Republicanism and Liberalism

Today in the USA, the Republican party stands for small government. While the Democracts, the more liberal party, are seen as the party of strong government and centralisation (by US standards).

However, now that I'm studying the history of the two ideologies, their fundamental beliefs seem to have been the otherway around.

On the republican side, the early theorists took a very collectivist approach. Studying Rousseau, he seems to be in many ways some kind of proto-communist. The talk of a collective will of all those in the 'social contract' as being in the hands of a minority who, rather than accepting the people's actual will, instead make laws based on what they ought to will for the common good; smacks of Lenin's idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat, from his belief that the people do not know what is good for them and so the government must rule them for their own good. In some ways, it seems that Marx's ideology is simply an extension of Rousseau's, building on the idea of small, self-sufficient communes, and expanding the communal society to a global level.

In contrast, the liberal writers all for limiting the government. Locke for example saw it as merely existing to ensure the preservation of property, and that people were in fact surrendering natural rights in order to live under a constitution. Locke was amongst the first to come up with something resembling the modern system of checks and balances to limit the government from growing too powerful, through his legislative/executive/federative system.

So, why is the US Republican party the party of small government, and the Democrats seen as that of a stronger government? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Today in the USA, the Republican party stands for small government.

---

Sorry to say, I stopped reading right there. You haven't really been keeping up on developments in this country for the last quarter-century, now have you?

Rhyfelwyr, your confusion is because the terminology of US politics (and increasingly elsewhere) bears little resemblance to the historical meaning of the words.

In a nutshell: Liberals are not, conservatives are not, and government of any colour is never small.

Quote:

---

Yesterday in the USA, the Republican party paid lip service for small government.

---

There I Fixed it for you.

Today in the USA, the Republican party doesn't even pay lip service anymore.

First post in the Backroom.:beam:

The libertarian party is for small government.








And small parties. ~;p

Classical Liberalism - limited government, individual liberty and responsibility, etc.

Conservatism - commitment to tradition.

Progressivism - commitment to building a better future by design.

American conservatives are committed to the tradition of classical liberalism. The far left is not liberal at all, they are progressive. Liberal is a ruined word in the American political context, it includes many opposite meanings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

American conservatives are committed to the tradition of classical liberalism. The far left is not liberal at all, they are progressive. Liberal is a ruined word in the American political context, it includes many opposite meanings.

---

That's a peachy assessment, but reality would show otherwise.

Without going into the specifics of any administrations, I meant the more general associations with the ideologies that the parties bear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Without going into the specifics of any administrations, I meant the more general associations with the ideologies that the parties bear.

---

Both the Republican and Democratic parties are big government parties, though one or the other may claim otherwise. They just want to focus the big government in different directions.


Its guns vs. butter, as they say.


The small government parties, such as Libertarian and Green, both want a smaller government, but again want what remains focused in different directions.

Welcome to the Backroom, Fiddling_nero! Great name. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

So, why is the US Republican party the party of small government, and the Democrats seen as that of a stronger government? :inquisitive:

---

Liberalism was once the left. Then the various socialist movements developed and pushed classical liberals to the centre.

The US has no meaningful communist, socialist, social democratic or Labour party. Hence, the Democrats took over the function that these parties fulfill in Europe, and combined them with the function of the traditional liberal party in Europe. These are conflicting demands. Through this, the Democrats changed from a proper 'Liberal' party to a semi social-democratic one.

The Republicans are America's extreme right, it's Christian-democratic, and it's conservative party all in one. The Republicans took over the functions that these parties fulfill in Europe. As on the left, these currents likewise have conflicting interests as well - some favour small government, or pro-business, or social prescripment of moral values, others not. They all winded up in one party, with confusing results.

In case you would like more information on the full range of political parties in the U.S.:


Here's a directory of all of the U.S.'s political parties.


Note, not all of these parties exist in all 50 states.

I rather like this one.

Quote:

---

Platform of the Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.

