Mark Steyn has come out with an article in MacLean's titled "The Return of Fascism", referring to recent European elections where parties that opposed unrestricted immigration made some gains.Once again, I think Mark's overwrought prose somewhat gets in the way of enlightenment, but of course it's all about his freedom of speech. And of course I would defend to the death his right to speak, although I'm kind of jealous that he gets paid, and I do this for free. But I do have an advantage in that I don't have any financial incentive to pad out my writing.
But on reading through the responses to the article on the internet, I did notice several of Marks fans seem to confuse Fascism with Leftism. They assume that Obama would be pleased with what had happened in Europe. Well, actually no - the American Left is not in cahoots with the European Fascists.
I think the confusion comes down to the fact that the Far Right propaganda has been trying for several years to redefine the Left as Fascists. I would like to clear up this matter for the right wingers. I have just read a piece of right wing propaganda by John J. Ray [ M.A.; Ph .D. "Modern Leftism As Recycled Fascism"….. In this long argument, John Ray takes Mussolini's words and shows how they prove that Fascists are leftists. For example:
Mussolini “Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics”.
John J Ray.: "The “Liberalism” he refers to here would of course be called “Neo-liberalism” today — the politics of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Mussolini opposed such politics and so do Leftists today."
Me: If you define Fascism to be "Leftist" then you will also need to define "Liberal" to be rightist. "Of course".
So how about if we just look up Fascism in Wikipedia? Unless, Wikipedia is suspected of liberal bias. Which it is, apparently. Along with the mainstream media, universities, public schools and scientists. So to eliminate the bias charge, let's check "Fascism" in Conservapedia instead.
"Fascism is at the extreme right of the political spectrum. [1]"
Hopefully, that is clear enough. Although I suspect that Conservapedia's conservative owner might come back to change this when he finds out. Because another entry in Conservapedia calls Hitler a leftist.
All the following quotes are from Conservapedia, and you can see that these selected comments also agree with the theory that Fascism is a right wing deal.
"an emphasis on nationalism and national traditions; militarism; information control and censorship;"
No comment
"Fascist regimes have often concentrated on a "scapegoat" to push their agendas, such as Nazi attack on the Jews after 1920"
Assuming the scapegoat here is the Muslims or the gays or the illegal immigrants, I suppose.
"rigged elections and a general disdain for human rights.[2]"
Rigged elections are debatable, but disdain for human rights is an admitted right wing characteristic (the waterboarding issue, Guantanamo Bay etc.)
Of the Fascist movement, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote:
“ their totalitarian ideal hardly fitted into the pattern of the Left, which had been the traditional home of greater freedoms and more generous aspirations. So, after boggling and uncertainty, they were assigned positions on the far Right. [4]"
Sheesh! Against my better judgement, I took the time to read Steyn's article, and suspect it took me longer to wade through it than it took Steyn to write it in the first place. What a blathering mess.
ReplyDeleteMy Concise Oxford defines fascism as, 'a system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian views.' And virtually all political scientists would basically concur with that placement in the political spectrum.
Semantic efforts by members of the right wing to relocate the fascists to the opposite end of the spectrum are risible.
By the way, those EuroParl non-inscrits include the Swedish Pirate Party, scarcely a bastion of fascist thought.
Steyn has not done his homework, or has chosen to ignore the facts, and is springboarding from a few radical members to a European fascist revival.
In his comment on Steyn's article, Paul Wells explores the actual political positions of the non-inscrits in some detail.