|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Denver Dem HQ vandalized by Republican Health Care Protesters ... (8/29/2009 8:22:05 AM)
|
NorthernGent,
You may wish to define "the right" and/or "conservative" in such a manner that best supports your positions. That doesn't mean that the particular definition that you choose is accurate, nor accepted by members of the group which you wish to straitjacket into the beliefs you wish they had.
Or, it could be a case of you taking conservative UK thought, and basing your claim that "Hitler was a right winger" on those beliefs. Which is why I specifically said the list was of current US conservative/libertarians.
As well, your discussion above holds many concepts which - while you may be comfortable with them - I'd dispute individually to the point that we have probably a half dozen threads in waiting.
We do have one agreement:
There are authoritarians on both sides of the divide; state interference is not the sole preserve of the left.
Issues with which I believe you are incorrect:
1) Hitler was enthused by ideas of blood and the ayran race and all that carry on. Let's call it cultural nationalism.
I'd call it something akin to racism, not "cultural nationalism".
What you are really doing here is trying to gin up support for the thought of "multiculturalism", or the thought that all other cultures deserve support and respect - except for Western cultural, and the Western cultural tradition.
Any concept taken to it's extreme usually has it's bad points. However, deciding that our Western culture should just lay down and die, and allow any other culture to supersede or overwhelm us isn't one to which I - nor any other conservatives, I'd bet - ascribe.
Why is having pride in your cultural heritage somehow bad, wrong or evil if you are a product of Western civilization, but somehow uplifting, admirable and good if your cultural heritage is something other than Western?
2) Excessive military spending is the preserve of conservatives. ... Liberalism is an ideal that suggests that just as civil and religious strife within a nation can be resolved through the rule of law (which it was) then so can international strife and disagreements through the rule of international law.
There is so much wrong with these statements that I'll just skim over some of them lightly.
I guess you believe that any military spending is "excessive"? You frame this point with the belief that every one, and every nation will just lay back and do as the UN or other international body orders ... because they should?
I'd kinda like to live in that world.
But the fact is that any legal structure or set of rules (international law) must have the ability to enforce it's dictates. Police and the state have the ultimate power to take away individuals' freedom and life in order to maintain the "laws" that you seem to think will always be fair, accepted and only for the "greater good".
Unfortunately, since not every nation agrees with every other nation, and "international law" is not the same as civil law within a nation-station, then we have a distinct problem with your concept of "international brotherly love".
As well, your real agenda seems to be that the US stop participating in world affairs ("interfering in other nation's business" will be a concept that you'll likely use pretty soon). How large should a nation's military be? How much money should a nation spend on defense? What's your formula?
Does the concept of "what are our responsibilities" and "what are the threats to our nation" play into the calculations of what is "too much"?
The point that I'm trying to make is that you have a basic disagreement with how the US uses it military assets, therefore you are really trying to discredit the concept of that military in order to neuter the US's ability to project it's will.
4) Hack writers who love war: I'm guessing that in the US the right wing elements within your press are less averse to war
This really makes no sense. "Hack writers"? WTF?
If I can tease anything out of this paragraph of yours, what I think you are saying is that "the right" in the US has writers (such as Tom Clancy?) who do a good job of writing about war ... therefore "right wingers" are somehow like Hitler?
Or do you mean that our press supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore we are a "right wing" nation, like Hitler? (Our press SUPPORTED the wars?!).
5) Von Hindenburg - conservative reactionary and anti-socialist - appointed Hitler to the position of Chancellor
So much wrong with this, I'm almost speechless.
But just almost.
You choose to mix your terms to cause confusion and label anything "conservative" as bad, without reference to the facts of the circumstances. For example, what is "conservative" at one point in time, and in one situation doesn't automatically grant the same beliefs to someone labeled "conservative" in a different era and social environment at another time.
You also sum up a man's decisions in the worst possible light in order to make a point that doesn't exist, without the countervailing discussion that would expose the reality of the situation.
Anyone really interested into getting into a discussion about your obvious attempt confuse this entire issue should start with the wikipedia article on von Hindenburg. Some extracts that point to the fact that the issue was quite a bit more complex than you wish to paint it:
In October 1931, Hindenburg and Adolf Hitler had their first meeting. Both men took an immediate dislike to each other; In private, Hindenburg disparagingly referred to Hitler as "that Austrian corporal", "the Bohemian corporal" and sometimes just simply as "the corporal", while Hitler often described Hindenburg as "that old fool" and "the old reactionary". Until January 1933, Hindenburg often stated that he would never appoint Hitler as Chancellor under any circumstances. On 26 January 1933, Hindenburg told a group of his friends: "Gentlemen, I hope you will not hold me capable of appointing this Austrian corporal to be Reich Chancellor"
...
Hindenburg was now lapsing in and out of senility and wanted to leave office, but he was persuaded to run for re-election in 1932 by the Kamarilla and the pro-republican parties who considered him the only candidate who could defeat Hitler.
...
Moreover, Hitler repudiated the "gentleman's agreement" and declared that he wanted the Chancellorship for himself. In a meeting between Hindenburg and Hitler held on 13 August 1932, in Berlin, Hindenburg firmly rejected Hitler's demands for the Chancellorship.
...
After refusing Hitler’s demands for the Chancellorship, Hindenburg had a press release issued of his meeting with Hitler that implied that Hitler had demanded absolute power and had his knuckles rapped by the President for making such a demand. Hitler was enraged by this press release. However, given Hitler’s determination to take power legally, Hindenburg’s refusal to appoint him Chancellor was an impassable quandary for Hitler.
...
The President and the Chancellor wanted Nazi support for the "Government of the President's Friends"; at most they were prepared to offer Hitler the meaningless office of Vice-Chancellor. On 24 November 1932, during the course of another Hitler-Hindenburg meeting, Hindenburg stated his fears that " ... a presidential cabinet led by Hitler would necessarily develop into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extreme aggravation of the conflicts within the German people".
...
However, the pressure from Meißner, Papen and the younger Hindenburg was relentless and by the end of January, the President had decided to appoint Hitler Chancellor. On the morning of 30 January 1933, Hindenburg swore Hitler in as Chancellor at the Presidential Palace.
There is much that I left out, obviously.
But your simple statement that "von Hindenburg was a conservative" plus "von Hindenburg appointed Hitler" therefore "all conservatives support Hitler's objectives" is somewhat ... flawed.
6) I said in an earlier post whence Hitler's ideas came. Wagner was another one who Hitler bought into - a conservative who romanticised the German people and their high kultur.
Yeah. I get it. American conservatives quote Wagner all the time, don't they? And we also believe that German high kultur of the middle of the last century was the apex of Western civilization.
Right.
/sarcasm.
There is an interesting side issue with this: Germany then and the US today are not so dissimilar in that the same elements held/hold excessive political power.
More BS, but I've written long enough already. I can certainly find "similarities" between any two nations that you want to propose. "Similarities" exists because nations are made up of people.
If you have a counter argument to any of these points Firm then I'd like to see you put them up as they would be a learning opportunity; otherwise silence will speak volumes.
Pretty much your entire post is ... lacking in much depth.
Just throwing a bunch of stuff out there, in the hopes that people will find your credible isn't really something that I have much interests in debunking. Take any single issue, and develop it, and I'm more likely to participate, but this shotgun approach isn't something that I'm interested in getting involved with.
So, any future "silence" on my part in response to you will likely have more to do with your inability to present a clear and convincing position, than it will any kind of acknowledgment of your superior reasoning abilities.
Firm
|
|
|
|