---

Louisiana, as noted by Ralph Nader in a recent interview, has one of the least restrictive ballot qualifications for candidacy. So every presidential election I have a wide plethora of potential leaders to choose from. ~;p


For instance, the Prohibition Party still runs candidates every four years.


Edit:
Also, check out the Natural Law Party, "A Reason to Vote."

Liberal is everything on the left in America, but then again the real liberals, the libertarians, are on america's right. Confusing indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Liberal is everything on the left in America, but then again the real liberals, the libertarians, are on america's right. Confusing indeed.

---

Regan made large inroads to the Libertarians in the 80s.

Well despite the policies of Bush, I had always thought that the Republican party was accepted as a party of small government, or at least genuinely trying to espouse that ideology even if it didn't happen in reality. I was simply curious as to whether the parties had their modern views when they were founded, or whether they were in fact more similar to the labels the OP described, but having changed since then.

On an off-topic note, I feel I have to post this, possibly the most odd political party I have ever seen or ever will see:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party - Politically correct Nazis? These Libertarian Green Nazis are either the strangest conglomeration of diametrically opposed political ideologies of a political party I have ever seen -- or one of the most wry political practical jokes found anywhere on the net (I'm not certain which conclusion is correct, but I strongly suspect the latter). This party purports to be comprised of atheist, peaceful, pro-gay, pro-drug legalization, anti-racist, environmentalist Nazis who acknowledge the Holocaust likely occurred (but are neutral as to its justification) and oppose the government sponsored killing of Jews, Christians & gays and the disabled. The LNSGP "rejects Judeo-Christian moral standards, victim mentality political behavior, capital-centric value systems, and authority." While membership is open to anyone regardless of their race or sexual orientation, individuals who openly profess a belief in either Judaism or Christianity are denied party membership. Articles, platform, FAQ and graphics. Worth a visit -- even if only to decide for yourself if this is a joke or if it is serious. In the past -- and as an indicator that the LNSGP is probably a practical joke -- the LNSGP's site had sections dedeicated to claims of participation in a public service project named the "Jewish Community Brothership" (to "Communicate the modern interpretations of Nazism and its implications for Jews in today's multicultural Reich") and some links to very bizarre "news" articles (example: "Nazi Moon Bases Established in 1942").

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well despite the policies of Bush, I had always thought that the Republican party was accepted as a party of small government, or at least genuinely trying to espouse that ideology even if it didn't happen in reality. I was simply curious as to whether the parties had their modern views when they were founded, or whether they were in fact more similar to the labels the OP described, but having changed since then.

---

Uh. Those were different times. Here:

Quote:

---

The Democratic Party emerged under Thomas Jefferson in the 1790s in opposition to the Federalist Party. It initially drew most of its support from Southern planters and Northern farmers. Its good organization and popular appeal kept it in power for most of the time between 1825 and 1860. This included John Quincy Adams (1825-1829), Andrew Jackson (1829-37), Martin Van Buren (1837-41), James Polk (1845-49) and Franklin Pierce (1853-47). and James Buchanan (1857-61).

The Republican Party was established at Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854 by a group of former members of the Whig Party and the Free-Soil Party. Its original founders were opposed to slavery and called for the repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska and the Fugitive Slave Law. Early members thought it was important to place the national interest above sectional interest and the rights of individual States.

---

From a nice British site for you, though haven't looked through it more than those two paragraphs. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdemocratic.htm

Louis has got it bang on.

If the Republican party was anywhere in Europe it would be 3 parties, the same for the Democrats.

There's an awfully good summary of the Repubs and their relationship to the "small government" (libertarian?) movement here.

For a long time, I was kind of amazed by the libertarian rhetoric of the GOP, the way that somebody could argue for torture and corporate welfare and unchecked police powers and massive deficits and a global empire, and then follow it up with “Because I believe in limited government and the free market.” The cognitive dissonance wasn’t what bugged me (I’m cynical enough to take it as a given that politicians know how to lie) but rather that they would even bother appealing to the small government crowd that they feel free to screw over. I mean, aren’t we, like, a minuscule faction?

