Goldberg's comments were referencing corporatism--the animating principle of fascist economics. Mussolini perfected it. Many of FDRs New Dealers tried to import it. In particular Hugh Johnson, who ran the NRA, and passed around copies of Mussolini's book on corporatism.
The truth of the matter is that before the war and the Holocaust "fascist" wasn't a dirty word, escpecially in progressive circles.

Indeed, the title of Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism, a term coined by HG Wells the fabian socialist, crystalized the predominant left wing ideal mode for ordering society.

Deposited into the memory hole of history is that fact that American progressives (before the war) looked at Germany and Italy and liked what they saw i.e. the corporatist ideal, among other things.

Another dirty secret is American progressives' affinity for the uglier eugenic/racial aspects National Socialism

To point out corporatist parallell between Obama and Hitler is no sin because well its accurate. Whether you like it or not. The comparison goes even deeper as Mussolini and FDR as well were doing many of the same things to their respective economies.

Thomann's comments were stupid. However, before you ape the liberal meme about the "Obama/Hitler nexus" being deep in the mainstream "conservative debate" shouldn't you at least consult history first?

Where was the outrage when George Bush was compared to Hitler?

So the liberals feel it is OK to compare George Bush to Hitler, but when you compare a Socialist like Obama to Hittler it is wrong.

Why deprive someone their constitutional rights just because you think they are wrong?

of cousre the difference is that it is ok to say a conservative is like Hitler and compare Bush to him with no Associated Liberal Press outcry. However now that it is a democrat, Obama, and a person of color than it becomes assinine to have free speech.

These are the Obama detractors. They also pose as or really are diehard believers in private enterprise.
Some are truly alarmed about the reach of government into the banking and automobile industries. They want market solutions and corrections for private enterprise outrages perpetrated during the last two decades.

Obama is a big believer in government for the good of the people. He may not have asked for the problems on his plate but the daunting problems, ironically, fit the man and his mission. To those who believe government can never solve domestic problems and government is an innate evil Obama is a socialist; worse, to apoplectic guys like Glen Beck, Obama is a communist.

Obama is beginning to deliver on some of his promises regarding the environment and health care. His solutions will cost the government and private enterprise a lot of money. Cumbersome, hard to enforce regulations and paper work will mire several industries and even consumers as Uncle Sam expands control in the name of doing necessary good.

Republicans want to stop or at the very least slow down the rolling juggernaut of government intervention. But the recession and previous private enterprise excesses--outright thievery and knavery-- make their arguments in favor of market forces rather feeble.

Obama is sitting pretty even as he is spending like a maharaja and saying that the spending is unsustainable. A lot of Republican sophists didn't protest too hard when Bush ran up government bills with his foreign invasions. The two buzz words-- patriotism and security-- sanctified previous government extravagance. Suddenly under Obama all Republicans are fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks.

Obama is a cool cat who shrugs off this hypocrisy, milks his mandate for what it's worth, pushing his ideologies in the form of policies galore. The recession is the perfect foil for Obama's ideological proclivities just like 9/11 was the perfect foil for Bush's neocon leanings.

Among the Republicans, the extremists seethe that Obama seems to have game advantage at this juncture. You may not see in their comparisons of Obama to Hitler, a rational or perfectly parallel analogy, but for them it makes sense. Hitler was auto Czar in Germany during his time, Obama is auto Czar in America now, Hitler had large rapt audiences drooling when he spoke publicly, Obama demagogues the same way, Hitler overpowered his enemies with a big dose of poisonous charm, Obama does the same to his opponents and so on and so forth--the historical, cultural and geographical out of context comparison is repeated in the hope it will stick.

Hitler expanded his Nazism into numerous countries through conquest. Obama, on the other hand, particularly according to his detractors, is too much of a dove, too weak and too apologetic for America's muscularity under Bush and too quick to withdraw from Iraq. Hitler killed 6 million Jews and many others; he was paranoid and saw enemies where none existed. Obama, on the other hand, especially according to his detractors, is seeing friends in those who should remain our enemies--Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are examples of people with whom he should stay hostile and obnoxious according to Ann Coulter, Queen of conservative humor and logic.

The aim of these critics is neither to win an argument nor to halt the negative aspects Obama's ways through rational discussions. It is part self aggrandizement through sensational remarks and part fond hope that the Hitler comparison will provoke the fear necessary for an anti-Obama, anti-dictator, anti-socialism, anti-fascism popular revolt.

I conclude that Hitler will never die as long as the "Heil Hitlerists" have a hit list of people like Obama to undermine with idiotic comparisons to the one and only Fuhrer

Wow... I was not aware that there were so many right-wing nutjobs on this message board.... now I am.
(Looking at you @Jay, @kathy and @Mark)

Do you people even read what you've written ? You think "Free Speech" is being attacked when someone disagrees that Obama is Hitler ???

The level of hyperbole is just insane among you people. Look outside your window, there's a black helicopter hovering there, you better put on your tin-foil hats.

At least Mark tries to use reason to support his idea that Obama is just like Hitler (ineffectively I might say). Jay - you are just pandering, and I'm not even sure what kathy is saying there...

Are you three really convinced that it's OK to for a major political party website to compare the President of the United States to a mass murderer like Hitler, and you also expect that nobody should be allowed to disagree with it ?

Wow.

Anonymous,

I'd like to take seriously what you wrote but to do that would insult your intelligence.

Also its pretty telling that you felt so confident in your "argument" that you felt no need to attach your name to it.

Mark Newgent,
What difference would my name make to your super intelligent assessment of my comments? I am touched that you have chosen not to insult my intelligence by not taking my comments seriously. I enjoyed your previous comment. Thank you.

Anonymous
umm ok then except for the racism and genocide exactly what is it about fascism that you don't like?

Dave T. Do me the honor of at least accurately representing my argument I never wrote that Obama is just like Hitler. If you bothered to actually read what I wrote you would have seen that I wrote "Thomann's comments were stupid." Keep on judging books by their cover

Dave T, the only person pandering is you. Right after you accuse Jay of pandering because no one was outraged that Bush was compared to Hitler by the Left despite no evidence to support the accusation, you go on to try excoriate him along with others for comparing Obama to Hitler. Thou doth protest to much and all that jazz.

And Goldberg does not compare Obama to Hitler. Instead, he identifies the same behaviors that Hitler and Mussolini engaged in by nationalizing industry and doling out favors to special interests. That in no way means that Obama is going to start locking up people and putting them in detention camps.

