116 Comments

1. a Duoist:

Only 28 years after Tocqueville’s book, socialism swept across Europe; the ideology of ‘equality’ was born. In the Christian nations, ‘equality’ resonated with the founding slave-religion, and “helplessness” eventually became the ultimate virtue. In this cultural transformation of merging Christian theology with socialist ideology, ‘victimhood’ became a form of heroism and we slaughtered tens of innocent millions, all in the name of “equality.”

Talmon was correct, as was Tocqueville and Hayek and Nietzsche: the ultimate conclusion of merging Christian doctrines with socialism tenets will eventually be ‘voluntary totalitarianism.’

It is wonderful to read this warning caution from a freedom scholar. Thank you, Dr. Ledeen.

Feb 14, 2009 - 8:39 pm 2. Winston:

I think your definition of fascism is the best I have ever seen so far. Most people and even pundits have no clue about real fascism that is a left wing practice.

Feb 14, 2009 - 10:18 pm 3. psota:

Rather than the loaded phrase “fascism,” I think the term “corporate state” perfectly encapsulates not just the structure of our government, but also the behavior of or elites. They are more ethnically diverse than ever before, but they all seem to speak the lingua franca of the corporate retreat.

My only consolation for the current trend towards an overweening state is the underlying dynamism of American society. There is always someone or something new coming down the pike. Every generation has shown a resolute tendency toward reinventing or changing what has come before. Much of what you describe as underlying the corporate state – the therapeutic mindset, the quest for equality, the desire to protect “the children” – are associated in my mind with the Baby Boomers. I wonder if the (too) slow passing of the Boomers from the scene over the next 30 years might ultimately be what saves us.

Feb 14, 2009 - 10:32 pm 4. ashok:

Thank you for this post – it is very thoughtful, and I’m really happy to see engagement with the primary source while developing the argument. Would that more writers do that.

What I like best is: “Permitting the central government to assume our proper responsibilities is not merely a transfer of power from us to them; it does grave damage to our spirit. It subverts our national character.”

Most conservatives, I suspect, will read over that and be like “yeah! gov’t is taking away our responsibilities. We need federalism/states’ rights/yada yada back.” I look at it and think you’ve stayed very balanced: the issue is how paternalistic we want government to be, and right now we want it to raise our kids for us, when it doesn’t pay us to abort them in the first place. But someone can raise challenges by being articulate about “our proper responsibilities:” it could be that we need to dump the money into childcare programs given that the kids may suffer otherwise, blah blah.

There is a disconnect between the discussion of “soft tyranny” and the discussion of equality producing totalitarian regimes which can be solved by talking about how the older fascist regimes were welfare states (I know nothing about this). Still, one would need to connect our decadence now with a passion for equality that would make us violent, and that’s probably a stretch. It’s easier – and truer – to say that our defenses against demagogues are lowered, and will continue to be lowered by our habits.

I’ve wondered aloud on my blog about your last post, b/c one problem I’m having even with thoughtful discussions such as this one is that this is the closest people are getting to the primary sources they need more than ever. When one thinks about how much Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison and the rest read, compared to the “Joe the Plumber” book (I’m going to vomit in my mouth every time I say that, it is a disgrace such a thing exists when there are so many other talented voices who don’t get a moment’s notice), it’s pretty clear we’ve got this idea that we don’t need to be educated to participate in an Enlightenment republic.

On your last post: “The Uses and Abuses of Political Philosophy”

Feb 15, 2009 - 6:49 am 5. Rethink. » The Uses and Abuses of Political Philosophy: On Michael Ledeen’s “We are All Fascists Now”:

[...] Those days are gone primarily because ideology of the political Right can be summarized in bullet points nowadays. I had to stop reading “First Things” because every article was “here’s why Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche are wrong about everything, and Aquinas and Augustine are exactly right and show up in modern thought when it is exactly right.” The invocation of Tocqueville by many is similarly an attempt to divide the history of thought into good guys and bad guys in order to score quick, cheap points about one piece of legislation or another. (Re: Ledeen – Part II of his piece could be far better than average articles of this sort, since he’s taken a decent amount of time to just set up questions. That’s always a good thing. Edit: Part II, and it is highly recommended.) [...]

Feb 15, 2009 - 6:55 am 6. Pajamas Media » We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny:

[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]

Feb 15, 2009 - 9:33 am 7. Self-hating Boomer:

Rather than the loaded phrase “fascism,” I think the term “corporate state” perfectly encapsulates not just the structure of our government, but also the behavior of or elites.

Precisely. It does a disservice to our understanding of Fascism to present it as an economic system, when in fact it de-emphasizes economics and emphasizes national egalitarianism. What distinguishes Bolshevism from Fascism is the Bolshevik obsession with economics as the be-all and end-all of social order. Fascists were more interested in social order, and considered economics to be a detail (which is why Mao was actually more of a Fascist than a Bolshevik). That opened the door to cozy relations between the political class and the business class.

The similarity of the new corporatism to Fascism is very real, but coincidental.

Feb 15, 2009 - 10:01 am 8. Sara for America:

My immediate response to this, as it has been to many articles in this vein, is “Yes! Absolutely, yes! So then, what can we DO?”

I visited your website, Dr. Ledeen, defenddemocracy.org. There I saw a photo of Joe Lieberman, a learned and rather rational man, who is an esteemed member of your organization.

Joe voted for the stimulus and hailed money that will be directed to his home-state of CT.

It is this type of well-meaning person who will play a large role in our ultimate seduction into fascism. He, of good temperament and seemingly bi-partisanship, the kind that negotiates and whittles our freedoms to nothing, eventually.

How do you rationalize Joe; how he fits into both your article and your organization?

Feb 15, 2009 - 10:19 am 9. Instapundit » Blog Archive » SEEMING SOMEHOW APPROPRIATE THESE DAYS: The Road to Serfdom in cartoons. Ironically, courtesy of G…:

[...] comments: “Perhaps your readers can determine which chapter we are currently on.” Well, Michael Ledeen has his own [...]

Feb 15, 2009 - 10:34 am 10. Cybergeeezr:

“The ultimate horror of Tocqueville’s vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it.”
Precisely what is taking place in the main stream media and with current administration supporters. And displayed by “His Emptiness” so adroitly last week.
It appears that what is left for “We the People” is to leave this planet for another, and take our Constitution with us. The masses that are seeking to be oppressed is spreading like wildfire throughout this planet.

Feb 15, 2009 - 10:35 am 11. Liberal fascism comes slithering in | Cold Fury:

[...] Ledeen knows the score too: The economics of the current expansion of state power in America are, as I said, [...]

Feb 15, 2009 - 10:53 am 12. Saltherring:

“We act out democratic skits while submitting to an oppressive central power that we ourselves have chosen.”

Brilliant! Limp-wristed America has agreed to trade the rights and responsibilities of the individual for state-sponsored financial security. Oprah should have campaigned for and accepted a high-level position in the Obama government, as she epitomizes America’s feminized culture and debased values. The sheeple rejoice and praise the name of Obama while bureaucratic despots silently dismantle 200+ years of American history and ideals. America has sold its birthright for a bowl of soup and as a result will spend the remainder of its days in want.

Feb 15, 2009 - 11:15 am 13. george washington:

Of course, the whole thing only works if the government can come close to meeting the expectations of the “governed”. With the world economy about to implode, it will be interesting to see if papa Obama will bring out the “whip” to the unruly children who are complaining because they did not get their Christmas pie. Buy ammo children while you still can!

Feb 15, 2009 - 11:50 am 14. sbourg55:

I read Tocqueville in high school. I’ll summarize my despondency in pecuniary terms, which illustrates even further the economic slavery we’re in. Say a couple making $250 -300k/year, have reached the maximum in career earnings. But with both halves of FICA counted, and property taxes, et al, the total taxes are $140k. Colleges think this couple’s rich enough to afford $45,000/year, the couple hasn’t nearly become “wealthy” with retirement accumulations, and job security is nebulous (being private sector jobs as they are). Obama thinks this couple should have a significant tax increase, to pay for more government spending enriching the “govt class” — aka — govt workers. How high should the total $140k in taxes go? How much does Obama/Pelosi/Reid want to punish us? Isn’t $140,000/year already too much in total taxes to fund our government workers? And it’s bad for a couple making $100k….counting both halves of FICA taxes, they’re in nearly a 50% marginal tax bracket. Why don’t the voters who don’t work for the govt realize that the govt’s killing our economy, and ruining our job security to boot? This is not economic “freedom”, and it seems to violate the Constitutional amendment against unreasonable seizures!!

Feb 15, 2009 - 12:00 pm 15. Gloria:

Dr. Ledeen, your analysis is interesting and fruitful because you have moved away from the old notion that fascism has to be connected to the right. According to Davies and Lynch, “Fascism and the Far Right,” Routledge, 2002, “…fascists borrowed heavily from other ideologies of the left and the right” (p. 101).

“Middle-class anti-Communists brought arguments against the materialism of socialism, while the SOCIALIST BACKGROUND of men like Mussolini himself helped them to hone a powerful anti-capitalist discourse. According to fascist thinking, capitalism was based on a plutocracy, with privileged minorities pulling the strings and holding national economies to ransom. The early party rallies passed anti-capitalist resolutions, including some urging the death penalty for ‘ursurers and profiteers’.”

