We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Totalitarianism in the United States of America in 2009?

The power of the American left (the “liberals” the “progressives” the “radicals” – call them what you will) is very great. About 9 out of 10 newspapers lean to the left in their editorials (and, to be blunt, in the rest of their content also – from news coverage to book and film reviews) and most television networks also lean to the left. Some more than others – but the general direction is plain.

This is perhaps the result of the “education system” – in which the “public” (i.e. government) schools are dominated by people with a leftist world view. They are saturated in this view of the world during their time at college and it is reflected in what they teach and how they teach it – and in the open political allegiances of their organizations. And would anyone like to deny that the vast majority of American universities are dominated by the left?

In Congress the Speaker of the House is someone, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who would have been considered way to the left of the Democrat mainstream only a few years ago. And Speaker Pelosi has shown that the oft mentioned moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats are a busted flush – they are people who fall in line when the Speaker and her associates put the pressure on.

In the Senate, Harry Reid was once considered a moderate – but these days it is clear he is either on board with the left, or just a front man (a cardboard cutout) who does not prevent the control of the Senate by people like the senior Senator for Illinois.

But in spite of all of the above it is clear that the left is not satisfied – they demand total control of all aspects of life, totalitarianism.

This is made clear by such evidence as the effort by elements within the Californian courts to de facto ban home schooling (by demanding that parents have teaching training qualifications – indeed perhaps in every subject they teach) and that private schools only be allowed to hire people who have undergone a training process that the left control.

In other States (such as supposedly strongly conservative Tennessee) there are efforts to refuse to recognise the qualifications of children who did not go to approved schools – it seems that independent testing is not considered enough, indeed is the very thing that the left wish to avoid.

And at the Federal level there is a very strong movement to use all the agencies of the government (from the FCC to the IRS) to eliminate or castrate that minority of media outlets where the left do not already have the main influence.

All under nice sounding words of course – such as “the fairness doctrine”, or “freedom” and diversity”, but, under the Orwellian words, the intent is plain – no dissent will be tolerated. Either it will be declared “hate speech” or it will be declared “biased”. With an “unbiased” presentation of news and current affairs (and everything else – from music to sports) being a leftist one of course.

And with judges that a President Woods Fund Obama would appoint and who would be confirmed by a Democrat Senate, with a Republican minority brow beaten by “main stream media” that the left already control (who will declare that any opposition is “racist”), there will be no First Amendment problems (or any other constitutional problems) for any of the above.

The Bar in almost every State in under the control of the left (and I am not just talking about the ambulance chasing Trial Lawyers Association). Which is why States in which the lawyers have great influence in deciding who become judge, the courts are on the left. For example, Alaska is a very conservative State, but the courts are very much on the other side.

There will be no real resistance from the legal establishment against a leftist takeover of the Federal courts (to make them all like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) – there is no great love for things like the Second Amendment in this establishment.

“The internet Paul, the internet”.

The power of the left on the internet is actually very great – and not just in organizations like MoveOn (which claims three million activists), but in the internet companies themselves. Companies that most of us use (such as Google) have already shown which way they lean – whose world view they share.

And even if some (perhaps rather difficult to reach) conservative and libertarian websites remain – so what? Sorry, but a handful of websites with no broadcasters to work with are not going to defeat the left.

“But surely the rich in America will not allow the left to take over”.

This view shows the influence of the false doctrines of Marxism. The billionaires are not going to prevent anything – indeed they are often supporters of the left.

Billionaires like Warren Buffet may be more moderate than such men as George Soros, Peter Lewis and Marc Cuban – but they are still no more likely to come to the defence of talk radio than they are to oppose higher taxes (in fact they are often the loudest voices demanding higher taxes).

Indeed many of the billionaires in the United States resemble the baddies in Ian Fleming’s James Bond stories (super rich people in league with the Reds) more than they do the sustainers of the “intellectual superstructure of capitalism” of Marxist theory.

“But what about the big corporations”.

Such as General Electric?

The controllers of MSNBC and NBC (The distinction between the two has been breaking down for some time) can hardly be called enemies of the left.

I suspect that even nationalization would not really bother the top management at General Electric – they would not have to explain why the share value has done so badly over the last five years. Life would be so much less irritating without any real shareholders.

After all such de facto government owned entities (for all the claims that they are private) as Fannie Mae do not prevent top managers earning many millions of Dollars – ask Senator Woods Fund Obama’s friend Mr Johnson.