Um, did someone say "diehard believers in private enterprise."

Wow. Really? That's right up there with flat earthers and promoters of phlostigon?

Mark Nugent,
You and I are not the subjects of this blog. It is Obama. Apparently you think he is a liberal left leaning sanitized fascist, of the ilk of Mussolini-- minus the racism and the genocide. You want to bait, what you imagine are the left leaning liberals on this blog, to accept your antiseptic version of fascism and then say, "Ha! Ha! Gotcha!" This is an infantile game. For those of you posing the clever argument that Obama can be compared to fascists in matters of economics without having to fit the fascist mode in other ways, that argument is spurious. Neither Bush nor Obama deserve to be compared to Hitler or Mussolini. The shoe doesn't fit either one of these presidents. Their policies can be given thorough examinations and can be debunked without the outlandish half or full comparisons to systematic killers.

Anon,

Mussolini's fascism (vice Hitler's) was, in general, minus the racism and the genocide.

You and Obama both seem to love declaring which topics and evidence get to be excluded from the debate. It speaks as well of you as it does of him.

Maybe some of you (Anonymous, Dave T.) should actually read "Liberal Fascism" and see how Goldberg has set forth the history of "liberals" and "leftists" in this country and how they at one time did admire Mussolini and Hitler.

Again, the only thing that changed that admiration was when they discovered the Holocaust (which Mussolini actually didn't want any part of).

While saying Obama = Hitler can get attention, it does actually do disservice to those that are trying to show us that our country is becoming more and more "fascist" every day (minus the concentration camps).

Please, open your minds to the real definition of "fascist" and its history and its history in this country. Only then will you be able to post an intelligent comment about the subject matter.

As a fascist I am offended by these horrible comparisons to liberals.

We are not all racists or nationalists like Hitler. We just think there is a positive role for the state in people's lives. We don't want to control anyone. We just want the people to be in better control of their state. Democracy is a joke if we just let everyone run around doing and thinking whatever they want. Liberalism destroys democracy. First people have to be made a people and to accept the country's good as their own, whether they are black, white or green. Once they all get on the same page they can act as one and actually act as the state. Liberals just want everyone to do what they want, never doing anything with their life but consuming raw materials and polluting.
That is not liberty.
True fascists know true freedom is attained through self-command and discipline, which only comes from progressing the human spirit and mind into maturity. Once we can control ourselves and wake up to a purpose we can unite and fulfill our potential as a united front of true equals.

I don't know what that makes Obama, but he never calls himself a liberal at least. And I think he really does want to make people better and give them better lives, unlike most politicians who don't care about the people and would rather have them wasting their lives living apart with their prosperity and t.v.'s.
At least Obama gets the need for the Iranian republic and Honduras state to shape its own people into a responsible, free electorate; the need to purify our air, waters and bodies from the toxins of capitalism; for people to look up to government and its leaders as inspirational and protective; to make personal health choices a matter of public concern and policy; and to ban the gays from defiling marriage, which should be reserved as a sacred institution dedicated to breeding and raising the next generation of Americans hand in hand with the state, though uniformly standardized protocols and programs.
But I just can't get behind his extreme anti-Israel policies. Why is he so inflexible in foreign policy matters, exactly?

Thomann might have done well to keep in mind the adage, well-known among participants in Internet chat groups, that in any discussion, the first person to compare his or her opponent to Hitler or the Nazis automatically loses the argument.

... and you might want to google "Godwin's law" yourself, since you're misquoting it.

Perhaps even more to the point, you might ask yourself how anyone can have a discussion of fascism, since it's almost impossible to mention fascism without at some point mentioning the Nazis.

What Goldberg is trying to do is to conceptualize the Left in such a way that all totalitarians are to be found on the Left, and none on the Right. He does this by making two moves: (1) he invents the fantasy that all 'statism' is on the Left. He accomplishes this by the magic of making up his own definitions. (2) he restricts 'corporatism' so that it is located exclusively on the Left. He ignores, of course, the Roman Catholic notion of corporatism, which certainly plays at least something of a role in the genesis of European corporatist doctrines.
I'm not terribly impressed with Goldberg's grasp of either modern European political history or political theory, but he writes fluently, and, for readers devoid of learning in these areas, he seems very impressive.

By the way, if his thesis is true, then World War II was an intramural contest on the Left between the 'liberal fascists' (aka the Allies) and...what shall we call them?...the 'fascist fascists," perhaps.

Anonymous,

Again, you are missing the point. There was more to fascism than just the racism and genocide. And for the record Fascist Italy resisted Hitler's demands to turn over its Jews--that is until Germany occupied Italy.

I happen to buy the argument that there are components of Bush's compassionate conservatism that bear play off core fascistic notions like say for instance "When someone hurts government hast to move" No Child Left Behind a massive government intervention into what education, which should be a local matter. I could go on but you are set on keeping your head firmly in the sand. Read the book and maybe you will see what we are getting at.

It's amazing that anyone other than Glenn Beck is giving a moron like Jonah Goldberg the time of day. Like most neocons he has a job because of his mom. Remember Lucianne? Linda Tripp's spiritual advisor? Jonah attempted to debate Jon Stewart about a year ago and naturally it was a one sided smack down by Stewart. I actually kind of felt bad for Jonah. Like his mother, Jonah Goldberg is a propagandist smear peddler. The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Oh well at least he is in the same intellectual company now with Glenn Beck. Sad.

Anonymous... you obviously have not read Goldberg's book, which is part of the subject of this article. Obama is about as close to a fascist as one can be right now, in EVERY way. Mussolini was not an "antiseptic version of fascism" he was a a fascist, which is, in it's heart, a SOCIALIST. Did you even know that Mussolini was a card carrying Socialist before he became a fascist, and it's damn sure he didn't do a U-turn to become a Socialist. He didn't even want to kill Jews...That was National SOCIALISM. Hitler was a particular type of Fascist called a Nazi.

Maybe it was wrong of Thomann to compare Hitler to Obama, but Obama to Fascist?? if you know what a fascist ACTUALLY is, I have no idea how you could argue this is incorrect. Besides Obama DOES use a blitzkrieg in a sort to shove legislation down our throats quick. How else can you explain him wanting this 1300+_page monstrosity of a bill being passed so quickly...In German blitzkrieg just means "lightning war" so perhaps the "krieg" portion is a bit much, but is their a German word that means faster than lightning? Only such a word would be more appropriate to describe Obama.