And then it hit me–it was never about us. All those dog whistles that libertarians respond to whenever Republicans blow the whistle? Those were for other people. Second amendment? It’s a cultural thing, not principle. Free markets? Intellectual cover for corporate welfare. Limited government? This is their way of saying to the subsidized farmers of the Great Plains and the employees of the Military-Industrial Complex and all the other beneficiaries of GOP-style redistribution “Don’t worry, you aren’t a welfare recipient like all those city folks that I bash. You’re better than that. You’re a hearty, self-reliant person who supports limited government.”

I already knew that all of the stances that the libertarians like were just there for other elements of the GOP coalition. But I used to think that the “limited government” rhetoric was a way of fooling us. Nope, it was never about us. The fact that too many of us were fooled was a coincidence (one that Republicans probably still laugh about over drinks). It was for everyone else in the coalition. The fact that we fell for it was just a coincidence. The fact that some of us actually provided them with pet intellectuals was just icing on the cake.

American conservatives are nancy boys. Real conservatives know that strong government, firm government, a government that knows how to put a bit of stick about, is vital to make a country great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

American conservatives are nancy boys. Real conservatives know that strong government, firm government, a government that knows how to put a bit of stick about, is vital to make a country great.

---

Well said. What happened to the conservative idea of the welfare state?

Well I suppose the new right is what happened, but I don't understand why social conservatism cannot coincide with somewhat socialist economic principles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

American conservatives are nancy boys. Real conservatives know that strong government, firm government, a government that knows how to put a bit of stick about, is vital to make a country great.

---

Spoken like a true European :wink:

Government is best kept small inept and scared. That way the people may have a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

That's a peachy assessment, but reality would show otherwise.

---

Agreed. Republicans know how to talk the talk, but they have not been willing to walk the walk.

Capitalists and Christians are uneasy bedfellows. They can get along fine in a moderate zone. But, the radicals in each faction tend to alienate the other faction.

US politics has always mangled these things together. Yes, Louis, you are quite correct. By European standards, US political parties are coalitions. In many ways, this is what makes "bipartisanship" so difficult. We already have the kinds of coalition-building you see as normal to forming a government required just to form the political party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Spoken like a true European :wink:

Government is best kept small inept and scared. That way the people may have a chance.

---

The people? The people? My dear fellow, surely you can't trust people, ordinary people, to do what they really want? The people doesn't know what it wants. Of course, they think they know what they want. A new shiny car, crummy plops for breakfast, dolphin-friendly potatos. But these are just things that they've been told that they need by however wants to make some dosh. How can they know what they want? Ask the average man in the street who, say, Aristotle, was, and they'd probably answer that it was the name of the man who ran the local kebab shop. Placing your faith in such people is like trusting children to properly run a sweet factory. Therein lies madness, my friend.

Not that I'm an expert on these issues, but where did you get the idea that :

1 - Rousseau is a proto-communist
2 - Rousseau agreed with the domination of a minority over the majority.
3 - the US republican party is somehow linked to traditional "republicanism" (is that a word btw ?)

As for how I see things, the fact that Rousseau advocated the creation of a Republic doesn't link him in any way with the Republican party.
Kant was also partly promoting the idea of Republic, yet I hardly see any link between his work and the Republican party.

Both were politically liberals by their time standards (and Kant would probablty stil be classified as a liberal nowadays).

Now, the question is, are Rousseau's ideas the official basis of the Republican party doctrine ? I doubt so, and I sincerely hope I'm right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

The small government parties, such as Libertarian and Green, both want a smaller government, but again want what remains focused in different directions.

---

Greens are big government - just a small government in terms of interfering with the lives of citizens.

Quote:

---

Now, the question is, are Rousseau's ideas the official basis of the Republican party doctrine ? I doubt so, and I sincerely hope I'm right.

---

No Rousseau had almost no influence that I can see on their party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Greens are big government - just a small government in terms of interfering with the lives of citizens.

---

No, the green party will replace the government with a nice shrubbery. One not too tall.