Of course ever more taxes, regulations and outright government control (from the oil refineries to insurance) makes no economic sense – but that has not stopped the left in the past and will not now.

“But why should non-Americans care what happens in the United States?”

Because the brutal truth is that neither Britain or any other part of the West can stand if America falls – there is not, and can not be, any Plan B.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

29 comments to Totalitarianism in the United States of America in 2009?

  • Peter

    Sorry to post off topic, but i heard an interesting discussion yesterday on the environment and global warming etc on radio 4 and for once a skeptical commentator had chance to speak at some length and he used the most wonderful expression “sustain-a-bable”. This really nails on the head so much that passes for informed debate, but never free debate on environmental issues.

    Sorry for being off topic.

  • Peter

    Sorry to post off topic, but i heard an interesting discussion yesterday on the environment and global warming etc on radio 4 and for once a skeptical commentator had chance to speak at some length and he used the most wonderful expression “sustain-a-bable”. This really nails on the head so much that passes for informed debate, but never free debate on environmental issues.

    Sorry for being off topic.

  • Evan

    I’m not worried about a sudden Collectivist takeover in America. The Constitution is balanced well enough to keep officeholders of any stripe from doing too much in 2, 4, or even 8 years. Even if they agree ideologically, each is more concerned with enhancing their own position than with promoting their agenda. The country will move to the left, but not irrevocably.

    What I am worried about is the gradual Collectivist takeover. As you laid out, they control they institutions. They control the medium, so they control the message. They have the mainstream media, much of the non-mainstream media, and every square inch of the education system. They define the conversation.

    I don’t know that it is quite this hopeless — Collectivists only want Collectivism for everyone else, their freedom to choose remains sacrosanct. And though large corporations are universally Statist, entrepreneurs — still admired in this country — want to be left alone. And the big question that I keep turning over in my mind is, What of the military? There is widespread contempt for political correctness and nannying, and yet also a great deal of deference to our civilian leaders. Even leaving foreign affairs completely aside, it could well be the saving grace of America: the one institution that does not succumb to Leftist mushiness. A is A on the battlefield, even if nowhere else. And yet it could also be incredibly dangerous if it turned the dark side, and espirit du corps is not all that far from Collectivism. When the Leftists become militant, then we will already be finished.

  • nick g.

    A previous commentor talked about the ‘limited’ terms of office, but don’t some people stay in the Senate as institutions for decades? Aren’t there some Federal Families, like the Kennedys? Isn’t this also a danger?

  • lucklucky

    Clap clap! Samizdata is back 🙂

    I agree with the gist of the text but i dont know enough about US to say if the level will be like that. France, Netherland and Ireland all voted NO despite all establishment pressure.

    In the end i think what will make US not drive in a nightmare scenario to the left is the need to remain competitive. Of course before that they for 4 or 8 years can play Socialist but after that the disaster will be such that everyone will be praying for a Bush.. 🙂
    Security is also another issue…

  • I go to a state university in the state of Wisconsin because i cant afford to go to a private one, and the veteran’s affairs dept. pays for me.

    I am a political science and philosophy double major and I can testify that yes, my education is predominantly run by leftists and collectivists; I will tell you however that I give them one hell of a debate every class, but it is hard when you are considered an enemy from the start.

    Secondly, even the students are leftist, and as a high ranking member of our student government, it has been an uphill fight against conspiratory commies and socialists who think anyone who doesnt toe the line is “republican” and thusly evil.

    The future of my society and my government is sick and disgusting. It’s a harsh world for a Libertarian.

  • Evan

    It’s a harsh world for a Libertarian.

    I am afraid that it always has been.

  • Reeve

    As a U.S. citizen and University student, my own experiences tend to be the opposite of the bent of this article. Leftist students and professors on campus? Yes, but not the militant leftists of the 60’s and 70’s. In fact, the NYT recently ran an article detailing how many of the Marxist professors are retiring. Left wing media? It has always been around, but again, is waning. Declining stock prices of the New York Times Co. and Knight Rider along with the rise of talk radio, fox news, and of course the internet speak to this.

    Most notably though is the rise of libertarianism on college campuses. There was no such thing a libertarian club until only a few years ago. Ron Paul has made quite a splash among my peers. I have personally met at least 7 people who have read Atlas Shrugged cover to cover. No longer are libertarian ideas confined to a few eccentrics at the University of Chicago and various enclaves in large metro areas.