Why no debate on these bills? Is he afraid somebody will read them?

Anon at 5:17:

Apparaently, you are an idiot.

I say this because you wrote "of the ilk of Mussolini-- minus the racism and the genocide."

Mussolini didn't practice either. You are confusing Mussolini with Hitler. They were both fascists, but as different (or more) as Obama and George Wallace--both Democrats.

Maybe you should read before you write.

@James Ward:

You over-reach in your characterization of Goldberg. He is proffering an argument of particular existence, not a universal categorical.

His argument is the equivalent of stating "Some dogs are white," and you have re-framed it as "All dogs are white." You have imbued his argument with a burden of proof that he himself does not attempt to meet, because it's not his argument.

Fascism is not intrinsic to either the right or the left -- what marks the direction is the rationale and justification for assuming control.

Socialism is where the State owns everything.

Fascism allows for private ownership, but with the "noble" direction and oversight of the State.

Fascism, when exercised by the Right, is normally imposed through appeals for security or appeals for greater efficiency. The politicization of defense contracts, for example, can be seen as a toxic blend of fascism, capitalism, and influence-peddling.

When employed by the Left, fascism is clothed with a moral certainty of fairness. It's not a matter of making more widgets, it's making sure that everyone gets the proper portion for which they are destined.

After WWII there was so much horror and moral disgust that most people forgot how respectable and popular Fascism (or Progressivism, or The Third Way) really was. From Teddy Roosevelt thrugh Taft and especially Wilson and Mussolini, Fascism or Liberal Corporatism was considered by many as the wave of the future. Goldberg's book was mainly a historical analysis of 20th Century political philosophy. Nazism, was a subset of Fascism. To go even deeper than Goldberg, one can pick up the same themes in the work of social philosopher Max Weber. As the late Alan Bloom once wrote, Weber was looking for a corrective to the dismal politics of Weimar and the German bureaucratic state. Weber believed tha Germany needed not a rational administrator, but a politician with God given charisma. The irrational would replace the rational, and that would not be a bad thing in Weber's view. As Bloom quipped, Hitler's reign was only 15 years away, and Hitler was anything but rational.

Obama, like FDR, and JFK wishes to be seen as larger than life. His rhetoric, while uplifting, is the rhetoric of the preacher and not the politician. His attraction engenders anything but reason, as many of his followers look at him as a kind of spiritual guru. Does this make him a Nazis?Of course not. Does this mean he is a classic fascist in the mold of a Mussolini or FDR? That is up for debate. However, his nationalization of the US auto industry; his attempts to bring energy and healthcare under federal control, and his nationalization of some of our largest financial institutions points in that direction.

James Ward:

(1) How, precisely, is it a "fantasy" that all statism is on the left? I don't see any rationale given for that assertion; I'd be interested to see that reasoning. Furthermore, he doesn't just "make up his own definitions"; indeed, he has a significant section in his book about the difficulty of defining fascism and walks pretty carefully through various definitions and how they correspond to reality.

(2) How, precisely, is Roman Catholic corporatism supposed to exist on the Right? What are the principles associated that would place it on the Right instead of the Left (and would that be the European Right or the American Right?) Furthermore, if you have read his book, what do you think of his last chapter "We Are All Fascists Now" and his critique of "compassionate conservatism" in the light of your left/right remarks?

Thank you for your considered reply.

"What Goldberg is trying to do is to conceptualize the Left in such a way that all totalitarians are to be found on the Left, and none on the Right. He does this by making two moves: (1) he invents the fantasy that all 'statism' is on the Left."

Mark,
Classic Conservatives, that is those who emphasis individual liberty and rights over the "collective good", cannot be fascists. Federal price controls, federal regulations, govenment ownership of private industries, centralized bureaucracies were all Facists or Progressive Goals. Censorship and Free Speech and Freedom of Association limits were also goals of Fascists, and were put in place by Wilson (who attempted to make them permanent), and War Socialism is always in the vocabulary of Liberals. You confuse party affiliation with political thought. Not all Republicans are conservative (at anyone time, probably less than 50%. See the Bush family and McCain for examples).

Elliot Feith,
The Stewart interview was a cut up edited version of a long taping, and Jonah gave as good as he got. As for his mom getting him a job, that's just a way for you to avoid responding to the argument.

A NY Times bestseller now in paper back speaks for itself.

"Fascism" was, in fact, a Marxist coinage. Marxists borrowed the name of Mussolini's Italian party, the Fascisti, and applied it to Hitler's Nazis, adroitly papering over the fact that the Nazis, like Marxism's standard-bearers, the Soviet Communists, were revolutionary socialists. In fact, "Nazi" was (most annoyingly) shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. European Marxists successfully put over the idea that Nazism was the brutal, decadent last gasp of "capitalism."

-Tom Wolfe

Guys, guys! I get some of what some of you are saying here. Obama is a fascist not of the ilk of Hitler, but of the ilk of Mussolini, who was once a card carrying socialist. He has proved to us he is a fascist by nationalizing the banks, by taking over the auto industry and by shoving the stimulus package down our throats, in what can only be described as a blitz not a krieg. I still say these are syllogisms and specious arguments.

But let me ask you this, what should Obama have done about our economic situation? What would each of you do to solve our mess? What should Obama do about health care, about the environment?

Is the word fascist as you use it to describe Obama derogatory or is it just a fond moniker? When you call Obama a fascist do you do so admiringly, impassively , angrily or triumphantly? I know what you would say--realistically. I don't know why I even asked.

Do you like Obama or simply wish him out? What would Goldberg do to revive our economy and solve our health care problem other than prove Obama's behaviors make him a fascist? What would you do that bears absolutely no resemblance to anything fascists ever thought of to get our economic engine moving again?

Also dare I say again that Obama is not a fascist of the ilk of Mussolini--he did not come to power through violence or a coup, he has not committed violence against his opposition as Mussolini did, you can get him out next election cycle. The comparison is absolutely idiotic. It is offensive as Michael Cross Barnett initially opined.

I think you guys love to think of yourselves as witnesses to a dictatorship unfolding right under your eyes. You are the most perspicacious of the lot--you knew it first and called it. Hurray! These delusions are getting too grand for your own good.

Well, Godwin did raise the concern that misapplication of the corollary to his "Law" would turn it into a shield. It works like this: Person A objects to some action or behavior. Person B notes that the action or behavior is similar to what Hitler did. Boom, Godwin's Law is invoked and argument over. The action or behavior can't be examined on its own merits. It's very association with Hitler (rightly or wrongly, weakly or strongly) serves as a shield. This is exactly what happened to Thomann, and its what Cross-Barnet engages in as well. How perverse is that?

It seems there's a few types of claims that repeat again and again in all discussions everywhere of Goldberg's book. I'll try to call 'em as I see 'em, mainly to try and get our discussion more focused:

1) There are those who, honestly or not, denounce any comparison of American politicians and fascists. In the abstract, this is a sort of fair point, but the fact is that the right and its leaders have been portrayed with a presumption of "fascist until proven liberal" by very many (of course, not all) in the academy and the media for decades. Just because you are urbane and realize this is crude doesn't mean that there isn't a) a serious need for "fascism" to be more accurately described and b) a need for the right to defend itself by getting clear about a).

To say that invoking the word "fascist" is illegitimate because it connotes the Holocaust is, again, sort of a fair point, but not dispositive. The word should not be thrown around wantonly, and I hope that all the posters here venting their spleens were equally prickly when large swaths of the left threw it around like Nolan Ryan for the past eight years. Conservatives aren't even good at it yet--we're still little leaguers by comparison. Bu anyway, assuming that the "no use 'fascist'" crowd is sincere, they cannot mean that when policies begin to seem rather corporatist, hence fascist, it is impermissible to say so.

One more thing on this, in defense of Goldberg. He never insists on saying "fascist," I think in recognition that it does have a ring of fire around it that tends to scorch the earth beneath all potentially fertile conversation. He always says he's fine with "statism." But, I will note for him, ask yourself if "statism" has punch in public discourse as an ideological doctrine. It doesn't, and there is no regime whose rationale is "statism." Statism is an effect, a result, justified by theories, reasons, arguments, etc. The main road to statism in the Twentieth Century has been communism/fascism. I say this only to point out that Goldberg is being, in my opinion, quite generous in using a bloodless, unemotional term like "statism" in order to dampen flaming tempers.

Give the guy some credit.

2) There are those, mostly on the left, who think that "fascism" cannot be defined sans racism and genocide. Usually they have no problem defining communism sans those things, which is a little odd. But even if they would admit that racism and genocide have been as integral to the practice of communism as of fascism (it has), they are then stuck with Goldberg's "aside from the racism and genocide, what don't you like about fascism?" problem.

In other words, if we strip the practical barbarism from communism and fascism (you can't do it with one and not the other), we are faced with Goldberg's larger argument: as for their differences, there really isn't that much there there. Think about it.

3) The historical argument. As Goldberg likes to point out, nobody ever disputes the historical record, because it is indisputable. That's why there's a certain irony in using an ideological dislike of a right-winger (Goldberg) to bash his perfectly accurate history as merely ideologically motivated. There is--and he is the first to admit it--some ideological motivation, as how could there not be? I'm a conservative, and a liberal will simply never understand how blood-boiling it is to be depicted and labeled constantly as a racist, imperialist, fascist, evil Darth Vader anthropoid down to one's innermost follicles. Really, that sort of thing can being to... grate. To paraphrase Goldberg's colleague Jay Nordlinger, liberals get annoyed by complaints of bias; fair enough, but the bias gets annoying too. In any event, to be motivated by ideology in some sense doesn't disqualify the resulting work. Lest the Founding Fathers and the Constitution be discredited. More to the point, lest the leftist torrent of smears of conservatives as fascists be disqualified in toto. Careful what you ask for...

The story Goldberg tells is not new, as even his critics have severally acknowledged.

For instance, Wolfgang Schivelbusch--a man of the left, incidentally--wrote what could be seen as a companion piece to Golberg's book, a little gem called "Three New Deals." Orwell--another man of the left--was one of the first to note the mendacious use of "fascism" as a slur by the left. Sidney Hook--a leftist--agreed with Orwell.

And so on. Saying Goldberg shouldn't call an American politician a fascist (and he never has, anyway) is different from saying that the historical and doctrinal truth about fascism as one significant formative influence on American progressivism shouldn't influence how we perceive and evaluate certain political developments. That has to be done responsibly--no "Obamussolini"--but there is no reason why it oughtn't to be done.

Finally, anyone who claims that Goldberg just calls leftists fascists and calls rightists angels is wrong. They need to read the book. Our government has trended fascist in far too many ways since at least TR. On the other hand, not all of the elements of fascism are avoidable in a modern society. It may even be true, as Raymond Aron used to argue, that not all elements of fascism are bad, at least in certain circumstances (that is an easy sentence to take out of context).

But to just use fascism as a synonym for "anything we don't like" or "a conservative who's winning an argument" impoverishes both discourse and the historical sense. Surely there must be a way to study the phenomenon in good faith without losing sight of its distinctive evils. I think Goldberg has made such an effort.

"We just think there is a positive role for the state in people's lives. We don't want to control anyone. We just want the people to be in better control of their state. Democracy is a joke if we just let everyone run around doing and thinking whatever they want. Liberalism destroys democracy. First people have to be made a people and to accept the country's good as their own, whether they are black, white or green. Once they all get on the same page they can act as one and actually act as the state. Liberals just want everyone to do what they want, never doing anything with their life but consuming raw materials and polluting.
That is not liberty.
True fascists know true freedom is attained through self-command and discipline, which only comes from progressing the human spirit and mind into maturity. Once we can control ourselves and wake up to a purpose we can unite and fulfill our potential as a united front of true equals."

And why do YOU, N-24ee3f, think that some gov't is the one to tell me how to control my life or help me to control my life.

Maybe you aren't American, I have no idea. If you are, then you must know that our country was NOT founded on "fascist" principles, but on principles of individual liberty, on the basis that human beings as individuals could figure out their way better than a gov't telling them how to do it.

Name one socialist/communist/fascist state that has succeeded while still maintaing the freedoms we hold dear in the Bill of Rights?

It can't be done - if you want uniformity it has to be IMPOSED. There is no other way. That is not the way human beings work in the natural world. We agree to be bound to each other for mutual benefit, but with restrictions. The Constitution, much to Obama's consternation, is replete with NEGATIVE rights for a good reason - the STATE will NEVER EVER do good. It will seek power and more power.

Our Founding Fathers were wise to see that the State should be kept small and limited. Because once it grows, it becomes more and more evil.

No one will ever be able to "do it the right way". There is no right way with fascism and statism. It is always wrong and will always be wrong.