Bush blew the small government description out of the water for the next few years, I agree with Lemur.

My view on USA parties using my Left-Right dictomies:

Marxism-Leninism/Communism (Communist Party USA) -|- Left-Wing Radicals (Socialist Party USA) - Social Democrat (Labor Party/Green Party) - Social Conservative (Constitution Party) - Social Liberal (Democratic Party) - Market Liberal (Republican Party/Libertarian Party) -|- Fascism/National Socialism (National Socialist White People's Party)

Well the two main theories of the Enlightenment were that of republicanism and liberalism.

I was simply saying, since the US was formed around this time, why would the Republican Party name themselves after an ideology that they at least claim to be contradictive to their own beliefs?

Small government alright. Bush is even managing to outsource the army...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well the two main theories of the Enlightenment were that of republicanism and liberalism.

I was simply saying, since the US was formed around this time, why would the Republican Party name themselves after an ideology that they at least claim to be contradictive to their own beliefs?

---

I think essentially because the Republican party wasn't (of itself) formed of the Enlightenment and Independence.

Both main parties have changed substantially over the years - IIRC, the Democratic Party was originally quite the flagship of slave-owners. Indeed - and more learned colleagues will correct me - I think Jefferson's original party was called the Democratic-Republicans.

The Republican Party came into being and power with the election of Abraham Lincoln - one of its main platforms being the abolition of slavery.

Thanks for that Banquo. So the modern associations each party has are more of a modern phenomenon it would seem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Thanks for that Banquo. So the modern associations each party has are more of a modern phenomenon it would seem?

---

Most parties with a long history have evolved substantially.

Even in the recent decades, one can see seismic changes in the core values of a party. Ronald Reagan created a "large tent" that brought many socially conservative voters into the Republican fold alongside fiscal conservatives. In many ways, it is that unholy alliance (the former believe the government should regulate people's morals, the latter that government is a nuisance in all aspects of life - not an easy paradox to solve) which has been brought to its knees in the recent election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Most parties with a long history have evolved substantially.

Even in the recent decades, one can see seismic changes in the core values of a party. Ronald Reagan created a "large tent" that brought many socially conservative voters into the Republican fold alongside fiscal conservatives. In many ways, it is that unholy alliance (the former believe the government should regulate people's morals, the latter that government is a nuisance in all aspects of life - not an easy paradox to solve) which has been brought to its knees in the recent election.

---

Not all social conservatives believe that the government should regulate peoples morals to an unreasonable extent (beyond not stealing or killing - which I'd bet you think are decent legislated morals). Some just recognize that life begins at conception and that there is an overlap of authority for a 9 month period. 2 lives present when only one is given a hearing of any kind. We want some reasonable safeguards and protections given to the unborn. Our degree of willingness to compromise on this varies from person to person, but I'd bet that you would protest it to if you had the laws we've had.

I'm not arguing that men and women shouldn't be allowed to pierce weird parts of their body or get gender re-assignment surgery - I just don't believe that I should have to pay for that in any way. The termination of human life falls within the governments scope - a government which serves to give a voice to the voiceless.

I don't see how being socially conservative has ever meant that I think that the government should control people. You've swallowed their argument hook line and sinker.

We argue restraint in a radical re-interpretation of law and that lives are protected within reasonable parameters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Not all social conservatives believe that the government should regulate peoples morals to an unreasonable extent (beyond not stealing or killing - which I'd bet you think are decent legislated morals). Some just recognize that life begins at conception and that there is an overlap of authority for a 9 month period. 2 lives present when only one is given a hearing of any kind. We want some reasonable safeguards and protections given to the unborn. Our degree of willingness to compromise on this varies from person to person, but I'd bet that you would protest it to if you had the laws we've had.

I'm not arguing that men and women shouldn't be allowed to pierce weird parts of their body of get gender re-assignment surgery - I just don't believe that I should have to pay for that in any way. The termination of life falls within the governments scope - a government which serves to give a voice to the voiceless.

