The Hitler Mussolini Reagan Limbaugh Club
Warning: Use of undefined constant template_directory - assumed 'template_directory' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/10/d87402808/htdocs/backporchbeer/wp-content/themes/andyblue/single.php on line 11

By etrigan - Last updated: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - Save & Share - 6 Comments

Got this bit of “intel”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1017546,00.html from the Guardian.co.uk site.

bq. the report’s four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction. All of them “preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality”

bq. …added a disclaimer that their study “does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false”.

funny stuff!

Posted in Politics • • Top Of Page

6 Responses to “The Hitler Mussolini Reagan Limbaugh Club”

Comment from jank
Time August 13, 2003 at 5:48 pm

Brief Rebuttal by Jonah Goldberg (Son of Lucianne) on NRO:

bq. _(T)he scientists in question performed “ten meta-analytic calculations” to come to their conclusions while conservatives like me spend most of the day opening and closing the refrigerator door applauding when the happy-fun light magically turns on._

_When asked that this might be seen as a “partisan exercise,” Dr. Jack Glaser explained that they studied conservatism simply because there have been a great deal of studies on conservatives but not on liberals. … But perhaps, just perhaps, this fact illuminates a certain bias in the profession. Look at it this way. I have no doubt there is no shortage of psychological studies of murderers, rapists, people who think they’re Napoleon, and people who think Carrot Top is funny. But I suspect there’s very little data on people who like to have cereal and orange juice in the morning. Why? Because the former category of people are considered abnormal. People who eat cereal and juice in the morning aren’t particularly interesting because they aren’t seen as particularly different. So it is with conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are strange creatures. They have strange views. They defend cruelty and inequality while liberals, well, they’re baseline. They’re like, well, me. How else to explain the vast stockpile of research on conservatives and the comparative dearth of data on liberals? And if that is part of the equation, then maybe the data is skewed because researchers found what they wanted to find. They were only looking for their car keys where the light is good. _

_ In more recent times, we’ve seen a sharp rise in what I would call the left’s medicalization of dissent. Today, on college campuses, liberal and left-wing students who burn newspapers, shout down opponents, accuse conservatives of racism, rape, whatever, are generally treated with dignity. Conservative students whose behavior falls far short of this sort of thing are often sent to counseling or therapy._

_ When Stalin or Castro kill people it is because they are crypto-rightwingers when Hitler kills people, he’s being consistent. In other words, conservatives are always the bad guys._

_ So, yes, conservatism is a temperament, but it is also an ideology. And that ideology is not dependent on the need for “cognitive closure” or a “fear of ambiguity” at all. In fact, most conservative thinkers see their project completely differently. The threat they see is from a statist elite which seeks to impose uniformity and cookie-cutter banality across the society. Conservatism, as Russell Kirk noted, is marked by an “Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence.”_

Sorry for quoting so much. Good article if you can get past the ‘Cow Farts’ at the beginning.

BTW- Old News, Johno. This is so last month

Comment from etrigan
Time August 13, 2003 at 6:27 pm

The threat they see is from a statist elite which seeks to impose uniformity and cookie-cutter banality across the society. Conservatism, as Russell Kirk noted, is marked by an “Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence.”

(why do I want to change those last words to “…and misery of human existence…”?)

This particular line is possibly the most absurd thing you’ve ever posted. Conservatives have affection for variety as much as they do for homosexuals and poor people. (Not that I equate homosexuality and paucity except in the derision of conservatives.)

Comment from Jank
Time August 13, 2003 at 11:08 pm

It ain’t me, babe. It’s Russell Kirk.

Though if it’s my definition of conservatism (Strict interpretation of the Constitution as amended [With the exception of that pesky Sixteenth Amendment]), then there’s plenty of room for everyone, including homosexuals and poor people.

‘We The People’, baby. ‘We hold these Truths to be Self Evidient…’

Says nothing about ‘We the white people’, or ‘We the rich people’. Nothing about ‘all end our lives with the same stuff’, just a little bit about ‘created equal’. Nothing about Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, or the Live Oak in my back yard, just a little bit about ‘endowed by our Creator’. Not a whole lot about a ‘right’ to prescription drugs, just ten short statements. Oh, and ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’. No guarantee of fluffy bunnies, fuzzy kittens, and warm slippers at the end of the day. Just a guarantee that I can scratch out a little niche for me and my homies.

My favorite part is the oft-ignored clause at the end of the Bill of Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Says right there that in the event that the founders forgot to mention it specifically, that it is a choice for the people to give up control, not a favor to be granted to us by our rulers.

That’s why I’m conservative, and that’s why I didn’t giggle much when Reagan talked about the Republican Party’s, the Party of Lincoln’s, ‘Big Tent’. Because I honestly see a system, potentially not well executed at present, and definitely not well executed in the past, but enough promise for anyone willing to play by its rules to be the proverbial ‘Shining City on a Hill’. (Intentional echoes of Clinton’s ROTC dodging letter mixed with RWR. Sometimes I amaze myself)

For some reason, possibly because I was dropped on my head as a small child, I haven’t really developed a fiercely cynical attitude towards the world at large. I believe in limited government, property rights, and individual responsibility. I believe that a man should not be judged by who he sleeps with, the color of his skin, or the size of his bank account, but by the content of his character. I believe in freedom of speech, but I believe in respect for the others in the community. I believe in Redemption, and that the establishment of the Designated Hitter lead to the decline of baseball.

Moreover, (and this is where I expect to really raise hackles), Moreover, I’d like to point out that it’s the left who has sought to divide people into convenient groups where who a person is sleeping with, or who someone’s parents were, or what kind of work a person does is more important than their potential as a human being. They try to couch it in language that makes these things ‘rights’ when in reality it’s none of anyone’s damn business. But no votes are won once folks are left alone, so we’ve got to keep pouring salt in old wounds and finding new ways to divide.

There are those who have taken WF Buckley’s and RW Reagan’s vision of conservatism and tainted it. But that’s no reason to throw out the whole idea. Clinton was right, back about the time I was born: The basic idea is good. The execution is flawed.

Throw the bums out. On both sides.

Comment from cynsmith
Time August 14, 2003 at 11:00 am

I was with you until the last two paragraphs. Okay, yes you raised my hackles. The left are the ones who divided people? Im assuming that youre talking about the civil rights movement and assorted policies derived from the aftermath of segregation here. As if voting rights, fair housing, affirmative action laws and the ERA were originally designed as to benefit some powerful special interest group? Youre willfully ignoring history, and I dont know why.

Jank, your personal conservatism is principled and admirable. Yay you. But you have as much in common with George Bush, Tom DeLay and the Republicans in the Texas Senate as I do. We all make bargains, because no matter what you say politics is a cynical business. There isn’t too much room for ideological purity. Winning matters, and compromise is necessary. Maybe you’ll get your tax cuts, but someone else will want their law banning “sodomy” and if you want to stay on top (so to speak) then you’ll support it.

Maybe conservatives learned this lesson long ago, and I hope to god that more liberals are learning it now.

Comment from jank
Time August 14, 2003 at 12:59 pm

The civil rights movement, ERA, and sufferage in general were admirable moments – in their day. However, to quote a little bit of ‘I Have a Dream’ which often gets overlooked: “But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.”

Most of the ‘isms’ have been stamped out, or are dying with our grandparents and parents. At some point we’ve got to stop beating the dead horses which divided us (terrible mix of metaphors). Justice O’Connor recently thought that we’d be at that point in 25 years. I personally think it ought to be sooner.

None of this should be construed as reasons that we don’t need to be vigilant to ensure that old prejudices don’t re-arise. It’s my opinion, though, that in general we’ve come to the point where someone with hurt feelings can scream ‘discrimination’ of some form and get an audience. To me, this is pissing on the grave of the folks who truly faced discrimination, and fought and died to achieve equality.

Lastly, I think that there is room for ‘ideological purity’ in politics. Reagan was remarkably consistient with his stump speeches and the agenda he pushed through a largely Democrat Congress. I’m convinced that the Republicans taking back the House in 1994 was a result of the ‘Contract With/On America’, and a campaign run on no-nonsense principles. And I honestly think that the current level of politicing and shady deal making taking place in Washington is going to rise up to bite the current leadership of both parties in the ass.

Let’s not forget the LBJ/Nixon era. Ultimately the political house of cars fell in on itself, and Carter and Reagan, undoubtedly the two most honest folks to grace the White House in my brief lifetime ascended to the throne.

One more thing: tax cuts are not necessarily a conservative principle. Being practical people, we’re willing to spend what’s necessary (and not a cent more) to secure the blessings of liberty. At some point, however, the government shouldn’t grow at a faster rate than population growth adjusted for inflation. Deficits, IMO, run counter to how a responsible people should run their country in good times. However, I’m of the mind that there’s enough bloat in the budgets at the state and federal level to be able to balance budgets through spending cuts, not higher taxes.

Comment from cynsmith
Time August 14, 2003 at 1:49 pm

A) I think you need a little more cynicism in your life if you think that racism and sexism are truly dying out with our parents and grandparents.

B) I agree with you that we ought to be able to get over these things before 25 years are up, but when you consider that slavery and then segregation were in place for 200+ years, the fact that we’re still attempting to deal with their remnants less than 50 years later is to be expected.

C) The fact that someone can make a false accusation of prejudice is no argument that actual prejudice doesn’t exist and people don’t need protection from it. It’s like saying that some panhandlers fake blindness, so there is no need for homeless shelters and no one needs glasses.

Write a comment

You need to login to post comments!