    Largely anecdotal, but I think the future may not be as dark as you think 🙂

  • Laird

    There is no question that the most prominent U.S. universities are extremely leftist. However, there are some schools with strong military traditions and large ROTC corps, and I think those are very much less so (which is probably the real reason schools like Harvard are so adamantly anti-ROTC). For example, Virginia Tech (a highly regarded engineering school) has a very large “Corps of Cadets” (many of whom aren’t ROTC for any particular branch of the service; it’s just a generalized military training organization). You see those kids all the time around campus, often in uniform or even marching in formation, and no one thinks anything of it. In fact, their band even performs at all the football games. There are other colleges with similar traditions. So while places like Dartmouth get (deservedly) the notoriety, things aren’t that bad everywhere.

    There is nothing incorrect in Paul’s essay, but (perhaps due to simple naivete) I am not as pessimistic as he. The independent streak is exists over here, especially in the south and parts of the west, and it is especially evident in our strong entrepreneurial tradition. You Brits have a reputation for “muddling through”; I suspect that in the end we will, too.

  • n005

    Even if they agree ideologically, each is more concerned with enhancing their own position than with promoting their agenda.

    Collectivists only want Collectivism for everyone else, their freedom to choose remains sacrosanct.

    Nothing but a group trap.

    We deal with these national totalitarians just as we deal with every other street gang out there. We just live out our lives in peace, not confronting the collectivists or doing anything to attract too much attention. With any luck we get away with it, and in our myriad ways contrive to live happy, productive lives, while the collectivists wait on one another to do something about stopping us.

  • I’d never heard of Nancy Pelosi before. Now I read about her twice in one day (via Slashdot):

    Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who would like very much to reimpose the old, so-called, “Fairness Doctrine” that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting, is scheming to impose rules barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress. No blogs, twitter, online forums – nothing.

  • Millie Woods

    Naturally David Wilson would encounter lefties everywhere in the social science and even philosophy departments. My own institution for example serves up Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch as philosophy – yuch.
    My draconian cure for this disease is to banish all the trendy stupidities as areas of study but then I’m considered far to the right of Attila the Hun. However, as another poster commented all is not doom and gloom; just remember that Rush Limbaugh signed a very long term and highly lucrative contract so lining up the baked meats for the funeral may not be inevitable after all.

  • Midwesterner

    David Wilson,

    I don’t know if you are on the Madison campus, but if you are, look up John Sharpless’ classes. He is a libertarian and also one of the highest rated (by students) faculty on campus.

    He has run as a Republican for the US House on libertarian principles.

  • Flash Gordon

    This is all true and was much easier to deal with when there was a Republican party in opposition. But that party is now in the process of being taken over by squish brains who think they can accede to power by pandering to the left. They fail to understand that the joker is never made the King, and is tolerated only so long as he is found amusing.

    When the GOP becomes the Tories in America, if it isn’t already, either the ascendancy of collectivism will become unstoppable or a conservative/libertarian revolt will take place.

    In the meantime my salvation will be the joy of seeing the pseudo-conservative Republicans lose all their bets and get handed their heads by the leftists they are trying so desperately to befriend.

  • William H. Stoddard

    The United States already has, if not totalitarianism, at least dictatorship. On one hand, we have a president who asserts that it is sufficient for him to give an order, not just to an employee of the executive branch, but to a private citizen, for that person to be able to claim that the action was legally justified in court, and a Congress that is not much inclined to call him on it. We have that same executive branch aspiring to take people prisoner on vague or no charges, holding them indefinitely without trial, and treating them abusively, without regard for constitutional guarantees—and resisting the restrictions imposed by the courts tooth and nail. All this is classic despotism: rule by decree rather than the rule of law. On the other hand, we have the claim made by many Republicans that the federal courts ought to be forbidden to overrule state legislation on various topics (abortion and legal definition of marriage, among others), which flatly contradicts the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, in favor of dictatorship of the majority, a classic totalitarian principle.

    The Constitution is not an ideal system, but it’s better than what we have, and it’s certainly better than what’s replacing it. And sad to say, the major party that still wants to preserve a few rags and tatters of constitutional government and the rule of law is the Democrats; the Republicans have abandoned the idea.

    The appointment of Supreme Court justice in this context is quite critical; the court is only one vote away from being a rubber stamp for any abuse of power that’s ordered by a Republican president or voted for by a Republican congress.

    This is what the phrase “lesser evil” was invented for.