I have to be honest and say that your post was the creepiest one I have read in a long time.

JP where have you been? Health care-- a large fraction has been under government control for years--Medicare is a government mandate, Medicaid that states administer, now enrolls more and more dispossessed and of course is government controlled. As far as health care is concerned we have been in large measure government controlled for a long time. The EPA sets environmental standards for the energy sector and was operational before Obama. You could argue these agencies are attaining new significance under Obama but complicated and technologically advanced capitalist societies seem to breed people like Bernie Madoff and should we exist without government control or regulations, falling victims to predators on the prowl in the financial world and within various other industries? What is limited government? Do you want the government out of health care and the environment totally? After you have argued out the merits and the demerits of any "ism" and after you have vented your spleen about corporatism within the Left versus racism or the lack thereof within the Right you are left with the larger question--what system do you want? What should Obama do to be in your good graces? Can he ever be in your good graces?

Anonymous (3:18),

[by the way, forgive whatever delay there may be in my post]

It is basically fair to ask what sorts of alternatives there may be to Obama's policies, and, specifically, what sorts of alternatives might not be rightly called statist.

It would not be fair to ask for a comprehensive plan for running the government, though, from any one of us (since we aren't running for President). Therefore, I think some leeway needs to be given along these lines. But to take a single example — say, health care. The primary conservative position I have seen in this area has to do with

(a) ending the imbalance in the tax code favoring employer based health insurance over individual based health insurance.
(b) re-evaluating whether current medical regulations are too risk-averse.
(c) improving computer databases so that medical information of one patient can be easily accessed by any caregiver that needs it.

Now, people can argue the merits or demerits of these proposals, but the claim I would make here is that, even though they involve the state, they are not "statist." Ending the tax imbalance (and the disincentive for individuals to feel the real cost of their health care) could be done at almost no cost. Even (c), which might bother some libertarians, is hardly a massive government intrusion. It's rather more like the standardization of railroad track widths. Again, my point is not that these are good ideas (even though I think they are). My point is that they aren't basically statist. And this STRONGLY suggests that there are alternative policies to statist policies.

Anonymous--

I'm not sure whether you were responding to me or to someone else, but you seemed at the end to be throwing my argument back in my face by asking essentially:

"Granted that Goldberg has a point, so what? What, in tangible terms, do you want?"

It's a good question, but requires a marathon conversation. I would say, without mean spirit, that the same question could be flipped around on you: "What do you want, the government to totally control health care and lord it over the environment, and car companies, and banks, and consumption goods, and, etc.?"

Of course, I'm pretty sure you don't want that. I can't speak for other conservatives on this thread, but I similarly don't want extreme libertarianism of the sort you suggest would make some of us on the right happy. Undoubtedly it would; but not me. There is a difference, hard to pinpoint with a surgical precision, between "big" government and "limited" government. I tend to think of it as "catastrophic" versus "tolerably bad." What worries me about Obama is that he seems to be going toward the "catastrophic"--all of the policies you invoke are not free, nor are they without substantial indirect costs, and at a certain point--again, tough to nail down--the moral hazard, rent-seeking, lack of accountability, cronyism, dissimulation, and overall drag on productivity and initiative becomes too heavy for a country and an economy to bear. I personally also find his foreign policy positions despicable (but please, let's not get into that--I'm just trying to make clear what irks people like me something fierce about the man).

Be that as it may, we do agree that a balance has to be struck between big government and no government. I'm not confident we'll get much farther than that hashing it out in little posts.

But I will add this. Whether or not I accept this or that centralization of power, it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of Goldberg's argument. In its raw essentials, that argument holds that the specific rationale for the particular kinds of centralization that occur in modernizing or modernized countries was laid out first by communists, then by communism's heretics, the fascists, and finally by the progressives (or social democrats in Europe), who both admired and borrowed from fascist ideology.

That's all pretty hard to refute, and if it's true, then it implies that many of our arguments on behalf of centralization are in fact the offspring of fascist arguments. Don't you at least find that interesting?

But what does it mean practically? Well, that's another big discussion, but at least the fact (if it is a fact) of fascist roots for modern statism should give us pause. What if, for instance, there is a way of thinking that logically, and eventually practically, leads to the kinds of invidious distinctions between people that the fascists (and communists) notoriously drew? Class warfare rhetoric has had that effect in the past. Some would argue that centralizing power infantilizes people and leads to utilitarian conceptions of personhood (i.e., an entitlement mentality), which has historically been associated with eugenics movements. In any case, it is a good idea to have a feel for the mental universe in which these nefarious doctrines can come to fruition, often with the best of intentions.

To briefly (and inadequately) answer your questions about what system I'd prefer: yes, I want government as far away from health care as possible; yes, I think the EPA should be abolished, down to the last bureaucrat (I spent a year studying that behemoth, and it is never good to look too closely at a massive bureaucracy and its effects); no, we should not exist without government regulations, but I judge them case by case; the system I want is federalism, which means police power regulation as close to home as possible.

Can I ask what system you would prefer?

Cheers mate.

Can he ever be in your good graces?

Not mine. He's a politician. By that fact alone he can never be in my good graces. His party affiliation matters not in the slightest.

As for what "system" I want: I don't want a system. I want other people to leave me alone and stop stealing my stuff. If you want healthcare, feel free to pay for it. If you want to protect the environment, feel free to pay for that, too. Leave me out of it. I don't and won't ask or demand anything of you; in return, stay the hell out of my life and my wallet.

Anon 2009-06-30-11:09

It is an observation, not a syllogism, to state that Obama is behaving like a fascist would behave.

Asking a blizzard of questions generally focused off topic, and declaring on the unstated positions of others is, again, quite Obamian of you. Can you argue the merits, or is gas really all you have?

Regardless, Obama (and Bush) should:

Economic situation:
1. Repeal TARP;
2. Let individuals and companies that gambled and lost go bankrupt in accordance with the laws of the land;
3. Cut tax rates;
4. Repeal mark-to-market;
5. Privatize Fannie and Freddie;
6. Call for investigations of Frank, Dodd, etc. and real sanctions should they be found wanting;
7. Repeal the stimulus bill;
8. Propose a budget that cuts federal spending by [pick a non-negative percentage].

Health care:
1. Tort reform;
2. Interstate health insurance;
3. Individualize the medical tax credit;
4. Garnish wages of ER service users who don't pay;
5. Mandate and enforce E-Verify for all employers;
6. Punish sanctuary cities.

