Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Racialisisisisism

Jonah Goldberg is "willing to concede, happily, that liberals aren't cartoonish villains" for their views on race. On the other hand

From which we can conclude that he's only willing to treat them as cartoonish villains for everything else. A position with which, to be fair, I have some sympathy.

In any case, the idea that every time some melanin-American is raised out of obscurity, we must engage in some sort of great national colloquium on "race in America" is perfectly absurd. As for Ms. Sotomayor, her allegedly "racialist" comments about "wise Latina women" are the sort of thing you hear grandmothers making every day down at the Sons of Italy lodge, and that, at root, is the problem with using them as a cudgel--to everyone other than the Daughters of the American Revolution, her words are so plainly innocuous.

As for the other bruited evidence of her preference for browns over whites, racial solidarity certainly makes strange bedfellows. The New Haven firefighters sound to me like a gang of self-entitled union droogs. "Oooo . . . we passed a test. We're entitled to a promotion." Apparently Frank Ricci is also a dyslexic midget born with a club foot, webbed fingers, and a set of nipples like a breed-birthing mammal. Why does he want special treatment, huh?

20 comments:

lucid said...

Just looking at the sub heading to the book... Mussolini? Really! Mussolini was a 'liberal'? Really!

So what was that whole beating up the labor movement and communists shit all about? And... didn't Goldberg's political forebearers in this country directly support Mussolini?

Anonymous said...

Oh come on

Do you know anything about the Ricci case?

They would not promote the white and brown firefighters because the black firefighters did badly on the exam making the firefighters eligible for promotion.

I'm not american, I have no stake in this

It's still very fucking annoying

Anonymous said...

@lucid:

you can't read a book by it's cover

literaly


to understand what the book says, you need to READ it, or read something of someone who read it

lucid said...

Well, given that I can barely make it through a graph or two of Goldberg's 'work' without suffocating from gails of laughter, I might have to pass on that.

fledermaus said...

Oh please, please won't someone think of the white people!!

lucid said...

And a quote from the Wiki page by Goldberg himself - and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".Yes, the Herbert Walkers, Henry Fords and etc. were the vanguard of the American left!

Anyone who knows history and the history of philosophy knows exactly where the roots of political fascism come from - the neo-Platonist anti-modernist revivalism of folks like Scheler, Heidegger and the Vienna School [which later took over the U of Chicago in the form of Hayek and Straus]. And it is completely antithetical to the history of both 'liberalism' and 'the left'...

No thank you, I don't have time to read books by completely historically challenged individuals.

Anonymous said...

the vienna school are classical liberals. They would be opposed to pretty much all of mussolinis and hitlers policies (war, price controls/regulation, growth in public spending, economic stimulus, killing jews, centralizing power)

you seem historically challenged

Anonymous said...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122026.html

Anonymous said...

"In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.” Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.” She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.” At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel-creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”

Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.…Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”"

lucid said...

Oh, good lord, Jonah, is that you? The Vienna school are not 'classical' liberals - go read some fucking Adam Smith. Both philosophically and economically they represented an anti-modernist movement against 'liberal civil society' drawing largely on an emergent neo-Platonism and a resuscitation of the aristocratic values therein. They were not friends of democratic ideas - rather they sought corporate control over government [and the contemporary milieu shows precisely that the fascists won WWII - you should be proud Jonah, you won!]. Get a clue.

lucid said...

From your Reason 'article'...

American Progressives studied at German universities, Schivelbusch writes, and “came to appreciate the Hegelian theory of a strong state and Prussian militarism as the most efficient way of organizing modern societies that could no longer be ruled by anarchic liberal principles.

Um... just, um... Have you ever read Hegel? And you're relying on 'Schivelbusch', who is quoted in a random article on 'reason.com' - a notoriously fact challenged site - which prominently quotes a person who has no academic credentials...

Shit, I have lots of problems with Hegel... but Hegel [not being] the [defacto] architect of the New Deal is not one of them.

You really are priceless... mr. anon...

Anonymous said...

Hayek tought of himself as a classical liberal and wikipedia defines him as (among other things) a classical liberal.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek)


A classical liberal is not necessarily a fan of universal suffrage democracy. (In fact classical liberalism pre-dates universal suffrage and many classical liberalists were opposed to it). This does not imply that classical liberals are fascists.

"Corporate control over goverment" (if thats code for the society with a free market in a minimal state the classical liberals wanted) is not what the fascists (or FDR) instituted. They wanted goverment control over corporations.

Most classical liberals/libertarians would find the notion that the last century was one in wich they triumphed ridiculous.

And the quotes Schivelbuschhave gathered show that before WW2 there was a percieved inntelectual affinity between FDR and the Italian fascists. This is not contrversial. Look it up.

IOZ said...

There's a lot of good in Hayek, but I've got to tell you that whatever Hayek may have thought himself to be is hardly dispositive.

la Rana said...

Anon #1 is precious. Taking you to task for not understanding the Ricci case, while misunderstanding the Ricci case.

Cüneyt said...

Pinochet sure loved some... What do you call it? Oh yeah, classical liberalism. Whatever the Founding Fathers believed in, that's them.

IOZ said...

It's a complicated case, la Rana, lotta ins, lotta outs.

lucid said...

They wanted goverment control over corporations.

Uh, no... you terribly misunderstand fascism - literally corporatism - where corporations take over and administer governance [either in the guise of democracy or in direct dictatorship]. The fascist movements in Europe were all primarily funded and driven by large industrial entities seeking to smash the growing collectivism [socialist, communist and anarchist movements] in Europe. To that end they manipulated rightist populism that can so easily be mustered in times of economic hardship to win positions in government and staged 'terrorist' events to further entrench their power.

Hayek was absolutely incorrect about fascism in his 'Road to Serfdom' - and the way in which that book influenced the policies of Thatcher, Regean, et al. have precisely shown that it is Hayek's economic vision that leads to fascism [as both the US and Britain are now full blown fascist states having followed his prescriptions for 30 years].

Anonymous said...

Ow! Fucking fascist!

Anonymous said...

anonymous 1

like

http://bkeithb.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/fascism.jpg

mds said...

Oh, yeah, you wild-haired lefty anarchists? What about the back of the Liberty Dime, huh? Huh? Fascism! Woodrow Wilson! The League of Nations! The Palmer Raids! Whoops, scratch that last one. Sheesh, do I really have to draw you all a diagram, or put a Hitler moustache on another smiley face?