment #25: littlehorn  on  07/01  at  02:03 AM

And if you want to judge for yourself, you should pay Arthur’s blog a visit. He’s not a Goldberg-type conservative. He’s a leftist-anarchist.

Er, no, he’s not.  He’s a Libertarian who discovered when he got sick that having things like public transportation that let him get to his doctor’s appointments and disability payments that mean he doesn’t starve in the street are actually good and not signs of personal weakness like he always thought.

Don’t get me wrong, Arthur is not a bad guy, but he is not a leftist and never has been any more than John Cole is now a leftist just because he realizes the Republican Party sucks ass.

Comment #26: Mnemosyne  on  07/01  at  02:13 AM

Actually, Arthur’s been identifying himself as a leftist-anarchist since at least last year; prior to that he would have preferred to identify himself as libertarian. People evolve.

Comment #27: James  on  07/01  at  02:47 AM

You shut up! Obama’s going to remove “combat” forces from Iraq eventually! You’ll see! The other candidates love AIPAC too! They’re being “pragmatic”! Obama wants America to lead the world… in a positive way! Iran is scary; they’ve gone too far! If Pakistan doesn’t keep control of its nukes, we might bomb it! And that preacher, thank God Obama threw him under the bus. (Where’s black America going to go, the Greens?) They don’t care, sir. If you criticize Obama, you’re a wingnut. And these people call themselves the Left.

Comment #28: StO  on  07/01  at  03:33 AM

Wow.  I’m speechless for once in my life.  I can’t believe the vapidity of these comments.  And the fact that clearly not a one of you have actually read a word of Arthur’s.  Amazingly, hell, shockingly ignorant.

Honestly though, I’m very pleased that you guys noticed him, maybe this can become a learning opportunity.  Try reading a few of his actual posts, rather than so quickly being a good little bee, happily buzzing along with the hive mind.

I kinda think you guys sorta proved a bit of his point by so quickly lashing out at him, and defending Obama (and yourselves.  amazing how quick the self-congratulations came out.  you guys just simply must be smarter, more handsome, more charming, better-smelling, and just plain superior all around to those that dare criticize anything Obama related.  you guys know the score.) immediately, regardless of the actual merits of Arthur’s critique.  Hell, why bother reading him at all.  Jesse already told you all he’s just as bad as Goldstein (http://www.orwelltoday.com/twominutes.shtml - dammit, I’d fell a lot more smug and clever if I were actually smart enough to figure out how to make that work as a regular html link around “Goldstein,” but oh well.  I’m not gonna vote for Obama this November.  Q.E.D., right?), er I mean Goldberg, so he’s clearly a jerk. 


Good work, team. 


m

Comment #29: Matthew Witemyre  on  07/01  at  03:50 AM

Matthew, I think you just killed irony dead.

Also, the point isn’t that Silber’s a conservative, the point is that Silber’s a part of a movement painting fascism as virtually anything they don’t like. There’s a supporter of Obama who got really excited and tells other people about it - FASCIST!

Comment #30: Jesse Taylor  on  07/01  at  04:24 AM

And that preacher, thank God Obama threw him under the bus. (Where’s black America going to go, the Greens?) They don’t care, sir. If you criticize Obama, you’re a wingnut. And these people call themselves the Left.

I’m so glad that you represent black America better than black America.  I remember when we chose Jeremiah Wright as our minister - hard decision, what with T.D. Jakes handing out those buckets of fried chicken and Whodini mixtapes.

When you decide to rewrite the history of an entire intellectual movement in a way that sounds just like a ton of right-wing gasbags who’ve decided to discard the entire history of fascism in order to make a cheap point, you can lash out at your critics all you want, declare them sycophants and cultists all you want.  It doesn’t make your ignorance any more correct.

Comment #31: Jesse Taylor  on  07/01  at  04:31 AM

Among the horrors of the twentieth century were several notable leaders who initiated events that led to slaughter and destruction on an ungraspably monumental scale. These charismatic leaders evoked a response from their followers almost identical to that called forth by Obama. These leaders specialized in “personal stories of political conversion.” Doesn’t anyone see the connection? Doesn’t anyone remember any of this?

Sorry, but I’ll stick with someone who actually lived through it.

Comment #32: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  07/01  at  04:40 AM

he asks supporters for “personal tales of political conversion”

.....

Sooo, he collects data? It doesn’t seem quite as scientific as this (rimshot ^_^) but it may prove useful if you actually want to win.

And Matthew, I’ve read a fair number of Silber’s posts before this. From what I recall, he’s shown exactly one point of agreement with “leftists” as I define them—we agree that governments do bad shit.

Comment #33: hf  on  07/01  at  04:46 AM

These charismatic leaders evoked a response from their followers almost identical to that called forth by Obama.

I’m having trouble deciding if that’s a correlation-causation fallacy, fallacy of the single cause, or something altogether new - “correlative oversimplification”, maybe? Whatever it is, it’s laughable.

Comment #34: Auguste  on  07/01  at  05:22 AM

Am I a bad man to think Jeremiah Wright represents the black consensus better than Obama and his “90% there” shtick does? Is the pastor really beyond the pale? Who decides?

You don’t have to rewrite the history of fascism to detest and fear charismatic leaders. I see the fanatics accruing to Obama’s campaign as more delusional than dangerous, but they undeniably exist. Essential elements of fascism are missing, but then that wasn’t the only ugly political movement of the twentieth century.

I assume Silber still not a socialist, hf, but you may want to look up anarchism anyway.

Comment #35: StO  on  07/01  at  05:25 AM

Also, the point isn’t that Silber’s a conservative, the point is that Silber’s a part of a movement painting fascism as virtually anything they don’t like. There’s a supporter of Obama who got really excited and tells other people about it - FASCIST!

Nice work. Dumbing it down so it looks ridiculous. No, it wasn’t JUST about one supporter getting excited. It was one supporter getting excited over NOTHING. Over some guy whispering in her ear. And that person isn’t the only one and you know it.

Furthermore,<u>Obama asks people</u>* to focus on their <u>conversion</u> when trying to convince others to join the boat. They do not talk about politics. They talk about faith, some of them even God, they talk about the <u>goodness of their leader</u>.