I don't see how being socially conservative has ever meant that I think that the government should control people. You've swallowed their argument hook line and sinker.

---

Well, I don't want to derail the thread, but if you re-read your post you will see that your position derives from your own belief system. Of course there are many degrees of social conservatism, but in the context of Rhyfelwyr's original enquiry about liberal, enlightenment thought, the imposition of other's religious beliefs by the government is hardly reducing government's role.

Pro-choice is the only position for small government to take - ie the procedure is available to those who choose it. It is then religious people's duty to persuade as many as possible not to make the choice to abort. Persuade, not imprison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Well, I don't want to derail the thread, but if you re-read your post you will see that your position derives from your own belief system. Of course there are many degrees of social conservatism, but in the context of Rhyfelwyr's original enquiry about liberal, enlightenment thought, the imposition of other's religious beliefs by the government is hardly reducing government's role.

Pro-choice is the only position for small government to take - ie the procedure is available to those who choose it. It is then religious people's duty to persuade as many as possible not to make the choice to abort. Persuade, not imprison.

---

Couldn't you argue that domestic violence is acceptable to a small government? You deny that the government has a role in preventing homicides of a certain scale, I don't get it. Just because the Pope says it is wrong it can't be a legitimate secular point? I'm not saying that I oppose birth control.

I don't believe that abortion needs to be a religious issue and I don't believe that it is for many.

Do you believe that the government should regulate seat belts? Or file-sharing? How about taxing the water people use to flush their toilets? How about if they waste food? If they harm animals? Use plastic bags? and on and on. But not same species homicide?

Laws are morality and anyone's push to add their own usually derives from some moral obligation that they have.

The reality is that moral arguments are coming in from all sides, but because we are on the relative right, that must mean that all of our arguments are divinely inspired and ignorant...


(Edit - this is not de-railing the thread - you've said that social conservatives are special because they seek to control everyones morality - I believe that this is a corrupt understanding)

Calm yourself.

Nowhere did I charge social conservatives with being ignorant. Nor that they seek to control everyone's morality.

I simply highlighted the paradox between those who seek limited government and those who seek increased government regulation of morality being in the same camp. I did so in the context of the evolution of party platforms and values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Calm yourself.

Nowhere did I charge social conservatives with being ignorant. Nor that they seek to control everyone's morality.

I simply highlighted the paradox between those who seek limited government and those who seek increased government regulation of morality being in the same camp. I did so in the context of the evolution of party platforms and values.

---

I'm not seething.

I thought that the point of your "unholy alliance" statement was to suggest that Social Conservatives are big government, big brother conservatives - inherently at odds with fiscal conservatives.

I believe that there is a sensible hands-off brand of domestic social conservatism. If you don't believe that it exists, ask Ron Paul.

Protecting the unborn is a very different point than restricting a woman's right to choose things for herself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well said. What happened to the conservative idea of the welfare state?

Well I suppose the new right is what happened, but I don't understand why social conservatism cannot coincide with somewhat socialist economic principles.

---

Quite right. Conservatism itself means restraint: restraint of the excesses of personal irresponsibility as well as restraint of the excesses of the market. One Nation Conservatism used to be the main brand of conservatism, but sadly since the days of Mrs Thatcher, this is no longer the case (what can one expect from the daughter of a Whig?). The primary purpose of government should be to make a country strong, a country of which its citizens can be proud. There are certain things which a government must provide for the good of the social fabric of a country: a strong sense of law and order, wide-reaching infrastructure such as post offices and railways (Britain's rail network is now the joke of the Western world, and rightly so), a decent health service and education system, a well-funded military and state pensions which ensure a decent standard of living.
Mrs Thatcher's legacy of social division, of "Us and Them", of an obsession with "making things pay for themselves" as the be-all and end-all of their purpose has left Britain sadly weakened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Quite right. Conservatism itself means restraint: restraint of the excesses of personal irresponsibility as well as restraint of the excesses of the market. One Nation Conservatism used to be the main brand of conservatism, but sadly since the days of Mrs Thatcher, this is no longer the case (what can one expect from the daughter of a Whig?). The primary purpose of government should be to make a country strong, a country of which its citizens can be proud. There are certain things which a government must provide for the good of the social fabric of a country: a strong sense of law and order, wide-reaching infrastructure such as post offices and railways (Britain's rail network is now the joke of the Western world, and rightly so), a decent health service and education system, a well-funded military and state pensions which ensure a decent standard of living.
Mrs Thatcher's legacy of social division, of "Us and Them", of an obsession with "making things pay for themselves" as the be-all and end-all of their purpose has left Britain sadly weakened.