  • Flash Gordon

    I was in college with a tough Spaniard who became the best friend of my life. His blending of intelligence, daring and machismo were electrifying. We climbed all of the Colorado fourteeners and talked of our mutual dislike for the follies of the sixties radicals all the way up and down every one of them, which we continued into the nearest beer emporium afterwards.

    Since then he has spent 30 years as a professor on the Whitewater campus of the University of Wisconsin, and now, in his old age, he has become an aging leftist radical even though in his youth he was never in that camp.

    I guess he had to make that transformation to survive in the toxic environment that academia has become. He would have never got tenure otherwise. I wish he could have faked it because my old friend is gone.

  • Brad

    Totalitarianism in 2009? I think the easiest definition of totalitarianism is this – accrual basis US National Debt = $53 Trillion; total wealth held in terms of individuals = $51 Trillion. Every last bit of wealth owned in the US would have to sunk to make good on all the promises made thus far. That’s pretty total in my book. Any notion that one is operating in an environment with some space with freedom is illusory. All your labor has been spoken for by the State, most people just don’t know it.

  • This implies that the ‘right’ would be any better, but it is just as bad, if not worse.
    Willing to run rough shod over liberty for partisan gains and seeking to entrench the positions of their favoured groups.

    Just look at what the right has done in recent years, they are just as collectivist, they just call it ‘patriotism’.
    McCain promises to continue this assault on liberty in the name of the ‘the nation’.

  • Paul Marks

    Tristan Mills:

    I hope you never live in a police state – but if you did you would find that it was very different from the United States (for all the faults of America and in spite of all the bad things President Bush is supposed to have done).

    As for John McCain – he has been denounced (over and over again) by conservative commentators for his oppostion to torture and his opposition to Gitmo (and so on).

    It is a poor reward for these stands to now be denounced as some sort of National Socialist by you.

    Evan:

    The growth of power by the left has not been sudden – it has been a lot of work over a long period of time (with various set backs and advances) they now look like they are on the verge of decisive advance – and we should do our best to stop them.

    If we fail we fail – but at least we will have tried.

    Trusting in the Constitution rather overlooks the role of judges (a four, four Court with Kennedy swinging at the moment) and the history of the United States since the 1930’s – indeed since at least the second Greenback case in the 19th century.

    The words of the Constitution need people to defend them – or they will go the same way as the British Bill of Rights of 1689 (of which most British people have not even heard).

    Someone else suggested keeping our heads down and trusting that the left would not find us or hurt us – errr good luck with that.

    Reeve:

    The only thing I trust about the New York Times is the date.

    If they tell me that leftist academics are retiring I would ask “who taught the replacements”.

    The word “Marxism” or even “socialism” is not used much in academia – but under such masks as “critical …..” the basic assumptions of these doctrines are very much mainstream – I would say more mainstream than ever.

    I do not deny that there are exceptions – but they are just that, exceptions.

    Flash Gordon:

    You need a comment on its own.

  • Paul Marks

    Flash Gordon:

    Yes the “me to” attitude of so many Republicans is DISGUSTING – and self defeating.

    For example, at least President Bush formally opposed the farm Bill (although he hardly went to bat against it), but many Republicans voted for the 300 billion Dollar plus subsidy package.

    Just as they have long supported the ethenol subsidies and so much else.

    Thus cutting off people like John McCain at the knees – the man has MANY faults but his record on spending (as the Cato Institute points out) is good – not just on earmarks and subsidies, but on entitlement reform as well.

    But time and time again their own party stabs people like McCain in the back.

    And do “met to” Republicans gain votes from wild spending?

    Of course not – the people who like wild spending vote Democrat, and the people who hate it stay home in disgust.

    Result – things like November 2006.

    Today many Republicans are even supporting the housing Bill – which not only provides vast subsidies for Senator Dodd’s friends in Bank of America, but also devotes yet more millions of Dollars to leftist activist groups.

    We all know these groups (such as the ones that Senator Obama worked for almost all his life – with the rest of the comrades he came to Chicago, from Harvard, to join), but the Republicans go along with taxpayers money being sent to them.

    Take the example of Vote Fraud R. Us “ACORN” – it gets millions, and it organizes shake down operations of private business enterprises on top (as so many leftist activist groups do).

    “Give us money or we will sue you for violating the Community Reinvestment Act” i.e. the lending to subprime areas is compulsory Act.

    The Fed created credit money bubble was the main cause of the housing mess – but the Community Reinvestment Act also had terrible effects.