* Quote: Mack wanted to drill home one of the <u>campaign’s key strategies</u>: telling potential voters personal stories of political conversion.
It’s still here: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/649427.html

Comment #36: littlehorn  on  07/01  at  07:22 AM

Holy smurf, just because someone gets fangirled a lot doesn’t make them the new Mussolini. I recommend Eco’s <a >checklist</a>.

Comment #37: inge  on  07/01  at  07:24 AM

Hm, typo or do you make links differently here?

Comment #38: inge  on  07/01  at  07:25 AM

Did someone say essential elements of fascism were missing ? You’re right in the middle of it ! Total cooperation between the state and business interests, secret surveillance, country on the brink of declaring the martial law. What is missing again ? Maybe the denunciation of all these things ?

Comment #39: littlehorn  on  07/01  at  07:29 AM

I’m going to chip in with those who suggest you dig a little deeper into Arthur Silber’s writing, because he’s coming at it from a different direction to the one most commenters (and Jesse, who’s been around long enough to know his stuff) seem to think, i.e. very much not the Way of the Pantload.

Not that I agree with Silber on this, but he’s the wrong person to focus on in this particular theme. You’ll find plenty of institutional movementarians with wingnut welfare checks who have cheered every squat-and-dump on civil liberties, but have nightmares about President Obama having an honour guard of Black Panthers.

The appropriate criticism of Silber is that he draws the threshold between ‘charismatic and enthusiastic’ and ‘demagoguery and self-delusional’ pretty low down the scale. The Pantload approach is an irregular verb: I offer whole-hearted and well-considered ideological support; you are deluded; they are a librulfascist mob.

Comment #40: pseudonymous in nc  on  07/01  at  08:51 AM

littlehorn, I was talking about the Obama campaign rhetoric. Read down Eco’s list, for instance. Some of the stuff is missing. That doesn’t make this country any less dangerously authoritarian.

Comment #41: StO  on  07/01  at  09:06 AM

I have long been a reader of Silber’s blog, and while he is anti-state to the point of getting rashes if touching a bottle of pills supplied by Medicare, he has been insightful and dedicated to a fair number of worthy causes for a long time. His piece on Katrina, surveillance and war are very good, no matter which side of the spectrum you are coming from.

I don’t agree with his take on Obama, but I can’t say I’m srprised by it. It doesn’t help that Obama has just given us all an olympic middle finger when it comesto FISA, one of Silber’s pet issues.

My 2 cents is that Arthur went a bit overboard on hyperbole. If he had written “Well, looks like it’s more of the same coming up, but with a really cheerful air about it, folks” or something amounting to that, I’d sign it myself.

Comment #42: F.Jardim  on  07/01  at  09:15 AM

You all do realize that repeating the same bad argument over and over again (it’s…it’s…CONVERSION!) doesn’t make the original point any more valid, right?

Comment #43: Jesse Taylor  on  07/01  at  09:37 AM

Also, the point isn’t that Silber’s a conservative, the point is that Silber’s a part of a movement painting fascism as virtually anything they don’t like.

No, Silber’s part of a movement painting the prevailing foreign policy consensus of American exceptionalism, of which Obama is a fully paid-up member, as essentially fascistic. Not the same thing at all. Obama’s style is less relevant here than his repeated public assertions that America is the “last best hope” of the world and than “all options are on the table” with respect to nuking the fuck out of Iran.

He’s not saying that Obama is spearheading some new quasi-fascistic movement. He’s saying that Obama is fully committed to the long standing quasi-fascistic foreign policy of the USA. If you don’t accept that assessment of the nature of US foreign-policy over the last hundred years or so, that’s up to you.

Comment #44: Dunc  on  07/01  at  09:48 AM

You don’t have to rewrite the history of fascism to detest and fear charismatic leaders.

You just have to really, really hate winning elections.

Seriously?

Seriously?

Can you name a single president elected since about 1930 who was elected to the office despite a total lack of charisma?  Aside from Nixon, of course, the most hated American politician of the last century.  I, for one, would love to live in a society where we could have some nice respectable little policy wonk/diplomat as our president, but seriously it’s not going to happen anytime soon.  Maybe under a parliamentary system it might be possible, but unless you want to completely rewrite the constitution, we are going to go on electing leaders who actually spark voters’ interest.

Comment #45: The Opoponax  on  07/01  at  09:50 AM

Idiotic wingnuts like like Jonah “I’m an embarrassment to my whole species” Goldberg and his fellow travelers are just pissed because they thought George Bush was going to be their charismatic authoritarian leader, who would help seal the deal on their version of American fascism. 

Unfortunately, where they saw a charismatic leader the rest of us saw an over-privileged idiot with all the charisma (and intelligence) of a bag of frozen peas.  So their attempt at a hard-right turn didn’t work out.

So another guy comes along - a guy who wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who got his college education through hard work, who has had to work his way up rather than ride on the family coattails, and a guy who can speak and inspire - and the wingnuts are coming unglued.

Fuck ‘em.  They picked their guy and things went to hell.  So shut the fuck up, move out of the way, and let the adults take over…

Comment #46: MikeEss  on  07/01  at  10:06 AM

He’s saying that Obama is fully committed to the long standing quasi-fascistic foreign policy of the USA. If you don’t accept that assessment of the nature of US foreign-policy over the last hundred years or so, that’s up to you.

Anyone who has a hope of being elected POTUS is going to have to be in line with the American approach to foreign policy as it stood pre-2001, at the very least.  As I’ve said before, we are not going to go from AMERICA FUCK YEAH to Scandinavian liberal socialism in one election. 

Not to mention, if you’re an anarchist, you have basically 2 options.  1—if you’re such an anarchist, why are you voting?  The system is inherently fucked up, from your standpoint, and your only real option is to destroy or infiltrate it.  Isn’t that, like, what anarchism means?  2—Vote Green.

There is no reason that an anarchist should be concerned with the Democratic candidate for president—if you are, you’re probably not much of an anarchist.

Comment #47: The Opoponax  on  07/01  at  10:17 AM

The Opoponax:

Anyone who has a hope of being elected POTUS is going to have to be in line with the American approach to foreign policy as it stood pre-2001, at the very least.

Indeed. Which is why it’s Arthur’s oft-stated conviction that anyone running for POTUS is, by definition, a megalomaniac warmonger. (As an aside: “as it stood pre-2001” is actually very little different, in practical terms, from how it stands right now. Sure, you weren’t supposed to admit that the US kidnaps and tortures people, much less be proud of it, but it still happened. I imagine the distinction is somewhat mute when you’re hanging from your wrists in a shipping container being beaten to death over a period of several days.)

if you’re an anarchist, you have basically 2 options.  1—if you’re such an anarchist, why are you voting? The system is inherently fucked up, from your standpoint, and your only real option is to destroy or infiltrate it.  Isn’t that, like, what anarchism means?  2—Vote Green.

Well, Arthur certainly isn’t voting, and I’m a Green (Scottish Green, that is…) As for the “destroy or infiltrate” option, can you accept that writing systemic critiques may have some role to play there?

There is no reason that an anarchist should be concerned with the Democratic candidate for president

So if you’re an anarchist blogger who writes about politics, you should just STFU because you’re not voting anyway? No critique allowed? Or does that only apply to Democratic candidates, while you can criticise the GOP as much as you like (as Arthur frequently does)?

One of Arthur’s main themes is tribalism is politics - the idea that people don’t care too much about the specifics of policy, as long as their team wins. This thread is doing a great job of supporting that thesis.

pseudonymous in nc:

The appropriate criticism of Silber is that he draws the threshold between ‘charismatic and enthusiastic’ and ‘demagoguery and self-delusional’ pretty low down the scale.

Well, I’ve read almost everything he’s written in the last couple of years, and I really don’t think that’s a valid assessment. His main thing is systemic critique, rather than leadership style. To imagine that his assessment of Obama is primarily based on his charismatic leadership style rather than his repeated and explicit statements of actual policy is not, in my opinion, accurate in the least. The point of his latest piece is that once you combine those specific policies with charismatic leadership, you have a very dangerous combination.

I heartily look forward to watching the “progressive” blogosphere suddenly get right on board with illegal, monstrously immoral foreign wars of occupation and / or genocide once Obamarama’s running the show. Well, I don’t actually, but if you don’t laugh you slash your wrists…

Comment #48: Dunc  on  07/01  at  10:52 AM

He’s not saying that Obama is spearheading some new quasi-fascistic movement. He’s saying that Obama is fully committed to the long standing quasi-fascistic foreign policy of the USA. If you don’t accept that assessment of the nature of US foreign-policy over the last hundred years or so, that’s up to you.

Take “USA” and make it “Democratic Party”, and that’s Jonah Goldberg’s thesis.

Comment #49: Jesse Taylor  on  07/01  at  10:57 AM

Take “USA” and make it “Democratic Party”, and that’s Jonah Goldberg’s thesis.

I get the feeling that that was intended as some kind of rebuttal. “Some other guy makes a stupid argument that has certain structural similarities to your argument” is not a cogent rebuttal.

Anyway, I’m not convinced it is (Goldberg’s thesis, that is). As I understand it (not that I’ve read his stupid book) Goldberg’s argument is that liberalism in general (as a political philosophy) is inherently fascistic. On the other hand, Silber’s argument is that a country / power elite which apparently believes it is so morally superior to the rest of the world that it is entitled to reform said world (especially the darker-skinned parts of it) to conform to it’s wishes through over a century of warfare and slaughter, and that if anyone complains then that just demonstrates that they need to be bombed and / or tortured more, is inherently fascistic.

Notice the subtle difference there? Oh sod it, just read his Dominion Over the World series, especially parts II and III.

Comment #50: Dunc  on  07/01  at  11:12 AM

Briefly: the Trots at Counterpunch and the paleocon/libertarian types at Antiwar.com are not making the same critique as Doughbob Loadpants. Silber is far closer to Justin Raimondo in that regard, and it’s a mistake to conflate the (non-g)libertarian kneejerk towards wide-ranging executive power with the ‘I’m rubber, you’re glue’ bathos of the Pantload. A Goldbergesque mistake, in fact, and I don’t enjoy saying that.

it’s Arthur’s oft-stated conviction that anyone running for POTUS is, by definition, a megalomaniac warmonger.

Which is why I think his thresholds are set rather low—and this is from someone who’s sent him catfood money.

Comment #51: pseudonymous in nc  on  07/01  at  11:30 AM

It’s rather stunning to hear that Mr. Silber’s lefty purity leads him to reject any charismatic leader on the grounds of incipient fascism, regardless of the leader’s actual positions on the issues.  George Washington?  Charismatic, and therefore facist.  Mother Teresa?  Charismatic, and therefore facist.  Martin Luther King? Charismatic, and therefore facist.  Jesus?  Charismatic, and therefore facist.

Comment #52: rea  on  07/01  at  11:31 AM

can you accept that writing systemic critiques may have some role to play there?    ...  So if you’re an anarchist blogger who writes about politics, you should just STFU because you’re not voting anyway? No critique allowed? Or does that only apply to Democratic candidates, while you can criticise the GOP as much as you like (as Arthur frequently does)?

1.  Parroting right wing talking points is hardly anarchist “systematic critique”

2.  I was in the throes of the obligatory undergraduate anarchist phase during the early primary season of the last election.  I even had a blog, if I recall correctly.  I didn’t fucking give a crap about who the Democratic candidate was going to be.  I thought Dean was a stuffed shirt and Kucinich was an uncharismatic loser who didn’t have a chance in hell, and the rest of the options weren’t even worth mentioning.  I already understood by that point that anyone with a chance of becoming president could be definition not espouse any of the political ideals I held dear.    I spent most of the primaries doing anarchist stuff like outside-the-system direct action based protest, and I mainly wrote about anarchist stuff and from an anarchist context on my blog.  By November ‘04 I was pretty much over it and ended up voting for Kerry like a good little liberal democrat.

3.  A “political blogger” who calls himself anarchist and then doesn’t ever seem to want to talk about the stuff that matters to anarchists, in the way it matters to anarchists, but instead wants to join the pack in covering the presidential election, is a moron.

Comment #53: The Opoponax  on  07/01  at  11:32 AM

1. Parroting right wing talking points is hardly anarchist “systematic critique”
[...]
3.A “political blogger” who calls himself anarchist and then doesn’t ever seem to want to talk about the stuff that matters to anarchists, in the way it matters to anarchists, but instead wants to join the pack in covering the presidential election, is a moron.