---

I have never so wholeheartedly agreed with the sentiment of a post in the Backroom for a long, long time. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Not all social conservatives believe that the government should regulate peoples morals to an unreasonable extent (beyond not stealing or killing - which I'd bet you think are decent legislated morals). Some just recognize that life begins at conception and that there is an overlap of authority for a 9 month period. 2 lives present when only one is given a hearing of any kind. We want some reasonable safeguards and protections given to the unborn. Our degree of willingness to compromise on this varies from person to person, but I'd bet that you would protest it to if you had the laws we've had.

I'm not arguing that men and women shouldn't be allowed to pierce weird parts of their body or get gender re-assignment surgery - I just don't believe that I should have to pay for that in any way. The termination of human life falls within the governments scope - a government which serves to give a voice to the voiceless.

I don't see how being socially conservative has ever meant that I think that the government should control people. You've swallowed their argument hook line and sinker.

We argue restraint in a radical re-interpretation of law and that lives are protected within reasonable parameters.

---

Agreed, I have nothing in common with social conservatives who want to ban books. As a side note, Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton were the most prominent pushers of "parental advisory" stickers on music and later ratings on video games and TV shows.

Honestly there are many issues that appear partisan in the American context, yet the issues have no relationship to each other. For example, gun control and taxes. If the parties were shaken up and reorganized, we could have parties with very different platforms than the democrats and republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton were the most prominent pushers of "parental advisory" stickers on music and later ratings on video games and TV shows.

---

Don't forget Joe Lieberman; he was all over that action. Very keen to censor video games as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

The people? The people? My dear fellow, surely you can't trust people, ordinary people, to do what they really want? The people doesn't know what it wants. Of course, they think they know what they want. A new shiny car, crummy plops for breakfast, dolphin-friendly potatos. But these are just things that they've been told that they need by however wants to make some dosh. How can they know what they want? Ask the average man in the street who, say, Aristotle, was, and they'd probably answer that it was the name of the man who ran the local kebab shop. Placing your faith in such people is like trusting children to properly run a sweet factory. Therein lies madness, my friend.

---

Hmmm.... Are we seeing another fascist friend in the backroom, here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

No, the green party will replace the government with a nice shrubbery. One not too tall.

---

With a little path running between?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hmmm.... Are we seeing another fascist friend in the backroom, here?

---

So Winston Churchill was a fascist by your definition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hmmm.... Are we seeing another fascist friend in the backroom, here?

---

Oh no, fascism is for people who feel insecure about their lack of height. I believe in freedom of speech and all that malarkey. I think of myself as more of a paternalist democrat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I have never so wholeheartedly agreed with the sentiment of a post in the Backroom for a long, long time.

---

The Backroom: where people get along. Sometimes.~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

1 - Rousseau is a proto-communist
2 - Rousseau agreed with the domination of a minority over the majority.
3 - the US republican party is somehow linked to traditional "republicanism" (is that a word btw ?)

---

IIRC Rousseau wanted an egalitarian society, but not comprehensive distribution of property.

Rousseau never said or wrote that it would be acceptable for a minority to dominate a majority. He did argue though that the Common Will is something different from the sum of petty desires of all people in a country, that the "will" of a citizen is something different from the will of a person as such. From there it's just a short step to conclude that people will need sheppards to determin what the people want and need, and assume limitless authority under the guise of the Common Will.
He also thought that real democracy was only possible in miniature states like Switzerland and that the ability to make political decisions could not be delegated to a body smaller than the people, but this is usually ommitted by his "fans" in order to make a case for their own political views.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

By this definition I think both parties qualify.