Obama’s characterization of heads of corporations and their bonuses certainly fits in with early German and Italian fascist notions about capitalism. And Obama and other Democrats’ constant focus on the victimization of minorities casts others in society as the enemy. So Obama’s message is anti-elitist and anti-capitalist. Yet at the same time, with the Democrats’ “Buy America” slogan embedded in the stimulus bill, “patriotic” capitalists are reassured that their problems will soon be ended by this quite nationalistic requirement in the bill (this is why Obama specifically mentioned the Caterpillar Corp). These kinds of contradictions in ideology were endemic to all the different local fascisms of the 20th century (German, Italian, Spanish, Japanese, Romanian, Argentinean, Slovakian, Croatian).

By looking at political and ideological connections other than those of the left or right, you are helping us all see that, like 20th century fascisms, America is growing its own local fascism, and, according to Davis and Lynch, “having local characteristics” is one of the defining traits of fascism.

Feb 15, 2009 - 12:04 pm 16. Meryl:

In terms of the perceptions of those being slowly cooked, one dynamic those turning up the heat will use is increasing chaos. Get some anarchy going and, voila! totalitarian solutions are welcomed.

I told our adult sons months and months ago that the things TCPOTUS (stolen from a poster on another thread) was talking about would be the setup for the collapse of our Republic, and would so prepare things that when the giant changes came, they would (having developed slowly) come in to fruition very quickly.

This is sickening and truly scary.

Feb 15, 2009 - 12:06 pm 17. George:

Great article! A great dilemna for me is figuring out what actions I can take in my own life to slow down the destruction of liberty. For example, I could boycott any bank that accepted federal bailout money, but some otherwise good banks were forced to sell an ownership stake to the federal government. Seem like a given to me to boycott Chrysler and GM, but what actions would they need to take to deserve my future business? I attempt to vote in all elections, but even in the primary I rarely get to vote for someone who wants to dial back the size a role of government. I make libertarian protest votes in uncontested elections with little effect. Frustrating!

Feb 15, 2009 - 12:09 pm 18. Horace Wells:

Babbling about Fascist and calling people fascists is so outdated and shopworn that even George Orwell wrote about that over 60 years ago. Mr. Ledeen, time to chuck your alarmist rheoteric and update your vocabulary! This is an exercise in ant-intellectual namecalling at best. But considering this site was created by a jealous rejected Hollywood washup to pander to the vast ocean of no-minds in the US, this is par for the course.

Feb 15, 2009 - 12:17 pm 19. Mike_K:

We are seeing the steel hand within the glove in matters like the census and the “fairness doctrine.” Our hope, and it is a reasonable one, is the sheer incompetence of these people. Obama has never accomplished anything but Rahm Emmanuel is probably the force behind this front. I need to find a good biography of Mussolini in English.

Feb 15, 2009 - 12:20 pm 20. goy:

- …we’re in for a hell of a fight. Or so I hope.

Michael, I think your analysis correctly recognizes rising fascism in the U.S., at least in the context of Toqueville’s indispensable observations, and the historical (as opposed to the politically correct) definition of the term. But I think you may have missed three critical aspects we need to consider if any effort is to be mounted to fight this historically suicidal trend. Also, I submit that socialism and fascism are far from mutually exclusive. In fact, due to its inherent distortion of human nature and the resulting fundamental flaw in its basic constructs, the former of necessity requires the latter in some form (communism, nazism, etc.) to survive for any length of time at all.

First, I disagree completely that “[f]ascism was a war ideology”. You mention Mussolini, but haven’t mined his contribution to the ideology. Review Mussolini’s ideological evolution from pure socialism to what the Vatican chided as “worship of the State” in Mussolini’s policies (as well, in fact, as his very persona). Fascism, at least as viewed by its most famous practitioner, was defined as “everything in the State; nothing outside the State”, i.e., not an ideology of war, but rather one of total social incorporation. No surprise that he is responsible for coining the term totalitarianism – another word that is erroneously used as an epithet today. War and, more specifically, militarism are associated with fascism today - particularly liberal fascism – because, as Jonah Goldberg recognizes, “militarism was ‘progressive’ at the beginning of the twentieth century” (i.e., when it first emerged). Progressives of that period saw the military and associated organizational structure as the best way to mobilize society, en masse, in service of the State. Today we have inherited that sentiment with James’ overused “moral equivalent of war”.

Second, fascism of this type has existed in America before. What we’re seeing is in fact a resurgence of Wilsonian-style “progressive” fascism. Woodrow Wilson viewed government not just as a social construct, but as a living, Darwinian organism that deserved – in fact was required – to evolve into an ever more powerful entity in its own right. Recognizing this view it then comes as no surprise that Wilson was no friend to the Constitution, specifically inasmuch as it formed the basis of the Constitutionally limited government defined by the classically liberal Founders. In these sentiments he preceded Mussolini by decades – not only philosophically, but through his administration’s actions, as well as through partnerships with those in American society who supported his ultimately totalitarian views. It’s critical to recognize this. That recognition makes clear the fact that it CAN happen here, because it HAS; it also warns us that the very democratic institutions on which we rely can be – and have been – used to implement fascism.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, there’s a very clear dichotomy of mind driving the diverging elements of our culture. One camp seeks desperately to preserve individual liberty and the classically liberal form of government that has proved best, so far, in supporting it. The other camp seeks a collective return to the womb through a “living” Constitution and “social justice” offered by their notion of a beneficent, but ultimately (of necessity) totalitarian State. Research measuring the differences in the intuitive morality – or moral mind – of these two camps has shown consistent, pervasive patterns revealing the motivation – the psychological diagnosis, if you will – for their preferred ideology. The intuitive morality of the self-described conservative / classical liberal is based on a view that is inclusive of all the moral foundations necessary for the preservation of a stable society. The intuitive morality of the self-described leftist / liberal ignores most of these aspects and focuses almost exclusively on two specific areas. Thus there is a clear difference between individuals exhibiting moral maturity (conservatives) and moral adolescence (leftists/liberals). It’s crucial that we learn what’s needed to elevate a majority of our population out of the moral adolescence that finds liberal fascism palatable – actively seeks it, in fact.

Having added that, I’m curious: given your analysis, what precisely do you believe is the nature of the fight you think we’re in for?

Everywhere I see expressions of this kind: clear and valid parallels being drawn between the present day events and those that led to the worst periods in so many countries’ histories. Yet no one as yet has put a name to this coming fight, much less identified where it’ll originate and who will do the actual fighting. Will the fight be political? A battle of wills that pits the moral adolescents of this country against their morally mature countrymen? Armed conflict?

To put it bluntly, the predictions and I-told-you-sos are frankly wearing a bit thin. I think we all get it: we’ve forgotten history and are about to live through the doom of repeating it. Or not.

So what is Part III going to cover? Will we get to see your prescription? Is there a recommended course of action that has a chance to abort this socially suicidal process?

Feb 15, 2009 - 1:02 pm 21. jwm:

I remember hopping on the Harley, without having to wear a helmet, riding over to a coffee shop, and having a smoke while I waited for lunch. It is against the law to do this today.

JWM

Feb 15, 2009 - 1:31 pm 22. Patvann:

To Horace Wells,

2 points…

1. It is telling that you provide NOTHING to counter Mr. Ledeen’s points, other than to spew ad-hominin blather. You whine about “name-calling”, then proceed directly to calling names.

2. The ONLY reason the term “fascism” seems “shopworn” nowadays, is because weak-minded individuals and groups have used it to label and bludgeon anyone even sightly to the right of themselves who have the audacity to disagree with them.

It seems to me that the only reason you posted in such a manner, is because you both agree with this present foolish course, and because you feel a tinge of guilt for helping it along.

-Begone ye, happy slavehood.

Feb 15, 2009 - 1:37 pm 23. anonrobt:

Perhaps, all in all, tis time to be like Atlas, and Shrug… or read Unintended Consequences, and take it from there…

Feb 15, 2009 - 1:50 pm 24. Ward Dorrity:

Paul Johnson, noted British historian, had this to say in his work “Modern Times”:

“Of the trio of great German imaginative scholars who offer explanations of human behavior in the nineteenth century, and whose corpus of thought the post-1918 world inherited, only two so far have been mentioned. Marx described a world in which the central dynamic was economic interest. To Freud, the principal thrust was sexual. Both assumed that religion, the old impulse that moved men and masses, was a fantasy and always had been. Friedrich Nietzsche, the third of the trio, was also an atheist. But he saw God not as an invention, but as a casualty, and His demise as in some important sense an historical event which would have dramatic consequences. He wrote in 1886: “The greatest event in recent times – that ‘God is Dead,’ that the belief in the Christian God is no longer tenable – is beginning to cast its first shadows upon Europe.” Among the advanced races, the decline and ultimately the collapse of the religious impulse would leave a huge vacuum. The history of modern times is in great part the history how that vacuum came to be filled. Nietzsche rightly perceived that the most likely candidate would be what he called the ‘Will to Power,’ which offered a far more comprehensive and in the end more plausible explanation of human behavior than Marx or Freud. In place of religious belief, there would be secular ideology. Those who had once filled the ranks of the totalitarian clergy would become totalitarian politicians. And above all the Will to Power would produce a new kind of messiah, uninhibited by any religious sanctions whatsoever, and with an unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind.”

The entire history of the twentieth century was written by these power-lusters and now the 21st is being written by such men. We’ve got our so-called ‘Messiah.’ What do you suppose will be done in his name?

I’ve heard some say that God must save our Republic. I’ve got news for them: God will not save that which so many of us have so willingly thrown away.