How much of his stuff have you actually read? Or are you just making a “no true anarchist” argument?

Comment #54: Dunc  on  07/01  at  11:42 AM

Silber is aparently yet another person looking at politics from such a grand lofty height that all the trivial issues that bother us ants down here seem to him to be insignificant.  Obama less likely to start a war with Iran, or to appoint justices who think the Constitution makes the president a dictator and women property? Mere trivia, compared to the overall fascist metatrend . . .

Comment #55: rea  on  07/01  at  11:55 AM

I get the feeling that that was intended as some kind of rebuttal. “Some other guy makes a stupid argument that has certain structural similarities to your argument” is not a cogent rebuttal.

And saying something’s not a cogent rebuttal isn’t a cogent rebuttal, either.

It’s not the “certain structural similarities”.  It’s the same argument, except about a more specific group.

Comment #56: Jesse Taylor  on  07/01  at  12:00 PM

Dunc, I just read the entire article, and you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Silber is claiming that Obama is the head of a fascist movement and that he will create—not perpetuate, not continue, create from scratch—a full-on fascist state if elected.  Re-read this:

Among the horrors of the twentieth century were several notable leaders who initiated events that led to slaughter and destruction on an ungraspably monumental scale. These charismatic leaders evoked a response from their followers almost identical to that called forth by Obama. These leaders specialized in “personal stories of political conversion.” Doesn’t anyone see the connection? Doesn’t anyone remember any of this?

He’s not saying that we’re already heading towards fascism thanks to Bush and that Obama will continue that march.  He’s saying that Obama is going to create fascism out of whole cloth.  So what’s the alternative, according to Silber?

I am not quite there yet, but I am seriously considering the following. Depending on how this campaign develops, and depending on how Obama conducts himself and—very significantly to me—how Obama’s most devoted supporters act, I may conclude that, if you vote, you should vote for John McCain. Unbelievable, I realize, but I may have no choice but to think that the alternative is far too dangerous to countenance.

My, that’s quite a leftist-anarchist you have there when he decides that voting for the continuation of Bush’s policies is better for the left than voting for the Democrat.

Comment #57: Mnemosyne  on  07/01  at  12:08 PM

Obama is popular and therefore dangerous?

Heh, I’m getting flashbacks to the SNL 2000 presidential race skits and Al Gore explaining his popular vote:

“I’m this close to getting teenaged girls throwing their panties at me!”

Comment #58: Faye  on  07/01  at  12:30 PM

Jesse:

It’s not the “certain structural similarities”.  It’s the same argument, except about a more specific group.

You’re fuckin’ kidding me, right? Arthur Silber’s extensive writing on the continuity of US foreign policy over the last century or so, complete with actual facts and shit, is exactly equivalent to the Pantload’s stupid whining about how liberals are mean?

So, what do you call it when a long succession of governments actively support hard-right, racist, corporatist paramilitaries, death squads, and torturers, with the full backing and involvement of corporate power? What do you call it when said succession of governments repeatedly launch massive wars of aggression and subjugation against an array of “enemies” who never actually threatened the country in question at all? What do you call it when jackbooted thugs are raping, torturing and murdering community and union organisers?

I’ll grant that, pace Eco, there may be distinctions between “classic” fascism and the quasi-fascism practised by all flavours of US government all these years. However, I submit that those differences are not sufficiently significant to completely invalidate all comparisions, and I further submit that such distinctions are largely irrelevant to the victims. When you’re having holes drilled in your skull sans anaesthetic, I very much doubt that you wonder about the precise articulation of the political ideologies that have led to your fate. “No, the gentlemen torturing me to death aren’t fascists, they’re just right-wing authoritarians with corporate backing. I believe at least 3 of Eco’s Tenets of Ur-Fascism are missing from the political make-up of the situation.” Sure.

Mnemosyne:

Silber is claiming that Obama is the head of a fascist movement and that he will create—not perpetuate, not continue, create from scratch—a full-on fascist state if elected.

[...]

He’s not saying that we’re already heading towards fascism thanks to Bush and that Obama will continue that march.  He’s saying that Obama is going to create fascism out of whole cloth.

Well, that’s pretty much impossible to square with everything else that Arthur has written that I’ve ever read. I’ll happily agree that this specific post is not one of his better ones, but I think you need to look at it in the context of the rest of his work. I certainly don’t see anywhere in that post where he states that the main problems in terms of policy don’t already exist. He’s merely saying that Obama’s popularity provides a means to re-invigorate public support for those policies.

As for concluding that McCain is the better pick, I’d probably disagree there. But again, you need to look at the context of the rest of his work, especially stuff like Killing Truth and Hope—The Fatal Illusion of Opposition. His position is that the illusion of opposition provided by the Democrats is more dangerous than the open authoritarianism of the Republicans. I’m not entirely sure I agree there, but there is a lot more to is position than you seem to appreciate.

My, that’s quite a leftist-anarchist you have there when he decides that voting for the continuation of Bush’s policies is better for the left than voting for the Democrat.

Well, if you believe that the Democrat will follow essentially the same policies, only more effectively and in such a way as to provoke less opposition, then it’s perfectly reasonable. Now I obviously don’t expect many here to agree with that assessment of Obama (or any Democrat, under any circumstances), but I do hope that you can acknowledge that it’s a valid line of reasoning given the premises.

Comment #59: Dunc  on  07/01  at  01:06 PM

Well, if you believe that the Democrat will follow essentially the same policies, only more effectively and in such a way as to provoke less opposition, then it’s perfectly reasonable. Now I obviously don’t expect many here to agree with that assessment of Obama (or any Democrat, under any circumstances), but I do hope that you can acknowledge that it’s a valid line of reasoning given the premises.

Sorry, but that’s like asking me to accept a premise that the Loch Ness Monster really exists so we can discuss whether or not it eats people or restricts itself to salmon.  I’m not going to accept a completely insane premise so Silber can build a completely paranoid argument that we need to vote for McCain because Obama is the next Hitler and The Audacity of Hope is merely an updated version of Mein Kampf.

Frankly, his arguments are reminding me of variations on the PMDers that Fred Clark deconstructs so well on his blog as he examines the “Left Behind” books.  Apparently, if someone promises peace, to fundamentalists that’s absolute proof that s/he is promising war, so they’ll always go for the person who promises war since at least they’ll get what they’ve been promised and not have been given reason to hope for better.

Comment #60: Mnemosyne  on  07/01  at  01:29 PM

Dunc: His position is that the illusion of opposition provided by the Democrats is more dangerous than the open authoritarianism of the Republicans.

Which is a position unpleasantly similar to the one the Communists held in Weimar. As any kind of bougeoise rule is equally bad, it’s the Social Democrat traitors you need to fight, not the Nazis, who will overplay their hand, break the hated democratic system and pave the way for a proletarian revolution. Sounds nice, especially when you’ve had it up to here with lies and compromises and the internal fights the left is famous for. Is still stupid.

Comment #61: inge  on  07/01  at  01:40 PM

This is not new.  Plenty of liberals had a pretty similar attitude that Obama is or encourages a personality cult.  Jesse Wendel at The Group NewsBlog had a pretty high heat flame thread on a post where he accuses people of succumbing to cult of Obama mentality.  Ian Welsh over at the Agonist was the same way.

In the end, people like Arthur Silber et al, are pretty much like those PUMAs, it’s mostly about them not being able to believe that a black guy could generate the kind of political power necessary to win the presidency.  Ian Welsh, for example, was/is confident that the racist vote will give John McCain a large enough bump to win in the generals, and that’s why we should change the rules to let Clinton win.  Many of the PUMAs that I am aware of are mostly sickened that a black man would get to be president before a woman does.  Of course, they usually speak more (what they view as) platable opinions, but it generally comes down to that Obama violates their sense of normal whiteness, and they can’t quite believe it.


On a side-note…
John Silber is a pretty fucked up guy.  He reminds me so much of Woodrow Wilson, it’s scary.  Good thing he never made it to the governer’s house.

Comment #62: shah8  on  07/01  at  01:59 PM

His position is that the illusion of opposition provided by the Democrats is more dangerous than the open authoritarianism of the Republicans.

Wait, and this is the guy who thinks that Obama is going to create a totalitarian government?  d

Projection, much?

He does know that, far more than a charismatic leader, or cultlike followers, the almost irrefutable One Big Sign of totalitarianism is the quashing of dissent and creation of a one-party system.  If he wants the Dems to just shut up and go home so that the Republicans can be the only game in town, he’s no anarchist, he’s a straight up fascist himself.

And that’s not a “no true scotsman” argument, at all.

Comment #63: The Opoponax  on  07/01  at  02:02 PM

Dunc et al: you mean these policies?

“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama

Do you believe that promise to overturn laws means he intends to dissolve the Senate? Or are you unwittingly applying the law of nature that says we can find similarities (and differences) between literally anything and anything else? Here, I’ll illustrate. How do you distinguish Silber from a smart right-winger who wants to subtly discredit leftism in the eyes of the American public and maybe convince a few radicals to vote McCain? I don’t believe he wants to do this, but what exactly would he do differently in that scenario? (Try to get more publicity?)

Comment #64: hf  on  07/01  at  02:29 PM

Oh, I forgot to add: I’ll bet a lifetime of health care costs that President Obama will not go to war against Iran. I can’t say that about McCain.

Comment #65: hf  on  07/01  at  02:34 PM

“I’ll bet a lifetime of health care costs that President Obama will not go to war against Iran.”

...it may not matter if the current Asshole In Chief starts the war with Iran before he leaves and Obama is sworn in…

Comment #66: MikeEss  on  07/01  at  02:39 PM

Most of the criticisms of Silber here have nothing to do with the real Arthur Silber.  I disagree with Silber myself and will (probably) vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils (but nonetheless evil), but I don’t recognize the Silber most of the people here are bashing.  This is probably because I read him almost daily.  Silber takes a Chomskyite view of US foreign policy, seeing it as imperialist under Democrats and Republicans alike.  He’s basically correct, I think.  I think he’s incorrect in thinking that Democrats are more dangerous because they put a kinder gentler face on the phenomenon.  He’s right that this is what Democrats do, but still, I think a lying hypocritical scumbag like Obama would do less harm than a maniacal warmonger like McCain.  I’m not certain of that, but it seems likely to me.

Silber would have unkind things to say about my position, btw.

Comment #67: Donald Johnson  on  07/01  at  03:08 PM

Silber takes a Chomskyite view of US foreign policy, seeing it as imperialist under Democrats and Republicans alike.

Nothing I have seen thus far has had anything in common with very much that Chomsky ever wrote.  It seems to me that, if Silber has ever read Chomsky, he doesn’t seem to have understood him very well.

And, again, I used to be an anarchist, and when I was one, I don’t remember people being particularly concerned about major party presidential candidates.  Anarchists I know don’t get particularly riled about electoral politics at this level—it doesn’t matter who the major party candidates are, because they’re never going to agree with them, anyway. 

The “I think we should just vote McCain” is an especially dead giveaway.  I’ve NEVER heard an anarchist suggest that the best course of action is to go out and vote for a far-right candidate in hopes that it collapses the political system.  It’s pretty antithetical to the whole anarchist thing, in about 20 really obvious ways.  Not to mention, when the “anarchists” start parroting republican talking points and telling you to vote republican, you have to ask whether they’re really anarchists or maybe just republican ratfuckers.

Comment #68: The Opoponax  on  07/01  at  03:39 PM

Opponax, I can’t imagine how you could have read much of Silber if you don’t see the similarities between them on US foreign policy.  And when I say similarities, I mean virtual identity.  They differ on domestic issues—Chomsky says he is an anarchist, but he is for Social Security and all the rest of the welfare state (not that he writes much about it) and Chomsky is a lesser of two evils voter, at least in swing states—he might have voted for Nader in 2000, but knowing that Gore was certain to win Massachusetts.  He’s often quoted as saying that with a country as powerful as the US, even small differences in evil can make a big difference in people’s lives.  Which is very different from how Arthur Silber views voting.  But when it comes to imperialism and US foreign policy, if there are distinctions I’ve never run into them and I’ve been reading Arthur for a year or two and Chomsky for decades.

As for the McCain vote, it’s not a dead giveaway.  That just shows you don’t know much about Arthur Silber.  There’s no crime in that—you’re under no obligation to read him or understand his thinking or know his work well enough to think it absurd to imagine him as a Republican, but it does mean that your opinions of him are incorrect.  Arthur thinks that Obama has shown he’s entirely in the US imperial mainstream and would (as I said earlier) put a kinder gentler face on warlike policies.  He thinks it likely that Obama would start a war with Iran and because he’s a Democrat, might actually get less opposition for it.  I don’t agree, but that’s where Arthur is.  I read him because I think he’s often right, but in this case I think he’s not.

Anyway, Arthur himself is a strong advocate of not voting at all.  He despises both parties and you’d know that if you read him.

That’s all I will say on this.  Anyone who is really interested in Arthur Silber’s opinions will find that he’s written quite a few very long essays explaining them.  Of course he could be making it all up, working for Karl Rove in secret, but I don’t believe that any more than I think Bush is a clandestine liberal doing his best to discredit conservative philosophy by running the country as badly as possible.
Hell, I could be a Cylon and not know it, come to think of it.

Comment #69: Donald Johnson  on  07/01  at  04:24 PM

Silber takes a Chomskyite view of US foreign policy, seeing it as imperialist under Democrats and Republicans alike.  He’s basically correct, I think.  I think he’s incorrect in thinking that Democrats are more dangerous because they put a kinder gentler face on the phenomenon.

Except that’s not what he said.  He said that Obama is going to be the next Hitler because he’s forming a cult of personality, so McCain is the better choice.

Either Silber is so completely ignorant of recent European history that he thinks he’s making a valid comparison, or he’s completely insane.  Which is it?

Comment #70: Mnemosyne  on  07/01  at  04:25 PM

No, it wasn’t JUST about one supporter getting excited. It was one supporter getting excited over NOTHING. Over some guy whispering in her ear. And that person isn’t the only one and you know it.

Cue the Tracy Chapman:

Don’t you know
They’re talkin’ bout a revolution
It sounds like a whisper
Don’t you know
They’re talkin’ about a revolution
It sounds like a whisper

While they’re standing in the welfare lines
Crying at the doorsteps of those armies of salvation
Wasting time in the unemployment lines
Sitting around waiting for a promotion

Don’t you know
They’re talkin’ bout a revolution
It sounds like a whisper
Poor people gonna rise up
And get their share
Poor people gonna rise up
And take what’s theirs

Don’t you know
You better run, run, run, run, run,
run, run, run, run, run, run, run
Oh I said you better
Run, run, run, run, run, run, run,
run, run, run, run, run

Finally the tables are starting to turn
Talkin’ bout a revolution
Finally the tables are starting to turn
Talkin’ bout a revolution
Talkin’ bout a revolution

While they`re standing in the welfare lines
Crying at the doorsteps of those armies of salvation
Wasting time in the unemployment lines
Sitting around waiting for a promotion

Don’t you know
They’re talkin’ bout a revolution
It sounds like a whisper

Finally the tables are starting to turn
Talkin’ bout a revolution
Finally the tables are starting to turn
Talkin’ bout a revolution
Talkin’ bout a revolution
Talkin’ bout a revolution

Comment #71: Ms Kate  on  07/01  at  04:42 PM

False dichotomy, there, mnemosyne.  He could be someone who has been enraged by his country’s behavior and after having written reams of material condemning Bush Administration atrocities and American atrocities in general, sees the progressive support for Obama as more of the same as Obama reveals over and over again that he subscribes to the basic doctrines of American exceptionalism. 

I wish people would retire the Hitler analogies myself, because we get bogged down in whether some American form of evil happens to fit in with a pattern in 1930’s-40’s Germany, but a fair number of progressives regularly use them about Bush and his supporters.  In Silber’s case, he sees the Iraq War as an example of aggressive war and outright genocide, and he sees Obama as someone who opposed it on pragmatic grounds and isn’t really in favor of complete withdrawal, and his supporters as people who are blind to his flaws, and so you get Hitler comparisons.  I think they’re a bad mistake for various reasons, probably the most important being that America has committed numerous atrocities that one can and should condemn without getting into pointless discussions about similarities and differences to what the Nazis did. 

So again, if you are actually interested in Silber’s opinions, read them.  He’s been writing long essays for years.  I can see I’ll feel compelled to keep defending him (even though I think he’s wrong in this case) if I keep coming back, and that there are probably some here who will refuse to consider the possibility that they might be misjudging him, so I’ll just stay away now.

Comment #72: Donald Johnson  on  07/01  at  04:47 PM

Ah yes, and I love Phonecian’s Umberto Eco link.  #1 is, of course, a cult of TRADITION.

Explain how a black president will manage that?

I also love how we suddenly have all these people showing up who are intelligent and well read, but clearly in Arthur Silber’s personality cult.  Do you know him personally?  Or will this inveitably lead to one of those Marshall McLuhan moments ala Woody Allen?

Comment #73: Ms Kate  on  07/01  at  04:51 PM

Donald, to be perfectly honest I’m not a regular reader of Silber’s.  But if the way he’s quoted in Auguste’s ‘s piece is at all accurate, and if the ideas you guys are attributing to him aside from a few facile similarities to Chomsky on that aren’t consistent at all with other points attributed to him are accurate, then, no he doesn’t have much in common with either Chomsky or any other left-anarchist I’m familiar with.  And as I’ve said, I used to run in those crowds, so you’re not going to put one over on my simply by saying, “But he thinks X Totally Republican Idea, therefore he is anarchist!”

I have to say that, while none of you trolls are actually convincing me that Silber is the sort of political animal you say he is, you’re making e very curious to see what kind of idiocy is over there on that site of his…

Comment #74: The Opoponax  on  07/01  at  05:24 PM

Came back to attempt to do justice to Arthur—I left out his opinion of FISA.  Briefly, as I understand him, he thinks the Fourth Amendment is already eviscerated and Obama is in full agreement with Bush on this.  The argument over immunity for the companies is a side issue.

It’s not, of course, that the government is already busy dissappearing people in fine Latin American or Hitlerian style, though of course if you’re unfortunate enough to be a Muslim in the wrong place and time American justice is already at that level.  But the potential is there and both Democrats and Republicans keep giving the government more and more power.

That, as best I can summarize in a few sentences (and I’m not the best writer in the world, obviously) is what Arthur thinks about civil liberties in America.  We’re on our way to a police state—we’re already most of the way there. 

As for Arthur’s personality cult—sigh.  I disagree with him and if I ever emailed him what I think, we’d probably be yelling at each other after the first exchange or so.  But think what you want, Ms. Kate.  Some of us think we can learn a lot from people we don’t necessarily agree with on everything.

Comment #75: Donald Johnson  on  07/01  at  07:42 PM

In Silber’s case, he sees the Iraq War as an example of aggressive war and outright genocide, and he sees Obama as someone who opposed it on pragmatic grounds and isn’t really in favor of complete withdrawal, and his supporters as people who are blind to his flaws, and so you get Hitler comparisons.

Did you at least read the piece that’s linked to?  Because you’re trying to claim that Silber didn’t say something that HE VERY CLEARLY DID SAY.  I have quoted it, Auguste has quoted it, and you’re trying to claim that when Silber said that he saw a dog, what he really meant to say was that he saw a truck.

You can dance around it all day long, but you’re putting words in Silber’s mouth when what we need is for him to explain himself if he didn’t really mean that the Democrats are going to turn into the Nazi Party as soon as Obama gains power.

Comment #76: Mnemosyne  on  07/01  at  07:56 PM

Briefly, as I understand him, he thinks the Fourth Amendment is already eviscerated and Obama is in full agreement with Bush on this.

There you go again, spouting, or at least strongly implying, right-wing talking points.  Look, we’ve already pretty much eviscerated all our civil rights, so why bother to patch things up?  Vote McCain!

Comment #77: The Opoponax  on  07/01  at  08:39 PM

Ah yes, and I love Phonecian’s Umberto Eco link.

It’s “Phoenician”.  “Phoenician”. PHOENICIAN. PHO - E - NICIAN!!!!

And do you want to know why the misspelling irritaes me so much, Ms Kate?  Would you like me to explain to you precisely why you screwing up my hastily chosen pretentious moniker has pissed me off.  WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW?!?!?!?

It’s because I wasted 15 minutes this morning trying to log into a gmail account while making precisely the same error.

*sigh*

Comment #78: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  07/01  at  10:11 PM

Well, mnemosyme, if the subject is Arthur Silber’s views on things I have a teensy advantage over you in that I actually have been reading him for awhile and know the context for his Godwin’s law violations.  And this being the internet, having that kind of advantage wins me precisely nothing.

Anyway, he’s clarified what he meant in an update to a post today and wouldn’t you know it?  He says just about what I said.  What a shock.

Now part of this is his fault. He wrote some inflammatory thing involving Hitler, so he’s likely to get links from people who will ridicule him and then a bunch of people who’ve never read a single word he’s written before that day will be outraged and totally misunderstand and accuse him of being a clandestine operator for John McCain (which is just funny).  But when someone comes along and points out that, no, having read Arthur Silber for awhile, I think I can explain what he probably means, it’s just possible that I might know something about his views that you don’t.

But anyway, as I keep explaining, if you are interested in this, he’s spent years writing enormous essays explaining what he thinks in great detail, so you don’t have to “win” arguments in a thread at some other blog based on the one thing he’s written that you have read.  You can just read his essays. 

As for rightwing talking points, opoponax, is Glenn Greenwald also spouting rightwing talking points when he rips into Obama on his FISA position?

Comment #79: Donald Johnson  on  07/01  at  11:14 PM

accuse him of being a clandestine operator for John McCain (which is just funny).

Yeah, it is just so funny when people who openly advocate for a certain candidate are accused of being in league with or in the pocket of said candidate.

I don’t read Glen Greenwald, but I hardly think that he’s saying that the main problem with Obama’s cave of FISA is that it does too much to resurrect that pesky 4th Amendment which we <strike>right-libertarians</strike> no, wait… ANARCHISTS (Yeah!  Anarchists!  That’s it!) have been working so hard to destroy.

I’m sure you’ve heard the saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.  Well if it walks like a rightie and talks like a rightie, it’s probably not a leftie.

Comment #80: The Opoponax  on  07/02  at  12:00 AM

Yes, I just read his update.  And, no, he hasn’t backed off from thinking that Obama is more dangerous than McCain:

So, no, Obama is not a Hitler duplicate, but, to a readily noticeable and troubling extent, he is someone riding a similar kind of cultural wave and response, and he may well use an already existing authoritarian-surveillance state that repeatedly engages in aggressive war to wreak great destruction both at home and abroad. The unthinking, unquestioning idolatry heaped on Obama by many of his followers only increases the danger; as I have stated, this additional factor is a very significant one to me.

I can’t say that I’ve done extensive scholarly-level research on Nazi Germany, but I’ve done more than my share, and even the most basic skimming of, say, one of Christopher Browning’s books quickly shows that Silber has no fucking idea what he’s talking about.  He has no idea how Hitler came to power, or why, or what the underlying social conditions were.  He doesn’t even seem to know that Hitler was not popularly elected.  He was handed power as part of a coalition government by conservatives who hoped he would fail so they could install their own friendly dictator.

Sorry, but Silber’s update just makes him look like even more of an ignorant, clueless idiot than he did before.  He probably should have kept his mouth shut after the first post.

Comment #81: Mnemosyne  on  07/02  at  02:53 AM

I do think you’re ignoring the possibility that Silber babbled incoherently from anger and then tried to justify/retcon it later.

Oh, and I didn’t ask if he worked for Rove, I asked what he’d do differently in that scenario. “Mr. President, I’m not saying you don’t love this country, I’m just wondering how much worse it would be if you were on the other side.” I do in fact question if he fits my definition of “leftist”, but then you may not recognize my papal authority in this matter.

Comment #82: hf  on  07/02  at  04:51 AM

Okay, here’s my last rant on the subject:

Silber is spending so much time looking at European history that he seems to have missed that unrepentant Nixonites Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld bided their time for 25 years until they could get back into federal government and make all of the changes to executive power that they were denied in 1974 when Nixon resigned.

And yet all Silber can see is that the power that Cheney has amassed must remain in the hands of the Republicans because only they can be trusted with it.  He knows what the Republicans will do (tank the economy, take away civil liberties, steal money from the government) but the idea of the opposition party having the same power that Bush and Cheney have had for 8 years scares the crap out of him.  Better to leave that enormous power in the hands of Republicans than to let the Democrats have it.