Environment:
1. Nuke plants;
2. Open federal lands and waters to exploration and development, because we do it cleaner than anybody else;
3. Fire James Hansen for falsifying data, aot.

James Ward--

You wrote, "He ignores, of course, the Roman Catholic notion of corporatism, which certainly plays at least something of a role in the genesis of European corporatist doctrines."

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. On p. 273 of the original hardback edition of Liberal Fascism, he writes, "...revealing that corporatism has many of its roots in Catholic doctrine."

He then goes on to discuss the influence of the 1891 papal encyclical, Rerum Novarum (Of New Things), which laid out the underlying ideas from the Catholic perspective.

Whether or not this could be considered on the Right or Left is another debate. It would not fit into the American "Right," but with its very strong appeal to traditionalism, I'm sure it might fit into the European Right. American conservatism has a much stronger libertarian streak than the European Right does. But for all I know, Rerum Novarum appeals to the European Left, as well.

As far as where "all totalitarians" lie, none of the following should be put on the Right: Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Ceaușescu, and any number of the other heads of Soviet satellite states. Whom did I miss? Franco? Was he a totalitarian or authoritarian dictator? Put him on the Right, but I don't know if he's on the totalitarian list.

The only ones which a liberal would even try to place on the Right would be Hitler and Mussolini, but as Goldberg has covered in some detail, their economics was on the left, their religion was not by any means on the Right (Mussolini vs. the Catholic church, Hitler going 'way into the occult), and certainly Hitler's views of reproduction wouldn't place him on the Right (which tends towards moralism).

Goldberg is an apologist for the neonazis, because you see they aren't "Fascists" any more, and Hitler was just a cranky antisemite instead of a very specific form of evil. Goldberg's targets (liberals, unions, pacifists, atheists, teachers, professors, the liberal press, contraception) is exactly out of Mein Kampf. Goldberg is the world's most prominent Hitler apologist.

Forget left and right, Charlie, your inability to grasp liberty vs. statism bounds your intellectual ceiling. I don't think a tic would fit in the room.

Mark Newgent, Capeyson, Matthew Stolte and all the rest,
Wonderful posts. Thank you. Matthew regarding health care, employer based health care may be running up against the tax wall pretty soon. There are plans to tax health care premiums. Even if individual based health care is given the same tax advantage as employer based health care, individuals, especially the healthy ones, may choose not to purchase health care insurance. If one argues it is dictatorial for the state to mandate everyone should be health insured, and several people, based on this argument, exercise their freedom not to buy a cent of health care ( as it happens now) what is the solution for the uninsured who crowd our hospitals and break our system? Do we give these people care or like in Third World countries do we ask them to go home and die quietly? If we give them free care then someone has to pay for it. Who? The state does--in other words we the taxpayers do.

If you don't realize in many ways health care IS already statist then you live in a bubble. Whether the money comes out of your pocket for the care of the uninsured--front end-- or back end-- it comes out of your pocket. Medicare and Medicaid are centrally administered and subsidized by government.

Private insurers without government incentives or mandates will not insure the poor or the disabled or the terribly ill with multiple chronic problems. Private insurance is market driven. The insurers have an obligation to their stockholders. They are in the business of denying care, saving money and maximizing profit. If you are a stockholder with one of these companies you would love that but if you are a patient dying from a costly and debilitating illness, your care being shredded on a daily basis by your insurance company, you will sing another story.

Conclusion- private insurers have to be regulated. Conclusion-- the poor have to be insured. Conclusion--the healthy who will not purchase health insurance voluntarily-- not even with tax breaks because the tax breaks come after filing taxes and they want the money here and now for spending--have to be made to buy health insurance so the health insurance pool will increase. If the health insurance pool does not increase cost cannot be kept down. The healthy basically subsidize the unhealthy.

Matthew-- "reevaluating if current health insurance regulations are too risk averse"--I didn't understand this fully but I do know that the regulations are massive, not easily navigable and cause mighty big headaches for the caregivers and the patients. But the medical profession is highly litigious and the regulations have grown with litigations.

Who should manage this mess? Who but the government? Can you think of any other fool or rascal who would volunteer for the job? The private insurers have been at it for years. I fail to see the difference between Aetna US health Care, United Health care and the government. They are all equal part fools, equal part rascals and equal part pains in the butt. And they are in bed with each other.

I posit here that government and private industry are beginning to look very much alike in America. Government outsources a lot of its work to private industry. Government contracts-- vying for them, getting them without bidding for them, posing as disadvantaged and minorities to nab them--this in and of itself is a huge private industry. The lines have blurred fellas.

Look at the politicians in government-- they keep revolving through the door---back and forth--private industry to government and government to private industry. Lobbying is the the most lucrative private industry of them all. It effervesces like a giddy affair, on Capitol Hill, between those who make the rules and those who plot to bend them.

I know you guys want government out of your business. But government has its nose in your business through the private industry you so love. Even the speed cameras that click away at your transgressions are a combined government-- private industry effort to pick your pockets.

Obama has done nothing new. Government and private industry have have had an open marriage for years. Obama is trying to cement this marriage--make it monogamous if you will but the wife--private industry-- is out and about straying--example-- the banks have taken government money and they are already chomping at the bit and to this day they are awarding their CEOs huge big bonuses. Obama has invaded the auto industry you say--I say Obama, poor fellow, is stuck with a couple of auto paupers on respirators and he has to resuscitate them.

The way we exist today I wouldn't call it fascist or statist rule. I would call it living in a kleptocracy under equal opportunity thieves. The government takes my money as taxes, puts it here, there and God knows where, for this I get potholes on the roads, crime on the streets, bureaucrats on my back, junk mail in my mail box and and never ending paper work on my desk.

I delude myself capitalism is good. I take my money and give some to Wall Street and put some in my neighborhood bank. For this I am taken to the cleaners. Do I see any difference between government and private industry? No. They all seem to be having a jolly good time at my expense.

Between the government thief and the private industry thief for now I prefer the government thief. I want to see the government thief muzzle the private industry thief a bit more at the present. I know the private industry thief will break loose and go prowling in the dark for my goods before long and I know the government thief will deliberately look the other way when this happens--but heck I am hoping to be ready then with my cudgels.

As for the moral hazard, the cronyism, the dissimulation and so on and so forth--sounds like Wall Street circa 2008 to me Capeyson--sounds like the banks--like I told you we live in a kleptocracy. You want regulations as close to home as possible? Have you taken a look at Sheila Dixon lately? You want to abdicate the federal government and put your life in her hands completely or in the hands of Martin O'Malley? You are welcome to this madness my mate. I'll take my chances with the federal kleptocrats and their big bad EPA. In the end, I predict, you and I will be in the same abyss equally plundered.

