We often hear that we need to have a “national dialogue” about this issue or that, or we hear that the goal of political discourse is “compromise.” But as the ideological, socio-cultural, and political divides in this nation become more stark, I wonder if such a dialogue and/or discourse is possible . . . or even desirable. How do you have a conversation (much less a “conversation as a nation”) with someone who not only doesn’t accept any viewpoint but their own but who also is utterly incapable of even comprehending your stance? Someone who willfully misunderstands it often simply to further their own ends?
There are so many things that leftists get wrong about conservatives that it was truly difficult to pick the top five [note: I’d intended to put them all in this post, but as usual, I just went on and on, so am breaking it up into five separate posts, a series if you will]. I decided to select them based on the weight of their contribution to our inability to “work with” and/or “compromise with” leftists and on their relative import to the preservation of our Constitutional Republic (it should be noted, that trying to converse and compromise with someone who doesn’t even share your goal is an exercise in futility.).
5. Conservatives are fascists. This one always cracks me up because as most of us–including BO and his traitorous horde–know fascism is rooted in and indeed cannot exist without massive government. Fascism focuses on “private-public partnerships” (i.e. the state dictating which businesses succeed, which don’t, how they operate, what they produce and to whom it is distributed and by what means, etc.). It’s totalitarian and communist in nature (this is why Hitler had to defeat communists and socialists: his National Socialist Party–i.e. “Nazi” Party was their nearest ideological rival, the truest competition for statist votes).
Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal (in the classical sense) capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:
The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)
“Selfish individual,” “collectivity,” and “productive work” . . . sound familiar? The collective, aka The Greater Good, is supreme, with the individual minimized, trampled, oppressed, rounded up, “re-educated,” imprisoned, murdered, etc. by the state if the state deems it “necessary.” Up twinkles?
Capitalism is the enemy of fascism, just as it is of socialism, communism, and every other statist, totalitarian ideology. Today’s leftists hate capitalism and the free market, they want the state to regulate and centrally-control everything; indeed, that’s the very root not only of BO’s own plans for “fundamental transformation” but of his “ows” movement. In 1933, F. A. Hayek wrote of the then-fledgling anti-capitalist National Socialist movement in Germany:
The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have steadily gained ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to “socialism of the chair” and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.
One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too, as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment, have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because, and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany, many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience.
Fascism, of course, is the polar opposite of conservativism which is rooted in Constitutional principles of limited government, individual liberty, entrepreneurship, and the free market. But leftists will never be able to understand that for a few reasons: one, they have no idea what fascism actually is (so understanding who is and who is not fascist is a bit tricky) and have no desire to learn; two, they have been conditioned to hate and to be intolerant of anyone who thinks differently (they believe that they are not fascists, but that conservatives are; therefore conservatives must not be tolerated, they must be hated); and three, they don’t seem to want to understand that it’s impossible to be both a Constitutional conservative and a fascist (if they read the Constitution and understood fascism, even on its surface as I’ve sketched it here, they’d know that.).
Their main argument for conservatives as fascists centers on the “nationalistic” aspect of fascism (another is the virulent antiSemitism and racism of Hitler’s National Socialist fascism, but I’ll discuss those in later installments). Leftists don’t, won’t, or simply can’t understand that “nationalism” and “patriotism” are not the same things, that the former is used by fascist dictators as a means of solidifying the collective (a thing conservatives detest) and that the latter is a means of unifying a nation while celebrating each patriot’s individual rights, responsibilities, and liberties.
That’s why leftists attack and fear the very word “patriot” (indeed, anyone self-identifying as a “patriot” is auto-flagged by the FBI as an “extremist” and a “potential terrorist.”); it’s not that they think we are fascists, it’s that they know we are not. And that they are (yes, more leftist projection). At least the ones in power (the WH, executive branch alphabet agency heads, union bosses, certain businesses’ CEOs, et al. cozying up to same) know this; the useful idiots with whom we most frequently come into contact in our daily lives and on social media don’t know it at all. They are blissfully ignorant of the machinations that pull their strings and direct their hate.
How do you engage in an open and civil dialogue with the willfully ignorant? Or with people whose objectives and methods of achieving objectives are the precise opposite of your own?