What’s really sad is that Silber doesn’t even seem to realize where this instinctive, knee-jerk reaction on his part is coming from (it’s not racism, BTW, or at least not primarily racism).  All he knows is that he’s uncomfortable with the idea of Democrats having the same power as Republicans, but he knows on some level that it’s not fair.  So he needs to create a reason, a reason so catastrophic that only electing the Republican can keep us all safe:  Obama is forming a new Nazi Party, and only electing John McCain and leaving all of the unrepentant Nixonites in place can save us.

Comment #83: Mnemosyne  on  07/02  at  11:54 AM

Explain how a black president will manage that?
Well uh, by speaking the same language as the Whites ? Isn’t he saying Black fathers are irresponsible in his speeches ? Doesn’t he embrace the US foreign policy as well ? I don’t oppose all wars, just dumb wars. Just the wars that don’t work. But the others, oh hell yea !

And yet all Silber can see is that the power that Cheney has amassed must remain in the hands of the Republicans because only they can be trusted with it.
If you have had your brain functioning while reading the comments here, then you cannot be seriously saying this.
The point is: Democrats and Republicans are gonna act in very much the same way* with regards to fundamental things, like, you know, war with iran, martial law, surveillance and such other crap.
The difference is, it seems this is what Arthur thinks, Republicans will draw more opposition than Democrats. You know, like, it won’t last as long if people are FINALLY pissed enough to go to the streets and massively protest.

* Of course, that’s only if we are to believe every single thing Obama has said until now.

Comment #84: littlehorn  on  07/03  at  09:55 PM

I do in fact question if he fits my definition of “leftist”, but then you may not recognize my papal authority in this matter.

What is it with the definition of leftist here? I didn’t say he was a leftist and an anarchist. I said leftist-anarchist. You can’t dissociate the two. It ain’t a combination of two separate ideologies.
Ron Paul, for instance, is a rightist-anarchist. But if you tried to compare him to rightists, it wouldn’t fit at all. Or rather, not so much.

Comment #85: littlehorn  on  07/03  at  09:58 PM

He doesn’t even seem to know that Hitler was not popularly elected. He was handed power as part of a coalition government by conservatives who hoped he would fail so they could install their own friendly dictator.

And what does that have to do with the acceptance of the Nazi regime by the population ? Arthur’s point is the German People failed to stop the crap, because they were made into a “patriotic mob”. These are the words used by one of those German “nazis”, actually a liberal that joined the party to corrupt it from within. It’s all in the book called “They thought they were free.”

Comment #86: littlehorn  on  07/03  at  10:03 PM

There you go again, spouting, or at least strongly implying, right-wing talking points.  Look, we’ve already pretty much eviscerated all our civil rights, so why bother to <u>patch things up</u>?  Vote McCain!
This is from the quote that you used, just one inch above:
Briefly, as I understand him, he thinks the Fourth Amendment is already eviscerated and <u>Obama is in full agreement with Bush on this.</u>

Do I have to spell it out ? Obama will not “patch things up” as far as the 4th amendment is concerned. Oversight is not enough. The FISA court almost always grants permissions for secret surveillance. Bush wanted to go from 99% to 100%. And now we’re saying that 1% is “patching things up” ?

Comment #87: littlehorn  on  07/03  at  10:16 PM

Oh one more thing, your version of right-wing talking points is ...weird.
Look, we’ve already pretty much eviscerated all our civil rights, so why bother to patch things up? Vote McCain!
Unless I’m wrong and you’re trying to paraphrase Arthur here, wherever did you hear anything like this ?

Comment #88: littlehorn  on  07/03  at  10:28 PM

Which is a position unpleasantly similar to the one the Communists held in Weimar. As any kind of bougeoise rule is equally bad, it’s the Social Democrat traitors you need to fight, not the Nazis, who will overplay their hand, break the hated democratic system and pave the way for a proletarian revolution. Sounds nice, especially when you’ve had it up to here with lies and compromises and the internal fights the left is famous for. Is still stupid.

How is it stupid ? Are we not all much more aware of the flaws in the American Republic, after 8 years of George Bush ?

I don’t know much about the Communists in Weimar, but as Chris Floyd explained <url=http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1545/135>here</url>, even though they were hostile to Social Democrats, their main fight was with the Nazis and they later ended up in camps for fighting them on the streets, while the Social Democrats were “corrupting the system from within”.

Comment #89: littlehorn  on  07/03  at  10:36 PM

The point is: Democrats and Republicans are gonna act in very much the same way* with regards to fundamental things, like, you know, war with iran, martial law, surveillance and such other crap.

Again, you keep saying things that SILBER DID NOT SAY and defending him claiming that Silber said things that he clearly did not.  You may think that about Obama, but Silber does not BY HIS OWN WORDS.

Silber fucked up, and you really need to stop defending him, because you’re making yourself look like an idiot when you try to explain that Silber didn’t really say what he said.

Comment #90: Mnemosyne  on  07/04  at  04:50 PM

Indeed, Silber has not yet given the reason why he would consider voting for McCain, I’m only trying to imagine why.

What I said seems like the best explanation to me, considering what I know Silber says.

But if you mean Silber never said Democrats and Republicans act in very much the same way, then you are very wrong. Actually, this is a point Silber has hammered again and again and again. Although not in this one post.

This is from june the 29th, read this one quote:

Brave Democrats, with significant change in government policy always just over the horizon, when the light appears beyond the curve of the tunnel after the mountain has been climbed, once a multitude of unicorns and ponies have appeared on every doorstep, after…oh, to hell with it. But cutting off money now, to stop the horrific progress of utterly insane actions…nope, don’t want to do that.

Beyond these points, none of this matters in the least, first, because intelligence is entirely irrelevant with regard to the conventional arguments about its central importance (read lies for “conventional arguments”), and second, because the Democrats favor, in fundamental terms, the exactly identical foreign policy. Huzzah!

Comment #91: littlehorn  on  07/05  at  01:18 AM

Also, while you seem to say I’m putting words in Silber’s mouth, I’d like you to read that part again:

The difference is, it seems this is what Arthur thinks, Republicans will draw more opposition than Democrats.

Comment #92: littlehorn  on  07/05  at  01:21 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.