    One example of so many.

    The left can still be defeated – but only if the nonleft OPPOSE them.

    And it is not “just” money – it is freedom of speech and everything else.

    It is later than most people think – but not too late for the West.

    If we fight.

  • the brutal truth is that neither Britain or any other part of the West can stand if America falls – there is not, and can not be, any Plan B.

    From one very-soon-to-be-ex-American resident in central Europe for a number of years… do you really believe that?

    I think that we do share the belief that America and Britain are riding the same train. I’ve seen the US on the road to destruction and collapse (be it through systemic breakdown, bankruptcy or the rise of an overt dictatorship) for many years. 9/11 was certainly the trigger, but the seeds were there long before the catalytic event. The UK is in some ways even farther down the road to doom, and if you put forth the idea that “If the US falls, Britain falls with it,” you’ll find me nodding along very somberly in agreement.

    But, does the same hold for all the West? I doubt it greatly. Spain has the recent memory of Franco, at least, as something of a bulwark, plus a culture that simply doesn’t react in the same way as the Anglo world. France is, well, France, and Germany is, well, Germany. Both these nations have their own massive problems, but I can’t see the people there, or in Spain, gleefully throwing away their hard-won liberties past a certain point, in contrast to the UK and US. Scandinavia’s part of the West, right? I doubt seriously that Norwegians, Swedes and Danes are going to fall into lockstep behind US-UK autarchy.

    Switzerland? Forget it. Holland? Maybe. Belgium? Hrmmm, now there’s a poser for us. Assume Belgium and Holland both hop on the death train to infinite doom. Maybe Italy is a wild card too. In this scenario, the EU is finished as a superstate, which is a Good Thing. The Commonwealth disintegrates, another Good Thing. Maybe even the US breaks up into a number of smaller, separate republics, with the non-contiguous possessions(Link) going their own ways in the bargain, another Good Thing. Millions of Canadians lining up to be microchipped? I don’t see it.

    I’ve gotta believe that the West is more resilient than what you’ve put forward here. I want to believe. If I didn’t, I couldn’t add this clip:

    “I say, let ’em crash!”(Link) — Airplane!, 1980

  • jk

    Awesome post, Paul.

    I’m quite concerned as well. It seems totally plausible that Pelosi, Obama, and Reid might have sufficient majorities in the House and Senate to pass whatever they want. And what they want is dirigisme.

    Commenters are right that checks and balances will likely prevent a complete drop into totalitarianism. But the US could go through 4, 8, 12 years where a lot of freedoms are taken away. This happened in the Progressive Era, New Deal, and Great Society under Democrats, and under TR and Nixon as well.

    Those liberties lost did not come back. I see America losing much liberty, starting in 2009. While some fight at the margins, it will never come back.

  • Evan

    It’s possible, Mike, or at least I’d like to believe so. But a world where America ceases to be the main player is a world dominated by China. And a world in which America has ceased to be free but remains a superpower is possibly even worse.

    Even if the rest of the West does not descend into Collectivist mushy thinking, we may see an America that fights to make the world safe for tyranny.

  • nick g.

    This might be the right place to suggest an idea that I’m trying to incorporate into a novel, because it by-passes nations.
    Why not set up a syndicate which supplies what the government says you shouldn’t have? In my book, a policeman is tracking a ‘United Underdogs’ gang, who help drug-dealers get out of prison. It turns out that they are insurers of doers of victimless crimes! If you’re a policy-holder, then they’ll help. If you’re simply an honest citizen hounded by bureaucracy, they’ll make a bet with you, using non-union labour to get your job done! In my book, MacDonalds will be stigmatised as an obesity-source, so they will pretend to go bankrupt, but will secretly open ‘snack-easies’, and this gang will taxi the customers there, and help set up the premises! Their motto is ‘Liberating Victimless Underdogs!’
    Why wait for me to finish my book? The cop joins, and becomes chief of the gang. The idea, of a combination of Freemasons and the Resistance, is applicable in every country, all the time!

  • Faye

    We no longer have 4th amendment rights. But although curiously, the 2nd has gotten a big boost. Its funny how that happens.

  • Paul Marks

    Do I really believe that the West can not stand if America falls?

    Yes I do.

    Let us hope I am wrong.

    And do I really believe that the left intend to destroy as much dissenting media as they can (in order to make getting them out in 2012 very difficult indeed) – yes, they have made no secret of the fact.