I’ve heard some prattle on about the ‘the law’ this and ‘the Constitution’ that. Foolishness. As if our new rulers will be constrained by the reason and the logic of our Founders. Those in power will not not only sweep the pieces off the board, they’ll upend the table along with it. And far sooner than we might think. Obama himself has openly announced his contempt for the vision of the Founding Fathers.

It’s time for Atlas to shrug – and to pick up a gun.

Feb 15, 2009 - 2:00 pm 25. Eric:

“The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

This describes Europe perfectly and is at the root of why they are slowly surrendering to Islam. Their government has taken form them their will to survive.

Feb 15, 2009 - 2:41 pm 26. Socialism is GOOD for EVERYONE! - Page 10 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum:

[...] Fascists Now! Faster, Please!

Feb 15, 2009 - 2:44 pm 27. Hyphenated American:

The author could also see obvious parallels between other fascist regimes and what Obama is doing. Italy’s duce is a good example, but today, I would rather talk about Putin and Latin America fascists – like Chavez…
In fact, I think Obama most closely resembles Putin…

Feb 15, 2009 - 2:46 pm 28. e:

Mr. Ledeen, this is probably the most important articles I’ve read on PJM.

“So with all of our reforms and medical technologies why would the colonists oppose us?”
“We meddle.”
“River?”
“People don’t like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right. We’re meddlesome.”
“River, we’re not telling people what to think. We’re just trying to show them how.”
~opening scene of Whedon’s Serenity

So our question is: What would a free man do?

Feb 15, 2009 - 3:13 pm 29. happy1ga:

Yes, how does one square this with someone like Lieberman? His spine has all the fortitude of a willow-limb in a category 5 hurricane. I am sure Mr. Lieberman is a nice man, I met him once, he was very hawkish toward the WOT, but he has supported the bailouts almost gleefully.

Feb 15, 2009 - 3:47 pm 30. thegre8_1:

Two thumbs way up for this article. A soft tyranny is being installed as we speak and the screws will be tightened quickly. We must take back the Congress in 2010 and White House in 2012 or we are screwed. I am praying Gov Jindal will run in 4 years. We must sweep out Washington. Totally and the Trilateral Commission and get rid of this we are citizens of the world nonsense or we will be no better than your average European country. Sarbanes Oxley must be dismantled costs companies 3.5 million per year and prevents a lot of great companies from going public.

Feb 15, 2009 - 3:54 pm 31. monkeyfan:

“Babbling about Fascist and calling people fascists is so outdated and shopworn that even George Orwell wrote about that over 60 years ago.”

Agreed. Let’s just call the collectivist centralizers something descriptive like: The National Socialist Non-workers Party.

It fits rather well except that its dear leaders are ‘nationalist’ only insofar as they are restrained from being ‘internationalists’ by our tired habit of clinging to “outdated and shopworn” principles like God, guns, and bunch of other individual liberties codified on scraps of parchment written by old white capitalists a couple centuries ago.

Anyway, while I can’t say I like the cut of our emperor’s new suit, all the fashionable magazines have declared that invisible is the new black, so your mileage may vary.

Feb 15, 2009 - 3:59 pm 32. Ecce Homo | The Return Of Scipio:

[...] As if you had not had enough bad news already, here we go! From Michael Ledeen: Most of us imagine the transformation of a free society to a tyrannical state [...]

Feb 15, 2009 - 4:05 pm 33. Marie Claude:

back to the Roman republic and empire, welfare and equal citizenship to all the Romans and assimilated colony inhabitants made that they didn’t had the will to defend themselves anymore, “superiority” of their standing and culture envelopped them with a “high” torpor, funny that the Barbarians didn’t appreciate their lifestyle!

well we had to re-learn the same ways of becoming citizen in this finally twilighting world

I don’t think it’s reversible, there are no more things that we can dream of in these configurated western world that will motive to make a new revolution ; though Sehnsucht (melancholy) for our past adventures can still make some litterature for the next generations

“liberty” is like this young ephebe in the melancholical movie “Death in Venice” that an old man was “spying” and dreaming of in vain

umm, or to survive like an individual predator, “Hannibal” in Florence comes to my mind as the light atmosphere is much like of an italian old painting

Feb 15, 2009 - 4:24 pm 34. Chemman:

“Consider a boot stamping on your face forever” It really doesn’t matter what you call the boot it is still stamping on your face.
This piece hit the nail on the head we are slumping towards a benign(?), all powerful nanny state that will do everything for us in exchange for all are freedoms.
We actually have become inured to this encroachment because we opted for the illusions of peace and prosperity from our government instead of demanding responsibility and self-determination for ourselves.

Feb 15, 2009 - 4:31 pm 35. Michael Ledeen:

Horace Wells: Please go back and read the second paragraph. I am not calling anybody a fascist, I quite explicitly said that America is not on the road to fascism; it’s just that the economic porkulus that just passed is not, as Newsweek said, a socialist bill, but a fascist one.

Fascist economics, not politics. Not all tyrants are fascists, you know.

Feb 15, 2009 - 4:35 pm 36. liberty4usa:

Whatever clothing or uniform, tyranny uses force to compel compliance to a doctrine.

We are far from the free society we were a century ago.

We are moving away from liberty.

This means that whatever the path, it is the wrong direction.

To believe otherwise is to believe the founders and framers were wrong.

They were against central control and knew our liberty and freedom depended on ensuring that the government was limited in it’s power.

They proved they were right in spectacular fashion.

However, we have had all these “revolutionary” social engineers through the years claim a better way.

The closer we move in their direction and away from what the founders established, the worse our problems have become.

What was once a natural right has become a privilege and permission must be obtained to pursuit your happiness. Those that do not comply are swiftly punished.

The use of force to control the public has increased and our liberty and freedoms have diminished as this has occurred.

People are jailed for cleaning debris out of creeks, or building a shed without permission, or their property is seized for the public good to increase tax revenue.

The government in Washington cannot even run a cafeteria in its own building without losing money. How could they possibly know what your neighborhood or family want or need? They can’t, and it is not their responsibility. Their only job is to ensure that our families and neighborhoods are free from interference from anyone else.

When people have cause to fear the government, they better jump out of the pot whether they are a lobster or a frog and hope they make it back to their own body of water in time!

Feb 15, 2009 - 5:18 pm 37. Mongoose:

Goy: Fascism is just socialism applied to nationality or race. It is just a different form of socialism, not different political structure.

Gloria: Fascism was always on the left. This includes “third way” experiments like Peronism.

Leeden: I would suggest that this is just a transitional period. The next step will be an informal combination of International Socialism and Transnational Corporatism. It will be a sort of “Globalist Fascism”–Fascism minus that national/ethnic component and will have very rigid social strata. The middle classes will be very small and will consist more of technocrats and middle mangers than medium or small business owners. The elite will have the same effete smell as the Davos Crowd.

Locally it will “feel” like traditional socialism but with a little more social stratification that historical socialist/Communist states. Eventually in will degenerate in to International Socialism with all tyranny and bleakness associated with the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states. Neither phase will produce anything comparable to the wealth and freedoms that Americans have heretofore taken for granted.

Really, if we do not stop this very soon, the whole notions of the individual and of Republican government will vanish, as with the Republic itself.

It might be centuries before mankind sees anything like America again, if it ever does. To so flippantly toss way our noble heritage is a great tragedy. I never thought I would see the day.

Feb 15, 2009 - 5:28 pm 38. Bob W (the new Kowalsky):

So the Bailout(s) and Stimulus are the first few toll gates along the road to serfdom? We’ll see. .

Feb 15, 2009 - 5:37 pm 39. goy:

@35. Michael Ledeen: - Fascist economics, not politics.

I’m sorry Michael, if we’re talking about fascism in the classical sense – i.e., as defined by Mussolini, for instance… or even Wilson – it’s not clear to me how you can have one and not the other. How does one promote fascist economics and not use fascist politics to do it?

@36. Mongoose: - Fascism is just socialism applied to nationality or race. It is just a different form of socialism, not different political structure.

I would agree for the most part, with the stipulation that socialism is almost strictly an economical construct – e.g., socialism vs. capitalism – whereas classical fascism subsumes economics by virtue of its totalitarian nature, and is much broader – e.g., fascism vs. republicanism.

To that I’d add agreement with your comment about fascism having always been “on the left”. It’s impossible to have a fascist, totalitarian State without socialist economics or something indistinguishable from socialism.

A totalitarian government can pay lip service to notions like private property, credit, corporate profit and the other trappings of capitalism, as was done during Hitler’s rise (and which has been used to “prove” that Nazism wasn’t socialism). But if the State has the power to dictate corporate operations and/or seize a company’s or individual’s assets with impunity, then any capitalist mechanisms are just a thinly veiled facade hiding a socialist system where private property is just a mirage and the means of production are controlled by the State. See also: the contemporary People’s Republic of China.

Feb 15, 2009 - 6:46 pm 40. Alex:

“I remember hopping on the Harley, without having to wear a helmet, riding over to a coffee shop, and having a smoke while I waited for lunch. It is against the law to do this today”

I remember those days also…when you could do pretty much what you wanted and if you hurt someone, it was YOUR butt in the sling and you had to make good on damage caused. The USA has taken a slow and deliberate downward slide for the last 25 years.

For each cry of Govt expansion, there is corresponding cry to increase Social Security. For each yell of govt intrusion, there is the parent refusing to bear responsibility. When the people “cry havoc, and lets loose the dogs of war”, the people should prepare for loss of life and creation of massive debts.
When legislature voted to dismantle Glass Steagal in 1999 ( which was created to prohibit banks from the same practices that caused and amplified the great depression), be prepared to watch the economy collapse as in the 1930’s as it is now doing.

Yesterday i rode my Harley to a beer bar without a helmet as did my expat compatriots. We drank, ate, smoked cigars and watched Jon Stewarts Daily show on CNN. We live in a country that allows true personal freedom based on personal responsibility. (you break it, you bought it, no exceptions)
I live in China, and as hard as it will be for people on this thread to accept what China has become, it is worse we accept a boogeyman operating in the shadows of the United States government.

We have met the Enemy, and they are Us. The sooner responsibility is accepted and acted upon, the sooner the situation will change for the better. I may have missed it, but i did not see the one quote that sums up the reality; The people get the government they deserve.

Feb 15, 2009 - 8:11 pm 41. Fairbanks99:

Last night my 19 year old daughter and I were watching the late night Fox special on the “stimulus” and I was trying to explain for her my perspective on the motives of the politicians who voted for it. I told her there are three groups. Those who stay in office by buying votes. These are the majority of “yes” votes. Another group, a smaller group, are those who have consumed enough Keynsian Kool-Aid to really believe this massive spending bill will actually “stimulate” the economy. The third group, and I think this includes the Moonbat Messiah himself, are those who know that in order to bring about the “Revolution” they have worked so hard for since the ’60’s that our economy will have to be wrecked. In doing so, large scale social unrest will occur, necessitating a strong government takeover of freedom. Much like how the National Socialists came to power, except the Nazis did not engineer the economic destruction of the ’30’s.

Glenn Beck has been talking about an “Archduke Ferdinand” moment that will cause an avalanche effect, such as what would happen if Mexico collapsed into anarchy. I agree with him. Catastrophic events can trigger catastrophic changes. What would be the effect, for example, of massive global crop failure? I am sure readers of this site have noticed the unusually cold weather this winter. I am equally sure readers of this site also are not blaming it on ‘greenhouse gases’ either. See http://www.spaceweather.com for the cause. The Sun is blank. No sunspots. Its continued quiescence has a lot of scientists concerned. Those who have studied actual history, and not the droppings of James Hansen and the droolings of Al Gore know there is a link between solar activity and climate. When the sun is quiet, it gets cold. There was probably more than mere circumstantial connection between the Dalton Minimum and the French Revolution.

Food, Firewood and Firearms. Keep your powder dry. It may be too late to stop what is coming our way.

Feb 15, 2009 - 8:19 pm 42. jerryofva:

These two articles lay down the fundamentals of the emerging political order and I find nothing to disagree with. However, Mr. Ledeen lets call a spade what it is. The emerging political order is Fascism. Before there was Mussolini there was the radical syndicalist Georges Sorel. He was the inspirtion for Mussolini just as Marx was the inspiration for Lenin.

As I am sure you know, Sorel was originally a Marxist who saw that the underlying Marxist dynamic was a crock. He went on from there to develop a general theory of collectivism. Mussolini gave Sorel flesh so to speak with his theory of the corporate state that has come to be known as Fascism. Fascism is a collectivist form of political organization built around a central organizing myth. Socialism is merely a specific organizing principle. Let’s give Il Duce the credit he deserves because ultimately he won the argument.

Fascism ultimately leads to a police state because it is an inefficient economic system that must deal with dissenters who arise from the dissatisfied. The socialist variant of fascism can only be maintained by extreme measures because socialist governance is built on the impoverishment of its citizens. It is no accident that socialists bring ruin to every nation that they control. North Korea and Cuba are poor not because Castro and Kim are clueless but because that is their intent. People scrambling for their daily bread are easily controlled and “enemies” can be put away as scapegoats to distract the people

Fascism has never been genocidal in itself. It is the incorporation of utopianism into the central organizing myth that lead a Fascist state down that path. That is why Italy, Spain and Portugal did not go down that path. The Obamaist revival of Fascism is tainted by utopianism. It has incorporated “Eco-ism” into its central organizing principle and is therefore likely to lead to mass murder under the guise of saving the planet.

Feb 15, 2009 - 8:27 pm 43. liberty4usa:

I believe that sooner or later that we will reach a point of no return.
We may have got what we deserve but it isn’t too late to change it yet.
Organize,educate,plan
http://www.surgeusa.org/links.htm
We may be forced into a sort of Confederacy of opposition against this tyranny between now and a point of no return to save America.
http://thenma.org/blogs//index.php/libertyforusa/2009/02/15/forced-into-a-confederacy-against-tyrann
If we get swept along too far without a some sort of revolt to get us going in the right direction than sites like this will be gone and all these points moot!

Feb 15, 2009 - 8:50 pm 44. Daily Pundit » You Can’t Say You Weren’t Warned - 170 Years Ago:

[...] Faster, Please! » We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated… [...]

Feb 15, 2009 - 8:52 pm 45. Michael Ledeen is wrong on the internet. « you were wrong and you were wrong and you were wrong:

[...] Ledeen is wrong on the internet. Michael Ledeen said, But we elect the government itself, as if we were the very incarnation of wisdom. We are [...]

Feb 15, 2009 - 10:37 pm 46. Magic Dog:

So nice to see Republicans bleating about fascism now. Aren’t you a little late? As in eight years late?

Feb 15, 2009 - 11:00 pm 47. Horace Wells:

Patvann
Like the average anti-intellectual talk show parrot you are, you seem to think that you can read minds and divine my motives and “guilt”, as if I am some big mover in the Obama world when I never supported or voted for him. And like the average right winger, you are dead wrong. Truth and objectivity have some meaning to me in teh abstract cause I have something you lack, integrity. I may disagree with what obama is doing but i have the integrity to avoid shabby dishonest AM talk show, soap box level rheoteric about fascists and tyrants.
BTW: Mussolini took over Italy in a revolutionary coup and killed or exiled his opponents. Are you going to tell me that Obama is following that course? Keep the eyes peeled for black helicopters.

Feb 15, 2009 - 11:04 pm 48. Horace Wells:

Michael Ledeen
Fascist economics, as they were, were simply the old Socialist economics that Mussolini carried over from his Red days. Fascism was always more about power, strength, nationalism, order and in weak Italy’s case, a pipe dream of recreating the old Roman Empire and avenging the pointless waste of WW l where Italy was treated like a loser even though she was on the winning side(not that she was much of an ally). Also, equality of all people was never a Fascist concept. So when people here start calling Fascists left, along with other rigid states that controlled a lot of their economies, then they must include Imperial Germany, Imperial Austria and Czarist Russia in the left’s camp too.

Creeping socialism is a better description of Obama’s policies and that is hardly a secret. A lot of people are on an Obama high and once they come down they will realize he is just another shallow dreamer, the quintessential self made American huckster. The best we can do is at least see that a good chunk of money gets invested in worthwhile projects like the dams, canals, Interstate highway or the GI Home mortgages of yesteryear,

Feb 15, 2009 - 11:18 pm 49. Pat:

olitics

I see two shortcomings in this article:

1. Mr. Ledeen makes a gross over-simplification:

“Fascism was not installed by violence. Hitler and Mussolini were popular leaders, their authority was sanctioned by great electoral victories and repeated demonstrations of mass public enthusiasm, and neither of them was ever challenged by a significant percentage of the population.”

This omits the fact that Himmler and Heydrich began systematically creating a police state in 1931. Thousands of Germans were spied upon, blackmailed, and if not silenced, then caused to “vanish” suddenly – returning to their loved ones months later as ashes in urns. There were purges, secret police, mass arrests, and shootings without trial in the early 1930s.

It is true that the dominant ideas of Weimar culture prepared the way for Hitler. But it is mistaken to state that the transformation was devoid of violence.

2. While the given Tocqueville remarks are penetrating, they don’t penetrate to the essence of America: the only country ever founded on an idea – individual rights – as opposed to being founded by one gang wanting to dictate to everyone else.

If we are to survive and again flourish, we must recognize that the battle is an ideological one. Sufficient numbers of Americans must be presented with the unassailable moral case for capitalism (first identified by Ayn Rand): the system of inalienable individual rights based on man’s nature and the objective requirements of living in society. See: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/capitalism-moral-high-ground.asp

Feb 15, 2009 - 11:22 pm 50. Amy:

E: wow… a quote from Serenity. Mr. Whedon is a genuis. Many times, when the Democrats stand up and speak I am reminded of this quote:

“Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten, they’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people…better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave.”
~From Serenity after the crew of Serenity discovers that the Alliance, in their misguided attempt to curb aggression, actually created Reavers. For those of you who have never seen Serenity, Reavers are people who rape, skin and eat other people… basically the worst form of cannibalism.

Feb 16, 2009 - 2:06 am 51. We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny « Oh, Prune Juice:

[...] II: American Tyranny Posted on February 16, 2009 by ohprunejuice In Part 2 titled “We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny“, Michael Ledeen writes:Most of us imagine the transformation of a free society to a [...]

Feb 16, 2009 - 3:59 am 52. POLYSEMY: The Daily Goose:

[...] Obama’s “change” actually economic fascism? addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fpolysemy.org%2Fdailygoose%2F%3Fp%3D1862′; addthis_title = [...]

Feb 16, 2009 - 9:07 am 53. J.E.Rendini:

I believe Michael Ledeen’s conclusory remarks on the dangers of “equality” are on point. See my essay on “The Poison of Equality” at
http://thecultureproject.org/the-culture-project-blog?mode=PostView&bmi=65110. I include an excerpt below.

The Poison of Equality
by Joseph E. Rendini

I love liberty; I hate equality.
John Randolph

Don’t you think that equality, as many people understand it, is synonymous with injustice?
St. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer

To resist the leftward drift toward moral relativism, American conservatives seek to anchor their moral and political beliefs on firm ground. Many find that ground in the Declaration of Independence, in the words of Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ….

Conservatives believe these words define the American Revolution as a struggle to defend rights granted by God to all men, rights that belong to each man as “givens” of human nature and which are integral to the human person. These rights cannot be alienated, surrendered, delegated or waived. They do not derive from any social compact or from citizenship in any state. They are prior to society and prior to the state. They are not subject to either’s will or whim. Government cannot define, redefine or alter these rights. It cannot add to their number. It may only acknowledge them, apply them in particular circumstances, and safeguard them. To do so is government’s primary purpose, failing which it has no right to exist.1

By anchoring morality in rights grounded beyond the reach of both society and the state, conservatives avoid the relativism implied by subjecting moral decisions to majority rule. Having established an independent moral ground, they can critique the actions of the majority without apostatizing from their democratic faith. But the conservative attempt to identify this necessary moral ground with the Declaration’s pronouncements depends upon a particular vision of the American Revolution which the Founding Fathers may not have unanimously shared. More pointedly, an uncritical acceptance of the Declaration’s emphasis on “equality” can undermine the entire conservative vision.

The Conservative Vision

American conservatives do not consider the Revolution to have been the inevitable product of historical or social evolution. No irresistable, immanent urge for self-liberation impelled the Founders to overthrow the existing social order; rather, it was the Founders’ reluctant obedience to an eternal, universal order – which Crown and Parliament had arbitrarily defied – which compelled them to revolt to restore that order. The Revolution’s restoration of men’s natural, God-given rights manifested the universal order in an exceptional manner, perhaps even in a providential manner.2 But whether providential or not, the Revolution created neither a radically new society nor a radically new human being, impossible tasks the French Revolution would set itself a few years later. In conservative eyes, the American Revolution did no more and no less than reveal and realize the original pattern of liberty immutably engraved by God on the human heart.3 Even when submerged by tyranny or disguised by ignorance, this unchanging pattern – emblem of the universal order of human dignity – underlies every human society, providing both the rock supporting its deepest foundation and the template prescribing its most authentic development.

So expressed, the American conservative vision is broad, vital and powerful: powerful in that it draws upon the entire political, philosophical and theological heritage of the West; vital in that it sees society as a work in progress and men as conscious, responsible actors in the drama of history; broad in that it is not limited to its particular historical and geographical circumstances, but is animated by a concept of human dignity universal in its appeal and application. The conservative vision resides nowhere on the constricted political spectrum that ranges from left to right, from Communist Red to Fascist Black, the two dark ends of a closed loop of materialist despair. It is not an ideology. It does not claim that the answer to every political question can be deduced from a set of postulates nor that every human issue is a political issue. Therefore, it seeks limits to state action. It acknowledges that, if liberty is the seal upon the human heart, then at the core of every man resides an irreducible mystery.

Despite the superficial similarity of their political slogans, in its radical concept of man as fundamentally a mystery, the inherent conservativism of the American Revolution parts company with the French Revolution and the raison of its philosophes. If man is at his core a mystery, then he cannot be the object of reductionist reason. His rights, which are the expression of his personal mystery in the political arena, cannot be analyzed through observation or deduced by logic because man, in the liberty of his heart, cannot be made the object of a science. His rights must be – and can only be – acknowledged as “self-evident” and respected as inviolable. They can never be derived from a sufficiently exhaustive knowledge of him. They cannot be subjected to calculation.

But calculation is the heart of the Enlightenment project of constructing a society based on reason and reason alone. More to the point, the knowledge which is this particular reason’s meat – knowledge which is scientific, quantified, reductionist4 – is prerequisite to the definition and enforcement of the French Revolution’s core term – equality – because only known quantities can be adjudged equal. The concept of equality cannot apply to the unknowable and incommeasurable.5 Thus, French equality must banish mystery and with it the entire understanding of liberty central to the American notion of man, his freedom and his rights. For American conservatives, the slogan of the French program – liberte, egalite, fraternite – is an oxymoron long before it gets to fraternite.

The contradiction between French egalite and American liberty poses a dilemma for American conservatives. If they seek to ground their moral anchor upon the rhetoric of the Framers, such as Jefferson, they cannot avoid adopting the language of equality. But whatever its sentimental attraction, and no matter what common-sense refinements they try to impose upon its use, equality language unavoidably carries along with it an uncompromising, corrosive egalitarianism that generates the moral relativism conservatives abhor. As long as conservatives accept equality as an organizing principle of society, as a fundamental premise of the American system of justice, they will find themselves incapable of defeating moral relativism.

***

Read the rest at http://thecultureproject.org/the-culture-project-blog?mode=PostView&bmi=65110

Feb 16, 2009 - 9:18 am 54. Alireza:

OK, if I read you correctly, assuming a community desires to fight the central government, and assuming the “locals” can and are allowed to make their own community’s law and regulations, then your thinker and yourself are very much saying keeping blacks out of white schools was justified, given the very same “rednecks” you passionately defended in previous post, were ALL COLLECTIVELY and by “LOCAL” laws were against allowing Black people attend White colleges. So if I read you more correctly, you are almost saying the JFK “central” authority is almost like a fascist system to go to Alabama and force the school to allow Black students.

What you and Alexis de Tocqueville’s “masterpiece” is saying sounds good and it feels like silky feeling, yet it would have allowed all those Southern states stay Whites only, and also Jews (Jesus killer) would have been prevented to visit there as well. So you not dare to call them anti-Semite when they burn the star of David because “THEY”, all those “LOCAL” people “COLLECTIVELY” decided they don’t want Jews, blacks and possibly any Iranians or for sure Arabs. So if the Federal government goes and impose the “central” laws they could be called “Fascist”

Give me a break! You guys are smoking something and 99% of you are shy about labeling Obama and what is happening in U.S. as “fascist”. You people caused so many problems, like a 10-year-old kid that causes forest fire, and he has no clue what they have done in the last 8 years.

You people NEVER NEVER NEVER have the guts to look at your way of handling policy and the world, and after FAILING in UNIMAGINABLE scope, your Bi-polar and multi-thinking take a 1-minute shower to wash away all the dirt and mess you caused and going back to babbling nonsense.

Feb 16, 2009 - 10:41 am 55. Mary Madigan:

I don’t think we’re becoming more fascist or more socialist, but we are becoming more European than we used to be. (and by ‘we’, I mean Democrats and Republicans).

Europeans tend to look to the state, not to themselves to solve their problems. Americans are starting to do the same thing. Whether we think the state is too big or too little, we all tend to look to the state, and to politicians to solve our problems. They’re never going to do that.

Successful politicians become successful by marketing and empowering their parties/supporters. Politicians can become successful by promising smaller government, but not by actually delivering it.

If we don’t want a huge, overbearing government bossing us around, we’re going to have to stop pretending that politicians are going to solve all of our problems. We need a government to maintain the infrastructure, protect our liberties and defend our borders – but that’s all we need. If we ignore their marketing campaigns and the dreams we project onto them, McCain and Obama are, basically, boring bureaucrats. Lieberman is a very boring bureaucrat. That’s what we need. They can all maintain the infrastructure, and we should limit our expectations to that. If we ask for anything more (hope! change! unfettered freedom! happiness, equality!) we’ll wind up following the European model, and government will continue to grow.

Feb 16, 2009 - 1:18 pm 56. Ran:

Amy, E,
Saw Serenity last night. Whedon’s “Firefly” series is a fave around our house.

“I aim to misbehave.” Actually, to the idea of misbehaving: I’ve very much taken to heart Peter Ferrara’s TAS column What Conservatives Must Now Do.

Feb 16, 2009 - 5:22 pm 57. I Stand Corrected « Buttle’s World:

[...] has posted Part II: American Tyranny Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Andy McCarthy Does the ImpossibleAnalysis of the [...]

Feb 16, 2009 - 5:25 pm 58. chuck:

I don’t think we’re becoming more fascist or more socialist, but we are becoming more European than we used to be. (and by ‘we’, I mean Democrats and Republicans).

I would say that France, Germany, Sweden, and Italy have corporatist states. The fascists may have lost the war but Mussolini’s economic vision has carried the day. I always rank him among the top three most influential socialists along with Lenin and Stalin. And he was the least bloody of the three.

Feb 16, 2009 - 5:51 pm 59. Austin:

There are no Congress members nor Senators who could run ANY business unit of ANY of the major Oil producing firms.

Yet, these same people can criticize the Oil Firm’s CEOs?

Someone needs to call them on their criticism by standing up to these bullies in public.

Feb 16, 2009 - 6:08 pm 60. goy:

@56. Ran: - Saw Serenity last night.

I was lucky enough to see a “Blogger’s Screening” of Serenity back before it was released. It was an intense experience – especially sitting with scores of very serious Firefly fans. What an excellent flick. Still a top-five favorite here (and in Blu-Ray it’s particularly stunning).

You don’t see too many movies like this anymore. The hero is the swaggering, gun-toting, cowboy/libertarian who just wants to be left alone to run his business, take care of his employees and pursue his own individual liberty. But the fascist Alliance just won’t let him. In the end, it’s left up to the cowboy in question to reveal the truth of the leftist, collective Alliance’s transgressions – committed through the hubris inherent in all forms of social engineering. And it’s all the more delicious having come from the mind of a liberal.

Feb 16, 2009 - 6:32 pm 61. Hyperion:

Ledeen and conservatives in general who follow Tocqueville are only half-right. This is not just a “danger” of democracy. This is the meaning of democracy and of America from the beginning. The progression to this sort of totalitarianism is not just something that we have to watch out for or that we can prevent, it is inevitable precisely because this is what the majority really wants. The conservatives blind themselves by believing that liberty can somehow be preserved in a modern democratic or American(ized) world. They don’t see that this totalitarianism is only the logical outcome and in many ways the true intention of the American project and more generally of Anglo-Saxon ideas.

This is why Tocqueville is limited compared to Nietzsche, who saw the true danger of modern times.

Feb 16, 2009 - 11:17 pm 62. Gary Ogletree:

My home town is a good example of mindless regulations chipping away at our liberty. You can no longer park your car in your own yard. You can no longer park your semi tractor in your driveway. You can’t store a car on your own property unless it’s got new registration and insurance, even if it doesn’t run. And that’s just a few examples concerning cars in “conservative” Oklahoma. The only place to escape all the regs seems to be in the very small towns around the county, for now. When I lived in Whitehorse, Yukon, a place founded by adventurous and freedom loving Yankee gold rushers, the city held a referendum to ban drinking on public property. That would mean than when the Yukon Quest dog teams crossed the finish line downtown you couldn’t have a beer in your hand. The vote went strongly against it. The city (of 17,000) then enacted the very law the stupid voters had rejected, thus marking the end of the Canadian frontier. We have far more nonsense regs than we have police to enforce them, meaning we have to rely on the common sense of our cops. Not exactly what our legislative geniuses had in mind.

Feb 17, 2009 - 3:24 am 63. ag:

In one part of “How Capitalism Saved America”, author Thomas DiLorenzo demonstrates the parallels between FDR’s New Deal policies & implementations to those of Mussolini’s. Many of those programs are still in effect today. These policies marked the beginning of the American people looking to the government to solve their problems. If we’ve learned anything from Katrina & the government’s ability to “save” us, it’s that if you wait for the government to rescue you, you’ll drown. The failures of capitalism are largely due to the government’s overreaching arm and not the ingenuity, hard work, and creativity of the American people. What will it take for the American people to wake up?

Feb 17, 2009 - 5:37 am 64. Joshua:

If it gets to the point where only armed resistance has a hope of breaking this new order, America as we once knew it would already be toast. Access to guns and other weapons would be the least of our worries. Keep in mind that unlike, say, the (first) Civil War, this fight would not cut neatly across any geographical borders. If most extended families are like mine they include both deeply “blue” and steadfastly “red” people, meaning that any shooting war that comes of it would pit neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother, and in some cases even husband against wife. No matter how bad things get, how many Americans really have the stomach for that kind of fight?

Feb 17, 2009 - 6:25 am 65. Fred Pennsylvania:

Outstanding work, though thoroughly depressing. Thank you!

Feb 17, 2009 - 8:02 am 66. lb philly:

There’s an NBC radio series based on de Tocqueville available at The Internet Archive. Perfect for listening while knitting socks or cleaning guns.

http://www.archive.org/details/DemocracyinAmericaOTR

Feb 17, 2009 - 9:00 am 67. Peace is Patriotic:

All true patriots need to protest this creeping socialism. I suggest we all stop driving on the socialist roads, which were built with tax money forcibly obtained. If I had been able to keep my own money, I would have built my own road. It would only be a few hundred feet long, but it would be all mine, and I would be free to use it as I please.

Feb 17, 2009 - 10:20 am 68. dan:

I’m glad you pointed out the ultimate defining character of fascism in this installment – that is, its purpose was Great War. That, of course, was not only the purpose of the National Socialismus Deutscher Arbiter Partei, but also the Bolshevik Party – which is just a colloquial term, almost like “Nazi,” for what was originally named All-Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Sounds similar eh?

I think the difference between then and now has as much to do with the present target as it does with the ebb and flow of historical circumstances and the present stage of the generations’ imagination – that is, the United States of America, circa 2000+.

One does not convert This people, as you say, by force; one seduces it. Too much remains of the ancient common sense, the present trajectory notwithstanding. But befuddlement is much a part of seduction, as are violent clashes occasionally engineered by one party (usually the feminine, let us admit). As Schopenhauer point out, I think, it is by a great *delusion* that nature convinces one man that *this* woman is the only one to satisfy his need, whereas in reality any woman will do.

I also think it reasonable to suppose that more than a simple superficial and natural response to such unpleasant things as war and a Texan ineloquence are responsible for the present situation. There are too many coincidences. As the proverb goes, “once is chance, twice is coincidence, thrice is the work of the enemy.”

The purpose of the present campaign is not war per se; we are the target, the final target, since all other governments are in some measure mature – that is fruit-mellow, mouldering – “socialist” states co-opted, though cunningly, by elites. (”Socialism,” by the way, is just a weapon; you can see how much socialism has actually to do with economy and justice in any ’socialist’ country you like.)

Or rather, as in my opinion, the present campaign is designed for the purpose of directing the public’s attention away from the chief culprits and for making its reaction as predictably cowardly as possible when the Great Blow is delivered.

The USA will not exactly “fall like a ripe fruit” into Lenin’s outstretched hands – we’ll need a kick first. There is no such thing as an entirely peaceful revolution.

Feb 17, 2009 - 10:50 am 69. BizzyBlog » Latest Pajamas Media Column (’The Obama Diet for America: A Steady Stream of Whoppers’) Is Up; Extended Thoughts on Obama’s Preselection of Questioners:

[...] All Fascists Now, Part II: American [...]

Feb 17, 2009 - 10:57 am 70. Dennis Anton, no reply expected...:

Chuck, you just forgot that the “commies” were Mussolini’s targets,
evident in the movie “1900″

http://www.answers.com/topic/1900-film

Feb 17, 2009 - 11:33 am 71. Marie Claude:

Chuck don’t forget that the italian fascists were hunting the commies, so was there a concurrence in socialisms ?

the movie “1900″ is giving quite a good fresco of these times

http://www.answers.com/topic/1900-film

Feb 17, 2009 - 11:44 am 72. chuck:

Geez, “1900″ is a movie, not history. It even has the characters reversed as Mussolini should correspond to Olmo. That is to say, Mussolini was the son of a communist blacksmith, organized for the communists, and edited Avanti, a socialist newspaper. Movies are fairy tales made up by professional story tellers, aka, entertaining liars.

As to the argument that Mussolini persecuted communists, I consider it spurious. Lenin hunted down the Socialist Revolutionaries, Stalin hunted down Troskyites, Anarchists, and many old time Bolsheviks, while Mao incited the Red Guards against his own party. In that company Mussolini was a pussy cat.

Feb 17, 2009 - 8:37 pm 73. jtmckee:

Michael, this was really terrific
I think I will pour a glass of Pappy Van Winkle 20 yr old, light up a Padron 7000 and read it again

Feb 17, 2009 - 8:58 pm 74. The Dialectical Playa » Blog Archive » This is so…beautiful.:

[...] We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny [...]

Feb 17, 2009 - 9:15 pm 75. Dropping the F-Bomb « PowerUp:

[...] is apparently convinced that the industry bailouts and fiscal stimulus are a manifestation of fascism, a thesis which seems to center around the ahistorical idea that state and corporate activity [...]

Feb 18, 2009 - 12:04 am 76. Marie Claude:

fascism ==> nationalism
communism ==> internationalism

and they couldn’t possibly get along on their very agendas
OK, not a movie, though Bertoluci was registred as an “italian communist” and, of course he couldn’t forget it in italian history

http://specialcollections.library.wisc.edu/exhibits/Fascism/Opposition.html

Mussolini was not satisfied with a coalition government. He aimed to be the ruler of one-party totalitarian state. From 1922 to 1929, slowly but gradually, he destroyed all effective opposition at home.

http://www.thecorner.org/hist/total/f-italy.htm

Musolini surfed on the far lefty wave to saise power, but based his power on the middle-class and big corporations, that were opposed to the communist unions

Yet he framed his power like communists

Feb 18, 2009 - 8:04 am 77. Marie Claude:

fascism ==> nationalism
communism ==> internationalism

and they couldn’t possibly get along on their very agendas
OK, not a movie, though Bertoluci was registred as an “italian communist” and, of course he couldn’t forget it in italian history

http : // specialcollections.library.wisc.edu/exhibits/Fascism/Opposition.html

Mussolini was not satisfied with a coalition government. He aimed to be the ruler of one-party totalitarian state. From 1922 to 1929, slowly but gradually, he destroyed all effective opposition at home.

http :// www .thecorner.org/hist/total/f-italy.htm

Musolini surfed on the far lefty wave to saise power, but based his power on the middle-class and big corporations, that were opposed to the communist unions

Yet he framed his power like communists

Feb 18, 2009 - 9:08 am 78. one of your own:

8. Sara for America . . . you can’t DO anything. Why not? Joe the Plumber, that’s why. Until you deal with him, forget de Tocqueville. The Republican Party and the conservative movement have lost their last shred of philosophical credibility. How do you regain it? Easy. Don’t play voters for suckers. There’s a reason women rejected Palin in the numbers they did. There’s a reason Michael Steele was your worst possible choice for RNC. The arrogance of power has prevented your evolution.

Leave philosophy to Newt. He’s your only chance. (Scary, isn’t it?)

Feb 18, 2009 - 10:12 am 79. Sasher:

How interesting…
Lots of labels flying here.
While I appreciate the analysis, the case can be made that fascism can as easily be defined as the State being owned by the Corporations as the Corporations being owned by the State. It is the blending of the two, in either form, that is acid to our freedom.
I find it interesting that in bemoaning Obama’s policies, there is no recognition that the moves he appears to be making not only started with the Bush Administration, but are a consequence of it.
In effect, the two are peas in a pod, where the boiling water is the unswerving increase in Government power. Unitary Executive? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Waco and Ruby Ridge? The ‘war’ against drugs? Iran-Contra? This has been going on for a while.
The common thread is less the left or right, and more the unfortunate tendency for power to accumulate without the check of an educated, active populace, and a core commitment to the limits contained in the Constitution. Argue all you like that the ‘Conservative’ philosophy will save us, or ‘Liberal’ philosophy is bringing us to the point of totalitarianism. The truth is that it is the philosophy of power that prevails without check, and which is the swirling undercurrent in this mess.

Feb 18, 2009 - 10:33 am 80. RSS agregator » Blog Archive » Liberalisim and the collapse of American Democracy:

[...] Liberalisim and the collapse of American Democracy http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledee…rican-tyranny/ [...]

Feb 18, 2009 - 11:27 am 81. Marie Claude:

test

Feb 18, 2009 - 11:28 am 82. hawkeye:

so long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles on sleeping men. -voltairine de cleyre. also, i do believe it was harry truman who said it; the only thing new in this world, is the history you don’t know

Feb 18, 2009 - 1:36 pm 83. Kayak2U Blog » Blog Archive » “We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny”:

[...] Michael Ledeen follows up on his own "We Are All Fascists Now" (inspired by Newsweek’s insipid and untruthful piece titled "We are all Socialists now") by liberally quoting from Tocqueville’s Democracy in America: [...]

Feb 18, 2009 - 4:36 pm 84. jacksonhunted:

I’m glad someone finally has called America’s current economic system what it is, Michael, and drawn the distinction between that form of fascism and the government that brought it forward. But between the lines of both you and Tocqueville, isn’t it fair to infer that the distinction eventually becomes one without a difference? Which is to say, the impulses to economic fascism are hungry ones, and eventually at least taint the political sphere? FDR was encouraged to embrace political fascism because power was needed to keep the enemies of economic fascism at bay. I expect the same of Obama, and expect him to fail as well. Now as in the Thirties, it is more likely than not the left’s current strongman will overreach, eventually repulse the Republic, and his movement will collapse as voters see it for what it is. I also relish the fight and expect a quicker victory this time because these forces from the Democratic Party are much lighter, less intelligent, and like all bullies prone to fear.

Feb 18, 2009 - 8:12 pm 85. More from de Tocqueville on the end of liberty — Cranach: The Blog of Veith:

[...] Character gives us some more quotations on how democracies can fritter away their liberty. Read the essay. Here are some of his de Tocqueville quotes: Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and [...]

Feb 19, 2009 - 4:46 am 86. Alexis the Prophet (again) « The Wanderer:

[...] a comment » Once again, Gene Veith points us (via Michael Leeden) to Alexis de Tocqueville as we contemplate how a democracy can fritter away its liberty.

Feb 19, 2009 - 6:59 am 87. Totalitarian Democracy « Paradise Regained:

[...] 19, 2009 in Christianity & Culture, Politics Alexis de Tocqueville predicted it in his Democracy in America. We Christians must be aware of the idolatry of our [...]

Feb 19, 2009 - 12:59 pm 88. Paul:

@54. Alireza:

So if I read you more correctly, you are almost saying the JFK “central” authority is almost like a fascist system to go to Alabama and force the school to allow Black students.

Incorrect, since these local actions are in defiance of a commonly-agreed upon Constitution and Federal Law. One of the duties of the central government (esp. the Supreme Court) is to enforce those laws which we recognize as country-wide and trans-state. Where state’s rights end and the Federal government’s responsibility starts is also, of course, historically the biggest source of disagreement in the U.S.

Feb 21, 2009 - 1:45 pm 89. psota:

Found this after a little griping about the state of the state in America with some friends.

I’m a Gen-Y’er and I have parents who are barely old enough to be called boomers, but they have the same mentality.

Anyway, @psota, I have often prayed that the passing of the boomers and their whole mentality will spell salvation for America.

Mar 3, 2009 - 1:49 pm 90. A nail through Reaganism « The Tiger in DC:

[...] This is what people like me are afraid [...]

Mar 4, 2009 - 4:20 am 91. Roger’s Rules » Alexis de Toqueville, man of the moment:

[...] of an excellent book about Tocqueville–has also weighed in on the subject with a brilliant and melancholy post on the subject (h/t Andy [...]

Mar 4, 2009 - 6:08 am 92. The sickening truth | Cold Fury:

[...] de Tocqueville was a prophet, and Mike Ledeen knows it: Most of us imagine the transformation of a free society to a tyrannical state in Hollywood terms, [...]

Mar 4, 2009 - 7:02 am 93. Aaron:

Brilliant. Now go get this message out into the MSM somehow. We need to have a national discussion on this. Let the fight begin! The Founding Fathers are on our side of the argument, and far as I can tell, they still have a pretty high “approval rating” in this country.

Mar 4, 2009 - 9:00 am 94. » Blog Archive » WE ARE ALL FASCISTS NOW:

[...] whole article is a must-read, and I felt like I should share. Fascism should not be defined as Hitlerism, but as the merger of [...]

Mar 4, 2009 - 8:04 pm 95. The Devil is in the Details « Jeofurry’s Jesus Journey:

[...] Ledeen.

Mar 5, 2009 - 1:25 am 96. DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny:

[...] Michael Ledeen takes a look at Obama through Tocqueville’s eyes. [...]

Mar 5, 2009 - 6:59 pm 97. Fascism, home delivered « Wolfmoon’s Blog:

[...] Fascism, home delivered March 5, 2009 Posted by spiritk9 in Finance, Politics, Social. Tags: communism, fascism, Obama trackback I couldn’t possibly say it any better than this: Michael Ledeen at Pajamas Media. [...]

Mar 5, 2009 - 7:33 pm 98. Obsta:

Good piece, though I do wish you’d have gotten the metaphor right. It’s not a lobster in a slowly warming pot but a frog, as your 36th commenter mentioned. The frog, unlike the lobster, actually has the ability to jump out of the pot before it is cooked if only it recognizes the threat in time, as is the case with Americans and their liberty. The lobster will simply stay at the bottom no matter what occurs.

Mar 5, 2009 - 7:58 pm 99. D Case:

Wow. You have managed to completely misconstrue de Tocqueville’s argument; his book, “Democracy in America”, was based on his observations of America in the early 19th Century. The portions you quoted, and failed to explain in context, address the relationship between European aristocracy and the masses. Not, as you described, fascists.
Of note, the America that de Tocqueville described was also one heavily influenced by Jacksonian democracy; his point was less about the fate of a society under tyrannical rule and more about the reliance of our democracy on the associations that Americans form between themselves. The real point in de Tocqueville’s book was that American democracy worked because the average American was able to put aside their personal desires and through associations, work within their communities to solve problems for the common good; based on what was good for the community in aggregate, even if this altruistic goal at times was not necessarily in the individuals best interest.
The real point behind the passages you quoted, the supporting pieces you deftly left out, addressed how European aristocrats levered the selfish desires of man to consolidate their power. The lack of association between men in this environment was an enabler for the tyrant.
de Tocqueville could be best described as a detached social scientist. His works still influence social and political scientists today. Yet, I feel he would be shocked to find that you are twisting his words to fit an agenda that counters what he so admired about America.
I find it both surprising and disappointing that your argument, which suffers from both serious logical and ecological fallacies has even earned a link on the internet.

Mar 5, 2009 - 8:48 pm 100. Michael Ledeen:

D. Case: Try reading what I wrote, which begins by saying I was NOT talking about fascism at all.

And as for your exegesis of Tocqueville, it’s not the Tocqueville I read. The tyranny he describes is specifically and explicitly an American tyranny, the sort that emerges from the decay of American democracy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “how European aristocrats levered the selfish desires of man to consolidate their power.”

If you want the details, have a look at “Tocqueville on American Character,” a book I wrote a few years ago for St Martin’s Press.

Mar 5, 2009 - 9:40 pm 101. Barbara Tiemeier:

I always wondered how China became Communistic, and even Russia and the former East Germany, and how they remained Communistic for so long. I can see how it is done without a single bullet. Sad for us. USA is no more. Sad to see my elderly mother’s life savings vanish, she is way too old to start over, and her social security is vanishing too.

Mar 6, 2009 - 6:36 am 102. Born Ready:

@93 Aaron

“Brilliant. Now go get this message out into the MSM somehow. We need to have a national discussion on this. Let the fight begin! The Founding Fathers are on our side of the argument, and far as I can tell, they still have a pretty high “approval rating” in this country.”

EXACTLY! My eyes are literally burning from the hours and hours I have spent scouring the internet for a sign of who the Re-founding fathers will be after the current band of hijackers ruin all that we were founded on. I am ready to pick up arms and lend them my support and my real “hope” for America.

Mar 6, 2009 - 11:31 am 103. George Matelli:

Thoughtful analysis of our current condition, Dr. Leveen! Please continue your efforts to inform the American people about the dangers we face to our free way of life. As someone has said: “Freedom, like thinness, requires constant vigilance”.

Mar 6, 2009 - 1:22 pm 104. Ludwig:

In no way do I mean to trivialize the situation we are in, but if de Tocqueville were alive today, and aware of pop culture idioms, he might well compare what is happening in our political realm as strangely similar to the scenario in the “Star Wars” movies. Our republic is being destroyed from the inside, by people willingly giving up liberty for fleeting security. We should ask ourselves if we deserve what we get for our own shortsightedness?

Mar 6, 2009 - 2:34 pm 105. Danielle Walker:

I finally found this story. I began listening today during the middle and caught the part from “tyranny” on through. I missed the source but now I have the entire story. I will use this for my essay in art history. I’m attacking Shepard Faery, not because of his plagiarism controversy, like most people attack him for, but the irony of his work. He seems to raise awareness about tyranny in America yet he “created” that iconic Obama poster for Obama’s Campaign. Thanks, again!

Mar 6, 2009 - 5:09 pm 106. Horace Wells:

I think that nanny statism says it the best. That is what it is, the nanny state. Mothers of America taking care of all us little babies!

Mar 6, 2009 - 7:58 pm 107. Gunther Steinberg:

These two essays (Michael Ledeen’s and Andy McCarthy’s)decry the growth of government, but fail to examine the causes, only looking only at the perceived undesirable results. In Tocqueville’s day, Americans had perhaps a greater sense of personal responsibility and a greater urge to do what is right for the country. Sure, there were the greedy then as there are today. But today, too large a fraction of the population is out for Number ONE only, the rest be damned.

Why is there so much more needed government regulation? To start, look at the financial mess of 2008-9: the failure to regulate mortgage vendors, lenders, banks, rating agencies, and those that packaged bad loans with good and sold under false labels.
The rules for such unethical and deceptive actions were too loose and not enforced. Those that benefited had only one thought: PROFIT.

The utter failure to take responsibility for how the financial sector conducted its business on either a personal level or the corporate one was due to a lack of rules, government rules that would punish violators.

Existence of laws, implied and formal, are what makes ours a civilized society. Absence of rules requires, police, law enforcement, courts, prisons. We cannot have functioning society without laws, because there are too many who violate good sense and laws for their own profit and lack of responsibility.

Examine what seems to be wrong with our society and the world at large. Personal advancement, desire for power, legislators who are unduly influenced by money for campaigns, aka. bribery. Influence peddling by those who want to be above the rules they advocate for others with a goal of profit or not having the rules apply to them. Legislators who “earmark” funds for their friends and clients favorites projects or roads that help their businesses are another example.

Then there is the crusade to have someone’s religion become paramount and be the rule for all others of different faiths. Whether it is radical Islam that wants to spread Sharia Law around the world, by power of the word or the sword, or another religion whose head wants their beliefs to be the law of the land.
Religion has been the pretext for armed conflict and conquest for centuries, always with the goal subjugating others to adopt the winner’s faith and/or its rules. That applies to radical Islam, the Crusades, Communism, Fascism, or any other belief.

Tocqueville’s freedom from government would be hard to work in this world of today. In fact,he overlooked some facets of the American life: slavery, voting rights restricted to property owners and others.

Current preaching of a political party of freedom from government interference, usually quotes Reagan who said one thing but did not abide by his own prescription or good sense.
Reduce taxes on those who are well of, and borrow to run the government and conduct war with funds that we don’t have was the Bush and Reagan mode, and then tax everybody trying to pay for the debts and interest.
There has been a political failure to look at the future and unintended consequences of fiscal irresponsibility.

Greed by those that could profit by absence of government rules and irresponsible government that failed to govern for the greater good and benefit, will always result in chaos and financial crashes.

In this world, government and laws are necessary because too large a fraction of the population acts without self regulation and responsibility. Tocqueville was responsible and thought everyone else would be too.

Mar 7, 2009 - 10:55 am 108. Sharpshooter:

Corporate state? With all the greenie-weenies in government?

As Sowell pointed out, corporations HATE free markets. Same thing with statists. It’s all about CONTROL.

Mar 7, 2009 - 11:57 am 109. Randy:

I completely understand all that you are saying, but can’t we just vote the bums out of office. I suppose what you are ultimately saying is that the voters will keep voting for those who are enabling the types of policies contributing to our demise!

Great blog post man…

Mar 7, 2009 - 12:38 pm 110. gofer:

Small ATV and bikes aimed at the youth market are being ordered taken off the market because of traces of lead paint on some parts, even though a kid would have to suck on the part for days on end to see any effect. This is just an experiment to see how far they can go until people just say “NO.” The whole lead paint thing evolved from a legitimate reason (lead paint in tenement bldgs was being eaten by children) to a unreasoned attack on businesses and a gift to trial lawyers. It never was about safety, it was about control. It was also about “I’ll show you for taking your jobs to China.”

Mar 7, 2009 - 4:23 pm 111. This is how liberty Dies… « Centurean2’s Weblog:

[...] vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it.” Michael Ledeen ‘We are all fascists now.. [...]

Mar 8, 2009 - 6:32 am 112. Donna:

“It is evident that our associations, along with religion one of the two keys to the great success of the American experiment, are prime targets for the appetite of the state. In the seamless web created by the new tyranny, everything from the Boy Scouts to smoking clubs will be strictly regulated. It is no accident that the campaign to drive religion out of American public life began in the 1940s, when the government was consolidating its unprecedented expansion during the Depression and the Second World War, having asserted its control over a wide range of activities that had previously been entrusted to the judgment of private groups and individuals.

When we console ourselves with the thought that the government is, after all, doing it for a good reason and to accomplish a worthy objective, we unwittingly turn up the temperature under our lobster-pot. The road to the Faustian Deal is paved with the finest intentions, but the last stop is the ruin of our soul.”

As stated in the above reference, one has only to see this is true considering Obama’s lifting today of the ban for federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research, not to mention his whole hearted support for abortion on demand. What an incredible insult and disreagrd for American taxpayers who abhor abortion and are offended by it’s legality here in our country. Are we now supposed to accept it as a good thing since otherwise discarded embryos will now be put to “good” use that will cure disease and usher in our nation’s Utopia that we are all dreaming of? What this President is doing is immoral and outrageous. Yes, the “last stop is the ruin of our souls.”

Mar 9, 2009 - 11:06 am 113. We’re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity:

[...] once the central government takes control of the entire structure, our liberties are at grave risk. Continue reading . . . [...]

Mar 9, 2009 - 12:38 pm 114. Government Watch: Economy, Obama File, March 10th 2009 « Lighthouse Patriot Journal:

[...] Michael Ledeen writes of Tocqueville’s take on obtrusive, big government: Most of us imagine the transformation of a free society to a tyrannical state in Hollywood terms, as a melodramatic act of violence like a military coup or an armed insurrection. [Alexis de] Tocqueville knows better. He foresees a slow death of freedom. The power of the centralized government will gradually expand, meddling in every area of our lives until, like a lobster in a slowly heated pot; we are cooked without ever realizing what has happened. The ultimate horror of Tocqueville’s vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it. There is no single dramatic event in Tocqueville’s scenario, no storming of the Bastille, no assault on the Winter Palace, no March on Rome, no Kristallnacht. We are to be immobilized, Gulliver-like, by myriad rules and regulations, annoying little restrictions that become more and more binding until they eventually paralyze us. … Permitting the central government to assume our proper responsibilities is not merely a transfer of power from us to them; it does grave damage to our spirit. It subverts our national character. In Tocqueville’s elegant construction, it ‘renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself.’ Once we go over the edge toward the pursuit of material wealth, our energies uncoil, and we become meek, quiescent and flaccid in the defense of freedom. [...]

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:24 am 115. Pat:

America is in its current situation for no other reason than the consumer-unfriendly, and corporate-friendly DE-Corporate Registration system.

When all companies unite under Delaware’s unfriendly consumer codes, and work to change UCC and consumer laws written for the protection of fair trade and consumer protection, there is no way Americans can not be at risk. Configured under the banner of “Caveat Emptor” for companies but not for consumers, no State has agressively pursued more methods to undermine the unity of America and alter it to their own satisfaction than Big Business and its DE-recruiting principles. It has co-opted the idea of consumer protection and applied it alone to companies, not clients or consumers.

In DE, it is possible for foreign owners to be masked and disguised, and assets protected regardless of their misconduct.

If that isn’t a menace to America, what is?

May 3, 2009 - 5:04 am 116. Drew:

After reading this article I had a ‘no s***’ moment. Plato foresaw how all democracies devolve into tyrannies thousands of years ago. Everyone ignored Plato and now they are realizing how dumb their little republic is after all. In fact, almost every major philosopher from Socrates to Heidegger warned us of the stupidity of democracy, but no one listened. In a society where people need to be told what to do and who to vote for the oligarchs will always seize power to serve their own ends. Don’t hate the corporations and oligarchs for doing what anyone else would do. In fact, I love corporations- they make great products. Giving rights to the states or whatever won’t help either, you’re just making democracy even more divisive and ridiculous.

However, I’m not going to jump on the ‘end is near’ band wagon. America will likely carrying on for another couple hundred years with the same group of whiners crying about losing their rights, constitution, etc. Democracy sucks.

Jun 7, 2009 - 7:53 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: