Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Cal): I would love a conservative dictatorship (video)

True.

While you personally may believe he would make a good PROTUS, Donald Trump is anything but a clown. He is a highly successful business leader adept at cutting deals and getting people to do what he want them to do. If people idolized people like The Donald instead of 50 Cent (rapper) and Tom Brady (football player), the US economy would be steam rollering China.

the US economy would be steam rollering China.

Or the US would have declared multiple bankruptcies.

Sorry to go off-topic Soph, but that was just too easy.

[Trump] is a highly successful business leader adept at cutting deals and getting people to do what he want them to do

Perhaps. But nothing in that statement (which I'm not so sure about the accuracy of anyway) says he couldn't also be a clown...

If people idolized people like The Donald

It's been painfully obvious since the 1980s that America does idolize people like Trump-- that whole Gordon Gekko "Greed is good" thinking we've adopted as our primary indicator of what/who is considered "the good" in our society. And the way we've acted because of that belief is exactly why we're in such economic difficulties these days, not the other way around...

Crazy is crazy. I avoid voting for it whether it's the far right or the far left. Both sides have their share of people whose ideas I think are dangerously wrong.

Oh, I'm agnostic, so yes, that level of religon in politics bothers me too. It's one of the reasons I'm struggling with whether I'll be able to vote republican in 2012; I'm unsurprisingly not a big fan of the religous right, and there seems to be decreasing space for moderates in my party.

I can only ask what took you so long? The religious whackdoodles have made it abundantly clear that the opinions of moderate republicans mean nothing. It's why I left the party years ago.

Well, I voted for Obama in 08 (largely because the prospect of Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency overrode my concerns about Obama's inexperience).

I trend libertarian, not in the Ayn Rand sense of the word, but in the sense that my threshold for when the government ought to get involved in things is different than either the far right who want to legislate morality and the far left who want to legislate economic and social activity. I'm a huge fan of deficit reduction (which, um, means the last president I can admire in that respect is Clinton), which puts me at odds both with the "taxes are bad" republicans and the "can't cut any spending (other than defense)" democrats.

In short, I don't find the leftward trend of the democratic party any more compelling than I find the rightward drift of the republican party. I'll vote in 2012 (if I vote at all) for whoever I deem to be the lesser evil.

I can't find a Hell of a lot to argue with there, RR. My nature would love to, but I just can't. I'm pretty much in the same boat. To say that Obama was the lesser of 2 evils over those 2 circus clowns is an understatement.

What really pisses me off, at the root of it, is it's always a "Lesser of 2 evils" choice now". And why wouldn't it be? Anyone really great would never run. They are demonized, their families savaged, and it's a job that almost INVITES Con men/women into it. The last President with radical ideas about actually changing things got his head blown off.

I think we're all heading for a great big fall. And the corporations and rich dudes will be the only ones standing.

is it's always a "Lesser of 2 evils" choice now".

Always has been, always will be. No candidate will perfectly align with your personal views, provided you yourself are not the candidate. Even then, the necessity of governance will pull you from at least a few of your positions. You might delude yourself otherwise sometimes, but when your "perfect" candidate is elected they will immediately begin to drift from the platform they ran on. Everyone seeking public office tries to appear as the perfect person to all people, and in so doing sets themselves up for the very disappointment you are expressing.

Sorry if this sounds cynical, but I am a native of the Washington DC area, and have been around politics and politicians pretty much my entire life. I don't get stars in my eyes anymore, and haven't since Reagan who then went on to thoroughly disappoint me.

AA, I agree with your post, up to a point. If you would have said "in recent history" I would have agreed wholeheartedly.

But Ike ran against Adlai Stevenson. Both were damn fine Americans, IMO. Then Kennedy ran against Nixon, and that's where it seemed to end. Now, it just seems all we get is deeply flawed candidates. Which leads me to believe it's more the system than the individuals at fault. We're a big part of that system, so I indict all of us in this.

tea, I agree with a lot of your post also. Religion as a weapon of politics is relatively new, and Reagan was the one that ushered them in. I think Goldwater would be turning in his grave over this. NeoCons are no more "conservative" than my Aunt Flabby.

it's always a "Lesser of 2 evils" choice now...

It's a bit sad that "the best of all possible choices" and "the lesser of all possible evils" always seem to end up the same in our political conversation. There's no reason they should.

Of course, part of it is the easy acceptance of the proposition that "the government is always the problem", which is not (and has never been) true. That and the "welfare queen" meme are the two worst elements of Reagan's political legacy.

It's a bit sad that "the best of all possible choices" and "the lesser of all possible evils" always seem to end up the same in our political conversation.

The problem is that people who have the conversation (who are in the minority) tend to be zealots, and to a zealot a person who does not agree with them fully is either evil or stupid, or both.

Exactly. Look at a distressing percentage of posters on Newsvine; hell, look at this thread for example. Plenty of folks assume that all/most republicans/democrats are evil, stupid, and want to install a dictatorship. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that that either party wants to do so.

The problem is that people who have the conversation... tend to be zealots

Including, I suppose, all of us here?

Or is it not simply that "a minority" of us is all that is conversing, but rather that the extreme positions are the only positions on offer due to the Manichean system we run our politics under, and due to the way the balance point of that duality has been shifted in recent years?

People who are indifferent about politics don't spend time posting on political boards. Hence, there's a built-in tendency for places like Newsvine and Politico to attract those with strong opinions and who are zealots.

People who are indifferent about politics don't spend time posting on political boards.

Precisely. Although many of them vote. Face it, we are a self-selected minority here and are in no way representative of the electorate as a whole.

"self-selected minority" sounds so much better than "nerds." But, alas, the terms are both accurate.

Oh believe me they will and should! That about sums it up doesn't it? Slip of the lip or not and i think not and his explaining it away by acknowledging its not our constitutional agenda or not thats some scary stuff!

Gotta disagree with you on that one. Plenty of people (no, not just Newsvine commentators and the one boneheaded Woody Allen comment) on the left had made statements about how things would be so much easier if only the democrats had absolute authority. That does NOT excuse Hunter's comment, but I think it's incorrect to say that "the right" (as if it's a monolith) wants a dictatorship, and that their desires for such are exclusive to them.

Have not heard any dems advocate destroying medicare or social security,first goal of fascists...

No, a dictatorship of the left would look differently than a dictatorship of the right. Still oppressive, but different kind of oppression.

And reforming medicare and social security should be the goal of EVERYONE, since they're untenable as currently planned. I don't think the plan put forward by the republicans is a particularly good one, but reform needs to happen.

Agreed.

Disagree all you want, random, but it's inate in conservatives to be dictatorial. The old "as long as you live under my roof, you'll do as I say" principal, is bred into the right wing psyche from birth."

Here is an observation I have made in the past. We barely escaped Dictatorship when Bush failed to deliver on his "mission accomplished" crap. Had he not failed and lost support from his own party, I believe we'd be in a dictatorship with Rove in charge right now!

It was Rove's objective to create a permanent majority! In other words dictatorship!

I shall agree to disagree with you. Can we leave it at that, or should we do the traditional Newsvine thing and start hurling insults at each other for an hour or two first? :-)

That's an important half truth, "it's inate in conservatives to be dictatorial"

So long as it's just the conservatives though... there's still hope that liberals could be elected.

ooh... I know...we should elect a Democratic majority.

Bwahahahahaha... hoo boy... I crack me up sometimes.

I shall agree to disagree with you. Can we leave it at that, or should we do the traditional Newsvine thing and start hurling insults at each other for an hour or two first? :-)

I suppose we can leave it at that. I just hate to enable a person's denial.

Sopho, my friend, I'm disappointed in your "they do it too" sound bite apologetic comment. It's very unlike you. While I agree there are some on the left that have the control instinct it does not appear to be inherent in their character and it is not

You sound like your thinking the fascist mantra out loud,scary stuff.

No lobotomy required,just stay engaged.

yearning's nailed it... it's just window dressing...

I know many liberals who would love to see a liberal dictatorship.

Now tha's a statement born of ignorance!!!

Frankly, Bogota, I don't believe you! But name a few and maybe you can convince me! "Liberal dictatorship" is a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron if you will. It's counter intuitive. Sort of self negating and laughable!

Stalin? Castro? Min? Did you miss the entire communist experiment? A dictorship is a type of government not a social or economic position.

Of course, none of those leaders were liberals. They were leftists, to be sure but the two words are not synonymous. Liberalism opposes authoritarianism, and all of the folks you mention were most certainly authoritarians, not liberals.

I understand that conservatives in this country like to "frame" things, but to my way of thinking, making definitions up to suit your arguments is weak. Liberalism doesn't mean "person who's politics are different from mine, and who I don't like."

And as a note to my liberal friends, conservatism also doesn't mean that.

You got the prescription right on.

Okay, here's the problem with that statement: Anyone who advocates a dictatorship because it's convenient for their side, does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about the other ideological side asking for dictatorial powers of their own.

So, I've got a better idea: how 'bout we have a republic, and try to keep it.

Like NO taxes.

How can anyone expect to be taken seriously with talk like this?

Do we think there is no price to pay for our cushy little American existence. That we can have two wars happening and NOT be asked to sacrifice financially to pay for them?

If an alien were to come down and survey American priorities it would put Real Housewives' drama at number 1 and the war in Afghanistan at around 10 or 11.

So you would take us back a hundred years with regard to government reforms?I would suggest you move to Libya,you can live your dream there as you suggest...

Like NO taxes.

We went to dinner a few years back with my neighbor, who advocated JUST THAT during dinner. I honestly didn't know what to say to him. I mean, when faced with utter and complete lack of thought, how does one respond? He's a fine fellow otherwise, and we get along great as neighbors. Haven't been out to dinner with them since. I need actual thought processes to enjoy my dinner.

jerry, you didn't really mean "NO Taxes", did you? If so, how in the flying @!$%# do you expect us to finance the excursions your guys keep getting us into? And before someone shouts "Libya", think. We were in it, what, for 2 weeks? We're STILL stuck in those 2 @!$%#holes Junior got us into...

Like NO taxes

Like this works...How do you fund the country? It won't run itself on peanuts. You'll have to do better than idealistically vague concepts

For those who believe that there is no such thing as a liberal fascist I have one name ... Fidel Castro

For those who believe that there is no such thing as a liberal fascist I have one name ... Fidel Castro

Ken Mac

Explain please...... how does Castro exhibit liberalism??? He is a dictator. Are you suggesting that the Marxists of the former USSR or Chairman Mao were liberal???

"Liberal dictatorship" is a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron if you will. It's counter intuitive. Sort of self negating and laughable!

Youre both off. Using the Nazi model, fascism is clearly conservatism to the extreme. However, Castro was a communist.You cannot have a fascist communist. Therefore he also must have been to the left.

fascism is clearly conservatism

jbird,

Castro, Mao and the USSR leaders were dictators. As far from Communism as from Liberalism and Conservatism!!!

Fascism is an extreme form of governance, thus it is the antithesis of Conservatism, Liberalism and Communism which are theories of social organizations!!!

Goober, you know quite well that's a distinction they either won't understand, or won't accept since it doesn't fit with their accepted narratives...

Dare I suggest that anyone read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" for an alternate viewpoint? There are some methodological weaknesses (and, I'll admit, some biases) in the book, but it's an interesting analysis of how the "conservatism is one step away from fascism" argument is flawed.

Webster defines facism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Hence an autocratic dictator that mandates education in public schools, nationalized health care, and tells you who may or may not work in a given industry job etc is a facist. Fidel Castro is a liberal and a facist. It is the intolerance of anyone that disagrees with you that makes someone a facist.

There are some methodological weaknesses (and, I'll admit, some biases

Wow. Way to go for the understatement.

The methodological weaknesses and the bias-based revisionism that Goldberg indulges himself in destroy his argument from the get-go. He starts from a false premise, and uses cherry-picking and a skewed view of the historiographical background of fascism (when he uses that background at all) to prove exactly the strawman that he wants to.

If you're looking for an analysis of fascism, look to Hannah Arendt or Robert Paxton...

Yes, WmRAllen, I'm quite aware of their blindness and denial

Anything from Jonah Goldberg is tainted with his agenda bias!

"conservatism is one step away from fascism"

It is only flawed in the nomenclature. It isn't "Conservatism that's on trial it's the leadership that hijack the various systems that are under scrutiny and Goldberg is one among many in the right wing to keep an eye on.

Paxton's good. I've not yet read his book specifically on fascism, but his stuff on Vichy (poor, doomed, foolish Petain) was good.

Yes

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/10/29_Dictator.html

Thanks, krounded. I did not realize that Bush had said that more than once.