    The left understand that what matters in politics is not reality – it is the perception of reality.

    If they can convince people that any economic decline is the result of “greedy corporations” or “the rich” then they win – no matter how bad things get, indeed THE WORSE THINGS GET THE BETTER FOR THE LEFT.

    True it is statism that is causing the time of troubles – but if most people do not know that…….

    Lose now and it may be “game over”.

  • Paul Marks

    Do I really believe that the West can not stand if America falls?

    Yes I do.

    Let us hope I am wrong.

    And do I really believe that the left intend to destroy as much dissenting media as they can (in order to make getting them out in 2012 very difficult indeed) – yes, they have made no secret of the fact.

    The left understand that what matters in politics is not reality – it is the perception of reality.

    If they can convince people that any economic decline is the result of “greedy corporations” or “the rich” then they win – no matter how bad things get, indeed THE WORSE THINGS GET THE BETTER FOR THE LEFT.

    True it is statism that is causing the time of troubles – but if most people do not know that…….

    Lose now and it may be “game over”.

  • Clint

    Scary, and strangely plausible.

    On the other hand…

    Environmental nuts like to go on about how wonderful the life of a subsistence hunter or farmer in the 15th century was, and how far we’ve fallen…

    I wonder if we’re not making the same mistake, glorifying a mythical past and then looking at unprecedented, phenomenal progress and calling it decay.

    When exactly was this glorious Age of Freedom, if it isn’t today? For all of the restrictions on liberty of the last seven years, compare them to any previous war (see: the Draft, Lincoln’s arrest of Maryland legislators, Roosevelt’s internment of Asian-Americans…). When we scream (correctly!) about Speaker Pelosi’s support for a reimposition of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, recall that it wasn’t so long ago that this was the law of the land. From 1949 until 1987! When we scream (correctly!) about the enormous marginal tax rate Senator Obama proposes — recall that the tax rate has been that high, and higher, before.

    I don’t pretend to be an expert on our history, and I’m sure there are plenty of counterexamples. (A plot of the percent of GDP tied up in the federal government, for example, is genuinely frightening.) But, things aren’t all dark. We are making progress.

    Don’t panic!

  • Paul Marks

    There are indeed counter examples Clint.

    In peacetime the United States has never been more regulated – every aspect of life is now controlled by government regulations (mostly unconstitutional Federal regulations).

    And, as you point out yourself, government spending is at a peacetime high.

    But it is the BELIEFS of Barack Obama that are more important – what he believes he SHOULD do, not what he has got away with in his first term.

    The evidence for the Marxist background and lifelong associations of Barack Obama is just overqwhelming – no matter how much the media tries to cover up the evidence, and to mock anyone who tries to present it.

    Think about a Barack Obama with a “emergency” powers. Think what he would do – if he could.

    And remember that the Centre for American Progress (and others) continue to work on such plans to bypass the Congress. Should there be an economic crises these plans will go into effect – and there will be such a crises (the present economy being a vast credit-money bubble).

    By the way….

    I found an abusive comment in my inbox today (a comment about this old post).

    Normal undergraduate stuff – ranting on about how the Republicans supported the Fascists, and terrible capitalist Hitler.

    Of course Fascism was a PROGRESSIVE movement (wildly supported by American Progressive – see J. Goldberg “Liberal Fascism”), and Hitler was a National Socialist – although an intense (bitter) rival of the international (Marxist) socialists.

    In one looks at American conservative newspapers of the period (such as the Chicago Tribune) one sees that BOTH the international socialism of the Marxists and the National Socialism of Hitler and co were despised.

    Of course international socialism, Marxism, has been responsible for more than 150 MILLION deaths in the last century (see “The Black Book of Communism” – not a work that American school teachers and university academics are fond of people reading, even though a lot of the work for the book was done by French intellectuals).

    For the nature of National Socialism see – F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” and Ludwig Von Mises “Omnipotent Goverment”.

    “But big business supported Hitler…”

    Some “big business” supported Obama – and for the same reasons (greed for government favours, and fear of government hitting them if they do not make friends with those who likely to come to power – see the work “Bought and Paid For”).

    By the way – in the German case “big business” was mostly anti Nazi (till they were certain to come to power) – see Turner’s work on the subject.

    Still I repeat my point.

    Even in a political system designed to limit (by institutional checks and balances) the power of any person or branch of government, having someone of Barack Obama’s TOTALITARIAN BELIEFS in an important position is dangerious.

    Incredibly dangerious.