Anonymous--

"..you and I will be in the same abyss equally plundered." Unfortunately, you are probably right.

You should, however, think whether it was the thievery of more or less free enterprise or the thievery of government kleptocracy that made us a prosperous country that could weather the inevitable storms of crisis that strike every system. You fear Madoff more than Obama; I fear Obama more. That, I guess, is where the twain shan't meet.

I don't think federalism is perfect, so your cautions are well-taken. I'm not against all centralization--but for you to compare the "madness" of Sheila Dixon and Martin O'Malley (which I grant is madness) to the complete savaging of hundreds if not thousands of communities and millions of lives by the EPA is too much for me to swallow (just google "superfund"). You can't move to get away from the EPA. You can easily move out of Baltimore. Hence, one not insignificant advantage of federalism--many trials instead of one big one that either works or screws all.

I want to re-iterate that saying things like "you want to abdicate the federal government" is untrue of me and most other conservatives. I don't think most conservatives would even go as far as I do in wanting the EPA to go away (I do want to abdicate that, but, I would add, so do many leftist environmentalists, such as David Schoenbrod).

Anyway, those are judgment calls about which functions are best handled locally and which are best handled nationally. The federalist prejudice is that most problems are best handled as close to the problems as possible. That will get you a Sheila Dixon sometimes, but as you like to point out with respect to the private sector, I suspect politicians like Dixon are not merely random outliers of inanity, but rather exist because of the federal government's willingness to subsidize and lend prestige to incompetence. If mayors and state representatives had to take real responsibility for their decisions--think of California--then people would begin to shape up. That's why Meg Whitman will probably be governor in California, barring a bailout from Washington, and Chuck Devore (this is obviously a crystal ball reading) has a good shot at unseating Barbara Boxer. But even if Californians wind up not opting for "change" and prove to be as crazy as they try to be (I myself live in California), the ones who are unhappy can just say, "Well, toss this, I'm going to Nevada, or Colorado, or Arizona." And they have done. In droves.

In short, it sounds to me like you would rather risk national destruction than risk the destruction of a city or a state. Feel free to correct me if you see it differently.

I have to depart this thread, so I want to extend kudos to you for putting up a good fight without relying on low blows. It's been fun.

Cheers.

By the way should we discuss this man Goldberg endlessly? All of you sound brilliant enough to stand on your own without this Goldberg guy to blow wind in your sails. I am going to buy his book and read it in the fatuous hope it will grow me a few more brain cells but in the meantime, coming to Barnett's original post, I still say Obama cannot be a fascist of the stripe of Mussolini and you exaggerate when you make this comparison. Obama didn't come to power violently and he can be sent home by all of you at the end of his 4 year term. In another post I wrote your arguments are syllogisms--I meant your arguments are not syllogistic, instead specious.

So Obama can't be a fascist because he came to power without violence (like Mussolini and Hitler largely). And he can't be like Mussolini because... Simply stating something is not proving your point

capeyson:

I believe Barnett does exaggerate when he compares Obama to Il Duche - Mussoulini didn't have this much power this quickly. Since Mussoulini essentially created and defined fascism how can there be a seperate fascist "stripe" from his? Mussoulini and Hitler did not come to power with violence. Hitler tried that path initially, failed, went to jail, then was elected and subsequently became The Fuhrer. Mussoulini may have come to power by way of coup de ta, but there was no violence. They came to power by way of special interest (community,labor,big business) organizations. Calling someone a liar (specious arguments) without knowledge, let alone wisdom, makes you the most detestable kind of human being. You obviously have yet to develop the cognitive ability to understand liberty.

Private industry is not, in general, stealing anything from you.

If you don't want what they are selling, then don't buy it.

If you do want what they have, then shut your cakehole and pay up. Or make it yourself.

The government, on the other hand, takes from you everyday, and will put you in jail or the ground if you effectively object to their present demands.

I know I said I was leaving, but, hey Ryan Gosche, you're not responding to me. As Jay Nordlinger likes to say, quoting Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "Come on, man."

I never called anyone a liar, nor did I make the case about violent ascent/non-violent ascent. I think you mean to respond to Anonymous. I was trying to defend Goldberg, and had a generally civil exchange with Anon. But he (or she, not sure) is your target, not me.

And, although me and Anonymous disagree, I don't think he called anyone a liar either. Using a specious argument doesn't mean lying; it just mean using a sloppy, invalid chain of reasoning--something that is deceptively attractive, not necessarily used with intent to deceive.

Aside from that, you make good points. Just try to leave out the stuff about my cognitive ability.

Troll Feeder,

You nailed it in about as brief a manner as possible. Corporations do not have the ability to steal from my pocket, without my approval (i.e. I pull out my cash and give it to them).

However, there is one exception. That is when the government decides they will steal money from me, via taxes, to distribute the stolen goods to favored corporations. And that distribution of money then creates a relationship between the state and the corporation, which then gives the state more power over the corporation. This is the germination of fascism.

The interesting part of it is...if you want to stop fascism in this country, then stop allowing the government to control and decide who gets money and under what terms they can continue to operate in order to maintain that money/income. So, realistically, anyone that agrees that a legitimate role for the government is to steal money from earners, then decide which corporations get the money, and under what restrictions and requirements, is really a fascist as heart.

Let's see...regardless of party affiliation, which politicians are regularly calling for the federal government to steal more money from earners (i.e. their freedom), for purposes of re-distribution to favored parties that will tow the government's line?

Once again, leave party affiliation out of it. Of course, once you begin to note who these people are, one party in particular screams out at you. Loud and clear.

The gist of most of these posts from republicans is that they are greedy, unempathic losers and they should not be allowed to live in this country. We would be much better off without them and I'd love to hear from them- from Iraq or Iran or even Russia.

Ms. Thomann seems to have a poor grasp of relatively recent history. Her comparison of President Obama with Adolph Hitler strikes me as mean and feeble. While both men were spellbinding speakers at a time of national difficulty, that's about where the comparison should end. Nazi Hitler and Liberal Obama differ greatly in the following ways: Hitler was the frontman for a national party which gained power, traction and popularity by blaming all of Germany's problems on non-Aryans: specifically, Socialists, Communists, (and especially!) Jews. This party silenced its detractors by thuggery - people were openly and brazenly assaulted in the streets by Nazi brown-shirts. Do we see this today? I think not. Jewish businesses were vandalized, Jewish business professionals were brutalized, and anyone who had any friendly relations with them were ostracized; where's Krystallnacht 2009? (Answer: nowhere!) C'mon - criticize President Obama if you must (and if you must, I hope you do!) - but please be accurate, appropriate and proportional when you do so. Maybe more people would listen if they think you know what you are talking about. Frankly, and finally, all this name-calling is getting us nowhere. We need to pull together, and I don't mean each other's hair!

Hope everyone has a happy and safe July 4!

Jane Horsman,
The whole argument of the majority on this board has been that Obama is an economic and an ideological fascist minus the other Hitlerian (or Mussolinian) features you mention. If you are trying to inject sanity into this conversation your chances are next to nil you will make a dent. Sally forth and enjoy the fireworks and let the hair pulling go on. It invigorates those who see Obama as the next Fuhrer of the world.

Jim C,
So you believe in banishment. The Republicans will say that is a kind of fascism. It is not like the coup de tat of Mussolini or like the Krystallnacht, it is not like throwing your enemies in a concentration camp, ummm, it is neither corporotist nor statist, but it smells fishy, exactly like something Goldberg would poke around, sniff and declare, "Something is rotten in Denmark!"

BC you are aptly named. You don't belong in any year followed by an AD.

Troll Feeder, under your regime the "punishers" will have all the jobs in America and the punished will be a vast segment of the population and the land. As for private industry being such a good boy, didn't lead poisoned toys, salmonella laced peanut butter, melamine plumped heparin come to us via this conduit in the recent past?
Of course you would say we didn't have to buy these things. Sure, we'll all just curl up and starve to death.

Capeyson, I was thrilled you and not I was the target of Gosche's ballistic missiles. But you simply couldn't stay put and take his final jab stolidly on the chest could you? The man knows how to go straight for the Achilles heel and he smelled yours would be your cognitive ability. Anyway thanks a million for the sterling explanation of "specious". I thought I would do it but couldn't muster the courage for fear of exposing myself as the real cognitively disabled slave (as opposed to you being the one) to Gosche.

One of the advantages of the posts by Elliot Feith and Charismatic Megafauna is that they make everyone else in the comments seem reasonable and thoughtful by comparison.

Lucianne Goldberg cracks? Hitler apologia accusations? Come on people, if you're going to troll, at least get out of your moth-eaten copies of The Left-Wing Troller's Book of Lazy Nonsensical Retorts. Show a little intellectual backbone, for Pete's sake.

For those (on both sides) who take Goldberg seriously, as he deserves, I appreciate the debate.

This argument seems to have ended a few days ago, but I'll chime in briefly anway.

First of all, I disagree with an earlier poster that conservatives here come off as "nut-jobs", but I am surprised to see a predominantly conservative attitude in the postings here.

The problem with the Obama/Hitler comparison is obvious, and has been alluded to but not said outright. With the exception of a book-length treatise on the history of fascism such as Goldberg's, throwing this comparision out there is nothing short of fear mongering. Ann Coulter knows that most people are not German Historians - what they know about Hitler is that he systematically killed millions of people and tried to takeover most of Europe. The concept of "Hitler" to the general public does not include specifics of how he dealt with the German auto industry or what a brilliant public speaker he was. The general concept of Hitler boils down to anti-semitic maniac, as does the general concept of Nazi. Find me a person who, in free association, you say "Nazi" and they say "Government ownership of the auto industry!" The goal of making the Obama/Hitler comparision without A LOT of context is to make an unequivocal Obama/Evil connection.

What it comes down to is that yes, those who are not conservative are more socialist, more "fascist" in the historical sense, than conservatives would like. But I will say, this only works if you very carefully define these two terms, boiling them down to what is actually a pretty innocuous thing - the "statism" Goldberg refers to: Liberals are often people who believe that the state should control things for the greater good.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is simply very deep, and runs through many issues. You think you should keep your money in your pocket and pay little or no taxes, I think that for the government to function in any meaningful way it needs resources - does that mean I think it's functioning in the right way? Absolutely not.

Particulary the conservative "solutions" to the healthcare problem, as Anon pointed out, won't actually solve anything. Creating equal tax incentives for private or employer based insurance won't solve the problem of tremendous cost. COBRA insurance, which is essentially getting the "wonderful" opportunity to buy into an employer based system after you are no longer employed with a given company, costs up to $800 a month. It's no wonder someone who thinks they're in good health would say "Funk this, I better not get sick". The amount is just tremendous.

Lastly, no one here mentions how well most every country in Europe, which is highly "statist" - or "socialist" depending on which watered down definition you want to use - systems functions. And, for the most part, I don't think their individual freedoms suffer the way conservatives assume they would. It's just a model to think about - Britain has nationalized healthcare and they aren't imploding. In fact, though expensive, the system costs less than Medicare and Medicaid does per person, and it works quite well.

Where was this editorial when Bush was compared to Hitler?

Where was the outrage when people called Bush Hitler Johanson Davis? Aside from the fact Hitler is the most fortunate man in history; his name will never die no matter he should be buried for good for his barbarism; but he will be constantly exhumed and hung around the neck of politicians all over the world, by their opponents and will be kept alive--aside from that fact Johanson, you should stop asking where the outrage was when Bush was called Hitler. The outrage was from people like yourself, hopefully or Woobah or any number of others on this thread, who won't let the matter rest, who crop up from time to time and ask where was the outrage when Bush was called Hitler. Pat your own outrage on its back, give it some recognition, acknowledge its historic importance and stop complaining about the lack of outrage in the media. In this day of bloggers, you too are the media Johanson and you have amply expressed yourself to show you don't think it was fair for anyone to compare Bush to Hitler (I agree with you actually) Woobah sprang up and did the same, but I think what you are trying to do is to point out a media bias in the way Obama is treated versus Bush was treated and you know what, that is a losing game pal, because then it behooves you to show what happened to Obama happened to Bush--that a Democratic operative similar to Thomann, called Bush Hitler on a personal web site--that is what Michael Cross Barnett protested in his initial blog. You pick up a similar official statement about Bush from the past, send it to Barnett or post it on this site, you then research if the Sun and other media stayed silent on the issue; then vehemently ask, "Where was everyone when Bush was compared to Hitler?" and then you'll have a point. Give it a shot.