I favor the rights of the individual at the expense of government. I think that a strict interpretation of the Construction is best and puts a limit on government interference.

Neither American Political Party will do more than play lip service to the rights of the individual. I am not in favor of unrestrained capitalism, however, as that also has an effect on the rights of every individual and I do not believe that corporations should be treated as individuals under the law, but be regulated by the states or governments that they operate under.

I can not reconcile these views with either party. One says it favors small government and individual rights while passing the Patriot Act. The other has advocated a Living Constitution (what in essence means that the constitution means what ever is most convenient to the government)

The Elite of both Parties place the interests of special interest groups and their own personal power above that of the people and may actually believe that they know better than the people what they need.

I find it difficult to understand why most people would affiliate themselves with either party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

By this definition I think both parties qualify.

---

Teddybear is a bear that leads individuals on to believe it is all cute and cuddly. However, a closer inpection usually reveals they are not a bear at all. Just the fake promise of.

By this definition I think both parties qualify. Like teddybears, none of their sweet promises ever turn out to be true. It is all falsehoods and deceit.

Fascism and teddybears, that's what US politics is all about. :smash:

Oh god any bucket would do just mob me up :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

So Winston Churchill was a fascist by your definition?

---

I place him in the "upper class brat" category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I place him in the "upper class brat" category.

---

I know what you mean, I would not be happy having him as my MP, the people of Dundee weren't anyway.

However, you have to accept that he helped save the world from Nazism. At least give him credit for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hmmm.... Are we seeing another fascist friend in the backroom, here?

---

i would have said that "authoritarian" would be a better description of the sentiment above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

However, you have to accept that he helped save the world from Nazism. At least give him credit for that.

---

So did a lot of people I don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

i would have said that "authoritarian" would be a better description of the sentiment above.

---

Yes, well... Pot-hay-to, potato....:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So did a lot of people I don't like.

---

Without mass-murdering his own people... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Without mass-murdering his own people... :rolleyes:

---

Lots of people who stopped the nazi's are people I don't like. And plenty of them didn't commit genocide.

I don't know how much you could say 'churchill saved us from the nazis', would we have really crumbled to defeat under neville chamberlain ?

The 2 main things about winston was he was warning us about what was going to happen, which doesn't matter because we were already at war by the time he came in, and his insipirational speech's, which im sure helped alot but i don't think that singlehandedly kept the british from giving in...

Although i haven't heard of it i suppose winston could have could have brought a change of direction about in the war effort... ?

Quote:

---

The 2 main things about winston was he was warning us about what was going to happen, which doesn't matter because we were already at war by the time he came in, and his insipirational speech's, which im sure helped alot but i don't think that singlehandedly kept the british from giving in...

---

Chamerlain or someone like him would most likely have decided to accept Hitler's peace offer and stood idly by while the Germans and Soviets fought for complete control of Europe. There were other people in Churchills cabinet who also opposed caving in to the nazis, but it's the Prime Minister that counts above all.

Hmm, im not so sure, i have always felt chamberlain was made out to be far worse than he actually was, peace in our time was what everyone wanted, and so he delivered it, after the outbreak of war i assumed it would have been more strongly (in general population and political circles) felt that peace in our time was not possible and chamberlain would have seen this... the putting of winston into pm position shows the war mindset britian and parliment had got in to...

I have seen theorys that suggest peace in our time was a play for time, as at this point the uk economy was already gearing up for the war, i don't think chamberlain is the avoid war at all costs type of character he's made out to be...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

---

Hang on. That's not the only distinguishing feature of Fascism, otherwise Communism and other utopian ideologies would fit into your definition. There's also stuff about the nation myth, relationship between corporate interests and ruling elite, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Hmm, im not so sure, i have always felt chamberlain was made out to be far worse than he actually was, peace in our time was what everyone wanted, and so he delivered it, after the outbreak of war i assumed it would have been more strongly (in general population and political circles) felt that peace in our time was not possible and chamberlain would have seen this... the putting of winston into pm position shows the war mindset britian and parliment had got in to...

