A potential presidentlal candidate?

[joeb]

I'm really interested in this upcoming Presidental election and I found the following the following about someone some of you might be interested in voting for.  I'm not because I don't like his policies, but you might be.  I won't tell you what his name is right now, but I am giving a list of things he supports.

He is a decorated army war veteran, an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such advertising restrictions include: (1) not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; (2) not allowing such advertising to be directed to women; (3) not drawing attention to the low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, (4) limitations as to where such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein.  He supports the government setting wage and price controls, government programs for taking care of the elderly, increasing taxation of the wealthy,  having the government set limits on business profits, and government policies that decrease the role of religion and the family in societal decision-making, and he thinks political correctness is a good thing as it helps change human nature, so he wants the government to get involved in this.

Do you like his policies and would you vote for him? 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

thankfully, he's dead..

[Gregory Matthews]

The one I am thinking of is dead.

 

[Aliensanctuary]

Dead or not, politicians all make empty promises they never seem to keep.

Quote

...he thinks political correctness is a good thing as it helps change human nature, so he wants the government to get involved in this...

Unfortunately, political correctness can be toxic to freedom of thought, speech, religion, and life.

[joeb]

Yes, Adolph Hitler is dead.  His policies, however, are alive and well in the left wing of American politics.  Socialists deny Hitler was a socialist, but support exactly the same policies.  That right there says Hitler was a socialist.  And, in the late 1920's and through the 30's US, British, and French socialists came out unequivalently in support of him.  It wasn't until it was proven beyond doubt what he was doing to the Jews that they finally disassociated themselves from him.  His totalitarianism they had no problem with.  They thought it was good government. 

I have little doubt that most socialists today would support him had he not committed genocide against the jews. 

I found this in a book written by a law professor who, to make his students think, puts this description of Hitler and an amalgam of several of our founding fathers as choices for the students to vote for.  He has done this for years and over that time his students have voted Hitler into office time and time again.  Their voting record is 75%-25% in favor of Hitler.  This should surprise no one here as socialism is taught in the US public school system and our founding fathers portrayed very negatively when they are even mentioned at all. 

[Bravus]

That well known lefty policy: "believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein".

I think you'll find the rest of the world started opposing Hitler when he annexed Poland, not when it came out what was happening in the concentration camps.

Hitler was to the left on some issues and to the right on others. American-supported Pinochet was on the right on almost everything and was a horrendous dictator. Does that invalidate any rightwing issues?

Guilt by association is no argument at all against specific policies.

 

[Ted Oplinger]

Joeb has it correct, for the most part.  In the '20's, socialism and fascism had very broad support among the political Left - especially among the hailed intellectuals and Left-supporting publications of the day. Many hailed the fascist policies of Mussolini - bundling corporations and segments of society into government-controlled units, ostensibly for the better of the people - as the wave of the future. Those intellectuals were ready then to declare the American experiment dead, unfeasible for the governance of nations, and would render the "cumbersome" parliamentary governments of Europe obsolete, in favor of the adoption of an autocratic style leadership that would be more efficient in handling the issues of the day. This last point sounds remarkably like many statements I have heard from pundits and intellectuals here in the U.S. over the last few years.

 

When Hitler rose to power, he chose to adopt a fascist approach to industry, and a socialist approach to society. He assumed power by adopting what the German intellectuals desired - and the academic institutions and student bodies became his most ardent followers - adopting the popular appeal to authority to force things to be right in their perspective. Western intellectuals of the early 30's saw this rise to power as but another nail in the coffin of constitutional republics and parliamentary governments. These intellectual fascist/socialist systems were to be the wave of the future, they thought. They didn't mind the way Hitler began consolidating power - that's what strong leaders do for the betterment of their society, they declared. Mussolini - the charming Il Duce - had done the same a decade earlier. They ignored their counterparts on the political Right, dismissing those now prophetic objections as biased and unsupported.
 

When Hitler invaded Poland, the whole world didn't turn on him. The Soviet Union helped him carve up that country into occupied provinces. England and France would STILL not have gone to war with Germany after that point. The ONLY reason they did declare war, was because both countries had mutual defense treaties with Poland. These treaties rather forced the issue upon Western governments more given to appeasing the growing power of Hitler than opposing him. Why were they more given to appeasement? Not just because they didn't like war, but also because significant portions of Western polity sympathized with Hitler's basic politics.

What swung popular opinion (as opposed to the intellectuals' opinion) was the invasion of France. It was the common people who thought that just maybe these Fascist/Socialist  style economic politics of the Left weren't to be followed after all, in that they necessarily required a dictator to run them. The politically Left Neville Chamberlain was out of power, and his opponent on the Right - Winston Churchill - was put into power, precisely because of that. However, at war's end, Britain's socialist politics dumped Churchill - with the people's blessings - to resume those pursuits.

As WWII drew on through the early to mid '40's, both Socialism and Communism quietly divorced themselves from Fascism, so as to avoid the guilt by association stain, as the horrors of what went on in Germany unfolded. Fascism was given new characteristics, new definitions, and a new place on the political spectrum...even though the truth of the matter is readily available. This transformation has been the single biggest propaganda success of the 20th and 21st centuries, and is accepted really without thought by most. It is eerily similar to the success Satan has had, in convincing most of the world he really doesn't exist in the real world - even though he is the power behind it all

As Bravus related, there is also the example of August Pinochet...U.S. supported. Well, global politics of the Cold War swung that, rather than genuine U.S. support of his policies. As another case of the U.S. proxy warring with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Pinochet opposed the socialist Marxists within his country. Pinochet, though, historically goes down in ignominy and infamy - not because of his economic policies (free market-friendly policies which actually hoisted Chile out of the economic abyss), but because he waged war against the political Left in his country in the same ruthless manner the factions of the Left warred against him. In short, he returned their own methods back upon themselves. Hence, after he was through, Pinochet's political opponents were few - and Chile still has less trouble with its socialist elements than much of South America. All in all, Pinochet was successful, but to be successful, he became just like the enemy he warred against - ruthless, dictatorial, merciless, and corrupt.

As always, it is good to place things of history in the proper historical context, rather than go with statements bereft of such context.

Hence..as I hear major new anchors gush freely in admiration of China's autocratic government, swift dismissals from the political Left, growing intolerance and appeals from many academics (and youth the teach) to force their solutions upon the country, growing unrest along clear-cut societal lines...I see very distinct parallels between current events now, and what happened in the early 30's Germany -  even though most everyone says what happened there absolutely cannot happen here. Then - I hear of a Presidential candidate, from mine own church affiliation, standing up and declaring this NOT the path to be followed. Yea, I'm going to forgive him for mistaking pyramids for grain silos. That is minor, compared to the persistent and fierce refusals of his political opponents to even acknowledge glaringly factual evidences on many far more important issue facing the nation of my residence.

Even as the U.S. is portrayed in Revelation 13 as the lamb-like beast which in the end speaks like the Dragon, Socialism/Fascism comes dressed in good intentions and righteous justification - but in the end, it has always spoken just like the Dragon. These systems repudiate the very things the U.S. was prophesied to begin with - the horns of Civil and Religious liberties. Perhaps it is a fitting irony - that the nation which gave these systems a seemingly mortal wound, should repudiate its beginnings, and become the very thing it once opposed.

We do indeed live in interesting times, with an interesting Presidential race shaping up.

[joeb]

Nice post, Ted. 

The ignorance of history is amazing.  And what's even worse, few want to learn from it or study it.  Most here won't even read opposing points of view on political issues.  As a result most of them appear to be indoctrinated into, not educated about, socialism.  

Germany, prior to WWI was completely socialist in political doctrine and the German leaders and intellectuals of that day saw WWI as a war of socialism against classical liberalism and individualism.  In other words, WWI, in which Germany was the aggressor, was, to Germany, a war to impose socialism upon the rest of the world.  And, Hitler came to power through the support of many of the leading Marxists in Germany.  His government truly was National Socialism, as it was based upon nationaiism as seen through the lens of socialism. 

Very, very, few intellectuals will actually tell the truth about this issue.  As to the very few who will tell the truth I will point to three:  Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams. They are maligned by the press and the socialist intelligentsia in this country.  One interesting thing about them, as a group, is that all three are economists.  Sowell and Williams are very hated for they are black and disagree with the liberal agenda, therefore they must be attacked and marginalized by the leftwing press.  They are, though, shining lights of truth and integrity.  If only the black community would bother to listen to them....  That community would be far better off if they would, rather than listen to the race-baiters they do listen to.

[CoAspen]

You are good at making accusations of a great number of people.....however with little substance. Hoping to make it stick against the barn wall?

Enjoy yourself.

[JoeMo]

I agree that we fail to learn from history.  I would also assert that many fail to ascertain the reality of the current geo-political situation on the planet.  If we look back at the history of the world, the scenario of pre WW2 looks very similar to the scenario we face today.  There is a despot power in the world which is threatening to bring down any semblance of world order unless we surrender unconditionally to their demands.  Even if we do, war and massive casualties are the ultimate result.  Those of you who are really old; and those who have studied history know what I'm talking about.  Those of you who think I'm a ranting conspiracy theorist, Read Daniel, and the writings of John - gospels, epistles and Revelation. 

The difference between then and now is that the "enemy" is not a country; it is a "movement".  Another difference is that this enemy does not need to "invade" the Western world; it's already in place.  The events this past weekend in Paris demonstrated that.

After Paris, who's next?

[lazarus]

20 hours ago, JoeMo said:

  There is a despot power in the world which is threatening to bring down any semblance of world order unless we surrender unconditionally to their demands.  Even if we do, war and massive casualties are the ultimate result. 

You're talking about the US right?

[JoeMo]

4 minutes ago, lazarus said:

You're talking about the US right?

Funny guy, Laz.  No I'm talking about jihadist Islam (e.g., ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Ikwhan al Muslimun (Muslim Brotherhood).

[Bravus]

They are tiny groups. Their words are big, and they can kill civilians, but any notion that they threaten to hold even one country, let alone world dominance, is simply farcical.

As our new Prime Minister said this week: "they have more smartphones than guns". They have a social media presence and can reach out to disenfranchised youth, but they're no sort of existential threat.

It's silly to take them at their word on this.

Isolate these extremists and embrace all other human beings. Don't isolate a billion Muslims, most of whom roundly reject the extremists: if you do, there will be more of those disenfranchised youth to target.

If they hate your freedoms, the way to defeat them is not by giving up your freedoms. If their violence is evil, the way to defeat them is not to become more evil.

There was a dude named Jesus who said some stuff and did some stuff. I reckon if we followed that we'd probably do OK.

[Stan]

I understand Hitler encouraged people to eat food as well.

 

Just sayin'

[LifeHiscost]

4 hours ago, Stan said:

I understand Hitler encouraged people to eat food as well.

 

Just sayin'

He was a vegetarian too, I understand.

God is Love!  Jesus saves!