I have seen theorys that suggest peace in our time was a play for time, as at this point the uk economy was already gearing up for the war, i don't think chamberlain is the avoid war at all costs type of character he's made out to be...

---

It's true that his part in the Appeasement is often overstated; he was only continuing what his predecessor was doing and realized his mistake after the Chzechoslovakia debacle (less than two years after he took office)

Nevertheless, when confronted with the situation Churchill found himself in (France subjegated, a German attack by air and possibly sea imminent) I think Chamberlain would have accepted Hitler's proposals for an armstice. I don't know what his opinion on it was for a fact.

Churchill was a solid strategist, at least on a macro level. Also, fortunately for England, he tended to avoid involving himself on tactical decisions (Gallipoli was instructive in this, no doubt).

Churchill's single greatest contribution to Britain's success was to help manipulate/team up with FDR to bring the USA in on Britain's side. Months before Pearl Harbor, the USN was already coordinating and to some extent fighting the Battle of the Atlantic with the UK. With US resources available, it became almost impossible for Britain to lose. Hiter's decision to declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor made it that much easier -- but Churchill had already worked that field and was bringing in the harvest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Churchill was a solid strategist, at least on a macro level. Also, fortunately for England, he tended to avoid involving himself on tactical decisions (Gallipoli was instructive in this, no doubt).

---

Churchill wasn't that bad militarily, as long as one remembers he was an old fashioned English Liberal (with capital L). The kind that expanded the Empire like crazy, bringing English civilisation to the benighted savages whilst bringing back their wealth to Britain. They were good at seeing opportunities, as the Dardanelles undoubtedly was, and they had a habit of throwing resources at a problem until they succeeded, with complete disregard for what the locals might feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Churchill's single greatest contribution to Britain's success was to help manipulate/team up with FDR to bring the USA in on Britain's side. Months before Pearl Harbor, the USN was already coordinating and to some extent fighting the Battle of the Atlantic with the UK. With US resources available, it became almost impossible for Britain to lose. Hiter's decision to declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor made it that much easier -- but Churchill had already worked that field and was bringing in the harvest.

---

Churchill was more romantic than most British politicians were, identifying himself wholeheartedly with America's nation myth and their and Britain's shared liberal (lower case l) heritage. This helped us gain America's support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Churchill wasn't that bad militarily, as long as one remembers he was an old fashioned English Liberal (with capital L). The kind that expanded the Empire like crazy, bringing English civilisation to the benighted savages whilst bringing back their wealth to Britain. They were good at seeing opportunities, as the Dardanelles undoubtedly was, and they had a habit of throwing resources at a problem until they succeeded, with complete disregard for what the locals might feel.


Churchill was more romantic than most British politicians were, identifying himself wholeheartedly with America's nation myth and their and Britain's shared liberal (lower case l) heritage. This helped us gain America's support.

---

He was very well thought of here in the USA. Had he wanted to slip over here once the UK decided for Atlee in 1945, he'd have been a Senator in a hot minute and could have had the Presidency in 1948 if he'd been able to sell the "My Mom was a yank so I qualify" thing well enough.

Can you imagine Churchill/MacArthur dealing with Korea? :shocked2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Churchill wasn't that bad militarily, as long as one remembers he was an old fashioned English Liberal (with capital L). The kind that expanded the Empire like crazy, bringing English civilisation to the benighted savages whilst bringing back their wealth to Britain. They were good at seeing opportunities, as the Dardanelles undoubtedly was, and they had a habit of throwing resources at a problem until they succeeded, with complete disregard for what the locals might feel.

---

And Australia celebrates that fact very year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

And Australia celebrates that fact very year.

---

I knew the sun hadn't completely addled your brains down there.:2thumbsup: